The explanations are pretty simple. To the North too many trees too few people too cold. To the South too much sand too hot. To the East a powerful state named Persia.
@@Gobrech Oh yea, a big ass plain with no natural borders with hundreds of tribes in the close proximity, that constantly roam and pillage, you might've heard of them later down the line when they united under Atilla the Hun ;) A truly worthy land to conquer and overextend.
They didnt quite reach their natural boundaries tho. In the north, germania and all of britain + maybe even Jütland would have been feasible, but it wasnt worthwile. They tried both once, failed, and never tried again. But they could have. To the south they could have conquered Nubia, Fessan, and Western morocco. Again they tried the first two of these once, but failed and never tried again. They could have also expanded along the coastal Red sea as the ottomans did. Then, finally, they could have conquered all of pannonia and dacia and establish their border on the carpathians. This one is the most puzzling to me why it never happened, as countries that came after the romans always had their borders on the carpathians. So all in all there was still some space for expansion; and maybe if they did and reached their natural borders, they would have become like China.
Wrong: Too strong German warrior tribes in the north! And because of the high population in Germania 2 centuries later they migrated all over Europe and even Africa!
It still blows my mind to think parts of modern day Armenia or Iraq were at one point in the Roman Empire. The fact they reached the Persian gulf or Caspian Sea must have seemed like an entire world away from Rome.
Especially when tech 2000 years ago was well ancient. Only way to communicate was with written or verbal language carried by a courier on horseback. Imagine somebody saying the Parthians invade from Iraq to Italy how long that’d take.
They weren't IN the empire for very long, especially Iraq. Even after Trajan's conquest it had to be released pretty quickly as a client state. Armenia on the other hand is more of a buffer state between Persia and Rome, but obviously they were fond of Romans more. That's why they're Christians even though they remained a different kind of Christians
It's worth saying that Rome had CONSTANT revolts to put down. Eventually they realised that if they expand they will lose land, usually in another area.
But it does lead to another problem, namely what is an empire built on slavery supposed to do without wars to supply new slaves? They eventually solved this problem by implementing a system of serfdom. The very same Constantine who brought Christianity to Rome also wrote the laws that turned free tenant farmers into de facto slaves who were forbidden to leave the land they worked.
@@isaacbruner65 Christianity was already quite popular in Rome and its territories. Definitely not the majority population but to say one man brought the religion in and everyone converted after is ridiculous. It was Diocletian who passed the laws and not Constantine and while the laws may seem less than ideal it did extend the empire's existence briefly.
@@Reaper08 While I agree that Constantine didn’t singlehandedly build Christianity in the Empire, I am still of the opinion that if Constantine was NOT Christian, then not only would Christianity probably never become the Empires state religion, but the empire would’ve also collapsed much earlier due to growing unrest from a growing Christian population (arguably, the opposite could’ve happened and the empire might’ve survived or even prospered longer, but this is all a hypothetical and no one can say for sure) My point is, while Constantine didn’t do ALL the work, he surely did the majority of it by literally just being a Christian Emperor, it bumped up Christianity on the reputation spectrum in the peoples eyes and made Christianity an actual viable option for the empire
Large genitals were seen as barbaric and an indicator of poor breeding. The wealthy and powerful preferred a small frame and modest reproductive organs. The idea behind that being a cultured person would prioritize education and leisure over muscular development or carnal prowess.
I know that the Greeks at least made a pretense of preferring them small on an idealized male form, as seen on their statuary and pottery. Whether the Romans agreed or disagreed, I do not know. There are various statistical breakdowns of modern day size. In Europe, Italy comes in 3rd (after Austria and France).
Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" is also a good explanation. The basic idea is: diminishing returns. The greatest returns on investment (manpower, resources, gold etc.) are at the beginning of expansion and growth. And some institutions always tend towards becoming more and more complex over time (government bureaucracy, as just one example). Over time the returns diminish while the costs increase. At some point the returns pay the expenses with no surplus, while the costs are so great that the entire economy is running to stand still. That's where complex societies become vulnerable to crises they can't deal with.
The Roman empire was an especially good example of this because its main source of revenue was expansionary conquest... but there are definitely some parallels to modern neoliberal society that keeps opening up markets to exploitation until there is no territory left on the globe to expand into...
You assume that the Roman's conquered purely for profit motive instead of other motives like glory. I don't think an ambitious general riling up the troops to take new territory cares much about "diminishing returns" lol
Its funny that the supposedly "too complex" roman empire lasted far longer than its "superior" simple neighbors. I dont think that Roman complexity doomed it to fall when it existed (in one form or another) for well in excess of 1000 years. Especially when we consider most states fail to exist for more than 200. Edit: I also think of china, a society that is incredibly complex at the same time as rome. It had its ups and downs but always managed to reconsitute itself. I would think it was only due to the complexity of the chinese state that it was able to keep itself together (with periods of great disunity) and not collapse.
I've never liked the typical maps of "Rome at it's greatest extent" because Trajan's conquests evaporated so quickly that they really represented something more like a triumphant march to the Persian Gulf and little more. Hadrian was right to surmise that these new areas could not be held. The map gives the impression to many that these areas were truly part of Rome for an extended time.
They are added because it's for Rome's largest extent trajan's Conquest were Incorporated in the Empire they don't need to be in the empire for an extended period of time to be classified as Roman. The moment they were incorporated they were Roman territory and the only reason why they stop being a part of rome was because of Hadrian. Just because Hadrian removed them does not mean that wasn't Rome at its largest extent.
@@ORION00119 What does it mean to be Rome? Did the people think they were Rome? Were the provinces set up like the rest of Rome? It was an overstretch. Rome could kick ass in Persia, but getting troops and control there without the Mediterranean Sea was a logistical nightmare.
@@shorewall the people thinking themselves Roman does not matter. All the Subject requires is the largest Extent that Rome Reached. Rome's official borders under trajan were the largest in Rome's history, it doesn't matter if it was for a short of time that was its largest extent. The argument for keeping those provinces and anything else does not matter to the question at hand which was the largest extent that Rome reached. Edit: and Yes It was A Roman Province
Alright but Dacia was also under Trajan and they kept that for 2 centuries... when they lost it, it was already the start of the fall, they kept losing territory.
I imagine administering far-away provinces from such a centralised state such as Rome would have been increasingly impractical. You could be waiting many months for messages to be relayed, then transporting equipment, training soldiers and so fortb.
They did have basically a pony express kind of message system with horses staged every so often on message lines so a messenger could maintain speed. I think I have seen an account where they said messages from Gaul to Rome only took 3 days or something like that.
Let’s be real tho quick communication wasn’t a thing until the first train lines and telegraph lines were put up. It was all letters and ships before that. Granted ships got a lot faster since the Roman era. But for the American president in DC to make an order to troops in California/Washington still took 6 weeks by land and sea.
So distance plays a factor in ruling earth? Communication is essential for the system? Logistics actually matters? What if people rebel? What if fighting never stops? What if you run out of money? What if nobody enlist's in the army?
Why didn't the Romans consider expansion into Ireland (Hibernia)? Would it have been considered another Caledonia situation; too hostile, too cold, and too distant to be considered valuable?
Exactly! As it happens, I address that question in "Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators, and War Elephants." You should be able to read the relevant section on the Amazon or Google preview.
Lets not forget that central Europe is much colder winters than Gaul, Hispania, Italia, Brittain. 20 years ago even here on Balkans we had heavy snow for 4 months every year.
@@DejanKeepingitReal Considering the Han ruled over an estimated 30% of the world population and a larger land area than Parthia, not to mention many other qualifying factors, why wouldnt you consider them a great empire?
@@themagickalmagickman Because people always disregard oriental history due to their rooted eurocentrism, anyone that loves and knows a lot about history is fond of the Chnese dynasties
There's an old Rudyard Kipling poem, The Lost Legion, that begins, "There's a Legion that never was listed, That carries no colours or crest, But, split in a thousand detachments, Is breaking the road for the rest." It was basically about traders and adventurers that, over centuries, built the British Empire but it could also apply to the Roman Republic. It wasn't just the grand politicians that built the Republic to it's peak for the Empire to inherit, it was also the younger sons of the landed gentry seeking opportunities and retired legionaries taking land grants in the conquered territories that "Romanized" their neighbours through intermarriage and building social and economic ties. With the fall of the Republic the landed class grew smaller and the Empires discouraged the survivors from straying too far out of sight and building a power base outside the Emperors' control. Without fresh blood from Rome the old connections grew weaker until the people living at the border regions had more in common with the barbarians outside the borders than the elite back in Rome.
