Could the Roman Empire have gotten bigger?

[hongi]

I don't mean a slight change in the borders, I mean big expansionary pushes, beyond the Elbe for example or even wilder schemes. Was it possible to do this within the Julian-Claudian era?

[weemadando]

I often wonder how different things might have been if they'd managed to push up to the North coast of Europe - in other words, what would have happened had there been success instead of failure in the early campaigns on the Rhine. The negation of a lot of the threats from the North and opening up of more productive land to reduce the reliance on Egyptian grain.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The answer is yes--the Danube/Rhine frontier was ridiculously long, and in terms of a defensible perimeter they could have expanded to different lines, incorporating most of Europe, that would be more easily defensible.

[Guardsman Bass]

How far inland are we talking beyond the Elbe? Like to the Dnieper, or something like that?

[Wanderer]

The answer is yes--the Danube/Rhine frontier was ridiculously long, and in terms of a defensible perimeter they could have expanded to different lines, incorporating most of Europe, that would be more easily defensible.

Doesn't solve their manpower problems though.

Hmm, maybe if the Romans took the Steam Engine more seriously rather than thinking its a toy...

[Maxentius]

How far inland are we talking beyond the Elbe? Like to the Dnieper, or something like that?

Historically, there were small Roman outposts on the Crimean Peninsula. The Dniepnr might not be totally impossible, but I could say that the Oder, hinged upon a conquered Dacia, might be a more likely point.

Also, expansion in the east was certainly possible. While the total subjugation of the Parthian/Sassanid Empire would be no easy task, integrating a large state, or portions of it, already used to central rule, may be easier than a succession of barbarian magnates in the northeast.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The answer is yes--the Danube/Rhine frontier was ridiculously long, and in terms of a defensible perimeter they could have expanded to different lines, incorporating most of Europe, that would be more easily defensible.

Doesn't solve their manpower problems though.

Hmm, maybe if the Romans took the Steam Engine more seriously rather than thinking its a toy...

No, just no. The Roman Empire lacked the metallurgy, the concentration of industry, the organization of industry, and the mindset needed to sustain an industrial revolution. For the investment of material and manpower the Romans would've needed to complete a single industrially useful steam engine, they could've gotten a lot of tools/weapons/pots/building stones laid down/etc. Ergo, to the Roman mindset, the opportunity cost to develop a mechanized industry would've been far too great for them to pay.

[Desdinova]

A better question is: would anyone have even had an interest in further expansion? With the exception of a few conquest-minded Emperors (we're looking at you Trajan), most leaders operated under the general attitude that any further expansion was vastly more costly than it was worth. The further out into the desert you get, or the northern forests, the less you really see worth pursuing. Rome had just about all they needed by the 1st Century AD, frankly, and then some. And as history proved, the bigger your borders are, the more difficult it is to adequately finance their defense over a long period of time.

What would it have taken, in terms of resources outside the Roman borders, to motivate them towards conquering it?

[Maxentius]

What would it have taken, in terms of resources outside the Roman borders, to motivate them towards conquering it?

Roman expansion was almost always focused on the conquest and absorption (wholly or by proxy) of mostly centralized states with pre-existing governments and a decent length of history as independent kingdoms. Carthage, Macedonia, the Greek poleis, Pontus, Egypt, etc. It's only when you get personalities who seek conquest for its own sake, such as Caesar's subjugation of Gaul, Augustus' forays into Germany and Trajan's conquest of Dacia, that you see large-scale operations against tribal foes meant to subdue them and incorporate the populace into the Roman state.

In my opinion, if there had been semi-centralized kingdoms of some repute in the area of Germany and the like, Rome would have been more inclined to conquer them. Not only does this mean that their infrastructure can be suborned (conquering an already built-up area is vastly preferable to having to build it up yourself), but it provides political motivation to utterly destroy a potential enemy, something that Rome was very big on.

[Guardsman Bass]

What about eastward into the Indus River valley and then the Indian subcontinent? There were some reasonably centralized states once you get past the Parthians - India was under the Satavahana dynasty until 220 CE.

