What if Romans won Carrhae, Teutoburg, Adrianople?

[Mrbsct]

What if Romans won the devestating battles of Carrhae, Teutoburg, and Adrianople costing their Legions? Could they have expanded further and prevented their demise?

Lets see here.

Winning the Battle of Cahrae would have ensured Roman expansionism into Parthia. The Parthians could only muster a few men and Crassus would have definetley sacked the Parthian capital like Trajan did. How far do you think Crassus could go? He planned on taking India and China from what I heard. On the other hand he was really old and I'm not sure how the Civil war would have effected the expansion.

If Caesar lived he would have knew the weakness of the Parthian terrain and invaded through the mountains. On the other hand he was very old and sick. Mark Antony was not a really good tactician and Augustus believed in slow expansionism.

If Teutburg was won Germania would be a Roman provvince and Rome would probally expand into Poland and Russia. Just think of the cultural changes on Germanic culture. Do you think the Romans would have prevented the Great Migration of Goths, Vandals, and other Germanic tribes by controlling them and assimilating the newborn? On the other hand Augustus died quickly, and even after the Romans beat Arminus at the Battle of Wesser River they withdrew to the Rhine for logistics reasons.
Controlling Germania may not have prevented the empire's demise since Germanic soldiers would still be in the army, corruption will still happen, and the Hun invasions are inevideble.

How about Adrianople? Would the empire survive longer?

[Quintus Aurelius Lepidus]

I think crassus would encounter the same problems in Parthia like Trajan. A massive uprising and guerrilla warfare.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'll only comment on Adrianopolis.

If Valens army had managed to defeat the Goths in that battle the possible consequences would have been determined by who survived the battle itself.

If Fritigern was killed in the battle then its likely that the Goths may have ended up just being a footnote in history books, troublesome during the 3rd and part of the 4th Century but then assimilated through slavery and recruitment into the Empire and its army.

If Fritigern had survived then either Valens would have paraded him through Constantinople or more likely would have done a deal with him for him to comply with Roman treaty terms etc. This would have led to Valens using the new influx of Goths in his invasion of Sasanid Persia, plans for which were well underway when the Goths erupted into open revolt in 376AD.

If Valens was killed during the battle this may have caused the army to raise one of the surviving Generals to the purple as Gratian, the Emperor of the West, was still probably several weeks away from the battlefield. I would suggest that three possible candidates for this would have been Sebastian, Richomeres or Victor. I doubt any of those three would have continued with Sasanid invasion, probably more likely be worried about how to deal with both Gratian and the rapidly advancing Huns and Alans.

Any of the above would have meant that the Western half of the Empire may not have fallen into ruin in 476, we may even to this day be honoring the name of his most beloved Emperor Constantius XXXI, the current ruler of Europe and Africa!!!

All of this is moot anyway.

[Robert]

Perhaps we should move this to Off Topic , as it has nothing to do with Roman History and Archeology. You may as well wonder how the world would have looked if Hitler had succeded in taking England or Napoleon had been succesfull in Russia or the French knights had overrun the British archers at Avincourt. History is about actual events in the past, not hypothetical events as they could have played out had things gone differently. Do not forget it is the victors who write history, often as not giving it a favorable twist in respect to those conquered.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I agree Robert, that's why I said talk about this is moot as it never happend.

[Martin Moser]

In that case I think you most likely wouldn't exist, nor would I write this. But if you did exist, your question would have been "What if Romans lost Cahrae, Teutoburg, Adrianople?" :wink:

[Epictetus]

I think the main value of these 'what if' questions is to understand the importance of what did happen. Exactly how decisive was the Battle of Adrianople? One way to study it is to think of what could have happened if the battle never took place, or the result had been the opposite. I think there is value in this exercise; it isn't simply worthless daydreaming.

[Robert]

Yes, but put it in the right section, namely Off Topic, as it isn't History. Also, the question you formulate is less wide of scope then the three battles first named, which not only greatly differ in era but also in setting/geography.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I hate to disagree, Robert, but meanwhile counterfactual history is indeed a historiographic method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history

;-)

[Robert Vermaat]

Carrhae - Crassus was not a good general, so if he still had managed a drw or a victory, the consequences would have been limited. Likely enough, another Parthian army would have fought him (depending on how the first army would have been defeated). The Romans had no support in the region, so i doubt that the parthian empire would have collapsed like the Achaemenid empire before them. Crassus would perhaps have influenced the following civil war between caesar and Pompey - that could have become interesting. Who would Crassus have supported?