I can imagine those (seemingly) endless Germanic woodlands filled with one 'barbaric tribe' after another being to excessive and thus starting to become less interesting for the Romans .The East was more unified. So if they defeated the local King's army , they could take over the existing order.
@@kanalisationerstellen The combination of military/security expenses and transport costs would likely have nullified that, and it doesn't have the immediate, loot value of things like gold.
Great video. These videos that focus narrowly on a specific topic are far more informative and interesting to me than many of the videos on other channels that try to cover huge broad topics.
Although they claimed they had conquered Scotland and tried to set it in stone The Romans never managed to fully conquer Scotland or Ireland. In Scotland they got as far as Perth and up the north eastern side, basically all the areas we consider lowlands. All the rest of Scotland they never managed to claim is the highlands and was completely forested back in those days. It is understandable the Romans gave up and one can imagine calculated the immense undertaking and loses involved in attacking such a wild wilderness full of angry Scots who knew every mountain, valley, nook and cranny like the back of there hands.
a hidden factor is the huge garrison force of Britain. We never made a profit for the Romans, not in all the time they were here, and they knew it. Some commanders of the British legions rebelled against the centre and marched east against Rome, expensive civil wars. The Celtic Brits were never enthusiastic Romans, when the garrisons left their culture left with them and we became enthusiastic Anglo-Saxons until 1066 and all that.
Britain had such a huge military presence mostly because of constant threats from caledonia and hibernia and later from across the north sea. They could have conquered caledonia and hibernia, it wouldnt have been profitable but in the long run it would have reduced the need for military in britain and this would have been a huge strategic gain.
@@ldubt4494 Conquering and holding land are two very different things, however. If they had taken Hibernia and Caledonia they would have had to build necessary infrastructure such as roads and ports for trade/commerce which was probably too much effort for the Romans to be bothered with considering how relatively remote Ireland and Scotland are to mainland Europe.
One detail worth noting is that Emperors had a lifetime to gain glory. While for many, that lifetime was relatively short, this is very different from Consuls who knew they had a year to make it count.
From maps, it looks like Rome faced a threshold in terms of what they could develop. They were "conquer-and-administer" as their core competency. It looks like they stopped where they had to develop from scratch. A lot of the areas they conquered had tools available to bootstrap itself (Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia)
This is a good insight. They could have made quite the wealthy territory out of Germania had they deforested the area, but considering deforesting Germany took several centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, it would have been no small feat.
Very interesting book. The Roman-Persian wars drive me crazy because mainstream history tends to ignore it, and when it does it focuses entirely on the Roman POV.
@@KoroushRP Persia started most of those wars (or at least greatly expanded them). So they got to pick times when their own eastern frontier was quiet and Rome had trouble elsewhere. Every time as soon as Rome got their affairs in order they won a single major battle and Persia scrambled back home. Neither side was interested in getting much more than loot and tribute from the other.
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 You're explaining further contexts of the wars but that's irrelevant with regards to what he said. You're supposed to pick ideal conditions for wars. Persia rightfully had a bone to pick since they had ruled over Levant, Anatolia and Egypt, even going back to their predecessor empire Media, and it's normal to want some of that back.
I think the natural barrier is communication and transportation. The longer it takes to communicate with your frontier or send soldiers, the harder it is to effectively exercise control
When it comes to central eastern and northern borders, I would say the main factor was likely the law of diminishind return: to conquer and most importantly maintain inhospitable and mostly non-urbanized areas not very suitable for extensive agriculture and not easily taxable was essentially not worth the resources necessarily to do so. And the further the expansion in outer areas with not pre-established cities and road systems, the more challenging to have the central infrastructures and communication work properly. Also, further expansion North East would mean more military efforts to settle revolts, more potential usurpers. Western and southern borders were obviously geographic barriers, while South East the Parthian/Persian was a formidable opponent that could not be toppled.
If the Battle of Teutoberg Forest never happened, do you think Rome would have held on to the land between the Rhine and Elbe long-term? While it was sparsely populated, that means more land could be granted to veterans who had finished their term of service (colonies).
I think if there is one big explanation, it's because more expansion just didn't pay in hard money or the ROI was negative or unsustainable: for example, Dacia had known gold mines, so it was worth crossing the Danube to seize. I think at each point along the frontier, the question also had a local answer. Scotland and Ireland were just not worth conquering and even England and Wales were only marginally valuable. The Rhine and Danube saved money and time on logistics (as did the Mediterranean at center) and those two big rivers naturally kept barbarians out or from coordinating well after making a crossing. I'm not sure conquering Germania to the Elbe would have made much difference overall, and I don't think Bohemia's gold was yet known to exist. Persia blocked Rome in the east by force and the desert blocked Rome in the south by terrain.
Yeah. All that would have been worth conquering in Germania in this time period would be anything close enough to the Rhine and Danube for easy transport to the coast. The moment you stray too far from a navigable river (with a nice port city at its mouth) then there's no way those foggy forests of Germany would be worth anything to a Mediterranean focused iron age civilization. Arguably Rome had more to gain in the Black Sea, but the difficult to defend and irrigate steppe prevented the great potential of what is now Ukraine to be realized until the Slavs came in with gunpowder and early modern plows to do so.
Wonderful video. I love watching your videos, they are a source of pure joy to a historian. The logistics of running such a large empire, in that time and with all those limitations, is mind boggling. Thank you.
could it be because the Imperial system had a tradition of (and had risen out of) powerful generals declaring themselves emperor? the result was that the current emperor was always afraid of any general becoming too powerful and thus tended to clip their wings? i understand that's what happened to Agricola in Scotland. And a corollary would be that generals who did become powerful would have an eye on declaring themselves emperor and turning on Rome, rather than actually expanding the frontier (as several generals in Britain did)
I ❤ Told In Stone. Or definitely, really, really, really like it. Thank you. The maps the graphics, the images in sculptures of emperors. And a very pleasant tone of voice.
6:55 actually, Rom goal to conquer England and Scottland was not accomplished because an Emperor feared that his general would get too much influence. so the general had to stop(although scottland was nearly fully conquered). Later the Emperer tried to conquer it but the natives invented tactics which made the conquest to expensive and very difficult.
Bret Devereaux (whom I believe you interviewed last year) emphasizes what a massive difference waterways make to preindustrial military logistics. Where you can transport food by sea or river, your army can operate over much greater distances and for much longer periods of time than when you need to transport it over land, because ships, unlike human- or animal-driven land transport, can carry food without consuming food. Thus, it's no surprise that the Roman Empire was largely confined to the Mediterranean coast; the few territories it had that weren't along the Mediterranean were largely accessible either by major river systems or from the Atlantic.
every time, i swear, every time im settling down on a friday night after a long busy day I get surprised by the release of yet another awesome Toldinstone vid
i think a big reason for the location of the Roman territory is that the Mediterranean Sea(Mare Nostrum = Our Sea) is the most important aspect of the empire. Controlling the whole coastline meant you had a vast trade income while at the same time making the port cities super wealthy which could then be taxed. Furthering the borders beyond that(Ghaul, Dacia, Middle-East) is mainly beneficial to subdue future invasions.
Could you please elaborate, on how Europe of today, would have been different IF had Publius Quinctilius Varus NOT been defeated by Arminius? I remember back in 1987, when the main battlefield in Kalkriese was found. It was here that the Empire ended, and I have wondered since then, HOW would Germany/Europe would have developed IF this battle never took place.
