Jove said:
Like I said. The Emperors weren't overly interested in expanding the frontier, just maintaining it.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Like I said. The Emperors weren't overly interested in expanding the frontier, just maintaining it.
Yes, I believe it was Drusus that was sent to stabilize the frontir after the retreat to the Rhine.Karl Martell said:
I am not even sure that Rome really ever gave up on this idea, even after 15 AD.
I think that Rome's rulers would have expanded the borders If and only if the Emperor could have done it himself like Trajan. Most military rulers were struggling after Trajan just to maintain the borders against repeated attacks from Marcus Arelius on.
The problem of expanding an empire is the personal one of the emperor: whom can he send on the conquest?
If he goes by himself, it is probable that he finds an usurper upon his return to Rome (more so if the campaign was not a success with the lightning speed, which was close to impossible in Persia nor in Germania).
If he sends a good general, will this general return to Rome after his victory or carve an empire for himself from his conquest? And if the general and the huge victorious army appears before the gates of the City, won't they be tempted to replace the emperor?
No, the life of an emperor is not an easy one.
If he goes by himself, it is probable that he finds an usurper upon his return to Rome (more so if the campaign was not a success with the lightning speed, which was close to impossible in Persia nor in Germania).
If he sends a good general, will this general return to Rome after his victory or carve an empire for himself from his conquest? And if the general and the huge victorious army appears before the gates of the City, won't they be tempted to replace the emperor?
No, the life of an emperor is not an easy one.
Browning said:
Better question: by the time of the Kaesars, what was there worth conquering?
Was pre Roman Spain or Gaul or Britian really all that worth them taking to begin with?Yakman said:
Jove said:
Spain had rich mines. Gaul had a lot of potential, and you didn't want the Germans coming through there anymore. Britain was a threat to Gaul...
There was amber along the baltic, and rich sources of fish. I think you can make an argument for natural resources anywhere, but this was more developed after Rome moved in.
Also, Rome didn't need to take Spain and Gaul and Britian to get those resources, not when she could trade for anything she needed.
Also, Rome didn't need to take Spain and Gaul and Britian to get those resources, not when she could trade for anything she needed.
According to Discovery, Britain was a great exporter of wheat even before the Roman conquest.
the reason for the roman sucses is that every other country at that time was more or less a city state. the etrurian culture was declining and rome took atwantainse. after the siege of the veii city state romes sise became 5 times bigger and it became a real italian power the smaller etrurian states were easy to anex after that
I think Jamie was meaning before Rome expanded outside of the Italian Penisula.panderson said:
even then. the southern states were in a league against rome, while the etruscans were unified.
the etruskians werent unified. and yes i mean how did they get bigenogh to go to war against the bigger countries. ofcourse rome did have the military tactics. i wonder did they use the same tactics in the beginning
rome improved on existing tactics found in italy. what was most important to rome's success was its good governance and strong leaders. they were beaten on the battlefield a whole bunch of times, but they always bounced back because ROME was strong.
Yakman said:
Sorry to correct you, but Julius Caesar DID decide to attack Parthia. That's one if not THE reason why he got killed!
He had already mustered part of his forces and was about to leave the city in a few days, to avange Karrhae and Crassus, and step in the footprints of Alexander the Great.
Many feared (rightfully so), that he simply would be untouchable after conquering Parthia, and abolish the republic. So they had to act very soon, it was perhaps their last chance to "safe" the republic.
o PS: AFAIK there were rumors in urban rome that he planed to even surpass Alexander the Gr., by not just conquering Parthia but the whole oekomenos (making a really gigantic bow from Parthia through Skythia[south russia] till germania and finally return to rome). Now I doubt he would have succeded, and the romans would have never been able to eben hold Parthia for long, but it sure SOUNDS impressive!
The Romans would have held Parthia. Just like the Greeks did.
I meant that he could have left earlier. He didn't need to stay in the city for so long. His main powerbase was in the provinces and with the legions, although the Roman mob also favored him.
I meant that he could have left earlier. He didn't need to stay in the city for so long. His main powerbase was in the provinces and with the legions, although the Roman mob also favored him.
Personally speaking the Romans always had problems at the centre. During the middle to late Republic there problem was that their system of Government was that of a city state but they rulled an Empire, when you had a state like Carthage on your doorstep it kept everyone focussed on staying alive, but after they went the Rebulic needed to reform its army, but refused to do it. So you had armies that relied on it's General for land after their service was ended and so the men ended up being more loyal to the General than the state, people like Marius and Sulla exploited this and where they lead others followed.
During the Imperial era the problem was the minute the current guy at the top looked weak some guy commanding an army thought they had a good chance of getting the top job and civil war was the result. If the Romans had stayed united they could of pushed the frontier to the Elbe, and they would fo stood a better chance against the great invasions. Instead they wore themselves out.
During the Imperial era the problem was the minute the current guy at the top looked weak some guy commanding an army thought they had a good chance of getting the top job and civil war was the result. If the Romans had stayed united they could of pushed the frontier to the Elbe, and they would fo stood a better chance against the great invasions. Instead they wore themselves out.
Why did the republic need to reform the army after the victory over carthage? there were no major military threats until the germanic invasions, and Marius instituted the needed reforms in his first consulship. His reforms were the only way to overcome the manpower problem that plagued the republic. Citizens were more than willing to fight Hannibal, but were much more recalcitrant about fighting tribesmen in Gaul or Spain. By having the state pay for equipment and giving land to veterans, the poor of Rome were able to fight for the state, and they provided the bulk of the soldiery from then on. It was a wonderful idea. The major problem was how the generals were chosen, not how the men were selected.
had the army not been reformed, Rome would have had to withdraw from its empire and occupy only Italy for want of soldiers.
had the army not been reformed, Rome would have had to withdraw from its empire and occupy only Italy for want of soldiers.