Conquer And Maintain

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Just a little topic for the forum.

 

If you had to conquer a nation/tribe/territory... of any scale, how would you do it?

 

What generals/legions would you send?

What was your reason/ or facade for invasion?

After domination, what policies would you pursue in order to keep your new acquisitions at bay?

[Prometheus]

I would rather not.

 

If the locals do not accept your domination it will be impossible to maintain it. The only option would be to change the demography, ie ethnic cleansing, colonisation, and other crimes like that. You can see how problematic it is in Palestine and Israel.

 

So it will have to be an occupation that is mutually benifitial. And even then it will may be a minefield.

 

Key is that you need to use a puppet regime made up of locals. Like the nazi's did and not like the US/UK did in Iraq(they disbanded the police and the army).

As far as I know this is textbook stuff so it is rather strange that they made this blunder in Iraq.

 

Furthermore, you put it way too simple. It will be impossible to know what a good reason would be is we don't have a concrete situation.

And a good reason to even start a war would also be needed. Most wars end in failures for both sides. And even won battles will in the end be defeats.

Plus, each war will lead to war crimes and atrocities. The agressor will be responsible for these. I can't really imagine a situation where this is justified.

 

So all wars should be avoided.

Edited March 26, 2006 by Prometheus

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Prometheus, I'm not trying to take a modern view of the issues you are pointing out. This is just a harmless thread on how the Roman's would conduct

them.

[Northern Neil]

This is a scenario I have often considered, and a smallish area such as Ireland springs to mind (I believe that Julius Agricola was considering this). I think I would try to set up a puppet regime using local chiefs to govern, and giving them financial inducements to become a Roman province. The most powerful chiefs would be approached, and as well as Roman goods and a nice villa each they would be given meaningless titles and preferential trade status. It is believed that the Fishbourne villa in the South of England was an example of this.

 

A vexillation of legionaries - say, three cohorts with an assortment of auxilia (Including some cavalry) would be kept close by, both to lend muscle to the new puppet governor and as a reminder to the rest of the locals to behave. They would be housed in a vexillation fortress at some strategic point close to the chief/governors seat of power. In the meanwhile a legionary fortress just across the water at, say, Stranraer in Scotland would provide both the legionary vexillation and more muscle if it were needed. On the other hand, its lack of presence on the Irish side would reassure ambivalent locals that full scale conquest was not imminent, and perhaps preventable if the line were towed.

 

If the chief/governor then revolted, embezzled imperial funds or was deposed by anti - Roman elements and killed, that would then be a pretext for full scale invasion. And lets face it, the likelihood of one of those three outcomes is pretty high.

 

So for the Romans its a win - win situation. The local governor keeps order in the new province and taxes go into imperial coffers, Romans are happy. If the Governor fails in this respect by revolting, 'financial irregularities' or by being deposed and killed, then the Romans are still happy because they then get an excuse to turn a protectorate into a full - blown province. Meanwhile, the legionary vexillation and their auxilliary pals have already mapped out the region, marked down undesirables likely to become dangerous, and had them murdered. Perfect.

Edited March 27, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Ursus]

I wouldn't do anything different than what the Romans did at their best: offer the luxury of what we might call a "consumer culture" to people who don't have it through trade and diplomacy. After a few generations they'll become quite pliable. Subsequent military force needed to pacify would be minimal.

 

Once conquered, the local elites are encouraged to become part of the governing machinery, and local lads can sign up for military service. Let most of the local customs and religions intact, only stamp out what is clearly a threat to stability. Collect reasonable taxes and uphold the law.

 

This strategy seems to work quite well. The Celts living in southern Gaul were already partially Romanized thanks to decades of Roman trade. Some tribal leaders even furnished cavalry to Caesar. Once conquered in the full military sense, the local elites there were more than willing and able to become decurions and equestrians.

[caldrail]

Why conquer? Start convincing amenable tribes/nations to come over to your side beforehand with rewards for loyalty. That way, when someone complains about your troops marching up and down their lands, you've got allies at hand. The romans did this in britain. Its now believed that the king of the Atrabates, Cogidumnus, was rewarded for his assistance by Vespasian with a large villa at Fishbourne and status in the administration, besides other things we're not aware of. That was a large slice of southern england the romans never had to fight for.