The Roman empire didn't end at Teutoburg. Varus' defeat in 9 AD was a temporary set back at worst. Roman legions under the command of Germanicus actually reinvaded northern Germany and inflicted multiple defeats on the German tribes in 15 and 16 AD. Arminius himself was later killed by his own people due to internal tribal politics. Moreover, Rome continued to expand and conquer new territories over the next century. For example, they invaded and conquered Britain in 43 AD and Dacia (modern day Romania) in 117 AD. It's doubtful a Roman victory at Teutoburg would have changed history much. What really halted Roman expansion was economics. It cost Rome a lot of money to maintain its army, garrison and administer its provinces, and build and maintain the road system that connected the empire. Simply put, there wasn't much of economic value in Germany to make it worth while for Rome to conquer and hold it. While Britain had tin mines, Dacia had gold mines, Egypt had grain, and the East had valuable trade routes to the Orient, all Germany had was forests and swamps. A similar thing happened when the Romans later invaded Caledonia (Scotland). There after initial victories they eventually withdrew as the cost to garrison the country outweighed the economic benefits. Ultimately, what caused Rome's destruction in was a combination of political decay, high taxation and inflation, and large scale human migration into Europe. By the 5th century Rome simply couldn't afford to keep a large enough army in the field to defend against the barbarian incursions. A key factor was a growing Roman reliance on allied tribes (foederati) to provide troops free of charge to defend the frontier. Over time the foederati grew more and more powerful and carved their own mini kingdoms inside Roman territory. By the 420s large parts on the Western roman empire were controlled by the Franks and Vandals. The Roman Army was simply too small and too weak to do anything about it. Fifty years later the empire was kaput.
I think it would not have made a big difference. Germania lacks gold, was forested, had more swamps and bogs, is hilly, and has a harsher climate than Gaul or southern Britain. It also always would have been less secure, and so more expensive to defend. I think it never would be a priority for Rome to Romanize or develop Germania or at least the accessible part between the Rhine and Elbe. Bohemia has gold but I don't think it was yet discovered in Roman times.
The Romans still wouldn't have conquered Germania as it was simply not worth conquering. As chrismace2221 already said, it was economics that largely halted Roman expansion. Maintaining an army of 430,000 men and the supporting infrastructure is not cheap. Trying to annex new territories that held little economic value wouldn't make sense. Contrary to Hollywood movies, the Romans don't try to conquer the world and expand just because they can.
If you look at the map on the caption of the video, you could even argue they had reached the most efficient expansion possible. Everything around was in reach for trade and everything had a little foothold, too. I know the history was a lot different and they couldn't stretch further so easily, but still, this could have been an ideal setup if they had enjoyed it.
"Why Did the Roman Empire Stop Expanding?" In-fighting and private armies that held allegiance to their generals rather than the state, they put all their efforts into civil wars rather than protecting/expanding the empire.
Logistics! I think that what gets lost is the logistics of maintaining an army in the field. I would contend that Rome's boundaries were limited by distance from the Mediterranean sea and supply issues. This would explain why they could take but not hold Mesopotamia. This also shows the importance of the Roman navy which gets little attention.
Still not over Commodus not expanding the Roman Empire over to Baltic Sea coast (as he claimed he would do in a speech in a Herodian's text) and establishing a province in modern day Poland... having Wenedyk language in real life would be so cool
The only areas of surprise that Rome did not conquer was Mesopotamia and Persia because both were part of Alexander's Empire and Mesopotamia was a fixture on ancient world. They took Persia's capital several times but never incorporated that Empire.
Germanic tribes beat them, Scythians/Huns beat them and then Parthian/Persians beat them. In fact all of these beat them so badly that eventually they broke.
"the Parthian and later Persian empire". Are these terms linguistic variants of the same root or are you drawing a distinction between Parthia and Persia?
There may have been unlimited land to conquer, but there was no unlimited supply of Roman soldiers or mercenaries. Also, as you move further away from Rome logistics become an issue. Additionally, in 30 BC the Roman army switched from conscription to recruitment, just like our modern armies. Pretty soon mercenaries made up 50% of the army. Further expansion would have required more money, for almost no extra return. Last but not least: Roman soldiers far away from home had relationships with local girls. They were forbidden to marry them until the reign of Emperor Severus (192-211 A.D.), but the mix which had resulted in the romanisation of the locals also meant that the soldiers were no longer available to be stationed elsewhere. Mixed marriages made the borders fade away. The military conquest was over, but the Romans had left their cultural mark.
As the video said, a densely populated, fertile land is much more profitable to own than deserts and wastelands. Another thing is that you defeat a kingdom's army, and replace the king with your guy, you can pretty much use the existing system and annex the kingdom. Later you can tweak it to match your own administration. If the land is of villages which raid and kill each other, you need to defeat and control them separately, change their way of life, and they still don't produce much that you value. Except perhaps for soldiers, you can recruit barbarians in your armies instead of your own citizens, and I see no way this could possibly backfire.
@@yaqubebased1961 By "deserts and wastelands" I meant the parts of Afrika closest to Italy, the Germanic and Pict tribes. You are absolutely right, Mesopotamia was incredibly fertile, but getting to it was very challenging logistically. It would mean an incredibly long overland march over hostile terrain (which Rome as a land power preferred), or a second sea voyage over unfamiliar seas. While not impossible to invade (Trajan and Julian did so), it proved very difficult to hold. Perhaps if they tried to capture and hold it bit by bit, instead of take it all at once they would have been more successful. On the other hand, a province so far away would not count on timely support against enemies, and with constant political turmoil would be very difficult to keep loyal.
There was also the problem that the further out a province was, the harder it was to control politically from Rome. There were a lot of serious rebellions in the more distant provinces, either by the populations there, or by governors who felt they should be kings or even emperors. What’s really interesting to me is the border with Parthia/Persia. This lasted from the Roman Republic, through the Empire, and continued to the Byzantine period, neither side able to decisively defeat the other despite numerous wars. And that same border existed between the Ottoman Empire and Persia, again for hundreds of years of wars. You would think this would mean that border was really hard to overcome from both the East and the West. And yet the early Muslims stormed out of Arabia in the early 7th century and crossed that border in BOTH directions, defeating the Byzantine empire and defeating and conquering the entire Persian empire in just a few years. It’s one of the most bizarre and impressive episodes in history, right up there with Alexander’s conquests, the Mongol conquests, and the conquest of much of the world by relatively small and distant European states like Portugal and Britain.
It's not bizarre at all, both empires just had gotten out of the last Sassanid-Byzantine war, which left them both very weak. Rome managed better because it wasn't struck by 84239 rebellions after the war and had their capital super far away of the Arabs, privileges that the Sassanids didn't have... Also, they were the ones who won the war, but still lost Africa and the Levant
@@javiercolina1502 I agree completely with what you wrote. The Byzantines and Persians had just come out of the ancient equivalent of a world war. However, both the Persians and Byzantines were still able to put together impressive armies, and those armies were routinely defeated by some desert tribes. At the Battle of Yarmouk, relatively reliable evidence has the Byzantine army at 50,000 troops. That’s a massive army for any era before the 1700s. And yet they still lost to some outnumbered desert tribesmen.
Empire's have one enduring trait that is common to them, that is while typically created by conquest and engaging in frequent warfare: Empire's DON'T CONQUOR. At the end of the day the fundamental issue is that an Emperor benefits little from adding new land to his empire. Even a wealthy kingdom adds little when compared to the massive empire they already possess, by contrast the emperor is personally responsible for managing and integrating any new territories as well as paying for all that process. Huge headache for little gain. Most wars focus on non-territorial gains, with territorial gains more about security then conquest. Usually only the founder and maybe it's immediate successor engage in any significant expansion. We can see this in the Mongols, We see it in Charlemagne, we see it in china, in Persia, so on and so forth. I think the Ottomans lasted the longest for continuous conquerors although even this slowed rapidly. Indeed one of the notable things about the British/European colonial empires is that they were driven by independent nobles and politicians (e.g. east india company) not the rulers.
While I'd never say that this knowledge is completely real world accurate, I will say that I'm surprised how much I learned from playing video games as a kid. A few things I learned from playing the game "Knights & Merchants" (A Real Time Strategy game with a heavy focus on the civilian side of food and production.) -Expanding your territory without a MASSIVE surplus of food will create a famine in an otherwise healthy civilization. -The Military is a surprisingly parasitic branch of society. It pulls massive amounts of food and resources from the rest of your civilization, and gives very little back in return. A military is necessary because it provides protection, but it steals food and supplies from your agriculture and production arms, which are both of far greater benefit to the civilization as a whole. -The more land you control, the harder it is to keep it. And since the military is so parasitic on the economy, and it takes time to travel from one border to the other, you are often times given the choice between "Feeding the parasite" by creating more armies, or withdrawing your forces back to a position that you can more easily control. Once again, I'm only discussing the way things work in a computer game, not real life, However, it seems to be knowledge that parallels fairly well. And it's knowledge that strongly affects my views on questions like "Why didn't the Roman Empire expand further?" (Next up, what Morrowwind taught me about evolution! 🤣🤣🤣)
Can you imagine people of the future posing an equivalent question like "why didn't the eu expand any further?" I know ofc that the 50 years of eu existence are nothing compared to the 500 years of the roman empire (as a whole before the west collapsed). But in our days history development a lot more quickly. And if (let's say) eu lasts another 50 years + as it is today people of 2100 might pose the same question
La cosa veramente straordinaria è che l'Impero Romano è riuscito a controllare per molto tempo i suoi immensi confini con poche decine di migliaia di legionari.
