Imperial borders

[Kosmo]

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.

 

In the reply to you, above, I put the time frame to 400 years. The imperial period when the borders were stable. I never said before Christianity. It would have been absurd for the empire to promote a religion they dissaproved of. Regarding christianty I said that it was not used as a tool for romanization outside the empire (like franks or byzantines did later) in the last century of the time frame.

[M. Porcius Cato]

OK, so what timeframe did you have in mind when you wrote:

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

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Salve, C Any primary source on that?

 

Talking about an almost contemporary and contiguous conquest by Octavius, here comes the Roman History by Lucius Claudius Cassius Dio, Liber XLIX, cp. XXXVI-XXXVII:

 

"...Caesar (Octavius) made a campaign against the Pannonians. He had no complaint to bring against them, not having been wronged by them in any way, but he wanted both to give his soldiers practice and to support them at the expense of an alien people, for he regarded every demonstration against a weaker party as just, when it pleased the man who was their superior in arms... At first he did not devastate or plunder at all, although they abandoned their villages in the plain; for he hoped to make them his subjects of their own free will. But when they harassed him as he advanced to Siscia, he became angry, burned their country, and took all the booty he could."

Edited June 4, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

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.

Salve, C Any primary source on that?

 

Germania - Tacitus

Annals - tacitus

Lives of the Caesars - Suetonius

 

There's probably some good info in Dio's works but I haven't read the relevant period.

 

Notice that Augustus sent Varus to handle taxation - a man known for his greed.

 

The campaigns against the german tribes mentioned by Ursus were pacifications. I accept the confrontations took place, but my arguement is that Rome wasn't attacking everyone. As usual with Rome, they were attacking some and not others in a deliberate policy of disunification. Notice the germans weren't entirely defeated and that the whole point was to impress upon the german tribes that Rome was here and staying. Rome did not want a turbulent frontier - it wanted tax-payers. The triumphs given to generals conducting these campaigns aren't hugely significant. Under Augustus, triumphs were awarded liberally to maintain loalty amongst them.

 

Talking about an almost contemporary and contiguous conquest by Octavius, here comes the Roman History by Lucius Claudius Cassius Dio, Liber XLIX, cp. XXXVI-XXXVII:

 

"...Caesar (Octavius) made a campaign against the Pannonians. He had no complaint to bring against them, not having been wronged by them in any way, but he wanted both to give his soldiers practice and to support them at the expense of an alien people, for he regarded every demonstration against a weaker party as just, when it pleased the man who was their superior in arms... At first he did not devastate or plunder at all, although they abandoned their villages in the plain; for he hoped to make them his subjects of their own free will. But when they harassed him as he advanced to Siscia, he became angry, burned their country, and took all the booty he could."

 

The key is that Caesar wanted them as subjects. In roman terms, that wasn't simply people saying "yes Caesar, no Caesar" - it all came down to wealth and power. For Caesar, a provincial power bloc would be an important asset in his quest to be overlord of Rome. It also meant tributes or tax revenue - though I suspect this was less important to Caesar than it would be for Augustus later. His arrogance is incredible, and illustrates the view of roman political thuggery that Terry Jones is fond of.

 

The thing is, although this military action was taking place, it was limited in scope, aimed at particular tribes for whatever reason or excuse. The difficulty of fighting a people whose infrastructure was almost non-existent is also touched on, as Dio mentions that Caesar took all the booty that he could. I suspect it wasn't much. But this browbeating of the germans did not quell their spirit. They simply retreated further into the forests. Ok, it would have caused them a great deal of trouble in that they had to relocate their settlements and start over, but for a culture closer to the land than the romans this was surely easier? The damage was done of course, and the resentment of the germans must have been keenly felt. Its like a bunch of soldiers pushing the door down, camping in your back yard, then charging you money for the privilege.

[Primus Pilus]

The campaigns against the german tribes mentioned by Ursus were pacifications. I accept the confrontations took place, but my arguement is that Rome wasn't attacking everyone. As usual with Rome, they were attacking some and not others in a deliberate policy of disunification. Notice the germans weren't entirely defeated and that the whole point was to impress upon the german tribes that Rome was here and staying. Rome did not want a turbulent frontier - it wanted tax-payers. The triumphs given to generals conducting these campaigns aren't hugely significant. Under Augustus, triumphs were awarded liberally to maintain loalty amongst them.

