Imperial borders

[Kosmo]

Romans were nasty neighbours.

In Scotland north of Hadrian's wall the forest gained ground over cultivated fields.

On the Rhine they kept a 10 mile wide stretch of land on the german side were they did not allow people to setlle. Not even allies.

On the Upper Danube they refused to let the marcomanni have boats.

On the Lower Danube they moved more then 100.000 inhabitants from the North bank to the roman side.

Over both rivers they kept bridgeheads to ensure their control and carried many raids.

In Asia they destroyed Seleucia and Babylon in their agressive attacks on Parthia.

The favorite roman border was a waste land.

How did this affected the spread of more complex civilisation? They fed captured enemy leaders to the beasts in the arena and they carried punitive raids that made any form of city imposible. They did not even tried to bring christianity to their neighbours. Maybe the start of cities in Germany after the end of roman rule in Gaul can be seen as possible because the disruptive romans lost power. If roman civilisation itself can be seen as an effect of the spread of greek civilisation, the romans left their their neighbours as barbaric as they found them, or maybe worse.

 

If the empire suffered from migrating barbarians it is also because they did not let their neighbours became more setlled, civilised and urbanised. They kept them barbarians.

[caldrail]

The romans offered their culture packed and ready to go to anyone interested. They were utterly convinced they were the most advanced culture, the light at the center of the universe. By the 1st century AD, a roman writer mentions that the gods had given Rome an empire without end.

 

In exporting their culture, the romans made full use of trade. Both the gauls and britons are mentioned as being seduced by roman luxuries - the britons in particular are sneered at for succumbing to temptation. There seems to be a measure of double standards. Whilst on one hand the romans looked kindly upon nations with the good sense to see that adopting latin ways was a good idea, yet in other ways the capitulation of a culture was a sign of weakness, something the romans abhorred.

 

How did this affected the spread of more complex civilisation?

It didn't. Augustus had undertaken a policy of colonisation in german territory which was proceeding comfortably until Arminius united the tribes against it. The germans were rejecting the roman presence in the same way native americans would object to an alien culture occupying land. The spread of complex civilisation therefore would be as a result of roman influence, since the germans were quite happy as warrior tribes, living hard, playing hard, and fighting hard. The harsh border policies along the german frontier were designed for roman security, not to suppress german civilisation, since the romans believed without their unique guidance a barbarian people weren't likely to progress to their 'elevated' level anyway.

 

They did not even tried to bring christianity to their neighbours.

Thats because for much of the western empire christianity was a wierd cult, about which some very strange and horrifying stories were told. Christianity only became an official religion in the 4th century, by which time Rome was on the defensive. Early christianity wasn't as pious as it would become. Bishops of Rome were notorious for getting very wealthy off the backs of their flocks, and one wonders if that wasn't the purpose of it in the first place, since the same situation occurs in the modern day. So then, the early christian sects were inwardly flocused, being more concerned with consolidation. Later, when christianity was the state religion, it came under the roman sense of unity and expansion, and from that point seeks to bring the world under one faith, as this was the policy began by Constantine in the 4th century AD.

 

Maybe the start of cities in Germany after the end of roman rule in Gaul can be seen as possible because the disruptive romans lost power.

It also reflects the settlement of gernay by barbarian peoples after the disruption of the migrations that put so much pressure on Rome. Its more of a natural evolution than any repression by Rome, given that until the late empire german tribes were often anti-roman and very keen to keep their warrior lifestyle. Once displaced by migrations, they were effectively disenfranchised from their homelands (or at least it was no longer as secure as it had been) and thus became more conducive to raiding. This also reflects the diminishing ability of the late empire to defend its interests, and I should mention that one account of a roman raid on german settlements shows cross-border aggression reminiscent of that in colonial america.

 

If the empire suffered from migrating barbarians it is also because they did not let their neighbours became more setlled, civilised and urbanised. They kept them barbarians.

That didn't interest the average invading barbarian at all. What they wanted was roman wealth and luxury. Thats why the western empire vanishes after the barbarian coup against Romulus Augustulus. Their reign was so lacklustre it hardly registers with historians - though I accept the traditional view of the end of the west interferes with peoples perspective of that era. And incidentially - don't you think it ironic that Rome began with Romulus and ended with another?

[Kosmo]

The romans offered their culture packed and ready to go to anyone interested.