1. Law of Diminishing Returns. 2. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall. 3. The transfer of wealth from production to conspicuous consumption; from self-sufficiency to import-export dependency resulting in balance of payments crises. 4. Military overspend. 5. The oppressed wanting freedom from tyranny.
I never noticed, but northern frontier of Roman Empire followed the limit of continental climate, with icy winter, while all of Mediterranean and Oceanic climates, with mild winter, are within the empire. Although perfectly livable today (but producing no olive oil, and very few wine), perhaps continental winter did not suit well for Roman time agriculture or was too lengthy and harsh to sustain warming and feeding large cities. Except by using Rhine and Danube river to supplement it. The same happened much later in Baltic countries : they were thinly populated with no major city until ships became large enough to carry large amount of food traded for wood and fur.
Matches pretty well with what Tainter says in "the collapse of complex civilization"... they had conquered all the territories that made them more money than they cost them. Further expansion (and even some of the expansion they did) was a net-negative economic prospect.
It has been theorized that during the global warm period that the Roman empire experienced it was possible to grow olives and grapes much further north than today.
Whenever I talk about Roman expansion, I always differentiate in three categories: Roman Republic, Augustus and Roman Empire. During the Republic, the aggressive expansion of Roman territories was indirectly fueled by Rome political system. The consuls had only one year to prove their worth and military conquest was definitely the easiest and shortest route. It's no wonder why Roman republic was almost constantly in war with somebody else for almost 500 years. In the later Empire, there were only two reasons for expansion wars: consolidation of power and economic reasons. "Weak" emperors used the expansion war as an argument to strengthen their position in Rome and gain the favour of Senate and people. A successful example of this strategy is the conquest od Britain by Claudius. On the other side, the bad financial state of Roman Empire forced many wars with the only goal to get some treasure to boost the economy. Look at Trajan: he had no reason to invade Dacia but to bring back to Rome the rich golden treasure they had (a two-week long convoy af carriages full of gold, if I remember correctly). The only Roman being with a different mindset was Augustus (and that's why he's the best emperor of all). He understood that the Roman State (during the transition between republic and empire) needed stability; in addition, he even understood that said stability could not be achieved until the hostile population at the borders of the state were pacified, either by diplomacy (like Parthians) or war (like Germans and Arabs). The German campaigns of Tiberius, Varus and later Germanicus had the goal of preventing the Germans from breaking the stability of the borders. If Teutoburg didn't happen ( or better, if Germanicus was allowed to continue his campaign), Germany would have ended up being a Roman province fornthe centuries ahead and the Northern border would have been way more stable (with a ton of positive consequences for the later empire).
The problem is that "these" maps are all wrong. We always think like a modern citizen so we naturally think everything red on the map "belongs" to Rome and "its people" right? Wrong! Actually Rome is Italy and the greek area near to it because of its safety. Thats it, rest of the "occupied" places are MOSTLY vassals. They dont belong to the empire or they dont feel themselves "Roman" lol. They just pay tribute and thats it. The map system and the "Nation-Based" country system we live in, make people confused about those times imo.
"Started wars and annexed territory for Rome's glory, and their own." Right off the bat, you make a catastrophic analytical mistake. Rome's wars of conquest were a path to wealth for individuals, particularly after the full professionalization of the Legions under Marian. It's a mistake to believe that anything else, particularly sentiments like "glory" were a motivating factor. Money was power, and vice versa in Rome.
It was already too big to effectively administer which is the real reason it half-collapsed. That and an entire third century of unbelievably bad luck.
They reached the maximum size where they could respond to revolts. 1. News reaches Rome, 2. Legion dispatched, 3. total response time, by either gally or roads, N days. The frontiers were equidistant from Rome based on travel time.
Imagine the logistics of an empire that large. Men traveled on foot or by horse. Goods traveled by cart. There was no way to properly store food while transporting it. Not to mention the fact that many of the emperors were, on a good day, barking mad.
Inertia, to some degree. Imperialism pushed expansion, because examples of Roman might, and the absirbtion of loot from the conquered helped sustain the empire. But as the victories occurred further and further away, and less loot made it back to Rome, this enthusiasm dwindled. Also, being rich meant being near the seat of power, and that meant huge bribes to Imperial coffers. It also meant incredible danger from mad, greedy emperors, their sycophants and getting involved in the latest plot to usurp power. Eventually, military action at the Empire's borders was to simply protect what they had acquired, while wealth was made through trade.
Another day another history youtuber undermined the Iranian empire greatly. those guys are hugely underrated on TH-cam no matter what you say. if there wasn't for them, I can 100& say that Rome would conquer as far as Japan, no other power could resist roman might.
The explanations are pretty simple. To the North too many trees too few people too cold. To the South too much sand too hot. To the East a powerful state named Persia.
I think this is a good explanation. The question doesn’t have just one simply answer but this is probably one of the main reasons.
To the west, big water
@@Gobrech Oh yea, a big ass plain with no natural borders with hundreds of tribes in the close proximity, that constantly roam and pillage, you might've heard of them later down the line when they united under Atilla the Hun ;) A truly worthy land to conquer and overextend.
They didnt quite reach their natural boundaries tho.
In the north, germania and all of britain + maybe even Jütland would have been feasible, but it wasnt worthwile. They tried both once, failed, and never tried again. But they could have.
To the south they could have conquered Nubia, Fessan, and Western morocco. Again they tried the first two of these once, but failed and never tried again.
They could have also expanded along the coastal Red sea as the ottomans did.
Then, finally, they could have conquered all of pannonia and dacia and establish their border on the carpathians. This one is the most puzzling to me why it never happened, as countries that came after the romans always had their borders on the carpathians.
So all in all there was still some space for expansion; and maybe if they did and reached their natural borders, they would have become like China.
Wrong: Too strong German warrior tribes in the north! And because of the high population in Germania 2 centuries later they migrated all over Europe and even Africa!
It still blows my mind to think parts of modern day Armenia or Iraq were at one point in the Roman Empire. The fact they reached the Persian gulf or Caspian Sea must have seemed like an entire world away from Rome.
People living in modern day Manchester being citizens of the same entity as the dwellers of the Euphrate is always mindblowing.
Especially when tech 2000 years ago was well ancient. Only way to communicate was with written or verbal language carried by a courier on horseback. Imagine somebody saying the Parthians invade from Iraq to Italy how long that’d take.
@@themetroidprime I imagine you could probably find some citizens of Iraq living in Manchester today.
They weren't IN the empire for very long, especially Iraq. Even after Trajan's conquest it had to be released pretty quickly as a client state. Armenia on the other hand is more of a buffer state between Persia and Rome, but obviously they were fond of Romans more. That's why they're Christians even though they remained a different kind of Christians
Toldinstone has a video covering how long it too to spread the news on the death of julius caesar.
It's worth saying that Rome had CONSTANT revolts to put down. Eventually they realised that if they expand they will lose land, usually in another area.
But it does lead to another problem, namely what is an empire built on slavery supposed to do without wars to supply new slaves? They eventually solved this problem by implementing a system of serfdom. The very same Constantine who brought Christianity to Rome also wrote the laws that turned free tenant farmers into de facto slaves who were forbidden to leave the land they worked.
@@isaacbruner65Very interesting.
@@isaacbruner65 I thought it was Diocletian who brought proto-serfdom to the Roman empire?
@@isaacbruner65 Christianity was already quite popular in Rome and its territories. Definitely not the majority population but to say one man brought the religion in and everyone converted after is ridiculous. It was Diocletian who passed the laws and not Constantine and while the laws may seem less than ideal it did extend the empire's existence briefly.
