Re: The Roman Empire?
 

That's true enough. And he was brutally effective against Spartacus.

Well, you certainly know your Roman history =)

Quote:

Before Egypt was annexed by Augustus, Africa delivered most of the grain that Rome needed (taking over the job from Sicily, which stayed important though). The image we have now of Northern Afrika is not Roman. Partly - maybe - because of Roman exploitation, partly because of the Sahara spreading evermore, North Afrika now is no longer an important agricultural area. But let us not forget that Mesopotamia was once the most fertile land known to man... Strategically it was not necessary, but it had some rich cities (rebuild Carthage, Leptis Magna) and was a handy trade point.

A persuasive point.

So, basically, it needed all of its provinces in order to support it, but having this massive empire was ultimately self-defeating?

You don't believe it's possible for it to have lasted another two centuries under a different scenario?

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, it could have lasted longer. But Africa was no expensive province to guard, and brought in a lot of money. Britain on the other hand :uhm: I will never understand why they never tried to conquer the entire island, and Ireland for that matter. Agricola seems to have had that plan, thinking he needed only a legion to conquer it, but it never happened. If they had completly conquered and romanized the island, they would no longer need 3 legions to guard it. Still, it's all easy with hindsight ;).

Returning to my point: the empire could have lasted longer, but without solving the internal problems, it was doomed to fall.

Diocletianus succeeded in reorganising the empire into a state with a totalitarian ruler, and feudal aspects. [Some historians, who divide Roman history into economical times, see this as the start of a new chapter. It was, in some aspects, closer to the Middle Ages than the old Roman economy.] And his reforms did work, for a time. But even he failed to secure inner peace, an end to the civil wars. After his death, Constantine succeeded in becoming the ruler of the entire empire. Pretty ironic really: writers from the 1st century BC (Horatius, Vergillius, Tacitus) had written how Augustus had brought an end to the civil wars...

So the empire would've needed another reform. A reform that handled every aspect that I've mentioned earlier, and others. Than, or with simpel luck, it could have lasted longer. Lets not forget that the eastern empire survived for another 1000 years. Though the eastern part had shorter borders, one real enemy (the Sassanids, at least before the Moslims) with whom they could negotiate and... the east was richer. And the enemies that did reach Constantinopel, were (except in 1204 and 1453) destroyed, or retreated when facing the giant walls.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Damn, you got to my next argument before I did--Britain.
I was pondering that yesterday, why the waste of resources and men to capture the whole thing, or try. Well, it turned out okay...Britain came to be its own Empire and ruled the world for a while; good for me, 'cuz my grandparents were from there and I wouldn't exist of course.

Anyway, yeah, it may have lasted somewhat longer--I figured three centuries max, but that might have been generous--but it was doomed.

Oh well. Now I'm out of arguments :clueless:

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

I think the first to invade Britain was Caesar. Victories were always welcome because it increased his reputation in Rome and his wealth which was necessary for the upkeep of his legions. Britain was at that time at the very edge of the known world. And also on the other side of the channel, which seemed like a large barrier 2000 years ago. So building a fleet and invading Britain must have impressed the Romans.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

trouble on the danube front forced domitian to divert troops away from the britain campaign. instead of wasting resources later on trying to conquer and subdue the northern brits, hadrian decided simply to fortify the border.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, that's true. Aside from conquering Brittania and the Battle of Actium, the imperial navy was not used very much, except for logistical purposes and protecting Rome's trade. Maybe it was Caesar who first went in there...can't recall; I know it was Claudius who captured southern Britain. Anyway, it seems the motivation to conquer the Island was due to something other than tactical reasons.

I always thought the navy could have been employed better in northern Europe, though. But I'm not sure to what extent they were used with regards to amphibious assault along the rivers, like the Rhine and Danube.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

caesar made two recon expeditions to britain, but the island had no startegic or economic importance so there was no reason for rome to conquer it. claudius, however, needed britain for political purposes. claudius did not come to power as a strong leader (the assasination of caligula). he needed a military victory boost his image.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Oh okay, right.

Wow, that's kind of a bad turning point right there--that period in which we have Caligula, then the unnecessary campaign in Britain by Claudius, and next the smooth leadership under Nero...

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Dread is indeed correct.

And concerning Claudius and Nero: Claudius was, despite his physical limitations and speech impediment, a capable ruler with a good staff of experienced slaves supporting him. The empire remained stable and peaceful under his rule, the mass was kept happy and Claudius build a new port in Ostia. He wasn't good in leading armies, and choosing wives.

And Nero, despite his - how should I put it - craziness in personal life, was also a capable ruler. In fact, the Romans themselves considered the first ten years of his rule (pre 64, fire in Rome), to be the best... EVER. He had capable people in high posts (Seneca and Burrus), kept taxes low, the provinces (except Britain: Boudica) were stable and the mob happy. And despite his building a giant palace in Rome, he did improve the firesafety of Rome, by forcing people to use stone instead of wood, limiting the height of buildings,... Even his persecutions were only on a very limited scale (region of Rome), and some christians actually wanted (!) to become martyrs.

However, the Julio-Claudians had against them the very capable Tacitus and the gossiper Suetonius. And Nero had a very complicated personal life. Personal things (Clinton and Lewinsky) sometimes influence our perception of rulers.

Edit: ow, and Caligula was a tyrant.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

...and a psychopath.