Five Books to master in Roman frontier strategy and mentality

[Divi Filius]

One of my biggest interests in Rome is a study of its borders.

 

Roman Horizons:

 

 

 

1. Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study by C. R. Whittaker

2. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third by Edward N. Luttwak -- a bit antiquated

3. Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate by Susan P. Mattern -- Relies heavily on Whittaker

4. The Reach of Rome: A History of the Roman Imperial Frontier 1St-5Th Centuries Ad by Derek Williams -- Probably the easiest of the all.

5. The Creation of the Roman Frontier by Stephen L. Dyson -- Roman frontier creation under the Republic.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Divi Filius

[M. Porcius Cato]

How did the Roman frontier strategy differ from the Republican to Imperial system?

[Virgil61]

How did the Roman frontier strategy differ from the Republican to Imperial system?

 

What immediately comes to mind is far less reliance on (or the existence of) local 'buffer' states such as Herod's Judea having absorbed them instead.

[Divi Filius]

In the mind of the Romans, very little. They acknowledged the fact that their days of expansion were finished, however their overall outlook remained the same.

 

To say that Rome was aware of any real "strategy"(as in an awareness) would be quite wrong, they didn't; and nor did they admit that their empire ended at their "borders". Roman authority stretched all over the world. Augustus states that he received embassies from people all around the world(including India), from tribes hither to unknown*. Meaning that he expanded all over.

 

As Roman conquest ceased the historians went about explaining the stop. Traditionally it was believed that Rome stopped in Germany and other places because of the decentralized character of the regions*, however this has come under scrutiny in today.

 

The main thing to remember is that Romans rarely if ever thought in the long term. Everything was made in the basis of the minute and part; therefore it would be impossible to consider any longer term plans having ran through their minds. The Romans simply dealt with situations as they came along.

 

*Another thing that changed was Rome's awareness of the world. Under the republic Rome still did not a very great idea, however as the empire expanded and the world kept going, the Romans realized that it was actually bigger then they thought; and more mysterious.

*Luttwak

Edited April 8, 2007 by Divi Filius

[M. Porcius Cato]

As Roman conquest ceased the historians went about explaining the stop. Traditionally it was believed that Rome stopped in Germany and other places because of the decentralized character of the regions*, however this has come under scrutiny in today.

 

But I don't see how this could explain the Parthian frontier.

[Divi Filius]

But I don't see how this could explain the Parthian frontier.

 

Rome's eastern frontier was always problematic. Unlike the Rhine or African desert, much of it was not protected by any particularly strong natural barrier(the Euphrates was more symbolic*). However, we should note that Parthia was not a centralized to the point of Rome. The kingdom had a large "feudal" sense to it, the Romans could sack and capture the capitol, but that would not be enough to subdue the entire land. When Trajan invaded, although the seat of government and capitol passed out of Parthian hands, the resistance to Rome continued. This was Luttwak's argument.

 

Like I said, this has come under a lot of criticism in modern day. I remember one historian, I forgot which, said that if Alexander could conquer Persia, then what stopped the Romans.

 

The answer, most likely, lies in the history of their relations. Augustus and his successors lived under Crassus' disaster earlier on, they wanted a conquest of the land in order to reclaim lost honor, however were deterred by the fear of a repeated Carrhea. Augustus was more or less happy to receive Parthian "subjection" through diplomatic means, rather then actual military.

 

What occurred was a sort of "cold war" between the two lands at this time period. Rome was more then happy to receive glory by non-militaristic means, while the Parthian kings, always weary of wars with Rome and what they could produce(claimants to the throne), were happy to come to agreements(Rome crowning the Armenian king, who is a relative to the Arsarcids).

 

What happens afterwards, after Trajan's successes, the Romans grow more and more confident, but nevertheless, the grandeur or Parthia stops them short of annexing major territories(Severus makes the last annexations I believe, in Scotland and Mesopotamia).

 

In the end, however, I don't think we can come to any real agreement as the actual reasons are all these and more. Parthia was not Germania, in that, it had a distinct cultural awareness from Rome and kinship to its dominion(for instance it considered Armenia a cultural kin, a "brother"), its army was far more organized and differed significantly from European tactics that helped form the legions, it was large, it inflicted a terrible defeat on the empire etc. etc. Wars against it were expensive, time consuming and dangerous.

Thus the Romans were more or less content with a border that mimicked those of the Danube and the Rhine: a river frontier. While with Armenia, the Romans were happy to hold the "greater" level of power in return for relative peace*.