@@Reaper08 While I agree that Constantine didn’t singlehandedly build Christianity in the Empire, I am still of the opinion that if Constantine was NOT Christian, then not only would Christianity probably never become the Empires state religion, but the empire would’ve also collapsed much earlier due to growing unrest from a growing Christian population (arguably, the opposite could’ve happened and the empire might’ve survived or even prospered longer, but this is all a hypothetical and no one can say for sure)
My point is, while Constantine didn’t do ALL the work, he surely did the majority of it by literally just being a Christian Emperor, it bumped up Christianity on the reputation spectrum in the peoples eyes and made Christianity an actual viable option for the empire
I do want to see "Did size matter to the Romans?" Answered on footnotes
the Romans did like things pretty large from monuments, to roads, to conquest, I'm sure they also required size in peen sizes
Large genitals were seen as barbaric and an indicator of poor breeding. The wealthy and powerful preferred a small frame and modest reproductive organs. The idea behind that being a cultured person would prioritize education and leisure over muscular development or carnal prowess.
@@DonariaRegia so Caesar had a micro dick?
I know that the Greeks at least made a pretense of preferring them small on an idealized male form, as seen on their statuary and pottery. Whether the Romans agreed or disagreed, I do not know.
There are various statistical breakdowns of modern day size. In Europe, Italy comes in 3rd (after Austria and France).
@@DonariaRegia By the Greeks not the Romans generally. Depending on the Emperor you could get a good job just for packing 😉
Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" is also a good explanation. The basic idea is: diminishing returns. The greatest returns on investment (manpower, resources, gold etc.) are at the beginning of expansion and growth. And some institutions always tend towards becoming more and more complex over time (government bureaucracy, as just one example). Over time the returns diminish while the costs increase. At some point the returns pay the expenses with no surplus, while the costs are so great that the entire economy is running to stand still. That's where complex societies become vulnerable to crises they can't deal with.
The Roman empire was an especially good example of this because its main source of revenue was expansionary conquest... but there are definitely some parallels to modern neoliberal society that keeps opening up markets to exploitation until there is no territory left on the globe to expand into...
makes sense
You assume that the Roman's conquered purely for profit motive instead of other motives like glory. I don't think an ambitious general riling up the troops to take new territory cares much about "diminishing returns" lol
Its funny that the supposedly "too complex" roman empire lasted far longer than its "superior" simple neighbors. I dont think that Roman complexity doomed it to fall when it existed (in one form or another) for well in excess of 1000 years. Especially when we consider most states fail to exist for more than 200.
Edit: I also think of china, a society that is incredibly complex at the same time as rome. It had its ups and downs but always managed to reconsitute itself. I would think it was only due to the complexity of the chinese state that it was able to keep itself together (with periods of great disunity) and not collapse.
Oh like ours now? Stockpile water
I've never liked the typical maps of "Rome at it's greatest extent" because Trajan's conquests evaporated so quickly that they really represented something more like a triumphant march to the Persian Gulf and little more. Hadrian was right to surmise that these new areas could not be held. The map gives the impression to many that these areas were truly part of Rome for an extended time.
They are added because it's for Rome's largest extent trajan's Conquest were Incorporated in the Empire they don't need to be in the empire for an extended period of time to be classified as Roman. The moment they were incorporated they were Roman territory and the only reason why they stop being a part of rome was because of Hadrian. Just because Hadrian removed them does not mean that wasn't Rome at its largest extent.
@@ORION00119 What does it mean to be Rome? Did the people think they were Rome? Were the provinces set up like the rest of Rome? It was an overstretch.
Rome could kick ass in Persia, but getting troops and control there without the Mediterranean Sea was a logistical nightmare.
@@shorewall the people thinking themselves Roman does not matter. All the Subject requires is the largest Extent that Rome Reached. Rome's official borders under trajan were the largest in Rome's history, it doesn't matter if it was for a short of time that was its largest extent. The argument for keeping those provinces and anything else does not matter to the question at hand which was the largest extent that Rome reached.
Edit: and Yes It was A Roman Province
Alright but Dacia was also under Trajan and they kept that for 2 centuries... when they lost it, it was already the start of the fall, they kept losing territory.
@@ORION00119Ja Sie haben Recht, außerdem ist bekannt das Hadrian sehr Neidisch auf seinen Vorgänger und Adobttivvater Trajan war.
I imagine administering far-away provinces from such a centralised state such as Rome would have been increasingly impractical. You could be waiting many months for messages to be relayed, then transporting equipment, training soldiers and so fortb.
Even in this configuration, they tried dividing the Empire into quarters, with a Senior Emperor in each half.
They did have basically a pony express kind of message system with horses staged every so often on message lines so a messenger could maintain speed.
I think I have seen an account where they said messages from Gaul to Rome only took 3 days or something like that.
Let’s be real tho quick communication wasn’t a thing until the first train lines and telegraph lines were put up. It was all letters and ships before that. Granted ships got a lot faster since the Roman era. But for the American president in DC to make an order to troops in California/Washington still took 6 weeks by land and sea.
So distance plays a factor in ruling earth? Communication is essential for the system? Logistics actually matters? What if people rebel? What if fighting never stops? What if you run out of money? What if nobody enlist's in the army?
@@Tethloach1what if you shut the hell up.
Why didn't the Romans consider expansion into Ireland (Hibernia)? Would it have been considered another Caledonia situation; too hostile, too cold, and too distant to be considered valuable?
Aye, shithole. It's only value would've been bringing security to the rest of the Britain
Ireland didn't have any immediate value to the Romans, and the cost of conquering it would have been so-so as a roman victory
You answered your own question excellently there!
Exactly! As it happens, I address that question in "Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators, and War Elephants." You should be able to read the relevant section on the Amazon or Google preview.
Too much faff
Lets not forget that central Europe is much colder winters than Gaul, Hispania, Italia, Brittain. 20 years ago even here on Balkans we had heavy snow for 4 months every year.
I find it so amazing that the two greatest empires of ancient times (Han China and Rome) just happened to occur at the same time.
That's a good point, I never thought of that.
Han China a great empire?😂 I would have considered the Persian Empire the only other true ancient equivalent at the time.
@@DejanKeepingitReal Considering the Han ruled over an estimated 30% of the world population and a larger land area than Parthia, not to mention many other qualifying factors, why wouldnt you consider them a great empire?
It is amazing that the two empires of a specific time happened to happen at the same time!
@@themagickalmagickman Because people always disregard oriental history due to their rooted eurocentrism, anyone that loves and knows a lot about history is fond of the Chnese dynasties
There's an old Rudyard Kipling poem, The Lost Legion, that begins,
"There's a Legion that never was listed,
That carries no colours or crest,
But, split in a thousand detachments,
Is breaking the road for the rest."
It was basically about traders and adventurers that, over centuries, built the British Empire but it could also apply to the Roman Republic. It wasn't just the grand politicians that built the Republic to it's peak for the Empire to inherit, it was also the younger sons of the landed gentry seeking opportunities and retired legionaries taking land grants in the conquered territories that "Romanized" their neighbours through intermarriage and building social and economic ties.
With the fall of the Republic the landed class grew smaller and the Empires discouraged the survivors from straying too far out of sight and building a power base outside the Emperors' control. Without fresh blood from Rome the old connections grew weaker until the people living at the border regions had more in common with the barbarians outside the borders than the elite back in Rome.
1:03 Garrett's editor definitively laughed hearing Biggus Dickus.
I can imagine those (seemingly) endless Germanic woodlands filled with one 'barbaric tribe' after another being to excessive and thus starting to become less interesting for the Romans .The East was more unified. So if they defeated the local King's army , they could take over the existing order.
wood has actually a high value
@@kanalisationerstellen The combination of military/security expenses and transport costs would likely have nullified that, and it doesn't have the immediate, loot value of things like gold.
Great video. These videos that focus narrowly on a specific topic are far more informative and interesting to me than many of the videos on other channels that try to cover huge broad topics.