[weemadando]

What about eastward into the Indus River valley and then the Indian subcontinent? There were some reasonably centralized states once you get past the Parthians - India was under the Satavahana dynasty until 220 CE.

Too far, supply lines too long, not really viable.

[Maxentius]

Getting past the Parthians is also a problem in of itself.

[Setzer]

IIRC, one problem the Parthians had that the Sassanids didn't was their location. The Parthians were mainly Mesopotamian based , and the Sassanids had Persia as their economic center. Thusly, the Romans were always able to force the Parthians to the negotiating table by successfully besieging cities in this territory. While Mesopotamia is within easy striking distance for Rome, Persia proper requires a far more involved effort. With a long campaign, a dedicated effort, and capable leaders, I'm certain Rome can conquer Parthia, or at least subdue them, but after Augustus, the Emperors didn't want rival generals forging a reputation for themselves conquering a great swathe of land. The last guy to do that was Julius Caesar, and we know how that fucked up the existing social order in Rome.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

IIRC, one problem the Parthians had that the Sassanids didn't was their location. The Parthians were mainly Mesopotamian based , and the Sassanids had Persia as their economic center. Thusly, the Romans were always able to force the Parthians to the negotiating table by successfully besieging cities in this territory. While Mesopotamia is within easy striking distance for Rome, Persia proper requires a far more involved effort. With a long campaign, a dedicated effort, and capable leaders, I'm certain Rome can conquer Parthia, or at least subdue them, but after Augustus, the Emperors didn't want rival generals forging a reputation for themselves conquering a great swathe of land. The last guy to do that was Julius Caesar, and we know how that fucked up the existing social order in Rome.

I believe both empires had Cestiphon as their capitals. The only difference was the Sassanid was far more energy than the Parthians and far more expansionist.

[hongi]

What about south, into Nubia?

[Maxentius]

IIRC, one problem the Parthians had that the Sassanids didn't was their location. The Parthians were mainly Mesopotamian based , and the Sassanids had Persia as their economic center. Thusly, the Romans were always able to force the Parthians to the negotiating table by successfully besieging cities in this territory. While Mesopotamia is within easy striking distance for Rome, Persia proper requires a far more involved effort. With a long campaign, a dedicated effort, and capable leaders, I'm certain Rome can conquer Parthia, or at least subdue them, but after Augustus, the Emperors didn't want rival generals forging a reputation for themselves conquering a great swathe of land. The last guy to do that was Julius Caesar, and we know how that fucked up the existing social order in Rome.

I believe both empires had Cestiphon as their capitals. The only difference was the Sassanid was far more energy than the Parthians and far more expansionist.

Ecbatana was the capitol of the early Parthian state. It was moved to Ctesiphon about 150BC, if memory serves correctly.

Both the Parthian and Sassanid Empires controlled roughly the same stretch of territory, the difference is mostly a dynastic one, politics aside. The Arsacid Parthians were natives of Parthia, south of the Caspian Sea, whereas their Sassanid successors originated in region of Persis, around the modern Fars Province.

[Thanas]

What about south, into Nubia?

Why would they want to? It was far easier to bribe those uncivilized tribes into doing the dirty work for them.

Doesn't solve their manpower problems though.

What manpower problems? The Romans were able to field the biggest standing army in the whole world for centuries.

Historically, there were small Roman outposts on the Crimean Peninsula. The Dniepnr might not be totally impossible, but I could say that the Oder, hinged upon a conquered Dacia, might be a more likely point.

I am going to say a definite "no" here, since there was a scenario with Commodus when he had the opportunity to annex the defeated sarmatians and wisely decided not to.

The fact of the matter is that expansion was simply too costly and that - unlike today - germany was crawling with woods, swamps etc. You would have had to start civilization from scratch, which would have been way too costly. Spain and Gaul were rich provinces so that was a different context.