 

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity? Not only clothes and pottery but also laws, political organisations and ideas, philosophy, poetry etc.

Gauls and britons were more influenced by Massalia and etruscans then by romans.

 

It didn't. Augustus had undertaken a policy of colonisation in german territory which was proceeding comfortably until Arminius united the tribes against it. The germans were rejecting the roman presence in the same way native americans would object to an alien culture occupying land. The spread of complex civilisation therefore would be as a result of roman influence, since the germans were quite happy as warrior tribes, living hard, playing hard, and fighting hard. The harsh border policies along the german frontier were designed for roman security, not to suppress german civilisation, since the romans believed without their unique guidance a barbarian people weren't likely to progress to their 'elevated' level anyway.

 

Military rule, colonisation, tax collection and the other things that came with being a subject in a roman province were not the things that I talked about. The spread of hellenism to thracians, dacians, illyrians, italians, etruscans, carthaginians, scythians it's more to the point. Also the spread of the western civilisation (with catholic christianty) of Charlemagne in Central (Poland, Hungary, Cehia) and Northern Europe (Scandinavia) was a process that spreaded a culture without direct conquest.

 

They did not even tried to bring christianity to their neighbours.

Thats because for much of the western empire christianity was a wierd cult, about which some very strange and horrifying stories were told. Christianity only became an official religion in the 4th century, by which time Rome was on the defensive. Early christianity wasn't as pious as it would become. Bishops of Rome were notorious for getting very wealthy off the backs of their flocks, and one wonders if that wasn't the purpose of it in the first place, since the same situation occurs in the modern day. So then, the early christian sects were inwardly flocused, being more concerned with consolidation. Later, when christianity was the state religion, it came under the roman sense of unity and expansion, and from that point seeks to bring the world under one faith, as this was the policy began by Constantine in the 4th century AD..

 

I was refering at christianity as the official religion of the Empire. The church busy with fighting paganism inside the borders made no real effort to spread it outside. Those who were converted outside of the empire were converted by heretics fleeing persecution like the Eastern Germans (Goths, Vandals, Longobards etc) did gradually taking Arianism.

 

If the empire suffered from migrating barbarians it is also because they did not let their neighbours became more setlled, civilised and urbanised. They kept them barbarians.

That didn't interest the average invading barbarian at all. What they wanted was roman wealth and luxury. Thats why the western empire vanishes after the barbarian coup against Romulus Augustulus. Their reign was so lacklustre it hardly registers with historians - though I accept the traditional view of the end of the west interferes with peoples perspective of that era.

 

From a barbarian-on-loot point of view, yes, it's irelevant. For a killed-roman it's not interesting if the big guy with an axe have ever heard of Arsitotle. But maybe if the saxons had some nicer cities with lots of trade and some well worked fields home they will be less interested in moving to a dangerous shore. If the goths had better political institutions they would have been easier to make to respect treaties. If they had a strong dinasty maybe matrimonial alliances like the marriage of Gall Placida would have been succesfull. Maybe the reign of barbarians would have been better if their administration skills would have been better and their administration would have been improved by some education.

 

And incidentially - don't you think it ironic that Rome began with Romulus and ended with another?

 

Yes it's funny, the "last emperor" had the name of the founder of Rome but he had also the name of the founder of the empire.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Romans were nasty neighbours...The favorite roman border was a waste land.

Salve, Amici

 

Here comes Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Liber I cp. XXVI:

 

Omnium provinciarum populi Romani quibus finitimae fuerunt gentes quae non parerent imperio nostro fines auxi.

 

" I extended the boundaries of ALL the provinces which were bordered by races not yet subject to our empire."

 

Augustus didn't even try to justify such aggressions for posterity; it was unnecessary. Rome was never interested in neighbours, only in conquests. Rome did its best to conquer all, and if Rome stopped, it was mainly for logistic reasons.

Edited June 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

If the empire suffered from migrating barbarians it is also because they did not let their neighbours became more setlled, civilised and urbanised. They kept them barbarians.

That didn't interest the average invading barbarian at all. What they wanted was roman wealth and luxury.

From a barbarian-on-loot point of view, yes, it's irelevant. For a killed-roman it's not interesting if the big guy with an axe have ever heard of Arsitotle.