Although they claimed they had conquered Scotland and tried to set it in stone The Romans never managed to fully conquer Scotland or Ireland. In Scotland they got as far as Perth and up the north eastern side, basically all the areas we consider lowlands. All the rest of Scotland they never managed to claim is the highlands and was completely forested back in those days. It is understandable the Romans gave up and one can imagine calculated the immense undertaking and loses involved in attacking such a wild wilderness full of angry Scots who knew every mountain, valley, nook and cranny like the back of there hands.
read Worms of the Earth to know why they failed :)
Every general or emperor that attempted it (I.e severus) just ended up genociding a bunch of scots and dying of disease
@@BlackMasterRoshi give us a TDLR pleaseeee, forgive my intellectual laziness.
Plus there was shit all there that would make conquering it worthwhile
They abandoned conquest due to death of emperors and other political issues at home.
a hidden factor is the huge garrison force of Britain. We never made a profit for the Romans, not in all the time they were here, and they knew it. Some commanders of the British legions rebelled against the centre and marched east against Rome, expensive civil wars. The Celtic Brits were never enthusiastic Romans, when the garrisons left their culture left with them and we became enthusiastic Anglo-Saxons until 1066 and all that.
It’s true, the province of Britannia returned poor ROI
The British are literally more trouble than they're worth
The sterotype of the dark ages is mostly a result of how bad things got in england once the Romans left, it's kind of wild.
Britain had such a huge military presence mostly because of constant threats from caledonia and hibernia and later from across the north sea.
They could have conquered caledonia and hibernia, it wouldnt have been profitable but in the long run it would have reduced the need for military in britain and this would have been a huge strategic gain.
@@ldubt4494 Conquering and holding land are two very different things, however. If they had taken Hibernia and Caledonia they would have had to build necessary infrastructure such as roads and ports for trade/commerce which was probably too much effort for the Romans to be bothered with considering how relatively remote Ireland and Scotland are to mainland Europe.
One detail worth noting is that Emperors had a lifetime to gain glory. While for many, that lifetime was relatively short, this is very different from Consuls who knew they had a year to make it count.
Your voice is much more tranquil then other history-related channels out there.
From maps, it looks like Rome faced a threshold in terms of what they could develop. They were "conquer-and-administer" as their core competency. It looks like they stopped where they had to develop from scratch. A lot of the areas they conquered had tools available to bootstrap itself (Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia)
This is a good insight. They could have made quite the wealthy territory out of Germania had they deforested the area, but considering deforesting Germany took several centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, it would have been no small feat.
Honestly, Garrett should’ve let the editor use the name he wanted to for the video 😂
Very interesting book. The Roman-Persian wars drive me crazy because mainstream history tends to ignore it, and when it does it focuses entirely on the Roman POV.
Its cause Persia whooped their asses like a million times. We cant have that now.
@@KoroushRP Persia started most of those wars (or at least greatly expanded them). So they got to pick times when their own eastern frontier was quiet and Rome had trouble elsewhere. Every time as soon as Rome got their affairs in order they won a single major battle and Persia scrambled back home. Neither side was interested in getting much more than loot and tribute from the other.
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 You're explaining further contexts of the wars but that's irrelevant with regards to what he said. You're supposed to pick ideal conditions for wars.
Persia rightfully had a bone to pick since they had ruled over Levant, Anatolia and Egypt, even going back to their predecessor empire Media, and it's normal to want some of that back.
@@KoroushRP Eh not really tho
I think the natural barrier is communication and transportation. The longer it takes to communicate with your frontier or send soldiers, the harder it is to effectively exercise control
When it comes to central eastern and northern borders, I would say the main factor was likely the law of diminishind return: to conquer and most importantly maintain inhospitable and mostly non-urbanized areas not very suitable for extensive agriculture and not easily taxable was essentially not worth the resources necessarily to do so. And the further the expansion in outer areas with not pre-established cities and road systems, the more challenging to have the central infrastructures and communication work properly. Also, further expansion North East would mean more military efforts to settle revolts, more potential usurpers.
Western and southern borders were obviously geographic barriers, while South East the Parthian/Persian was a formidable opponent that could not be toppled.
If the Battle of Teutoberg Forest never happened, do you think Rome would have held on to the land between the Rhine and Elbe long-term? While it was sparsely populated, that means more land could be granted to veterans who had finished their term of service (colonies).
I think if there is one big explanation, it's because more expansion just didn't pay in hard money or the ROI was negative or unsustainable: for example, Dacia had known gold mines, so it was worth crossing the Danube to seize. I think at each point along the frontier, the question also had a local answer. Scotland and Ireland were just not worth conquering and even England and Wales were only marginally valuable. The Rhine and Danube saved money and time on logistics (as did the Mediterranean at center) and those two big rivers naturally kept barbarians out or from coordinating well after making a crossing. I'm not sure conquering Germania to the Elbe would have made much difference overall, and I don't think Bohemia's gold was yet known to exist. Persia blocked Rome in the east by force and the desert blocked Rome in the south by terrain.
Yeah. All that would have been worth conquering in Germania in this time period would be anything close enough to the Rhine and Danube for easy transport to the coast. The moment you stray too far from a navigable river (with a nice port city at its mouth) then there's no way those foggy forests of Germany would be worth anything to a Mediterranean focused iron age civilization. Arguably Rome had more to gain in the Black Sea, but the difficult to defend and irrigate steppe prevented the great potential of what is now Ukraine to be realized until the Slavs came in with gunpowder and early modern plows to do so.
my favorite channel
Top content as always.
Wonderful video. I love watching your videos, they are a source of pure joy to a historian. The logistics of running such a large empire, in that time and with all those limitations, is mind boggling. Thank you.
could it be because the Imperial system had a tradition of (and had risen out of) powerful generals declaring themselves emperor? the result was that the current emperor was always afraid of any general becoming too powerful and thus tended to clip their wings? i understand that's what happened to Agricola in Scotland. And a corollary would be that generals who did become powerful would have an eye on declaring themselves emperor and turning on Rome, rather than actually expanding the frontier (as several generals in Britain did)
The question I was puzzled about for such a long time. Thank you!
I ❤ Told In Stone. Or definitely, really, really, really like it. Thank you. The maps the graphics, the images in sculptures of emperors. And a very pleasant tone of voice.
I like your editor, Garrett
Because the campaign map was limited only to that region of the world.
Great informative videos
6:55 actually, Rom goal to conquer England and Scottland was not accomplished because an Emperor feared that his general would get too much influence. so the general had to stop(although scottland was nearly fully conquered). Later the Emperer tried to conquer it but the natives invented tactics which made the conquest to expensive and very difficult.
Glad you mentioning the Han Empire. Some historians consider the Mediterranean the entire world when speaking history
It is 😃 oh and the atlantic
Bret Devereaux (whom I believe you interviewed last year) emphasizes what a massive difference waterways make to preindustrial military logistics. Where you can transport food by sea or river, your army can operate over much greater distances and for much longer periods of time than when you need to transport it over land, because ships, unlike human- or animal-driven land transport, can carry food without consuming food. Thus, it's no surprise that the Roman Empire was largely confined to the Mediterranean coast; the few territories it had that weren't along the Mediterranean were largely accessible either by major river systems or from the Atlantic.
4:56 Lets goooooooo
Love the content! Keep it up
every time, i swear, every time im settling down on a friday night after a long busy day I get surprised by the release of yet another awesome Toldinstone vid
That book you recommended sounds fascinating - I will definitely check it out!
Not out for a few months yet :(
i think a big reason for the location of the Roman territory is that the Mediterranean Sea(Mare Nostrum = Our Sea) is the most important aspect of the empire. Controlling the whole coastline meant you had a vast trade income while at the same time making the port cities super wealthy which could then be taxed. Furthering the borders beyond that(Ghaul, Dacia, Middle-East) is mainly beneficial to subdue future invasions.
Not only that but waterway transport is much faster than on land, which improves communications massively as a result.
6:00 I've never seen a real cart before the horse. LoL
Could you please elaborate, on how Europe of today, would have been different IF had Publius Quinctilius Varus NOT been defeated by Arminius? I remember back in 1987, when the main battlefield in Kalkriese was found. It was here that the Empire ended, and I have wondered since then, HOW would Germany/Europe would have developed IF this battle never took place.
The Roman empire didn't end at Teutoburg. Varus' defeat in 9 AD was a temporary set back at worst. Roman legions under the command of Germanicus actually reinvaded northern Germany and inflicted multiple defeats on the German tribes in 15 and 16 AD. Arminius himself was later killed by his own people due to internal tribal politics. Moreover, Rome continued to expand and conquer new territories over the next century. For example, they invaded and conquered Britain in 43 AD and Dacia (modern day Romania) in 117 AD.
It's doubtful a Roman victory at Teutoburg would have changed history much. What really halted Roman expansion was economics. It cost Rome a lot of money to maintain its army, garrison and administer its provinces, and build and maintain the road system that connected the empire. Simply put, there wasn't much of economic value in Germany to make it worth while for Rome to conquer and hold it. While Britain had tin mines, Dacia had gold mines, Egypt had grain, and the East had valuable trade routes to the Orient, all Germany had was forests and swamps. A similar thing happened when the Romans later invaded Caledonia (Scotland). There after initial victories they eventually withdrew as the cost to garrison the country outweighed the economic benefits.
Ultimately, what caused Rome's destruction in was a combination of political decay, high taxation and inflation, and large scale human migration into Europe. By the 5th century Rome simply couldn't afford to keep a large enough army in the field to defend against the barbarian incursions. A key factor was a growing Roman reliance on allied tribes (foederati) to provide troops free of charge to defend the frontier. Over time the foederati grew more and more powerful and carved their own mini kingdoms inside Roman territory. By the 420s large parts on the Western roman empire were controlled by the Franks and Vandals. The Roman Army was simply too small and too weak to do anything about it. Fifty years later the empire was kaput.
I think it would not have made a big difference. Germania lacks gold, was forested, had more swamps and bogs, is hilly, and has a harsher climate than Gaul or southern Britain. It also always would have been less secure, and so more expensive to defend. I think it never would be a priority for Rome to Romanize or develop Germania or at least the accessible part between the Rhine and Elbe. Bohemia has gold but I don't think it was yet discovered in Roman times.
The Romans still wouldn't have conquered Germania as it was simply not worth conquering. As chrismace2221 already said, it was economics that largely halted Roman expansion. Maintaining an army of 430,000 men and the supporting infrastructure is not cheap. Trying to annex new territories that held little economic value wouldn't make sense. Contrary to Hollywood movies, the Romans don't try to conquer the world and expand just because they can.
@@RemembertheKrell excellent
thanks for the informative video. good stuff
If you look at the map on the caption of the video, you could even argue they had reached the most efficient expansion possible. Everything around was in reach for trade and everything had a little foothold, too.
I know the history was a lot different and they couldn't stretch further so easily, but still, this could have been an ideal setup if they had enjoyed it.
Hi, I have a question. Do you know if the Roman Empire was defined/labeled as "hortus conclusus" when they decided to not expand anymore?
5:58 -- What is being illustrated here? It looks like the horse (mule?) is bring used to _push_ something.
That's a vallus - a reaping machine used in Roman Gaul
The Editor Strikes Back 😂👌🏻
If they expanded any more they would hit the next imperium lvl. Dropping the loyalty of the parties.
Terrific video!
Does anyone know the name of the font of ”the roman empire at the death of augustus? E.g 6:49
I believe I have Adrian Goldsworthy's book on Caesar, good stuff
I liked the title you had in mind.
W editor
Thank you again for another great piece of work. Please do know you have a big fan in Mexico.
Hey! The image after the editor quote is my background on my laptop
Always happy to see you upload
"Why Did the Roman Empire Stop Expanding?" In-fighting and private armies that held allegiance to their generals rather than the state, they put all their efforts into civil wars rather than protecting/expanding the empire.
Logistics! I think that what gets lost is the logistics of maintaining an army in the field. I would contend that Rome's boundaries were limited by distance from the Mediterranean sea and supply issues.
This would explain why they could take but not hold Mesopotamia. This also shows the importance of the Roman navy which gets little attention.
Still not over Commodus not expanding the Roman Empire over to Baltic Sea coast (as he claimed he would do in a speech in a Herodian's text) and establishing a province in modern day Poland... having Wenedyk language in real life would be so cool
The only areas of surprise that Rome did not conquer was Mesopotamia and Persia because both were part of Alexander's Empire and Mesopotamia was a fixture on ancient world. They took Persia's capital several times but never incorporated that Empire.
Another amazing video. But could you please put sources in descriptions for further readings? Thanks. :)
Germanic tribes beat them, Scythians/Huns beat them and then Parthian/Persians beat them.
In fact all of these beat them so badly that eventually they broke.
"the Parthian and later Persian empire". Are these terms linguistic variants of the same root or are you drawing a distinction between Parthia and Persia?
Yeah I didn't get that either. The Parthian empire was the Persian empire. The Sassanid empire was the Persian empire.
The Parthian empire is usually considered distinct because the Parthians were a distinct ruling class
Will you be talking about Armenia, the border between the Roman and the Persian world?
Because of one man : Adrian
Adrian Newey
There may have been unlimited land to conquer, but there was no unlimited supply of Roman soldiers or mercenaries. Also, as you move further away from Rome logistics become an issue.
Additionally, in 30 BC the Roman army switched from conscription to recruitment, just like our modern armies. Pretty soon mercenaries made up 50% of the army. Further expansion would have required more money, for almost no extra return.
Last but not least: Roman soldiers far away from home had relationships with local girls. They were forbidden to marry them until the reign of Emperor Severus (192-211 A.D.), but the mix which had resulted in the romanisation of the locals also meant that the soldiers were no longer available to be stationed elsewhere. Mixed marriages made the borders fade away. The military conquest was over, but the Romans had left their cultural mark.
As the video said, a densely populated, fertile land is much more profitable to own than deserts and wastelands.
Another thing is that you defeat a kingdom's army, and replace the king with your guy, you can pretty much use the existing system and annex the kingdom. Later you can tweak it to match your own administration. If the land is of villages which raid and kill each other, you need to defeat and control them separately, change their way of life, and they still don't produce much that you value. Except perhaps for soldiers, you can recruit barbarians in your armies instead of your own citizens, and I see no way this could possibly backfire.
Wdym "deserts and wastelands"? Mesopotamia was THE most fertile region in the ancient world and one of the most densely populated.
@@yaqubebased1961 By "deserts and wastelands" I meant the parts of Afrika closest to Italy, the Germanic and Pict tribes.
You are absolutely right, Mesopotamia was incredibly fertile, but getting to it was very challenging logistically. It would mean an incredibly long overland march over hostile terrain (which Rome as a land power preferred), or a second sea voyage over unfamiliar seas. While not impossible to invade (Trajan and Julian did so), it proved very difficult to hold.
Perhaps if they tried to capture and hold it bit by bit, instead of take it all at once they would have been more successful. On the other hand, a province so far away would not count on timely support against enemies, and with constant political turmoil would be very difficult to keep loyal.
@@nikolatasev4948 lol you're right, I completely forgot about roman africa
There was also the problem that the further out a province was, the harder it was to control politically from Rome. There were a lot of serious rebellions in the more distant provinces, either by the populations there, or by governors who felt they should be kings or even emperors.
What’s really interesting to me is the border with Parthia/Persia. This lasted from the Roman Republic, through the Empire, and continued to the Byzantine period, neither side able to decisively defeat the other despite numerous wars.
And that same border existed between the Ottoman Empire and Persia, again for hundreds of years of wars.
You would think this would mean that border was really hard to overcome from both the East and the West.
And yet the early Muslims stormed out of Arabia in the early 7th century and crossed that border in BOTH directions, defeating the Byzantine empire and defeating and conquering the entire Persian empire in just a few years. It’s one of the most bizarre and impressive episodes in history, right up there with Alexander’s conquests, the Mongol conquests, and the conquest of much of the world by relatively small and distant European states like Portugal and Britain.
It's not bizarre at all, both empires just had gotten out of the last Sassanid-Byzantine war, which left them both very weak. Rome managed better because it wasn't struck by 84239 rebellions after the war and had their capital super far away of the Arabs, privileges that the Sassanids didn't have... Also, they were the ones who won the war, but still lost Africa and the Levant
@@javiercolina1502 I agree completely with what you wrote. The Byzantines and Persians had just come out of the ancient equivalent of a world war. However, both the Persians and Byzantines were still able to put together impressive armies, and those armies were routinely defeated by some desert tribes.
