5 ms·

I feel like there's some cherry picking going on. I mean, issues with germanic tribes and inland conquests did play a role but... what about upper egypt, paetre

I feel like there's some cherry picking going on. I mean, issues with germanic tribes and inland conquests did play a role but... what about upper egypt, paetrea, britannia, etc. The edge of the empire was the edge of the empire... with frontier problems. Why did germania fail, but not those other ones. I mean size is an issue. Travel & messaging are issues. Empires are very much defined by these things, etc. I just don't see where the clear watershed is. Early modern european empires colonized the americas, SE Asia, the african coast... Those were months of treacherous sailing. "Empire" in those cases meant something totally different than for Rome. Rome marched in with troops and took political control. Portugal & the Dutch, England and such established small colonies that grew in power until they were hegemons. Sometimes just a small port or town. Anyway... I think Rome's limiting factor in germania and the european frontier was barbarism. NW europeans didn't have civilization: states, monarchies, temples, senates, roads, nations. The germans didn't even know they were germans until Romans told them. Rome's empire was based on assuming political control over existing political institutions. It's economy was dependant on this approach. Rome's African and Asian territories had been civilized for Millenia. Jerusalem, Carthage, Luxor, etc. Europe had no cities. How do you tax? In northern europe, arabia and such Rome's empire looked like the early days of early modern colonialism. Slave export & frontier plantations supporting a Roman villa lifestyle for a small number of colonists. Most of the natives didn't pay tax, or participate in Roman life. Egypt, under rome, shipped grain to the capital and enriched Roman officials. In "the colonies," it worked in reverse. Rome had to ship them soldiers and money to keep the colony going.

vondur 4y ago
Barbarism is certainly a factor in the Roman expansion into Germania, but if you look at how the Romans were able to colonize Gaul completely. I think originally they thought they could follow the same playbook into both Germania and Britain. Britain was never full pacified and required a large occupation force to keep the province under control. After the defeat of Varus during the reign of Augustus, I think Roman leadership looked at the area using a cost/benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth the amount of money that would be needed to fully pacifiy the region. The Romans should have pulled out of Britain after Claudius, the invasion was a vanity project and had no real value as a province.
- btilly 4y ago
  "Pacified" is a bloodless word to hide a bloody reality. According to Julius Caesar's own figures, when he conquered Gaul he killed roughly a third, enslaved a third, and left the last third under Roman rule. Thus did the future dictator create the power base with which he overthrew the Republic. (Though it took his nephew Octavian, better known as Augustus, to make that stick.) Even in modern times, autocrats seek to glorify their power with titles that derive from his name. Titles like "king", "kaiser" and "tsar". Calgacus, as quoted by Tacitus, purportedly said of the Roman Empire, "They make a desert, and call it peace." The authenticity of the quote is questioned, but the description is historical fact. And so I prefer calling a spade a spade, and replacing "pacification" with the more accurate", "conquest, genocide and oppression".
- dalbasal 4y ago
  Idk... Lots of conquests were hard, but time did them. Then they put down rebellions as necessary. I think the difference was that there was no way for time to "win" as they we used to. No palace to install governors in. No temple to place Roman statues in. How do twin? What do you win when you win? Rome wasn't after a tax base or plantations for cash crops. They were after a tax base. Most of their empire consisted of territories that had all these things for yonks. They had been conquered by many empires and knew the drill. Britannia and Germania did not.
  - mjcohen 4y ago
    This is not written in English. Maybe AI?
    - DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
      > Rome wasn't after a tax base [...]. They were after a tax base. looks like a perfectly cromulent argumentation to me.
      - dalbasal 4y ago
        alcohol.
notahacker 4y ago
> Anyway... I think Rome's limiting factor in germania and the european frontier was barbarism. NW europeans didn't have civilization: states, monarchies, temples, senates, roads, nations. The germans didn't even know they were germans until Romans told them. Rome's empire was based on assuming political control over existing political institutions. I think you could get a job writing excuses for Roman emperors ;) The Romans might have assimilated some sophisticated civilizations like Greece and Carthage, but outposts like Britannia were nothing like that, and Romans built their own roads and cities and villas to extract wealth from the land and set up their own institutions everywhere they went. Germany had no shortage of potential as a source of agricultural produce and slaves, but what made it uneconomical compared with other fringe parts is the pesky Germans kept fighting back, and in particular wiped out the three remaining legions in Germania after eight others sent there to pacify it had been withdrawn to stave off rebellions elsewhere. (They lost a legion to Boudica in Britain too, but they'd built roads and cities there by that time and had a different emperor calling the shots).
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  This is at least partially incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_law You make that sound like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie , which obviously wasn't the case.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
you are all wrong people, Roman legions were co posed of Roman citizens, they had to procure their own sword and shield, and could be called up to serve. As the Roman empire grew, they captured many slaves and territory. Wealthy romans could buy up slaves and land. They accumulated large holsings farmed by slaves and could outcompete ordinary romans in agricultural production. This was a problem because they were bacrupting the very same people who formed the legions. All the legionairs would recoeve for their military success, was increasing poverty. This led to decreasing quality of troops and political instability
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