 

This makes no sense. You've made the claim that the Roman occupation was almost entirely peaceful. Then you claim that you accept the confrontations that took place, but still hold on to the notion that it wasn't a military invasion. You admit that Rome was attacking some tribes and not others... exactly how Rome conducted almost every invasion throughout it's history. The invasion of Britain was no different, nor Gaul, Noricum, Raetia, Moesia, Thracia, Pannonia, Asia and almost the entirety of the east and so on... It's how many Roman invasions were justified politically and conducted in the field. Divide and conquer.

 

Of course every Germanic tribe was not defeated, as evidenced by Rome's ultimate inability to hold Germania and continuing frontier problems throughout the imperial period. However, many were defeated, as told directly in the sources. Again I implore you to read Vellius Paterculus, a man who was actually there, fighting in battle. Military action is military action. Of course it was targeted at particular tribes... those that were not allied to Rome or those that chose to stand up against Roman military invasion.

 

I'll try to resist replying again because it's exasperating, but the evidence of the Roman campaigns prior to the destruction of Varus speaks for itself. Whether Augustus wanted peaceful taxation, colonization and stabilization of the frontier is not being challenged. The point is that it's not how it happened, regardless of whatever the intentions may have been.

[Kosmo]

OK, so what timeframe did you have in mind when you wrote:

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

 

I was indeed unclear here. I wanted to say "the spread of christianity outside of roman borders"

[Melvadius]

Romans were nasty neighbours.

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

<SNIP>

 

Not withstanding the other comments that have been posted I'm not sure that your opening statement is entirely correct. I haven't read Dumayne- Peaty's article for a while but given that regeneration of forestry was occuring before the Roman invasion of northern England/ Scotland and continued after they occupied the area this may argue more for pre-existing changes in farming practices rather than the results of specific Roman aggression.

 

The following link goes to a short abstract of key facts but anyone interested and with JSTOR access should be able to go on to read the full article:

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2656149

 

On another point I would say that your underlying premise is fairly specious as cultural influence does not require the adoptation of anything from a specific legal code. All along the length of the limes cross-cultural contact is extensively evident from the passage of Roman goods across the border with reciprocal trade into the empire. This should be evidence enough that other aspects of culture would have had had some degree of influence on both sides of the limes. However this would not necessarily be reflected in adoptation of specific laws - even if this occured, we usually have little idea (and no written record) of what the relevant laws may have been before and after contact so the argument to my mind is moot.

[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.

 

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.

 

Rome was indeed heavily influenced by Etruscan culture during the regnal period. But I was following your criteria and looking for something later (talking about 'after Augustus' is rather moving the goalposts - your original post did not mention any period, and anyway, Rome was an empire before it had an emperor). But actually I was talking about 90 BC (about 30 years before Augustus was born) when large parts of Etruria and the Samnite country were not only eager to adopt Roman culture, laws etc wholesale, but they actually went to war with Rome to get it. I'm not sure why the fact that these cultures had much in common half a millenium beforehand affects this point.

 

Ascaricus and Morogaisus are individuals I don't know much about, though if your first example of enemy leaders condemned to the beasts comes from the late Roman empire, this means it was hardly a habit. And, er, if we are talking about being nasty neighbours, didn't these two particular Franks invade Roman territory rather than vice-versa? Whilst Odahl is beyond doubt an excellent scholar, he probably was not about in Trier at the time, so could you have a peek in your book and give me his reference for his sources? (Eusibus perhaps?) It is certainly something I would like to know more about.

[Maty]

Incidentally, on Rome not encouraging the spread of Christianity as a form of Romanization, is this not what Theodosius did with encouraging the mission of Saint Mesrob in Persian Armenia in the early 400s? (Leaving out his missions elsewhere). I understood that Theodosius was keen to encourage Christianity in Armenia precisely because it Romanized the place, and the Persians persecuted Christians for the same reason. But I await your further corrections.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Maty

[caldrail]

The campaigns against the german tribes mentioned by Ursus were pacifications. I accept the confrontations took place, but my arguement is that Rome wasn't attacking everyone. As usual with Rome, they were attacking some and not others in a deliberate policy of disunification. Notice the germans weren't entirely defeated and that the whole point was to impress upon the german tribes that Rome was here and staying. Rome did not want a turbulent frontier - it wanted tax-payers. The triumphs given to generals conducting these campaigns aren't hugely significant. Under Augustus, triumphs were awarded liberally to maintain loalty amongst them.

