Peisistratus

I'm eager to see your reasoning and evaluate it. Although, it appears that we have different understandings of the word "reflexive." There is nothing "reflexive" about supporting conquest because it consolidates a long border and shifts the boundaries upon a much more defensible terrain. That is a response with a sound reasoning. As Vespasian points out, the Rhine upheld its part of the bargain to the very end: it was the granting of lands to the foederati on the near side of the Rhine and Danube that ultimately did in the defensive value of the border upon these two rivers, not an armed amphibious assault by either the Franks or the Goths. Please do me justice in your replies. Explain how a consolidated border and the resources from Gaul and Britannia would not be useful to an Empire. Also propose how Rome might have made nice with the Germans, who had already destroyed several legions on a rampage through Narbonensis and Spain that was narrowly checked at Sextiae Aquae just as the Germans had turned their eye on Italia as their next plum.

I am astounded. It was a brilliant move for Rome. Conquest usually is, and if we seem to be of the opinion these days that conquest is usually more trouble than it is worth, then this sentiment only gains such wide currency because we in the modern world have forgotten how to do it properly. Frankly, the question is as puzzling as being asked whether America would have been richer, had it not slaughtered the American Indians and gained all the territories beyond the Appalachians; or whether Islam would have spread better, had Umar and the various Ummayyads played nice with their neighbors instead of marching armies from Nahavand to Poitiers; or whether.... But anyway, let's return to the Gallic War. How did it precipitate the Germanic invasions? The Germans were war-like peoples who were bent on expansion. The Rhine is actually a very nice barrier to invasions and much more defensible than the earlier position of the Roman border, in which Narbonensis lies beyond the defensible Alps and the Spanish holdings have no solid land route connecting them to Rome. Considering that the Germans were already invading the Gauls from across the Rhine, and that they would continue to press severely upon the Rhine border over the next four centuries even despite its defensible qualities, how long would an unconsolidated Roman empire with a long border strung out across southern Gaul from the Alps to the Pyrenees have lasted whilst Ariovistus and his successors were playing footsy with it? (Btw, I like Primus Pilus' reductio ad absurdum argument that Rome would have been best to remain under the dominance of the Tarquin kings.)

Latin composition is full of pitfalls. Most the translations here are not quite right. However, that is the norm, because we are all foreigners to the language. We should be content if we merely strike close. However, I will point out a few useful things that I immediately notice. I have no wish to make enemies with my first post, but we can all learn from this discussion. Quattor nos inducant in conservatum et victoriam. The word may is often an auxilliary verb indicating a subjunctive mood: inducant rather than inducunt. Never use the dative when the sense is that of a movement toward. I use the preposition in because ad only implies upto the point and not all the way into. It is a cruel thing to go upto the point of victory and yet not cross into it. Quattor pronuntiaverunt, et iudicium dederunt. The word loquor is a deponent and must never be conjugated as a normal verb would. Always treat it as though it were passive, even though its English equivalent is not passive: locuti sunt. However, the meaning of spoken is more imperious than a mere chit-chat, requiring a stronger word. I choose pronuntiare. When I have time, I will put together some most helpful tips for composition into Latin--which is much harder than translation from Latin.