Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

culprit217 RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/1/2005 12:32:49 PM

Excellent reasons all...but it comes to this. The Germans tribes were too tough and the expense in blood and money was just not worth the effort to the empire. I seriously doubt Rome could have taken the tribes at any expense anyway in consideration of the climate and the terrain. It would have been a campaign that would have drained the Empire empty. Besides, all they had to do is wait and eventually the tribes would come to Rome...as they, in essence, ultimately did in 405 AD..hehe

Quote Reply

Burncycle RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/6/2005 12:53:29 AM

Was it just terrain that enabled tribes to defeat the army? At the time, how would you deal with the threat? Just raze their territory from one end to the other to avoid fighting them on their terms, or was that too not practical ;)

Quote Reply

Pars RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/6/2005 5:33:51 PM

It is easier to conquer a place when there is a central authority as the people accustomed to obey a central figure as long as their life style is not changed. For that reason it was easier to conquer the mighty Persian Empire than to conquer Germany. Against Persia you only need to destroy the armies of the Empire, the land would surrender to the victor by itself. But against Germany you need to defeat every single tribe again and again.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/10/2005 3:57:56 PM

Of course the same should have applied to the various Gaullic tribes also when Caesar conquered them. Although it is true what you say about a centralized state, every variety of political constitution must have its own individual weaknesses. While it is true the Germanic tribes were at that time able to terrorize the Gauls because the Gauls had become less warlike, Rome could have used the same divide and conquer strategy on the Germans that Caesar used in Gaul. By the way, there were a few German tribes in the south that were allied to Rome as it was. About the Germans around the time of Hadrian, have you read "Agricola and Germania" by Tacitus? The Germania part describes the Germans in fair detail. Agricola was a Roman general who pacified Britain. About the Gauls visa-vis the Germans, I have read that the Boi were a Celtic tribe which lived among the Germans and kept them in fear. Bohemia is named after them.

Quote Reply

Pars RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/10/2005 6:51:13 PM

Germans also had one advantage over Gauls. Gauls in France did not have the great Germany forest. Which makes hit and run strategy more easy. I did not read "Agricola and Germania" yet. I like to in the future.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 12/10/2005 9:22:40 PM

I think another reason that Rome did not conquer Germania is that then armies of Rome were not led by a commander of genius like Julius Gaius Caesar.

Quote Reply

Malleus RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 3/9/2006 6:25:29 PM

I agree that a good general like julius Ceasar would have helped, but if you lose a big chunk of your army in one go i n fact your entire army in a particular sector you have to pull forces from else where until you can replace the losses and then you are on the back foot and there is never enough time money or manpower,so you have to draw a line and stand behind it.[try playing rome total war you will soon know what im talking about].

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany? 3/10/2006 10:58:12 AM

While reading over a book on the Roman world from the 2nd century BC to the third century AD, I came across a characterization of Augustus' policy on the size of the Roman army. There wasn't any more than a sentence or two on this and I didn't write it down. The size of the army was reduced to less than half during Augustus' rule (From 60 to 20 something legions). Other changes which seemed to account for this were ones that increased the expense of keeping soldiers in the army. One was a retirement pension which was begun during Augustus' reign. Could it be that the failure to replace those 3 legions wiped in Germany was due to there being pre-existing plans to reduce the size of the army? Again, I have to wonder if the reasons for the empire not conquering Germany were domestic and political.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 3/20/2011 12:59:20 PM

Well there is new scientific evidence that Roman legions did cross into Germany after 9. AD occasionally, but never tried to establish any long-term posts behind the Limes. What we have to consider is that the Romans not only lost 3 legions in the Teutoburg forest, but they also suddenly lost support of the bulk of their German auxillary forces which made up a great part of the strengh of the Roman Army in Germania. Arminius himself and his German ("Roman" riders all made up by "Germanic" origin) troops were actually Roman officers that simply defected after serving the Roman Army their whole life, learning all tactics and behaviour of the Roman Legions. After the tribes knew how to defeat Rome, were unified by Arminius and prooved they could adopt and carry out precise plans to trap and battle a whole Roman Army on a strech of more than 40 kilometers, the Romans must have realized they would not be able to score any more "easy" victories against the "barbarians". Than add the propaganda (Tacitus report of the recovery of the dead of Varus legions, hundereds of skulls nailed to trees, sacrificed Officers rotting on piles etc) that must have convinced the Romans that there would be nothing useful in Germany for them than uncivilized brutes, bad weather and dark swampy forests.

Quote Reply

CJH 3/20/2011 7:55:31 PM

In the campaign of the year af...

Evidently, the Romans had, before this, demonstrated an inclination and an ability to traverse Germany.

But Augustus must have been compelled by some form of weakness to so significantly reduce his military expendatures.

If a big consideration was that he did not want to have to rely on the loyalty of a sizeable army that would be one manifestation of weakness.

I just thought it might be worth speculating that it was an inherent weakness in the political constitution of the principate that was the reason. If this was not the only reason then it may have ensured that Rome would not attempt to subdue Germany.

Although there was not any "there" there (Germany), the Romans would have considered that Germany would be open the inroads of some potential rival were they not to assert their own control there. Perhaps they felt secure that no potential rival could establish a presence on German soil or that they could wait until that was attempted before worrying about it.

Certainly, the Parthians would have been out of place there. But centuries later Huns were at least in the neighborhood.

Quote Reply

1 2