 

This makes no sense. You've made the claim that the Roman occupation was almost entirely peaceful.

No, I said they were conducting their occupation in a peaceful manner. So they were. Varus was very keen to quell any rebellion - and whilst I agree that involves the use of force - the intention was to restore peace and quiet.

 

Then you claim that you accept the confrontations that took place, but still hold on to the notion that it wasn't a military invasion.

With Rome its hard to seperate the two, since they were a conquest state. However, the point is that the germans had little the romans could conquer. There weren't any cities, roads, established sources of raw materials, ports, or other infrastructure. A true military conquest in the roman fashion wasn't possible, and because the wilderness has the advantage that it has no border at the rear and thus its occupants can retreat further (in theory anyway) so territorial gain as such has no value. The romans did not invade in the classic sense. They were picking on individual tribes and giving them a bloody nose. Its rather like a new bully at school. He wanders into the playground and starts intimidating other kids from the start, to establish supremacy - and thats what it was all about. The romans weren't interested in thousands of square miles of mud and trees, and for all their awards and triumphs, who got credit for invading germania? No-one. Some got credit for subduing a particular tribe or two. Germania was a region, not a nation state. They wanted a secure border, not a bunch of potentially violent tribesmen.

 

The invasion of Britain was no different, nor Gaul, Noricum, Raetia, Moesia, Thracia, Pannonia, Asia and almost the entirety of the east and so on... It's how many Roman invasions were justified politically and conducted in the field. Divide and conquer.

The process of conquering Britain started with the sale of roman luxuries, much as had happened elsewhere. The germans by and large weren't interested. Also, the areas you list were more settled than Germania, with established communities, farms, and some measure of infrastructure that had some positive value to the romans.

 

Of course every Germanic tribe was not defeated, as evidenced by Rome's ultimate inability to hold Germania and continuing frontier problems throughout the imperial period. However, many were defeated, as told directly in the sources. Again I implore you to read Vellius Paterculus, a man who was actually there, fighting in battle. Military action is military action. Of course it was targeted at particular tribes... those that were not allied to Rome or those that chose to stand up against Roman military invasion.

Is there a difference between being defeated in battle and defeated on campaign? Was any german tribe subdued permanently? Incidentially, thanks for the tip. Where can I get a copy of Vellius Paterculus?

[Kosmo]

@Maty

Sorry, Odahl does not mention the primary source for the fate of the frankish leaders that were captured by Constantine on roman soil. Maybe that terror tactic was good but I doubt it.

Armenia was the first christian state starting from the traditional date of 301 while the christians within the empire still suffered persecutions. I have no info on Saint Mesrob.

 

@Meldavius

The mention of the increase of woodland in Scotland I took from Pollen Evidence for the Environment of Roman Britain, by Petra Dark Britannia

Edited June 5, 2008 by Kosmo

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, C

No, I said they were conducting their occupation in a peaceful manner. So they were. Varus was very keen to quell any rebellion - and whilst I agree that involves the use of force - the intention was to restore peace and quiet.

Lucius Anneus Florus didn't agree; here comes Epitomae, Liber II, cp. XXX:

 

Sed difficilius est provincias optinere quam facere; viribus parantur, iure retinerentur. Igitur breve id gaudium. Quippe Germani victi magis quam domini erant, moresque nostros magis quam arma sub imperatore Druso suspiciebant; postquam ille defunctus est, Vari Quintili libidinem ac superbiam haud secus quam saevitiam odisse coeperunt. Ausus ille agere conventum, et incautus edixerat, quasi violentiam barbarum lictoris virgis et praeconis voce posset inhibere.

