What made the Romans stop?

[ASCLEPIADES]

What made them stop?

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[longshotgene]

I would have to say they just had to stop. It is like a balloon. You can only blow it up so far before it pops. The same with the Romans or anyone else. Also, what do you stand to gain by conquering endless sand and pine trees? Remember, a large part of Germany, especially the northern part was swampy. It was an untamed land. Why would you want that? Plus, there comes a point when it is just not efficient. Look at the legion counts when the emperors you mentioned had those extra lands. Caesar Augustus originally had around fifty legions, which he then cut down to around 25-27. He put a cap on it like America's George Washington did with his terms of presidency. He also stated that the borders of Rome should never progress past those he created. But look what happened. Cladius conquered Britain. Trajan conquered ungodly amounts of land and people. And Hadrian gave most of it back. Why did he give it back? It was too much to handle without a valuable reason for keeping it. Does this make sense? I hiked Hadrian's Wall this summer and visited a ton of arch. sites. I can tell you, the Romans were only interested in prime real estate. The area around Hadrian's Wall was pushing it.

[Klingan]

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?

 

I get the impression that very many powerful men tried to make them self more powerful, wealthy and give them self more status by military conquest, all under a face of defensive wars. It's easier to convince people that a war is necessary if the enemy are a threat, then just saying that they wanted to conquer land and glory.

[Primus Pilus]

At 116 AD (869 AUC), after defeating Osroes I and capturing Seleucia, Babylon, Ctesiphon and Susa, Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus ruled over some 5,700,000 km2, maybe reaching the Persian Gulf...

 

What made them stop? What do you think?

 

Rome at it's greatest extant is a bit misleading. There's no question that Trajan's campaigns in the east were successful against the Parthian army, but the real issue was the inability to secure their rear after these massive conquests. The newly acquired territory was Roman in theory, but the inhabitants disagreed. Massive revolts were still taking place (especially among the Jews) and Mesopotamia was never fully incorporated into the empire. Within a few years of the expansion, Hadrian abandoned it as untenable.

 

Rome may have been able to continue the expansion at times (as evidenced by the reign of Septimius Severus), but internal strife invariably forced cessation of such plans. Whether it was revolts of the people, or the breakdown of imperial succession (and resulting civil war), Rome was forced to stop expansion by the inability to maintain peace within it's own borders.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Diminishing returns on investment explains why Rome stopped expanding northward, southward, and westward--but not eastward. Just look at the massive loot acquired by Septimius Severus by taking Ctesiphon in Parthia. In the long run, expansion to the Indus River Valley could have turned the Indo-Parthian empire into another Roman Africa--rich, productive, and peaceful. Furthermore, Roman Parthia would have broadened the conduit from Rome to China, thereby benefitting both.

 

Unfortunately, Rome was too busy wasting its money and manpower on Caesar's stupid expansions into iron-age nations that were easy to defeat because there was nothing worthwhile to gain.

[Ingsoc]

Diminishing returns on investment explains why Rome stopped expanding northward, southward, and westward--but not eastward. Just look at the massive loot acquired by Septimius Severus by taking Ctesiphon in Parthia. In the long run, expansion to the Indus River Valley could have turned the Indo-Parthian empire into another Roman Africa--rich, productive, and peaceful. Furthermore, Roman Parthia would have broadened the conduit from Rome to China, thereby benefitting both.

 

Unfortunately, Rome was too busy wasting its money and manpower on Caesar's stupid expansions into iron-age nations that were easy to defeat because there was nothing worthwhile to gain.

 

I don't think it's this simple, even if the Roman army manage to defeat the Parthian army (who was probably the only one who could be considered a decent rival to Rome) there still the issue of controlling a massive population who is so much culturally diffrent and wouldn't have bow down to the might of the Roman legions (as the revolts in the Parthian terrirtories Trajan conquered prove)

Edited August 29, 2007 by Ingsoc

[ASCLEPIADES]

I don't think it's this simple, even if the Roman army manage to defeat the Parthian army (who was probably the only one who could be considered a decent rival to Rome) there still the issue of controlling a massive population who is so much culturally and wouldn't have bow down to the might of the Roman legions (as the revolts in the Parthian terrirtories Trajan conquered prove)

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

Well there still the big problem of assimilating huge population who is culturally diffrent and would resist Roman rule.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Diminishing returns on investment explains why Rome stopped expanding northward, southward, and westward--but not eastward. Just look at the massive loot acquired by Septimius Severus by taking Ctesiphon in Parthia. In the long run, expansion to the Indus River Valley could have turned the Indo-Parthian empire into another Roman Africa--rich, productive, and peaceful. Furthermore, Roman Parthia would have broadened the conduit from Rome to China, thereby benefitting both.

