The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Roman Empire Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Didn't the Roman Principate Conquer and Hold Germany?
CJH    3/19/2005 8:48:07 PM
Roman army commanders under Augustus (Tiberias) and Tiberias (Germanicus) made deep inroads into Germany. Why didn't Rome carry through the conquest of Germany to completion and permanence?

My only idea is that any general good enough to conquer Germany was an instant candidate to replace the sitting emperor. That may have been the cause of Germanicus' untimely death.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
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
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy