- This topic has 5 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Interesting article put out by the BBC today:Roman 'disaster' that shaped Europe Interesting theory about how it may have affected Europe ever since. Not sure how true it is, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Seems a lot of what ifs in this article. Fun to speculate, but it isn't history. One thing mentioned in the article
Did the Varian Disaster, which took place exactly 2,000 years ago and stunned the Roman Empire into a temporary paralysis, mark a turning point in its all-conquering mindset?
Didn't this all-conquering mindset pretty much cease during the reigns of Trajan and especially Hadrian? Hadrian pulled back from Mesopotamia and made distinct borders in Europe. The article also makes no mention of the Parthians, but then again it was about Germany's effects on the Romans, not the Near East.
Seems a lot of what ifs in this article. Fun to speculate, but it isn't history.
I don't think the speculation is so-far fetched (I'm referring to the part that pertains to the quote you mentioned). Historians try to argue the significance of what they uncover, and the greater the significance the more important their work becomes. I guess my pause in regard to these claims is that I simply don't know whether there is some alternative explanation that could explain the mind-set.
Didn't this all-conquering mindset pretty much cease during the reigns of Trajan and especially Hadrian? Hadrian pulled back from Mesopotamia and made distinct borders in Europe. The article also makes no mention of the Parthians, but then again it was about Germany's effects on the Romans, not the Near East.
I think that you're right the expansion mindset stopped around the time of Hadrian. I'm not sure why, but we do know that the population of Rome began to drop sometime, I think in the late-2nd century A.D. This could help to explain why Rome got more defensive, as you point out. Why did you mention the part about the Parthians....conquered under Augustus?
Yes, they were conquered, but didn't the Parthians come back a bit towards the end of the empire? The Sassanids I think were quite antagonistic.
I'm not aware of it happening, but it could be. I should brush up on my knowledge of conquered Roman subjects. :-
There are several things wrong with the article from a factual standpoint.1. The defeat of Varus did not shock the Empire into Paralysis. This is a myth; roman expansion was coming to a natural pause at the time anyway.2. It was definitely not the biggest defeat the Romans ever suffered, perhaps the biggest one during the formal imperial period though. The Romans lost a 40,000 man army at Carrhae in 53 BC and a 60,000 man army at Cannae in 216 BC. Lastly they suffered the loss of a 30,000 man army at the final battle of the Western Empire at Adrianople.He sure makes a stretch in attributing the roman loss responsibility for such things as the Reformation and German-French antagonism. However, the article ends well. The battle was significant but not world-shaking. This analysis from the article says it well.
"But we have to recognise the Romans came back hard. They smashed the German armies soon after, regaining the ground and driving Arminius to his death. "They probably could have completed the conquest but the political will to spend the effort doing so had weakened. "And after this Rome did not turn its back on Germany. There was trade, there were treaties, and the later Roman army was substantially made up of German mercenaries. "And it was mostly tribes from Germany which overwhelmed the Western Empire. The cultures of Rome and the tribes north of the Rhine, even if they had not mixed before, must have done then."
TMO if Rome really wanted to keep conquering over the territories behind the Rhine, nothing would had stopped them. What was valuable there at the time ? Forests, remote villages, nothing precious enough to sacrifice more men. Same with later invasions, Germanic or Hunnic ones: they just crossed those territories to catch the western parts of Europe: current Belgium, Netherlands, France and Italy if they could.Teutoburg was like a warning : Rome was not invincible.Rome collapsed 4 centuries after that battle.
There are several things wrong with the article from a factual standpoint.1. The defeat of Varus did not shock the Empire into Paralysis. This is a myth; roman expansion was coming to a natural pause at the time anyway.2. It was definitely not the biggest defeat the Romans ever suffered, perhaps the biggest one during the formal imperial period though. The Romans lost a 40,000 man army at Carrhae in 53 BC and a 60,000 man army at Cannae in 216 BC. Lastly they suffered the loss of a 30,000 man army at the final battle of the Western Empire at Adrianople.He sure makes a stretch in attributing the roman loss responsibility for such things as the Reformation and German-French antagonism. However, the article ends well. The battle was significant but not world-shaking. This analysis from the article says it well.
"But we have to recognise the Romans came back hard. They smashed the German armies soon after, regaining the ground and driving Arminius to his death. "They probably could have completed the conquest but the political will to spend the effort doing so had weakened. "And after this Rome did not turn its back on Germany. There was trade, there were treaties, and the later Roman army was substantially made up of German mercenaries. "And it was mostly tribes from Germany which overwhelmed the Western Empire. The cultures of Rome and the tribes north of the Rhine, even if they had not mixed before, must have done then."
Hannibal did more to paralyze Rome than anything, but even he was unable to halt the war machine forever. Rome quit expanding when they wanted to; not when someone else wanted them to.