Augustus made an excellent head start, but he was overextended already. When the empire could safely expand again - under Trajan - he chose dacia for the single reason that it was a) the richest germanic tribe (and that says something) and b) the dacians were making trouble.

You won't find riches in germany (besides those Rome could easily obtain by trade, e.g. amber and slaves) and most people forget that the major germanic tribes were either allied with rome or paid tribute to Rome, even while not being part of the empire. The Frisi were one example of this.

Also, expansion in the east was certainly possible. While the total subjugation of the Parthian/Sassanid Empire would be no easy task, integrating a large state, or portions of it, already used to central rule, may be easier than a succession of barbarian magnates in the northeast.

The Romans had their hands full with Ossrhoene and Armenia already. I cannot see how they would manage to defend themselves against the barbarians and expand eastwards even more. A funny thing is that Rome had the chance to annex Armenia several times in history and did not take it. Guess they just thought it would be too costly.

[Wanderer]

Doesn't solve their manpower problems though.

What manpower problems? The Romans were able to field the biggest standing army in the whole world for centuries.

Oh the fact that their borders required some three million men to defend properly and their total manpower in arms did not often exceed 500,000 men.

Still to keep so many enemies at bay as they did, is nothing less than impressive.

[Thanas]

Doesn't solve their manpower problems though.

What manpower problems? The Romans were able to field the biggest standing army in the whole world for centuries.

Oh the fact that their borders required some three million men to defend properly and their total manpower in arms did not often exceed 500,000 men.

Still to keep so many enemies at bay as they did, is nothing less than impressive.

On what book do you base this on? Is this a new theory or are you repeating that outdated theory from 30 years ago?

Anyway, I am not a fan of that theory due to the fact that for 400 years the empire managed just fine with ~ 400-750.000 soldiers. It also ignores the abrupt mobilization and speed of the Roman army.

[weemadando]

In my RPG which I'm working on, the Roman's pushed North to Denmark and the Northern European coast and East to the Black Sea. That removes a lot of the early barbarian threats and gives them a big grain basket/


Eventually (given that they in the setting have reached an industrial revolution point) could look at pushing to the Urals to effectively encompass a massive, fertile and productive area. Not to mention being able to cut the many West Asian groups out of the Silk Road by being able to import around them rather than having to go through the traditional route.

[hongi]

What about south, into Nubia?

Why would they want to? It was far easier to bribe those uncivilized tribes into doing the dirty work for them.

To get wealthier I suppose. Nubia was a rich source of gold and electrum, and it was also a trading point between central Africa and Egypt for other resources like frankincense and animals.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

To get wealthier I suppose. Nubia was a rich source of gold and electrum, and it was also a trading point between central Africa and Egypt for other resources like frankincense and animals.

Well, you have the Egyptian merchants who no doubt had dealings with the Nubians.

[Thanas]

What about south, into Nubia?

Why would they want to? It was far easier to bribe those uncivilized tribes into doing the dirty work for them.

To get wealthier I suppose. Nubia was a rich source of gold and electrum, and it was also a trading point between central Africa and Egypt for other resources like frankincense and animals.

True. I am not an expert in Nubian history so my knowledge is most likely to remain rather superficial, but here's what I gather would most likely to be happening.

First of all we would have to look at the time period. If this is up to 300-350 AD the Romans would face the Meroitic kingdom which had managed to gaining a treaty of alliance after the Romans had mounted an expedition against it in 24? BC if memory serves correctly. I am not sure why Rome would move against the kingdom of Meroë since it guaranteed stability in the region. If they wanted to, they would have to mount quite a massive expedition and also make sure to - after a succesful conquest - to guard against the desert nomads.

The most likely time for the invasion would therefore be after the fragmentation in the kingdom. Yet then we have the Blemmyes, Nobadae and other raiding coalitions forming which in reality forced the romans to pull back the frontier in the late 3rd century. In history, the ERE dealt with them with a substantial border guard in Philae and also used Philae as something of a religious or ideological control, the details are admittedly unknown to me. I also have to wonder where the Romans would take the resources or troops from necessary to mount an expedition.

