What made the Romans stop?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think the northern border of the Roman state was always going to carry the heavy burden of its iron-age neighbours, being it at the Rhone, the Rhine or the Elbe. It's analogous to the last car of a train after a collision from behind; it doesn't matter if it's the 3rd or the 30th, the last one will always get the hit.

 

The train analogy breaks down because the immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome were no threat. The Romans had long-established allies in the Aedui, and there was active trade northward of Narbonensis. Both in terms of dealing with potential threats and realizing potential gains, Rome would have been better served by re-tracing the steps of Alexander.

[caldrail]

Generally speaking, when you read most of Roman historians, from Livy to Cassius Dio, you get the impression that Rome was conquering the World as a result of perpetual self-defence. They conquered or tried to conquer practically all country that they got in touch with.

 

What made them stop? What do you think?

Roman expansion was just as much roman greed and glory seeking as defence. Also it must be realised that expansion was often driven by persoanl ambition of men seeking military victory to bolster their public image rather than any need to deal with military threat.

 

Many areas conquered were not a threat to Rome, and they did assimilate some areas without military action. Palmyra for instance operated as a client state - a self contained city state working for roman interests - from the reign of tiberius onward. The quest for new resources, goods, and markets were also a force driving roman trade expansion and we know that roman ships travelled as far as the Indian Ocean, possibly reaching Cambodia or on very rare occaisions China itself though I don't know of any evidence for that.

 

Caesar for instance had three reasons to invade britain. One - For the glory of it. The political kudos of invading that strange island for the first time isn't to underestimated. Two - To stop the gauls receiving assistance from the britons. Having just defeated and subjugated the gauls, Caesar did not want rebels getting aid from their close links across the channel. Three - To find resources, especially the rumoured precious metals which would bolster his personal wealth and fund his career. He got a bit miffed apparently because he didn't find any!

 

There was also the roman desire to spread its own culture. The romans like to romanise, and regarded barbarian cultures as essentially backward and coarse, who needed education into roman ways. They really did regard themselves as the center of the universe by the early empire. Whereas early in the roman expansion they were assimilating nations with some form of developed infrastructure, they were beginning to encounter wilderness. The deserts of africa and the middle east, the steppes and marshes of the north-east, and the german temperate rainforests. Germany in particular was being colonised - the remains of roman towns deep inside what was previously considered wild germany have been discovered. In fact, the Varian Disaster of AD9 put that colonisation aside as Rome was shocked into a defensive posture.

 

Since the need for military success was lessened in political life of the empire, Rome undertook military adventures only when the emperor decided it was time. Claudius did so in an old fashioned attempt to bolster his public image by invading Britain. On the other hand, a natural warrior like Trajan was bound to conquer new areas such as Dacia and western persia. Its noticeable that Hadrian, not the least military-minded, gave up some of these conquests and returned to a defensive posture. So by the empire, it was the personality of the emperor as much as circumstance that determined whether Rome should expand, but in any case, by then Persia was a major rival with a very strong empire of its own.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The train analogy breaks down because the immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome were no threat. The Romans had long-established allies in the Aedui, and there was active trade northward of Narbonensis. Both in terms of dealing with potential threats and realizing potential gains, Rome would have been better served by re-tracing the steps of Alexander.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

The train analogy breaks down because the immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome were no threat. The Romans had long-established allies in the Aedui, and there was active trade northward of Narbonensis. Both in terms of dealing with potential threats and realizing potential gains, Rome would have been better served by re-tracing the steps of Alexander.

Pridie Nonae October 649 AUC (Oct 6 105 BC) at Arausio (Gallia) Biorix, Teutobod and other immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome won over the legions of Quintus Servilius Caepio and Gnaeus Mallius Maximus one of the most lethal classical formation battles in all History, second only to Cannae for the recorded absolute number of Roman casualties.

 

You do realize that the Cimbri and Teutones were not neighbors of Rome (let alone immediate neighbors), don't you? The Cimbri were from Jutland, in modern day Denmark. Thus, the conquest of Gaul only brought Roman territories closer to the homeland of the Cimbri.

[Urbs Aedificator]

As far as I am concerned the book: The Grand Strategy Of The Roman Empire - From the first Century A.D. to the Third by Edward Luttwak holds the definative answer to the original posters queston. I cannot begin to do justice to his work so I will not attempt to paraphrase him. Buy the book, or possibly look up on the net references and material.

Alex.