 

Please remember barbarus just meant "foreigner". Romans conquered and annihilated civilised and uncivilised barbarians alike (just remember Carthage and Corinth). Persian civilisation was actually older than Roman. If Germanic barbarians fought against Rome, it wasn't for the lack of civilisation or Corpus Aristotelicum, but because they were being attacked.

[caldrail]

The germans were a warrior tribal people, warfare, or at least raiding, was part and parcel of their culture as usually happens in cultures of this sort. When the romans began to rub up against them, we have the sort of 'civilised' vs 'primitive' conflict that we've seen all too often in the last four hundred years. The dominant, more advanced culture sees the lands of the primitive as virgin territory because the primitives haven't done anything with it. The primitives on the other hand see the land as something they're attached to in some way, either as their ancestral lands, hunting grounds, or in some cases, as intrinsically free to all.

 

The german tribes in particular were quite happy with raiding, herding, and living inside their 'Fearful forest and stinking bog'. To them it was their home. Roman civilisation was something different - a culture that wasn't 'manly' or desirable. No doubt they used roman wares obtained by trade - Romans were keen to tempt barbarian peoples in this way, although in Germany the temptations of comfort and luxury weren't so easily bought.

 

A lot depends on the warrior culture. These societies do not remain static, unchanged, but develop as time goes by, albeit at a slow pace. As a young culture its likely to be very hard-edged, competitive, even violent. As the society ages it tends to become more sophisticated, more entrenched in tradition and custom, and prone to settling down - all this had happened to the Gauls. The gauls that Caesar conquered were not the hardened fighters immune to the natural world that their forebears had been when the spread violently across Europe and sacked Rome in 392BC.

 

The germans were a much 'younger' culture at the time of Augustus. The description by Tactitus goes into some detail about their mindset, and allowing for some roman arrogance and misinterpretation, gives a picture of a robust people leading physical and violent lives.

 

Augustus would not have considered these barbarians as too much of a threat. They squabbled amongst each other, had no cities, nor infrastructure, nor and sophisticated culture to admire. Its true Augustus expanded the borders of Rome - we know that towns were being built in Germania before the Varian Disaster - but this was an expansion of Augustus's franchise of the roman system, designed to spread roman colonies, introduce civic pride in the provinces, distribute veteran ex-soldiers, and to widen his tax base. I know some people dispute that last point, but remember that Augustus was buying popularity. He 'found Rome in brick and left it in marble', he boasts in his will of the numbers of men and animals he displayed in games. For him, tax revenue was an important key to his survival. If he raised tax, he becomes unpopular. So if you want more revenue to buy more popularity, your tax base must widen. hence he viewed Germania - with no great valuable resources - as an area to repopulate in the roman fashion. He had done this already. Areas of Greece and surrounding islands had declined and their populations withered, so Augustus had founded colonies in these areas to reinvigorate their economies. He was effectively attempting the same in german lands beyond established frontiers, believeing the germans could be subdued, bought off against each other, and tempted into roman luxury as had the gauls before Caesar summarily conquered them.

 

This process of colonisation was instrinsically undesirable to the hunter/raider minset opf the germans, and as I've mentioned before, the difference in cultures brought up the same attitudes and situations as we see in colonial america, although in the case of the germans a charismatic ex-soldier by the name of Arminius was able to unite the german tribes because of the spread of roman culture - and taxation. Quintilius Varus was there for two reasons - to gain valuable military experience, but also to oversee roman taxation.

 

The germans did not fight Rome because they were being attacked. They weren't under attack at all, the colonisation of Germania was being undertaken in an overbearing but relatively peaceful manner. The germans objected to being asked to consider roman lifestyles, to fence their lands as it were, and to pay tax to Rome, which was outside their experience and caused them problems on a local economic scale, since most germans had little else than each other and a few animals.

 

Its true that some cultures weren't so backward - even the gauls of Caesars time had developed in agriculture and so forth - but even considering the older persian culture the romans sneered at it. It wasn't the proper way, it wasn't roman. The oriental potentates were regarded as effeminate and perhaps most importantly, seen as sapping of human will and strength. Roman society at its heart believed Might Was Right, and although we sometimes focus on their sophistication we forget the macho, virile, and competitive nature of their mindset. Rome was a society that saw itself as strong, something that gave them pride, and its noticeable that despite their increasing luxury by the time of Augustus many romans had continued to pay lip service to it. Luxury was a commodity, it could be bought and sold, and wealth meant power and status in roman society.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity? Not only clothes and pottery but also laws, political organisations and ideas, philosophy, poetry etc.Gauls and britons were more influenced by Massalia and etruscans then by romans.