So let's skip all those centuries up to Justinian, which is the first time I can see the Roman empire having enough power to expand again. Yet a move to Nubia would be against Justinians ideology of being the restitutor orbis, the reconquerer of the lost territories in the west.

However, Justinian did bolster the defense in the area, even going so far to appoint Narses Kamsarakan (not to be confused by Narses Cubicularius, who oversaw the final conquest of Italy) to the defense. He also apparently ordered him to close the last pagan temple in the area, the pagan temple of Philae. After this, the Romans started a missionary program in the area which ended with the conversion of the Nubians to christianity. One can see a familiar strategy here - using culture and religion to control potential enemies.


Now, lets say we introduce a POD here and decide that Justinian did not only order the mission to Nubia, but also a conquest of the area. Then there are several problems the empire would have to face:

- logistics, which is the biggest obstacle here. The Byzantines would have to support an army several hundreds of miles away from major population centers.
- desert warfare, with the nubians being very skilled in archery. During the time of the arab conquest (who were no mean archers themselves), the Nubians were the first people who succesfully resisted the arab expansion to the west/south.
- once the byzantine manage to take a populated "city" of the Nubians, they would then have to deal with guerrilla warfare if the nubians have no inclination to surrender. It should be worth noting that the Arabs were quite content to leave them in peace for a nominal tribute and a single mosque to be built - and this is at the height of the arab expansion so the Nubians must have really scared them off IMO.

Giving those factors, I am not sure if a Byzantine expedition or invasion would have fared better than the arab one. In the event that it does, however, the gains would have been lost due to the arab storm. I am therefore not sure if an invasion would have been beneficial to the empire in the long run.

Now, I suppose one can make a different story, say, during the time of Antoninus Pius the Romans decide to attack the kingdom. With the empire at its height, I do not doubt that they could have eventually taken the kingdom. Yet I wonder if it would be worth the expense in resources and manpower. The Romans would not gain a stable desert frontier from it and would have to permanently establish a strong military presence there.

Anyway, this is my purely superficial take on things and I once again have to say that I am not an expert in this area so I am bound to have missed one or two crucial details.

[CmdrWilkens]

Thanas certianly makes the obvious point which is that conquering where it is easy isn't worhtwhile from a money perspective (Dacia took forever to repay itself) and those territories which are rich enough to attack profitabbly are harder to do so militarily.

Now from a purely geographic standpoitn I would see Rome maintaining a border along the Vistula if only because after securing Dacia that region is a ntural enough border against invasion if proerly supplied and the Vistula could serve as a better forward position from which the Carpathians are harder to outflank...but I can't say how long it would take for a purely military expedition to pay itself off. Going any further east the problem is that the truly rich trade along the Don and Volga didn't come into its heyday until the 10th century or so with the rise of Kiev and the Romans don't stick around long enough to profit from conquering those territories (ignoring the problem of getting there in the first place).

So anyway short story it just doesn't seem profitable to conquer any more of Europe except if one is looking to get a more secure border and the return on cost is pretty low.

[pieman3141]

Yes, it could've. The problem is that there's really nowhere to go, except east. Think: Germania has poor soil, little easily-accessible resources, and nasty dirty people (from a Roman POV). Why go there? To the South, you've got the Sahara, a place where nobody wants even today. One avenue is that they could've possibly entered Arabia, Yemen, or Axum, though. Good Indian Ocean ports, too.

To the west, is the ocean. Not much there, and the Romans weren't the best ocean-goers anyhow. To the East, you've got Persia. The Byzantines spent decades trying to beat these guys down. The Romans fought these guys before. The closest they got was a temporary occupation of Mesopotamia.

Ultimately, the Romans lacked a faster form of communication, or more precisely, a regulated form of rapid communication. Horses were the fastest thing in common use. I'm sure they could've used smoke signals, but as far as I know, no encoding was used to speed this up.