Teutoburg - It's an old question. I'd really would have liked to see the results of several decades more intergration in the Middle German area. I'm not a supporter of a new Roman limes along the Elbe river, the province was not rich enough to sustain that. But who knows? A more Romanised germany would ceratinly have influenced the Danube region too. But knowing Roman history, these regions would at some point have rebelled, Roman or german, and a larger Roman province may even have caused the empire to fail sooner!

Adrianople - also discussed much. I disagree with Adrian though, I think it matters little if Fritigern would have died or not. The Goths had no strong dynasty or fixed leadership, so another man would have come forward, as happened so often later. The Goths did not go away, but the Romans may have been a little more on the offensive, and more hesitant to settle barbarian communities under their own leadership. Rome would perhaps not have been sacked in 410. But other problems did not go away, and would have been a problem even without a Gothic presence inside the borders: economic crisis, continuing civil wars, unsuccesful succession procedures, a massive social inequality (resulting in identity questions), religious unrest, climate change, etc.

[Robert]

"Most historians regard counterfactual history as perhaps entertaining, but not meeting the standards of mainstream historical research due to its speculative nature" is the line I agree with. It's fiction!
Looking at an individual battle does not necessarily change the overall scope of things. Now if a vital pivotpoint in history is captured, that is different. Had Hitler occupied England, history would have changed dramaticly, as there would have been no need to build the Atlantic Wall or gaurding the Channel, the vast support convoys to Russia would have been impossible with the loss of Scapa Flow naval base and airfields, there would have been just one (Eastern) front and there would have been no staging point for the later invasion, as well as the German navy having free control of the North Atlantic.
Then there is the fact that history becomes fluid the moment a major change is made, so any subsequent historic event cannot be taken into account, as that may have been influenced by the previous change of history's direction. So had the battle in theTeutoburger forest been won, what would have happened? Three legions would have survived (more or less, as they would have been severely mauled). This does not imply anything other than that, as we cannot be certain of how things would have played out after that and whether the decision to build the Limes where the Limes was built was solely based on not really being able to push on after losing a good few men. Had there been anything really worth having in Germania, the Romans would have probably had their way and pushed onward, revenging their dead, wiping out the opposition village by village, town by town. Adrianople may never have taken place had the Teutoburg disaster had a different outcome, anyway.

[Timianus]

Adrianople is such a good "breaking point" for counter-factual history of this period, not just in terms of military consequences, but also the vast religious and cultural changes that followed. No loss at Adrianople = no Theodisius. Would there still have been a "closing of the western mind" with dogmatic Nicene Christianity mandated from on high? Would Rome have needed to allow federates to settle into semi-autonomous areas and fight under their own leaders? Would the Goths have had as much access to Roman tactics and arms?

What I am trying to illustrate is that counter-factual history can be a very useful tool in demonstrating the importance of a single event/single person.

That being said, my personal take is if Valens wins Adrianople, we get another disastrous expedition in Persia (which will result in the loss of who knows how many troops). Also, a win at Adrianople does not solve the succession/legitimacy problem and we are still going to see fruitless, self-destructive civil wars in every generation (Perhaps a Gratian/Valens confrontation?)

I think a win at Adrianople only prolongs the inevitable. However, we would probably have a less influential Catholic Church or perhaps multiple variations of it. You would still have the fragmentation of provinces, but perhaps more of the Roman culture is preserved and things don't go south so fast. The migrations still would have occurred, but Rome may have been able to resist them for longer or "romanize" them.

[Ovid]

I hate to disagree, Robert, but meanwhile counterfactual history is indeed a historiographic method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history

;-)

I love these kind of threads although I think Milvian Bridge is a more intriguing what if than any of these

[Robert Vermaat]

"Most historians regard counterfactual history as perhaps entertaining, but not meeting the standards of mainstream historical research due to its speculative nature" is the line I agree with. It's fiction!

I disagree. It's only part fiction. The part where you look at different outcomes is fiction, but every such a case is based on a discussion of the real event in the first place. Which is history.

[Timianus]

To clarify my earlier post, I think counterfactual history is very useful because it is a great counter to those that believe in "macro" history (i.e. that individual events and personalities don't matter)