The Battle that Stopped Rome

Conquering Germania would be similar to how they conquered Gaul. Sure, there would be one or two major rebellioins (the one be Ariminius probably being the last one), but after those were crushed, the Germans would finally submit and accept Roman rule, and understand the benefits of Roman rule. (again, like what happened in Gaul).

Think of Ariminius and his rebellion like Vercingetorix and his rebellion. (Some believe Vercingetorix had met with Caesar many times in the past and was favored by him). By the time of Marcus Aurelius (200's AD) the Germans would have been pacified and been a functioning part of the Roman Empire.

How so? The Germans would be romanized by the time of Marcus Aurelius(even way before then), just like the gauls.

Exactly. You must think of the conquering of Germania by the time Ariminius rebelled, as the same as the position Caesar was in in Gaul when Vercingetorix rebelled. Most of Germani south of the elbe was Roman, just as most of Gaul was Roman. If there was a competent commander, like a Caesar (i.e. Germanicus) leading the Romans in Germania, then the rebellion would have been crushed. (They tried to lure Germanicus into the same type of ambush when he invaded to recapture the standards, and he had intelligence of it before hand and managed to lure them into an ambush).

Vercingetorix was the leader of the Major Gallic rebellion that occcurred in (52?) BC. Almost all of Gaul, including the Aedui who were up until then, Rome's ally for a very, very, very long time, rebelled. Caesar on many occassions was cut off from his army and managed to make it back, and the Romans nearly lost many times. They got destroyed at Gergovia, but managed to recoop. Vercingetorix's men actually did ambush and destroy a couple Roman legions lead by one of Caesar's top subordinates, yet Caesar still persisted.

Gaul or Germania? I know they conquered Gaul a few months later. That has nothing to do with my point though.

Cannae was a much more humiliating defeat than this......and so was Trebia......Trasmine......Carrahae....Allia.....Caudine Forks.......Arausio......Adrianople.......Alaraic's Sacking of Rome.....and many others.

Teutoburg Forest was not that decisive of a battle. It would have been very easy for the Romans to invade Germany again and win, and in hindsight they should have. It was a combination of politics as well as other internal and external threats that made them decide not to invade Germania again.

Anyways, for those who want a good book on a Roman Empire that survived to the present day, read Harry Turtledove's Gunpowder Empire. Its relevant because the whole point of divergence is the battle of Teutoburg Forest.

The only thing that stopped Rome was Rome itself.

The Government

The Paranoia of Roman Emperor's and how the Senate treated there government like a game. The Senate was fulfilled with old guys that had greed and it "helped" tear down the roman Empire.

The senate was no longer the head of state when the empire was formed and was little more then a figure head, And not all of Rome's Emperors were insane and paranoid.

The Roman Emperors were more interested in perceived internal threats instead of real external ones.

Not at all, once again it depends on what emperor we are talking about. For instance Agustus was very different Empror then Nero.

True, but I meant in general. There were some good emperors, but there were far more bad ones.

That's true for any country. You generally have a some very good ones, and then a whole bunch of either, average or just downright horrible leaders.

But most countries don't have such a long chain of established emperors (China comes close)