by I am ST » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:05 am
We're talking counterfactuals.
The Gauls did not destroy the Roman empire, because the Roman empire destroyed them. Could the Gauls, had the Romans not conquered them, have destroyed the Roman empire (presumably after their numbers exploded due to changes in agricultural tech, as TW suggests and you did not dispute)? Perhaps.
After all, a few thousand desert dwellers were enough to take down most of the Byzantine empire after it was weakened by plague and constant fighting with the Persians. Does that mean that Byzantium couldn't have conquered Mecca?
Did the Romans lose three legions? Sure. But consider how much more they lost at Cannae and Trasimene, and came back.
I do have some doubts about imagining Romans in Scandinavia, though. The logistics of Lapland provisioning would have been ... interesting.