 

*However, its important to remember that nearly all river frontiers were more symbolic then anything else. Neither the Danube not the Rhine were these major cultural and physical barriers that we make them out to be.

*One of my questions is: what did the Armenians think. I can't imagine the country having held a great amount of pro-Roman feelings considering their closer cultural tie to Parthia.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Divi Filius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Your answer about Parthia, then, challenges the traditional view you cited earlier:

Traditionally it was believed that Rome stopped in Germany and other places because of the decentralized character of the regions.. .

 

Clearly Parthia was not a decentralized backwater like Germania.

[Divi Filius]

As I said, the traditional view has come under fire in recent days.

 

As it seems, Parthia was somewhat dual in character. It was both large and centralized enough to inspire apprehension and deterrence on the Romans, while at the same time being decentralized enough so as to make annexations extremely difficult and costly.

 

This decentralization was ultimately its undoing, considering that Parthia was nearly always inhibited by its own internal discord.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Divi Filius

[M. Porcius Cato]

This decentralization was ultimately its undoing, considering that Parthia was nearly always inhibited by its own internal discord.

 

The Parthian empire was indeed a strange mixture of feudalism, federalism, and nomadic tribal rule. Still, if they were centralized enough (and rich enough) to issue a common currency, it should be no surprise that everyone from Crassus, to Caesar, to Trajan should have coveted the chance to conquer them.

[Divi Filius]

I think the earlier Romans must have thought more in terms of glory. Caesar and later Augustus both considered(the former planned) a Parthian campaign in order to avenge the Roman loss (even though the loss would technically be considered "just" since Crassus had absolutely reason to invade, yet did so simply for self-aggrandizement in the most apparent way). For Trajan, glory must have also been a significant factor when planning the Parthian campaign. He boasted about having gone further then Alexander, similarly with Caracalla. For Severus, probably a mixture of glory and gold. Fill the treasure of Rome while at the same time have the legionaries occupied with Ctesiphon booty.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Divi Filius

[sonic]

*One of my questions is: what did the Armenians think. I can't imagine the country having held a great amount of pro-Roman feelings considering their closer cultural tie to Parthia.

 

To a small degree I would agree, however the main reason for Armenian political alignment was not cultural but survival. In this context alignment with Rome could be crucial. Through most of its history Armenia had to contend with neighbours on both sides that could quite easily conquer them. As a result, whatever their cultural biases, they had to play a game of balancing the two powers, otherwise they faced the risk of being absorbed. Interestingly, later on this policy failed and Armenia was finally divided between Persia and Rome, with Rome gaining the 'Armenian' provinces and Persia 'Persarmenia'.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

As Roman conquest ceased the historians went about explaining the stop. Traditionally it was believed that Rome stopped in Germany and other places because of the decentralized character of the regions*, however this has come under scrutiny in today.

 

But I don't see how this could explain the Parthian frontier.

It seems neither of you acknowledges such explanation,.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

I think that the stop of the expansion wars was in great deal due to the change of the political system. In the republic a successful war was the surest way to achieve political power and office and to accumulate wealth. this all change under the imperial system, the princeps was the only source of political power and he was the one which appointed magistrates, furthermore any war was conducted under his auspecies regardless of who was actually the commander in the field.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think that the stop of the expansion wars was in great deal due to the change of the political system. In the republic a successful war was the surest way to achieve political power and office and to accumulate wealth. this all change under the imperial system, the princeps was the only source of political power and he was the one which appointed magistrates, furthermore any war was conducted under his auspecies regardless of who was actually the commander in the field.

That's true.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[DecimusCaesar]

Another thing that changed was Rome's awareness of the world. Under the republic Rome still did not a very great idea, however as the empire expanded and the world kept going, the Romans realized that it was actually bigger then they thought; and more mysterious.

 

This reminds me of Alexander's attitude towards conquest - always looking over the hill for new territory, and being surprised by how large the world really was as he advanced further along its surface.

 

This has actually got me thinking about Roman ideas about Geography and how it shaped their frontier strategy. Even as late as the 4th and 5th centuries the Romans were still rather ignorant of lands beyond their borders, especially those beyond Germania. Jordanes (quoting the earlier Roman geographers Pomponius Mela and Claudius Ptolomaeus), when discussing Scandinavia (Scandza) mentions it as being an island. Some modern historians have found this so odd that they believe that the Goths must not have originated from this part of the world.

 

Then again Attila did create a sort of 'Iron curtain' to keep the Roman spies out of his empire. This does at least hint that the Romans sent agents beyond their borders to keep an eye on the tribes, whether they paid an attention to the geography of the area is another matter.