AOR systems, and the historical vs the realistic

[bobbin]

If it's true that the east and south was as populated to provide for urbanization...

They were as populated as plenty of other parts of Roman Britain, the south east has some of the highest concentrations of hill forts in the UK.

Also I wouldn't count too much on that coast controlling the rest, it would be right under the highlands, with natives easily harrassing and retreating...
It's the cost/gain decision all over again, for sure would required soldiers from many provinces and to secure a small amount of settlers...

So how does that make it any different from any other frontier of the empire? And the east coast is a wide area of very fertile land (some of the best in the UK), not some tiny sliver overshadowed by the wild highlands.

That doesn't mean he was going to achieve that...

Given that he was able to take control of the Bosporos effortlessly to provide a base for those plans, shows the Romans were more than capable of ruling the region if they so wished.

Yes, but the OP was speaking of roman legionaries (at least I think so) and not auxiliares, that's why I was saying for that you needed few roman settlers at the beginning, who would take care of the administration and provide for the officers training the locals...

Nope actual legions were raised from places like Gaul and Spain while they were still very native in culture, one would imagine that this was actually part of the Romanisation process, not dependent on it.

That's not completely true, the region was under the protection of Bulgars and Khazars, the former initially allied to the Byzantines and the latter being a major player in interal politics of the imperial court...
It was their officers who reside in the Crimea, not the other way around, maybe only religious officials came from Constantinople...
Plus, yes there were more contacts between the Bosporos and Romaioi, but the new capital and its vicinity was a crucial part of it...

No, the ERE directly ruled parts of the Crimea throughout history.

Honourary grants are just that, doesn't speak for any bigger social picture, other than an increase in status for the king and an alliance or mutual interests...

The were part of the Roman world, they were about as linked up to the Empire as a client state could get without actually being part of it. There was a Roman colony there, Roman forts, Roman garrisons in various cities, Chersonesos was the base for a Roman fleet, need I go on?

All in all, for the very southern coast of the kimmerios bosporos, yes it would be possible, as the area was already hellenized, but not any further inland...

Nope, most of the Crimea with the exception of the Tauric highlands would have easily incorporated, plus the Taman peninsula and probably the coast up to the mouth of the Tanias (Don). Neither was Hellenisation was to a prerequisite of Roman control.

And being a boundary it would require a huge military presence or complexes of fortifications, most likely costing more than the region's income; so leaving the area under locals, who acknowledge or ally with Roma, was the best and feasible solution...

Again how is this any different than to say the Rhine frontier? If fact the Crimea was a major grain producing region of the ancient world, far more productive than many of Romes interior provinces let alone its border ones. At the end of the day it came down to political will and a bit of chance, not some inherent aspect of the region, that stopped the Romans from fully incorporating it into their empire.

[Arjos]

No, the ERE directly ruled parts of the Crimea throughout history.
There was a Roman colony there, Roman forts, Roman garrisons in various cities, Chersonesos was the base for a Roman fleet, need I go on?

That's the coast with its ports, contemporary to that there were iranian or turkic parts: it was a buffer zone...
With, in the case of the Romani, a military presence to protect the emporia, making sure trading routes were safe...
Having a base, within a state that relies on your protection, doesn't make it a direct possession, they were simply controlling commercial exportations...

Again how is this any different than to say the Rhine frontier?

For the Crimea, you have extremely active and united military entities right at its border, getting assimilated by even larger ones...
When there was a similar situation at the Rhine, the limes collapsed...
As for Scotland, the hill forts are below the antonine wall, above there was little arable land...

Nope actual legions were raised from places like Gaul and Spain while they were still very native in culture

They ceased to be native and yet they weren't roman: they were romanized into a new cultural synthesis...
My point isn't that Roma could have never controlled specific areas, but that the training of legionaries couldn't have happened in such places...

[bobbin]

That's the coast with its ports, contemporary to that there were iranian or turkic parts: it was a buffer zone...
With, in the case of the Romani, a military presence to protect the emporia, making sure trading routes were safe...
Having a base, within a state that relies on your protection, doesn't make it a direct possession, they were simply controlling commercial exportations...

You have quoted my replies to two completely different time periods as one, the first is about the Byzantines influence in the Crimea and the second is about the Roman Empires influence in the Bosporan Kingdom, its needlessly confusing matters.
I wasn't saying that it made it a direct possession, but the sheer level of Roman presence in the Bosporan Kingdom, for such an extended period of time, with the acquiescence of the locals, makes the idea that the Bosporans were somehow incompatible with Roman culture a bit ridiculous.

For the Crimea, you have extremely active and united military entities right at its border, getting assimilated by even larger ones...
When there was a similar situation at the Rhine, the limes collapsed...

And the Rhine and Danube frontiers had exactly the same situation for centuries before the Limes collapsed, not to mention the eastern frontier with the Parthians/Sassanids.

As for Scotland, the hill forts are below the Antonine wall, above there was little arable land...

