Europa Barbarorum fourm game

[cunctator]

@cunctator: It's my impression that all achievements after around 250-200 BC were direct results of the momentum and solid power basis built up before then. There were a few cases were Rome responded to outer attacks (Mithradates for example) after the Punic wars, but it was a changeover into more hostility and conquest for conquest's sake. Before the first punic war Rome held the moral high ground and represented civilization in that they showed clementia and seldom attacked first, seldom started wars. For every unprovoked hostility, Rome worsened the situation for themselves.

Yes, this small and peaceloving pre punic war city state conquered all off italia and had to subdue all it's neighbours thourgh nearly constant warfare only for the sake of self defence. This sheme can be used to describe nearly all wars of Rome if you want to.

The quick victory over the sucessors after the 2nd punic war were certainly caused by the highly experienced army and their commanders, but I don't think crediting ALL sucesses to the early republic is not justified. After the this generation of experienced veterans of the wars with hannibal and the successors had faded away the romans already had some serious military problems, from the third punic and macedonian war, in iberia, southern gaul and numidia. Of course the romans profited from the size and resources of their territories but when Caesar invaded gaul, the political situation there, the quality of his own army and his polital and military talent were much more important than the deeds of his ancestors.

Many wars of the late republic, begun by warlords as caesar and crassus, were conquest for conquest's sake. But in the early empire things changed. Augustus campaigns were more aimed to secure and stabilize his empire, closing gaps between roman territories by occupiyng illyria, dalmatia, the alps, raetia and the last part of spain, or creating buffer zones. He made peace with the parthians and concentrated activity to the northern border more directly threatening Rome. In germania Drusus early campiagns appaerently were targeted to creat a chain of client states around roman territory only after this strategy failed they tried to conquer and romanize the germans.

After Augustus the principate can be considered as much less agressive as the republic. Tiberius recalled Germanicus when he tried to subdue germania gain. A few decades later as Corbulo was called back when he wanted to move into german lands and was called back, he lamented that the republican generals were allowed to wage war on their on will while he was not allowed to gain glory.

What great unprovocked conquests can be credited to the empire? The romans invaded britian ok, but besides that major new territories were only gained by annexing client state as Mauretania or Thracia. The dacians and sarmatians raided roman territory unprovocked since the beginning of the flavian dynasty. After decades of warfare along the danube and several high casulaties Trajan's offensive mainly tried to make an end to this threads. His parthian war was certianly for the sake of conquest. But arguable you can also say that the empire ultimately failed because their foreign policy stayed to defensive and their wars missed the stubborness of the republic's. Without conquering their enemies along the frontier, while the empire enjoyed the pax romana and the wealth that came with it, they grew strenghter until it was too late. The later wars of the 2nd century were again largely unprocked by rome when first the parthians and then the marcomanii invaded roman territory.

Don't underestimate the problems that civil disorder and rebelliousness caused! The turning point of roman expansion, in 117 AD, rebellions all the way from Cyrenaica to Mesopotamia destroyed part of Trajan's enormous army used in the Parthian war, and threatened to cut off the rest of it. Rebellions in Illyria diverted 5 legions from the conquest of Germania - without that rebellion Arminius could hardly have had time to prepare the Teutoburg forest massacre. There were also plenty of rebellions in Iberia and Gaul. Dacia rebelled at least twice. Eventually the demands for equal terms and citizenship through violence and rebellion pressured Rome to accept that more non-romans reached positions of power. That included barbarians who still hated Rome, and didn't necessarily want that power to act in the best interests of Rome. Civil disorder also kept most of Rome's legions locked to territories and lowered their mobility, costing money while doing nothing good.

During the principate narly the whole army was concentrated along the external borders, far away from most popaltion centres. Greece and Asia minor (except the border) were nearly completly without military. Only a single legion was based in iberia, as well as northern africa, leaving much of the peninsula and whole gaul without a garrison. With below 400.000 soldiers the roman army was much too small to keep the empire together by force.

Without greedy republican governors trying to regain the expnses of prvious election campaigns most provinces profited far more from imperial rule than republican. Lost politcal freedoms and the excesses of some emperors were mostly limited to the roman upper class that formelry ruled the republic, further stabilizing the system of the principate in it's early years.

Most great rebellions as in illyria, germania, britannia and gaul followed directly a few years or decades after the roman conquest. Iberia stayed peaceful after Agustus conquered the last not roman territories and the troops bound on the peninsula were contoiusly reduced to the one legion force mentioned above until falvian era. The great rebellions there were fought against republican armies not the empire. Later ebellions in gaul after Julius Sacrovir during Tiberius, can only be considered as inner roman fighting. Vindex was the official roman governour and rebelled mainly against Nero's rule. Galba who joined his uprising become emperor therafter, without Vindex defeat by loyalist legions from rhine perhaps he would have suceeded Nero. For the great rebllions in the tensions between jewish and greek/pagan provicials were the dominating factor, not roman rule for itself.

The principate didn't give citizenship to the violent and rebells, it rewarded prooven men and their peolple which served the stae loaly. Surely there were some mistakes as giving citizenship to Arminius, but that's the risk of integration. The roman had recognized that their sucess was based on integrating the various peolple into their state, not by brute force alone.

This speechs hold emperor Claudius before the senate when it was debated to let the leading men of the aedui join it, it shows the true spirit behind Rome's sucess:

Tacitus Annales XI 24

In the consulship of Aulus Vitellius and Lucius Vipstanus the question of filling up the Senate was discussed, and the chief men of Gallia Comata, as it was called, who had long possessed the rights of allies and of Roman citizens, sought the privilege of obtaining public offices at Rome.

...

