Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Expanding the Empire

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by De-Loper (U2980293) on Friday, 22nd August 2008

  Does anyone have any evidence on regions which Rome activally tried to conquer and add to its empire yet didn't? I'm not talking about Scotland or the supposed invasion of Ireland. What I mean is was there any failed expansion attempts made into the Slavic regions or those previosuly conquered by Alexander I.
  
  As many of the Romans admired Alexander the Great, I was always suprised that they decided against further expansion East (excluding Crassus's miserable attempt at conquering Parthia; later aquired by Octavius I believe - I might be wrong).

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008

  Does anyone have any evidence on regions which Rome activally tried to conquer and add to its empire yet didn't? I'm not talking about Scotland or the supposed invasion of Ireland. What I mean is was there any failed expansion attempts made into the Slavic regions or those previosuly conquered by Alexander I.
  
  As many of the Romans admired Alexander the Great, I was always suprised that they decided against further expansion East (excluding Crassus's miserable attempt at conquering Parthia; later aquired by Octavius I believe - I might be wrong).Β 
  
  
  
  I was under the impression that the The Romans tended to be tolerant of foreign religions as long as they did not pose a significant threat to their authority.

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008

  Hi webplodder,
  
  I think it is regions rather than religions that are at issue here, although you are correct about Roman religious tolerance.
  
  In answer to the original question the emperor Trajan decided on a conquest of Parthia, partially because he was an admirer of Alexander and wished to emulate his conquests. He invaded through Armenia and according to tradition reached the Persian Gulf. In the early second century Rome didn't have the resources to hold on to this territory. His successor Hadrian gave up such Eastern conquests immediately, as well as considering Scotland beyond Rome's reach.
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008

  Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:31 GMT, in reply to De-Loper in message 1
  
  After the Teutoberg Disaster of AD9, the Romans effectively gave up trying to conquer the Germanic territories east of the Rhine. Although the lossof three legions was a terrible shock, I doubt it would have kept the Romans down for long; I suspect that the decision was ultimately based on 'too much effort for too little reward'.

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 24th August 2008

  It's hard to know where to begin the list of planned expansions that went wrong, there were so many - Rome was by no means consistent in its ability to expand at will (a view of Roman territorial acquisition unfairly encouraged by our introduction to the concept, normally via Caesar's Gallic escapades).
  
  But the emperor who wins the booby prize for most expansionist policies which went most disastrously wrong was probably Valens in the 4th century. Reading the history of his 14 year tenure of the office is like reading a textbook of how NOT to pursue empire. To be fair to him, his attempts to acquire greater Germania, Armenia and even Persia were forced on him by events over which he had little control, happened almost simultaneously (which would have taxed Roman military might in any century), and occurred against a backdrop of serious revolt within the empire in Celicia and amongst the Saracens of Palestine (which he put down, but with a consequent huge drain on military resources required elsewhere). Not only that but his tenure saw the first serious Hun invasion of Gothic lands and the beginning of the mass displacements of populations that were to wreck Roman hegemony in the centuries to come.
  
  On top of that his Gothic War meant by definition that he was at war with what had become the most fertile recruitment ground for Roman soldiery, meaning that any military disaster would have a two-fold impact on Rome's chances of military survival.
  
  His ignominous end at Adrianople was acknowledged even by contemporaries as a turning point in Rome's history. It could only go downhill after that. Ironic therefore that Rome's greatest attempt to expand on almost all fronts led not only to shrinkage, but to its eventual demise. Doubly ironic when you consider that Valens probably would never have embarked on his policies had he not been forced into it by external aggression. When emperors had the luxury of deciding such things in times of relative border peace they tended to Hadrian's view, and Valens might well have concurred.
  
  Unfortunately for him he was faced with the stark option of "expand or die", and in my view that could well be said to have been the governing principle to which all his predecessors in military and political leadership (with the exception of Caesar, and possibly Crassus) tended as a default stance. That in effect makes a lot of Rome's expansionist attempts, successful and unsuccessful, reactionary in nature, so it is no wonder that many of them did not in fact expand the territory at all (at least not always first time round).

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 24th August 2008

  Re: Message 5.
  
  Nordmann,
  
  thank you for this interesting message. And BTW: Good wine needs no bush...
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Sunday, 24th August 2008

  It is interesting that the part of the empire that suffered modt from Valen's mistakes was the part he didn't rule.

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th August 2008

  Germanics and Scottish were not that rich to offer anything of value while Parthians were too good for Romans to be capable to expand any more the Empire to any other length.

  Link to this forum: Expanding the Empire

  Report message8

Back to top