Untrue, like I said before some of the most fertile land in the UK is Scotland, above the Antonine wall, Perthshire, Tayside and Aberdeenshire have always been major food production areas. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that hillfort statement, firstly its wrong, there are quite a few hillforts north of the wall ( I should know, there were at least two within a couple of miles of my house). And secondly quite a lot of Scotland was below that wall, so to say that Scotland was too sparsely populated for the Romans to control and raise troops from but imply that the signs of high population densities were only found south of a wall that runs right through Central Scotland doesn't make any sense.

They ceased to be native and yet they weren't roman: they were romanized into a new cultural synthesis...
My point isn't that Roma could have never controlled specific areas, but that the training of legionaries couldn't have happened in such places...

No they were very much native in culture, it was only later that they became Romanised, my point being that Rome was perfectly able to recruit soldiers from non Roman cultures. A good example was the Legio V Alaudae, which was raised from the native population of Gaul in 52BC and was used to fight Vercingetorix during the Gallic Wars.

[Arjos]

makes the idea that the Bosporans were somehow incompatible with Roman culture a bit ridiculous.

I didn't say they were incompatible, the opposite, since they were already hellenized, just had to accept roman overlordship, which they did...
Can't see them recruiting legionaries among the locals, that's all...

And the Rhine and Danube frontiers had exactly the same situation for centuries before the Limes collapsed, not to mention the eastern frontier with the Parthians/Sassanids.

The Rhine held until the situation changed; the Danube and the eastern frontiers were at constant war, with few diplomatic breaks, both sides coming and going in the other's territory...

Scotland, above the Antonine wall

That I didn't know, thanks...

A good example was the Legio V Alaudae, which was raised from the native population of Gaul in 52BC and was used to fight Vercingetorix during the Gallic Wars.

This I strongly disagree, both sides fought in a very similar manner, in the east and steppe it would be quite difficult and in a very limited number, actually more about whether the professional troops decide to side with Roma...

[bobbin]

I didn't say they were incompatible, the opposite, since they were already hellenized, just had to accept roman overlordship, which they did...
Can't see them recruiting legionaries among the locals, that's all...

The Bosporans were the locals, they were a mix of Greeks, Tauricans, Cimmerians, Maeotae, Scythians etc, even the ones that weren't Hellenised would have been no more difficult to recruit than Gauls or Germans were, they still had the same concept of rulership as anyone else did.

The Rhine held until the situation changed; the Danube and the eastern frontiers were at constant war, with few diplomatic breaks, both sides coming and going in the other's territory...

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

This I strongly disagree, both sides fought in a very similar manner, in the east and steppe it would be quite difficult and in a very limited number, actually more about whether the professional troops decide to side with Roma...

The Bosporos isn't the true steppe, most of the soldiers in the region fought as infantry, usually spearmen or archers. This is entirely compatible with the Roman mode of fighting. The same goes for the east where again the majority of soldiers were melee infantry or archers, Rome had already successfully recruited from such martial traditions in its eastern regions like Syria so I don't see how they would fail to do so in Mesopotamia or even Iran.

[Arjos]

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

they still had the same concept of rulership as anyone else did.

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

Rome had already successfully recruited from such martial traditions in its eastern regions like Syria so I don't see how they would fail to do so in Mesopotamia or even Iran.

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

[bobbin]

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...

My question was how were the Rhine, Danube and Eastern frontiers feasible borders for the Roman Empire despite being next to aggressive and organised states and peoples yet the Bosporos wasn't?

Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...

Which it wasn't.

Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

And Spain and North Africa had military doctrines based around skirmishing, yet legionaries were recruited there with no problem. The fact of the matter is that the only people the Romans would have had a tough time turning into legionaries were nomads, everyone else could be trained in the Roman battle styles. And melee infantry was a tradition in Mesopotamia, the Shipri Tukul unit from EB was an example of this.

[Horatius]

Afaik, the limes acted as watchposts and traffic controllers...
Against large organized groups they had no big effect, other than letting the Romani know of the threat and dispatch the legions accordingly...
So those frontiers weren't a fixed defense, rather an "alert system" for the army if you will...



Ofc, I wasn't referring to any leadership issue, just local warfare style against the roman one...



Heavy melee infantry doctrine wasn't a major component in the military tradition of the area...
Iirc western legions were called most of the times in the Levant, when an offensive campaign was planned, with the Syrians being postguards and police forces...

Please correct me if I'm wrong but when the limes were built wasn't the importance of traffic control, police force and alerting the garrison about raids of monumental importance when the Limes got built? In importance in fact not something the rome total war engine is even capable of showing?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

And these are more feasible frontiers how exactly?

I'd argue that the Roman handbook regarding borders would tell you that rivers make the finest boundaries of empire. The Rhine and Danube clearly. In the east against the Parthians and Sassanids the border shifted more, but was generally based around the Euphrates region. In Africa there were no major rivers but the Atlas mountains and the Sahara were natural boundary markers. In Britain they eventually built a wall although its uses and purpose are arguable. Also as long as the capital of the empire was Rome, the Crimea was somewhat far away and as long as the native Bosporans were friendly and willing to trade their grain, there would be no reason to incorporate them into the empire unless they were in danger of being deposed by native revolt or foreign invasion.