These and like arguments failed to impress the emperor. He at once addressed himself to answer them, and thus harangued the assembled Senate. "My ancestors, the most ancient of whom was made at once a citizen and a noble of Rome, encourage me to govern by the same policy of transferring to this city all conspicuous merit, wherever found. And indeed I know, as facts, that the Julii came from Alba, the Coruncanii from Camerium, the Porcii from Tusculum, and not to inquire too minutely into the past, that new members have been brought into the Senate from Etruria and Lucania and the whole of Italy, that Italy itself was at last extended to the Alps, to the end that not only single persons but entire countries and tribes might be united under our name. We had unshaken peace at home; we prospered in all our foreign relations, in the days when Italy beyond the Po was admitted to share our citizenship, and when, enrolling in our ranks the most vigorous of the provincials, under colour of settling our legions throughout the world, we recruited our exhausted empire. Are we sorry that the Balbi came to us from Spain, and other men not less illustrious from Narbon Gaul? Their descendants are still among us, and do not yield to us in patriotism. "What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day. Strangers have reigned over us. That freedmen's sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was a common practice in the old commonwealth. But, it will be said, we have fought with the Senones. I suppose then that the Volsci and Aequi never stood in array against us. Our city was taken by the Gauls. Well, we also gave hostages to the Etruscans, and passed under the yoke of the Samnites. On the whole, if you review all our wars, never has one been finished in a shorter time than that with the Gauls. Thenceforth they have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. United as they now are with us by manners, education, and intermarriage, let them bring us their gold and their wealth rather than enjoy it in isolation. Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new. Plebeian magistrates came after patrician; Latin magistrates after plebeian; magistrates of other Italian peoples after Latin. This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent."

[11.25] The emperor's speech was followed by a decree of the Senate, and the Aedui were the first to obtain the right of becoming senators at Rome. This compliment was paid to their ancient alliance, and to the fact that they alone of the Gauls cling to the name of brothers of the Roman people.

The rebellions and wars with tribes on the outside together caused the death of so many romans that eventually the empire considered it unbearable to take such losses of good romans, so they started employing more auxilia.

The romans always had relied heavily on allied troops. When during Augustus reign the auxilia became a regular part of the army it was not only to save money and created a reliable more powerful force of cavalry and special troops but also to adequatly participate the provinces on the defense of the empire. After the end of the civil war there were more legionaries mobilized than ever before, and with the continous romanization of the provinces and increase of the citizten population until 212 AD most of these regular auxilia were often as roman as the frontier legions. In the 2nd century AD they employed numerii and nationes unit of more ethnic characrter similar to the late republican auxila, but there numbers where not significant and manly a way to employ quickly mobilized local troops or special recruits, as the sarmatians after Marcus Aurelius victory. What happended in the chaotic days of the later 3rd and in the late empire is different story.

In that changeover period there were some bright spots of culture and similar, but that entire period was based on spending resources such as economical strength, recruitment base of loyal troops, loyalty and popularity, and the rumour of being trustworthy, just and merciful. Wars gave short term economical gain, but spend recruitment base, loyalty, popularity and good rumor. When those things were spent, economy was destroyed by the need to hire so many troops against enemies outside and within. Money was spent on culture and architecture, giving higher living standards in a short term perspective. When most of the money was spent, there was nothing left of what the early republic romans had created. While the "spending phase" begun in 250 BC, it wasn't really until 100-200 AD that the resources started to run short. This shows how amazing state leaders the early republic romans were. Their followers were not, all they did was spend resources. It hardly takes any genius to do that, especially as the early roman republic senators had built up not only these resources, but also tradition and a sense of strategy.

Compared to the rebuplic the principate considerably enlarged his recruitment base, by giving citizenship to provincials far more generously than before. The shift from a militia artmy raised to full strenght only in case of war to a professional force permanetly garrisioned along distant borders much more reduced their loyalty towards state and his people towards their commanders and the emperor that paid them than any looses. Through it was certainly a huge mistake to pay subsidies to friendly tribes and states to stabilize ceratin border regions only for the sake of buyed peace.

The money spent by the empire wasn't inherited and taken from any secret buried treasury of the Republic. It was from the taxes payed by the current inhabitants of the roman world, generated by the empires economy. Rarely an emperor had build up reserves during his reign (Tiberius and Vespasian) mostly as most modern states the roman empire spent immidiatly what they got. The great buildings projects and the army of the principate, which wasn't much bigger than mamy modern forces, and rather small compared to the size of the empire, were financed by the flourishing economy during the centuries of the pax romana and not the treasuires of the ancients. Some of the extraordinary building priojects as the trajan's forum and the expansion of ostia artificial harbour were financed by the large booty from the dacian wars, but the countless iles of streets, aqueducts and ordinary public buildings that really raised the quality of living were not. In fact most provincial improvements weren't build by the empire, but paid by the rihcer citizens and cities directly, what become only possible due their gneral good econimal situation. The system collopased in the 3rd century when external and civil wars demanded for more soldiers and thus higher military expense the same time these crisises destroyed the base of the empire's wealth and economy.

Footnote: when I say period x was full of y, z etc., I don't necessarily mean the entire period contained all those things. For example the intolerance came in shorter bursts - Nero, Domitian, then a pause, then it came again during the end of Trajan's rule and during Hadrian's rule. Then it started again a bit later. And intolerance is still intolerance even during the periods when the intolerance was only directed at minorities.

You can't blame whole roman society for the deeds of certain emperors, that were additionaly very limited in time and space. During Nero's reign and the whole jewish war Tiberius Alexander,of jewish origin himself enjoeyed a remarkable career, becoming prefect of egypt and finally even praetorian prefect under Vespasian. Especially Hadrian tried it's best to better integrate the various peolple of his empire and travelled through all countries to know his citizens and promote them, especially the greeks.