Rome's end of Conquest

[Krackalackin]

I don't understand something about how the Roman agenda changed from the Conquest and Civilizing of Europe to the halt of conquest and Border defense. Julius Caesar learned to pacify threats to Rome, Rome must conquer them, subject them to rule and expose them to the modern world. Consequentally, Caesar chased Rome's enemies throughout all of Europe, conquering whole peoples and Forcing Rome to be secure. He conquered Gaul and Brittania yet, he hadn't marched far into Germania and neither did any of Rome's later armies and Generals. The new Policy became to defend the Empire's frontier and to not expand it further. In hindsight, I think Julius Caesar was right. Unless the neighboring peoples of the Roman Empire become civilized and like-minded they will always be a threat. One way to look at the entire history of the World to this day is the constant fight against the threat of barbarians and barbarism. The same is true with Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Civilized society tends to be more intelligent and productive. This creates a plunder vacuum. People outside of your borders will want what you want and are most willing to take it. It's the same today except they specialize more in the theft of the jobs than actual theft. The civilized country will create wealth and opportunity. Because of that, poorer societies will become envious and wish to migrate to the more robust economy. Anyhow, I am not really sure how much Germania Magna benefited through trade with Rome but it is consistantly clear through literature that German Magna never became civilized. Germania Magna of course was an area with problems of its own. For one thing, this area was constantly under invasion from Northern tribes from Norway and Scandinavia, etc. But most of these came by sea which is easy to guard and police. I think because Germania was never developed and civilized by the civilized Empires on the Mediterranean coast, it led from their desire of independence to feelings of inferiority and envy. In other words, they fused with the empire through conquest and plunder because of their own lack of advancement and knowledge. More of them were capable of fighting because of lack of development. In civilized countries, most people do not fight or join the armed forces because they take advantage of their country's prosperity and learn a trade. The Armed Forces then become a specialized unit like the other fields. So even if they were civilized but still wished their own independence, at least they would have been more easy to deal with. Not civlizing them, perpetuated their threat that ended in disaster at the arrival of the huns. Because of the Huns, all the tribes pushed into the interior and created more of a problem than the huns themselves. What are your opinions?

[Segestan]

The Roman Conquests were really a counter-reaction to the decades of Celtic-Druidic invasions. Savage people. The Roman World was never in domestic harmony itself, so as it pushed back these hordes of barbarian tribesmen , it did thus over time , in order to aid Rome in the establishment of Roman Law and order of the Celtic-Gauls , the conquered peoples of the Greek leagues ,the Macedonians the Eastern Kingdoms of Syria , Egypt and Carthage....all of these regions that then over centuries came under Roman Rule , they naturally had a vast number of peoples now accepted as into the Roman Order as .....Romans. No Political Unity at all.

 

A Collective Unity Roman Unity Rome never had. The Internal struggles for power were as much to blame for the reversal of Roman ability as was the invading , and often revolting none Roman cultures, and above all the millions of Slaves brought into the Empire. Maintaining Order was difficult to say the least.

 

Rome was generally, superior to the rest of the world in many ways, but never had it

[Northern Neil]

I don't understand something about how the Roman agenda changed from the Conquest and Civilizing of Europe to the halt of conquest and Border defense. The new Policy became to defend the Empire's frontier and to not expand it further.

 

When Augustus recommended that the Empire had reached its maximum manageable size, he did this for several reasons. The Rhine and Danube were not only relatively easy to defend (as opposed to having an arbitrary border requiring an expensive frontier wall) but they were also at the furthest distance with which a Mediterranean based culture could feasibly exert its influence. As overland travel was far more arduous than sea travel, extending the Empire and importing Mediterranean civilisation beyond these limits would have been virtually impossible - it only really got going in Gaul, Raetia and Pannonia by the early second century, a good 150 years after these places had been pacified.

 

Civilized society tends to be more intelligent and productive. This creates a plunder vacuum. People outside of your borders will want what you want and are most willing to take it. It's the same today except they specialize more in the theft of the jobs than actual theft.The civilized country will create wealth and opportunity.

 

This statement is partly true. Civilised society in the ancient world developed because of a combination of proximity to the sea, trade routes, and productive farmland. The German tribes of the 4th century were 'uncivilised' because their initial geographic location did not allow civilisation to happen. It did not stop them from trying - many of the Germans who infiltrated the Empire in the 4th - 5th centuries were Latin speakers who in some cases were educated men. They did not initially want to destroy and plunder the Empire, they wanted to participate in it. Had the Emperor Valens treated them better than he did, the chain of events which led to the demise of the Western Roman empire might never have occurred. The Germans were allowed to be 'associate' members of the Roman world, but never fully accepted. The dangerous combination of partly Romanised but excluded Barbarian thus began to emerge, along with the 'super tribes' of Allemanni, Goth and Frank.

 

Modern immigrants to Western democracies do not steal jobs; they accept jobs which citizens of those countries consider beneath them, or consider to be too low paid. Much as the Germans accepted jobs with the Roman military because comfortable Roman provincials no longer volunteered themselves. And just as then, harmony in our own societies depends on how we reward these people for relieving us of the neccessity of taking these low paid, dull, in some cases dangerous jobs.

 

So even if they were civilized but still wished their own independence, at least they would have been more easy to deal with. Not civlizing them, perpetuated their threat...

 

The contrary is true. The fact is, the Visigoths - the first barbarians to gain a fully independent kingdom in a Roman province - were by then civilised, and as I said above, their partial Romanisation made them more dangerous, as they demanded more participation in a Roman world whose privileges they believed they were entitled to. Many thousands of barbarians had, remember, defended the Empire with their lives.

 

Prior to the 'reconquest' by the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian in the 540's, the Ostrogoths were governing a still very Roman Italy, were starting to speak Latin, adopting Roman offices, and may have come round to the idea of being 'Romans' a lot earlier than Charlemagne belatedly did, and when there were still 'proper' Romans and proper Roman towns around.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

Rome did not stop because it wished to stop, but because it was unable to expand further because of dangerous foes and poor, difficult areas were large military expenditure could not be covered by profits. The cultural gap was also a problem. Civilized people were easier to integrate then unorganised, unruly tribes. The failure to have eny lasting effect on basques it's telling. They never adopted roman language, habits, social structure or christianity despite prolonged contact.

[caldrail]

The Roman Conquests were really a counter-reaction to the decades of Celtic-Druidic invasions.

I see it more as greed and glory seeking, like most conquest states. The druids never invaded Rome as a seperate cultural entity, they were part of the celtic one and don't really deserve headline status.

 

You say Rome didn't have political unity. I'm not sure thats right, but it certainly had cultural unity. Notice the way Rome expands its control by colonisation, by creating cities, sometimes in the wilderness. Almost like a computer game, these cities buy or build things that earn it status and achievement. A forum, a temple, an aqueduct, a statue, sewer system etc. These brought honours, tax relief, patronage, all sorts of rewards from central government in Rome. It was in many ways a franchise, and one that definitely went a long way to secure political unity.