vondur 4y ago

Barbarism is certainly a factor in the Roman expansion into Germania, but if you look at how the Romans were able to colonize Gaul completely. I think originally they thought they could follow the same playbook into both Germania and Britain. Britain was never full pacified and required a large occupation force to keep the province under control. After the defeat of Varus during the reign of Augustus, I think Roman leadership looked at the area using a cost/benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth the amount of money that would be needed to fully pacifiy the region. The Romans should have pulled out of Britain after Claudius, the invasion was a vanity project and had no real value as a province.

btilly 4y ago
"Pacified" is a bloodless word to hide a bloody reality. According to Julius Caesar's own figures, when he conquered Gaul he killed roughly a third, enslaved a third, and left the last third under Roman rule. Thus did the future dictator create the power base with which he overthrew the Republic. (Though it took his nephew Octavian, better known as Augustus, to make that stick.) Even in modern times, autocrats seek to glorify their power with titles that derive from his name. Titles like "king", "kaiser" and "tsar". Calgacus, as quoted by Tacitus, purportedly said of the Roman Empire, "They make a desert, and call it peace." The authenticity of the quote is questioned, but the description is historical fact. And so I prefer calling a spade a spade, and replacing "pacification" with the more accurate", "conquest, genocide and oppression".
dalbasal 4y ago
Idk... Lots of conquests were hard, but time did them. Then they put down rebellions as necessary. I think the difference was that there was no way for time to "win" as they we used to. No palace to install governors in. No temple to place Roman statues in. How do twin? What do you win when you win? Rome wasn't after a tax base or plantations for cash crops. They were after a tax base. Most of their empire consisted of territories that had all these things for yonks. They had been conquered by many empires and knew the drill. Britannia and Germania did not.
- mjcohen 4y ago
  This is not written in English. Maybe AI?
  - DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
    > Rome wasn't after a tax base [...]. They were after a tax base. looks like a perfectly cromulent argumentation to me.
    - dalbasal 4y ago
      alcohol.

notahacker 4y ago

> Anyway... I think Rome's limiting factor in germania and the european frontier was barbarism. NW europeans didn't have civilization: states, monarchies, temples, senates, roads, nations. The germans didn't even know they were germans until Romans told them. Rome's empire was based on assuming political control over existing political institutions. I think you could get a job writing excuses for Roman emperors ;) The Romans might have assimilated some sophisticated civilizations like Greece and Carthage, but outposts like Britannia were nothing like that, and Romans built their own roads and cities and villas to extract wealth from the land and set up their own institutions everywhere they went. Germany had no shortage of potential as a source of agricultural produce and slaves, but what made it uneconomical compared with other fringe parts is the pesky Germans kept fighting back, and in particular wiped out the three remaining legions in Germania after eight others sent there to pacify it had been withdrawn to stave off rebellions elsewhere. (They lost a legion to Boudica in Britain too, but they'd built roads and cities there by that time and had a different emperor calling the shots).

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
This is at least partially incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_law You make that sound like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie , which obviously wasn't the case.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

you are all wrong people, Roman legions were co posed of Roman citizens, they had to procure their own sword and shield, and could be called up to serve. As the Roman empire grew, they captured many slaves and territory. Wealthy romans could buy up slaves and land. They accumulated large holsings farmed by slaves and could outcompete ordinary romans in agricultural production. This was a problem because they were bacrupting the very same people who formed the legions. All the legionairs would recoeve for their military success, was increasing poverty. This led to decreasing quality of troops and political instability

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]