At the Battle of Yarmouk, relatively reliable evidence has the Byzantine army at 50,000 troops. That’s a massive army for any era before the 1700s. And yet they still lost to some outnumbered desert tribesmen.
Empire's have one enduring trait that is common to them, that is while typically created by conquest and engaging in frequent warfare: Empire's DON'T CONQUOR.
At the end of the day the fundamental issue is that an Emperor benefits little from adding new land to his empire. Even a wealthy kingdom adds little when compared to the massive empire they already possess, by contrast the emperor is personally responsible for managing and integrating any new territories as well as paying for all that process. Huge headache for little gain. Most wars focus on non-territorial gains, with territorial gains more about security then conquest.
Usually only the founder and maybe it's immediate successor engage in any significant expansion. We can see this in the Mongols, We see it in Charlemagne, we see it in china, in Persia, so on and so forth. I think the Ottomans lasted the longest for continuous conquerors although even this slowed rapidly. Indeed one of the notable things about the British/European colonial empires is that they were driven by independent nobles and politicians (e.g. east india company) not the rulers.
The problem with expanding your empire, is you just expand into more enemies.
Very nice description! Very nice the German tribes held the lines.
While I'd never say that this knowledge is completely real world accurate, I will say that I'm surprised how much I learned from playing video games as a kid.
A few things I learned from playing the game "Knights & Merchants" (A Real Time Strategy game with a heavy focus on the civilian side of food and production.)
-Expanding your territory without a MASSIVE surplus of food will create a famine in an otherwise healthy civilization.
-The Military is a surprisingly parasitic branch of society. It pulls massive amounts of food and resources from the rest of your civilization, and gives very little back in return. A military is necessary because it provides protection, but it steals food and supplies from your agriculture and production arms, which are both of far greater benefit to the civilization as a whole.
-The more land you control, the harder it is to keep it. And since the military is so parasitic on the economy, and it takes time to travel from one border to the other, you are often times given the choice between "Feeding the parasite" by creating more armies, or withdrawing your forces back to a position that you can more easily control.
Once again, I'm only discussing the way things work in a computer game, not real life, However, it seems to be knowledge that parallels fairly well. And it's knowledge that strongly affects my views on questions like "Why didn't the Roman Empire expand further?"
(Next up, what Morrowwind taught me about evolution! 🤣🤣🤣)
Garrett, thoughts on Largo di Torre Argentina, the square where Julius Caesar was reportedly killed, now being open to tourists?
Can you imagine people of the future posing an equivalent question like "why didn't the eu expand any further?"
I know ofc that the 50 years of eu existence are nothing compared to the 500 years of the roman empire (as a whole before the west collapsed). But in our days history development a lot more quickly. And if (let's say) eu lasts another 50 years + as it is today people of 2100 might pose the same question
La cosa veramente straordinaria è che l'Impero Romano è riuscito a controllare per molto tempo i suoi immensi confini con poche decine di migliaia di legionari.
Natural barriers such as the Rhine and Danube rivers? Arid deserts to the south and east?
1. Law of Diminishing Returns.
2. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
3. The transfer of wealth from production to conspicuous consumption; from self-sufficiency to import-export dependency resulting in balance of payments crises.
4. Military overspend.
5. The oppressed wanting freedom from tyranny.
I never noticed, but northern frontier of Roman Empire followed the limit of continental climate, with icy winter, while all of Mediterranean and Oceanic climates, with mild winter, are within the empire.
Although perfectly livable today (but producing no olive oil, and very few wine), perhaps continental winter did not suit well for Roman time agriculture or was too lengthy and harsh to sustain warming and feeding large cities. Except by using Rhine and Danube river to supplement it.
The same happened much later in Baltic countries : they were thinly populated with no major city until ships became large enough to carry large amount of food traded for wood and fur.
I think the most formidable border the Romans ever had was with the Atlantic Ocean
They did get to the Canary Islands, which they named after the Latin word for dog. So I suspect they didn't like the place much.
Matches pretty well with what Tainter says in "the collapse of complex civilization"... they had conquered all the territories that made them more money than they cost them. Further expansion (and even some of the expansion they did) was a net-negative economic prospect.
Thank you!
It has been theorized that during the global warm period that the Roman empire experienced it was possible to grow olives and grapes much further north than today.
Whenever I talk about Roman expansion, I always differentiate in three categories: Roman Republic, Augustus and Roman Empire.
During the Republic, the aggressive expansion of Roman territories was indirectly fueled by Rome political system. The consuls had only one year to prove their worth and military conquest was definitely the easiest and shortest route. It's no wonder why Roman republic was almost constantly in war with somebody else for almost 500 years.
In the later Empire, there were only two reasons for expansion wars: consolidation of power and economic reasons.
"Weak" emperors used the expansion war as an argument to strengthen their position in Rome and gain the favour of Senate and people. A successful example of this strategy is the conquest od Britain by Claudius.
On the other side, the bad financial state of Roman Empire forced many wars with the only goal to get some treasure to boost the economy. Look at Trajan: he had no reason to invade Dacia but to bring back to Rome the rich golden treasure they had (a two-week long convoy af carriages full of gold, if I remember correctly).
The only Roman being with a different mindset was Augustus (and that's why he's the best emperor of all).
He understood that the Roman State (during the transition between republic and empire) needed stability; in addition, he even understood that said stability could not be achieved until the hostile population at the borders of the state were pacified, either by diplomacy (like Parthians) or war (like Germans and Arabs).
The German campaigns of Tiberius, Varus and later Germanicus had the goal of preventing the Germans from breaking the stability of the borders. If Teutoburg didn't happen ( or better, if Germanicus was allowed to continue his campaign), Germany would have ended up being a Roman province fornthe centuries ahead and the Northern border would have been way more stable (with a ton of positive consequences for the later empire).
The problem is that "these" maps are all wrong. We always think like a modern citizen so we naturally think everything red on the map "belongs" to Rome and "its people" right? Wrong!
Actually Rome is Italy and the greek area near to it because of its safety. Thats it, rest of the "occupied" places are MOSTLY vassals. They dont belong to the empire or they dont feel themselves "Roman" lol. They just pay tribute and thats it.
The map system and the "Nation-Based" country system we live in, make people confused about those times imo.
Good documentary.
I always felt that Rome only stopped expanding due to its reliance on the Mediterranean sea.
"Started wars and annexed territory for Rome's glory, and their own." Right off the bat, you make a catastrophic analytical mistake. Rome's wars of conquest were a path to wealth for individuals, particularly after the full professionalization of the Legions under Marian. It's a mistake to believe that anything else, particularly sentiments like "glory" were a motivating factor. Money was power, and vice versa in Rome.
Very interesting!
It was already too big to effectively administer which is the real reason it half-collapsed. That and an entire third century of unbelievably bad luck.
Adrian Goldsworthy 👍🏽👍🏽
BTW i remember that the western Roman Empire fell at circa 400 A.D. but the eastern Roman Empire fell only at circa 1450 A.D.
they are a on foot marching ligionair supply by the roman private mediterainian lake ...keeping only in supplyable distance covering the lake
They reached the maximum size where they could respond to revolts. 1. News reaches Rome, 2. Legion dispatched, 3. total response time, by either gally or roads, N days. The frontiers were equidistant from Rome based on travel time.
Imagine the logistics of an empire that large. Men traveled on foot or by horse. Goods traveled by cart. There was no way to properly store food while transporting it. Not to mention the fact that many of the emperors were, on a good day, barking mad.
Inertia, to some degree. Imperialism pushed expansion, because examples of Roman might, and the absirbtion of loot from the conquered helped sustain the empire. But as the victories occurred further and further away, and less loot made it back to Rome, this enthusiasm dwindled. Also, being rich meant being near the seat of power, and that meant huge bribes to Imperial coffers. It also meant incredible danger from mad, greedy emperors, their sycophants and getting involved in the latest plot to usurp power. Eventually, military action at the Empire's borders was to simply protect what they had acquired, while wealth was made through trade.
Another day another history youtuber undermined the Iranian empire greatly. those guys are hugely underrated on TH-cam no matter what you say. if there wasn't for them, I can 100& say that Rome would conquer as far as Japan, no other power could resist roman might.
Garrett doesn't have enough vision 😔
I want an SPQR stop sign t-shirt. Can you make some?