 

Given the strong influence of Greeks and Etruscans on Rome, how can you tell whether Gauls and Britons were more influenced by Massalia or by Rome? The development of Narbonensis certainly skyrocketed after Romans took an interest in the territory--surely that suggests that Greek and Etruscan influences only went so far.

 

Moreover, Hellenization of barbarian tribes was a cultural phenomenon that took place all over the Mediterranean, and the rate of Hellenization must have been influenced by the ubiquity of Roman merchants and traders. These groups are constantly mentioned in our sources, and they were apparently viewed as enough of a threat that they were fairly often targeted by insecure local rulers (e.g., Mitridates, Vercingetorix, etc). Best I can tell from the written sources, from the presence of Roman coins, and from the spread of Roman public architecture, Roman merchants and traders--operating under the protection of Roman treaties and arms--spread Roman goods and the Roman way of life all over Spain, North Africa, and the Levant.

 

The bottom line is that before Christian missionaries spread their gloomy Judaean message of "Weep and repent", enterprising capitalists spread the good news from Rome, Pecunia non olet.

[Primus Pilus]

...The germans did not fight Rome because they were being attacked. They weren't under attack at all, the colonisation of Germania was being undertaken in an overbearing but relatively peaceful manner. The germans objected to being asked to consider roman lifestyles, to fence their lands as it were, and to pay tax to Rome, which was outside their experience and caused them problems on a local economic scale, since most germans had little else than each other and a few animals...

 

Again, this approach to the "peaceful colonization of Germania" is fine as a theory to explain the objectives of Augustus, but it still hardly explains the pre-Varus campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius as well as the various military encounters that led to it. I'm not arguing against your notion that Augustus was establishing closer bonds with allied Germanics and settling them for all the various reasons that you suggest, but the truth is that the overall issue was anything but a passive and peaceful settlement.

 

Not including the initial campaigns of Caesar or the handling of the Suebi/Ubii situation by M. Vipsanius Agrippa c. 38-37 BC...

 

29 BC - Gaius Carrinas (with Octavian) is awarded a triumph for his defeat of a Suebian invasion across the Rhine Gaul

Dio Cassius 51.21.6

 

25 BC? - Marcus Vinicius led a campaign into Germania and was awarded triumphal ornaments.

Vell Pat. 2.104, Cass. Dio 53.26

 

17 BC - The Sugambri crossed the Rhine and defeated Marcus Lollius in Gallia Belgica. Legio V Alaudae even lost it's eagle.

Vell. Pat. 2.97

Cass. Dio 54.20

 

16 - 13 BC - In response to the invasion of the Sugambri, Augustus sends Drusus and Tiberius to reorganize the Rhineland as a military buffer zone.

Cass. Dio 54.32-36

Vell. Pat. 2.97

 

12 BC - After this extensive reorganization and preparation, Drusus launched a punitive campaign deep into Germania, defeating the Sugambri, Frisians and Chauci.

Cass. Dio 54.32-36

 

11 BC - Drusus establishes the Roman fort at Oberaden. Drusus' campaign continues to the Wesser.

 

10 - 9 BC - Drusus celebrates an ovatio (not something awarded for a peaceful campaign) and continues against the Chatti and Marcomanni and marched all the way to the Elbe.

Florus (for several of the above entries) Epitome of Roman History 2.30

 

9 BC - Drusus dies on campaign and is replaced by Tiberius. Between 9 and 8 BC the Sugambri were completely subjugated and redistributed in Gaul effectively ending the Germania campaign for 15 or so years. However, military occupation continued with Legio XVIII likely at Xanten, Legio XVIIII at Haltern, Legio XVI Gallica likely at Mainz and Legio XVII whose ultimate base of operations is not clear, but may have been with XVIIII at Haltern.

Legionary placement is archaeological. Cass. Dio 55.1-2

Tacitus Annals 2.26

 

4 AD - While there is little recorded evidence of military action for the previous 15 years, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus led a campaign in this year across the Elbe that began in response to a Germanic revolt.