 

But it is more difficult to retain provinces than to acquire them. They are obtained by force, but secured by justice. Our exultation was accordingly but short. The Germans had been defeated rather than subdued. Under the rule of Drusus they respected our manners rather than our arms. But when Drusus was dead, they began to detest the licentiousness and pride, no less than the cruelty, of Quintilius Varus. He ventured to call an assembly, and administered justice in his camp, as if he could restrain the violence of barbarians by the rods of a lictor and voice of a crier.

[caldrail]

Aaagh! A mortal blow! Point taken. However, I would still be cautious about accepting the word 'defeat' since the romans were inordinately proud of conquest and perhaps there's a little bit of propaganda here. After all, a general isn't going to go back to Augustus and the Senate saying 'Erm, sorry guys, we didn't quite manage it' unless he can help it. I'm reminded of the legionary commanders returning from the campaigns against Tacfarinas claiming his defeat and awarded triumphs only to hear he was active again.

 

You see, with the germans of this period there are those that do knucjkle under and accept roman rule - the romans state this clearly, and its probably none too unexpected. But there's always a sense that many of them move away from roman domination further into the forest and remain independent of them. For example, in britain you have the iron age hill fort culture. You have something similar in Gaul. These are fixed settlements with defensive attributes - a true miltary objective and if taken, then the area surrounding them is effectively conquered because the local economy is focused on these places. In germania, there were no such defensive settlements. You might argue this indicates a certain level of peaceful life - possibly - but the roman description of german aggression indicates not, and in any case, the germans did not build the defensive works common to the iron age celts. So what then is the roman military objective? A wilderness has no intrinsic value. One thing that roman writers stress is the desire for resources, which must necessarily come from certain sites, and Caesar himself was keen to discover british precious metals he had heard of (and failed to find evidence of). This is why I don't regard roman activity in Germania as an invasion. Although they did fight the germans prior to the varian Disaster, it was a series of piecemeal actions, not a campaign such as Caesar in Gaul or Agricola in Caledonia. The objectives were different. In most other places the 'invasion' assaults fortifications and such. In Germania, the romans content themselves with subduing enemy fighting spirit. Not quite the same - there's little sense of occupation.

 

I've made an analogy before about the american colonial past. Did the 7th Cavalry 'invade' the plains? I doubt they thought so, because the occupants were only 'injuns' who never really had permanent settlements anyway. I still sense a similar attitude with the romans toward the german tribes. They were simply there.

Edited June 6, 2008 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

I've made an analogy before about the american colonial past. Did the 7th Cavalry 'invade' the plains? I doubt they thought so, because the occupants were only 'injuns' who never really had permanent settlements anyway. I still sense a similar attitude with the romans toward the german tribes. They were simply there.

 

Romans and Germans were much closer in technology and lifestyle then indians and americans. They would have competed on anything from the little arable land to grazing lands, mineral resources, acces routes etc.

Caldrail I think you believe too much the roman sources about the lifestyle of germans. They had villages, agriculture, pottery, metal working, trade, ships, a large population etc. A village on the roman side up in the Vosges would have the same technological level like a village on the other (german) side of the Rhine. The difference was in cities, roads, forts, senatorial villas, use of coins, extent of the trade networks etc.

For sure there was not enough land for the needs of the germans and that's why they slowly expanded where they could before and after contact with Rome.

With meager resources available because of geographic conditions, as ermany beetwen Rhine and Elbe it's mostly mountains, and a climate that made crops produce a low yeld, romans taking the best land would have not gone unseen. The germans needed arable land to feed themselves and to feed their animals in the winter.

 

So when forced to live 10 miles from the Rhine a tribe will lose the best fields, flat and rich alluvional land, the source of fish and of water and acces to the greatest communications route. I can see why scraping a living in the poor, mountainous terrain above while overlooking their empty abandoned lands would make them angry towards the Romans.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Kosmo

[Northern Neil]

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.

Barbarian rule in Italy and parts of gaul was actually quite efficient. Odoacer and later the Ostrogoths maintained the status quo in Italy, so well that few people at the time realised a change had occured. Barbarian officials learnt latin, and some Franks in gaul were quite proud of their classical education and ability to speak latin. Justinian's reconquest, with its accompanying devastation, put a halt to this.