3 ms·

>If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army.

>If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the empire got too big to manage with the technology of the day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the Roman catholic church. (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this recently)

inglor_cz 1y ago
With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".

inglor_cz 1y ago

With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.

hermitcrab 1y ago
>With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".