Cassius Dio book 55.10a, Tacitus says little more, but claims that Ahenobarbus won a triumph for the campaign. Annals Book 4.44

 

5-6 AD - Tiberius extensive Germanic campaigns... before being cut off by the revolt in Pannonia.

Vell. Pat. 2.105-110

[Kosmo]

Given the strong influence of Greeks and Etruscans on Rome, how can you tell whether Gauls and Britons were more influenced by Massalia or by Rome? The development of Narbonensis certainly skyrocketed after Romans took an interest in the territory--surely that suggests that Greek and Etruscan influences only went so far.

 

Moreover, Hellenization of barbarian tribes was a cultural phenomenon that took place all over the Mediterranean, and the rate of Hellenization must have been influenced by the ubiquity of Roman merchants and traders. These groups are constantly mentioned in our sources, and they were apparently viewed as enough of a threat that they were fairly often targeted by insecure local rulers (e.g., Mitridates, Vercingetorix, etc). Best I can tell from the written sources, from the presence of Roman coins, and from the spread of Roman public architecture, Roman merchants and traders--operating under the protection of Roman treaties and arms--spread Roman goods and the Roman way of life all over Spain, North Africa, and the Levant.

 

The bottom line is that before Christian missionaries spread their gloomy Judaean message of "Weep and repent", enterprising capitalists spread the good news from Rome, Pecunia non olet.

 

Because the archelogical finds in Gaul are of greek and etruscan pottery. Of course that after conquest of Narbonese Gaul the romans were the most important merchants.

Anyway, I was refering to romanisation outside the roman borders (not inside the short lived roman germany) during the imperial period (hence the "imperial borders" title of the thread) and the 4 centuries when the border was on the Rhine and Danube. During this leghty period nothing much changed.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity?

Salve, K

 

As far as I can tell, virtually no. Archeological evidence of Roman influence among non-conquered neighbours (.e, Hibernia, Jutland, Sarmatia) seems to be limited to some coins at best.

[Maty]

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity?

 

The Samnites and the Etruscans.

 

Re the post that started this thread "They fed captured enemy leaders to the beasts in the arena". They did? Name one.

[Kosmo]

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity?

 

The Samnites and the Etruscans.

 

Re the post that started this thread "They fed captured enemy leaders to the beasts in the arena". They did? Name one.

 

1. Etruscans adopted roman culture. Really! Besides being totally wrong as being the other way around (early Rome was heavily influenced by etruscans) this is beside the point that I tried to make when I was talking about IMPERIAL borders. As I said above I was talking about the space beyond Roman borders after Augustus.

 

2. Ascaricus and Morogaisus, the leaders of the Franks, with some of their leading worriors, where thrown to the beasts in the arena during the celebrations of the return (adventus) of Constantine to Trier in the winter 306-307. This is from "Constantine and the Christian Empire" of Charles Matson Odahl.

[Kosmo]

Can you give me an example of another culture that adopted roman culture before the spread of christianity?

Salve, K

 

As far as I can tell, virtually no. Archeological evidence of Roman influence among non-conquered neighbours (.e, Hibernia, Jutland, Sarmatia) seems to be limited to some coins at best.

 

Salve, A

They did a little better with southern germans: alemanni, marcomanni and quadi adopted some roman clothes and copied provincial plebeian homes. That's all!

The Roman Empire was a closed society. As closed as pharonic Egypt or China. To take the pearl out of the oister it needed cracking...

[M. Porcius Cato]

Kosmo, your two constraints--after Augustus and before Christianity--leave a time period that is so tiny (less than 20 years) that it's trivial to argue with you. Let's grant your point--over a 20 year period, Roman culture failed to sway anyone outside its borders. So what? How many cultural assimilations--even of the most open societies--have ever occurred over such a small time period? Frankly, I don't see how your broader point justifies your extremely narrow constraints.

Edited June 3, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ursus]

Romans were nasty neighbours.

 

 

In contrast to whom, precisely? Cultured Greeks who dutifully slaughtered each other over petty turf wars? Celts and Germans for whom petty raids was a way of life? A Persian empire no less warlike in approach?

 

 

I must be missing something, but who cares what Rome did to its neighbors? Within its own borders, certain parts of Britain perhaps excepted, it did a rather fine job of turning subjects into citizens.