 

Unfortunately, Rome was too busy wasting its money and manpower on Caesar's stupid expansions into iron-age nations that were easy to defeat because there was nothing worthwhile to gain.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well there still the big problem of assimilating huge population who is culturally diffrent and would resist Roman rule.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Rome at it's greatest extant is a bit misleading. There's no question that Trajan's campaigns in the east were successful against the Parthian army, but the real issue was the inability to secure their rear after these massive conquests. The newly acquired territory was Roman in theory, but the inhabitants disagreed. Massive revolts were still taking place (especially among the Jews) and Mesopotamia was never fully incorporated into the empire. Within a few years of the expansion, Hadrian abandoned it as untenable.

 

Rome may have been able to continue the expansion at times (as evidenced by the reign of Septimius Severus), but internal strife invariably forced cessation of such plans. Whether it was revolts of the people, or the breakdown of imperial succession (and resulting civil war), Rome was forced to stop expansion by the inability to maintain peace within it's own borders.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

What made the Persian revolts essentially different from the myriad of revolts in other provinces?

 

Good question.

 

Also, I don't see the revolts in Judaea as indicative of much except the incompatibility of polytheism and monotheism. Since the Parthians were polytheist, I don't see why it should have been any more difficult for Rome to control this area than for the Greek Seleucids, who ruled for two centuries.

 

Nor do I see how Parthian cultural differences were any obstacle to Roman rule: the Romans were normally great at accommodating foreign cultures, including Carthaginian, Iberian, Egyptian, and most of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire. If the Romans could control this motley bunch, why not Parthia too?

 

Moreover--and I think this is the critical issue--Parthia would have been a good trading partner for Rome. The markets of the Roman Empire would have given Parthian merchants and aristocrats a compelling interest to keep things peaceful. This is one reason that Roman Africa, Egypt, and Asia was vastly less costly to maintain than Roman Britain.

[Primus Pilus]

Unfortunately, Rome was too busy wasting its money and manpower on Caesar's stupid expansions into iron-age nations that were easy to defeat because there was nothing worthwhile to gain.

 

I recall that the relative value of adding Britain to the empire was discussed around here somewhere, and I concur that expansion there was ultimately less advantageous than eastern expansion, but I'm not convinced that Caesar's conquest of Gaul was inherently too costly to allow for campaigns in the east. There was certainly no great financial boon in terms of gold, but we know there was at least enough alternative resources (sale of slaves, etc.) to finance Caesar's political agenda and the launching of his civil war. Clearly Rome would've been better served if that wealth had been used in other ways, but the conquest itself was not necessarily an economic mistake. Considering the generally stable political and social environment in Gaul dating from 50 BC through to the fall of the west, and adding it's value as a grain producer, it would seem that at worst Gaul was at least self-sufficient.

 

We can obviously see that the conquest of Gaul didn't stop Crassus, Antonius, Nero (via Corbulo), Trajan, M. Aurelius (with L. Verus), Severus, etc. from invading Parthia or Parthian interests (Armenia). So the question left to answer is, had Rome not needed to fortify the Rhenus on a permanent basis for 5 centuries, would there have been more resources available to complete the eastern conquests or would said forces have just occupied fortifications along the Alps and the Rhodanus anyway? Of course, if we factor in the ultimately futile campaigns of Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus against the Germanics (campaigns that never would've taken place without the conquest of Gaul) we have a clear example of how resources could've been better used elsewhere.

[M. Porcius Cato]

PP is right that Gaul wasn't a sinkhole as big as Brittania, which gobbled up a quarter of the Roman army with only a tinkling trickle of tin in re-payment, but the defense of Gaul from Germania made it much less valuable than the East.

 

Economically, Crassus had the right idea.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Unfortunately, Rome was too busy wasting its money and manpower on Caesar's stupid expansions into iron-age nations that were easy to defeat because there was nothing worthwhile to gain.

So the question left to answer is, had Rome not needed to fortify the Rhenus on a permanent basis for 5 centuries, would there have been more resources available to complete the eastern conquests or would said forces have just occupied fortifications along the Alps and the Rhodanus anyway? Of course, if we factor in the ultimately futile campaigns of Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus against the Germanics (campaigns that never would've taken place without the conquest of Gaul) we have a clear example of how resources could've been better used elsewhere.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES