Rome\'s 3 biggest mistakes.

[Timotheus]

So what would you consider to be the three largest mistakes made by Rome either as a Republic or as the Empire? These are three that come to mind.


1. The Senate's refussal to create a program and spend the money to properly settle legion veterans. If such a program had be initiated and maintained a large reason for generals gaining such loyalty from their men would have gone away.

2. Giving up on Germany. I am not suggesting that there was anytihng of incredible value in Germany but a continual move to claim the region and then move further east could have given Rome a much shorter north to south border instead of the very long nw to se border that it had historically. Looking at a map that border could be half the length it ended up being historically.

3. Christianity. Going to Christianity as its official religion changed the Empire alot. The internal problems caused by Christianity really seemed to sap the Empire at times and leave it more vulnerable.


Opinions? Would you chose different?

[Wander]

The first ones that come to my mind are:

1: Octavian didn't put in place a mechanism for selecting future Emperors wisely. If he had done so -- perhaps having the Senate choose someone -- they might have been spared Caligula, Nero, Commodus and the like. (Not to mention the Year of the Four Emperors, and the travesty of having the Praetorian Guard auction the Empire off to the highest bidder.)

2: Constant attempts to conquer Parthia/Persia. This drained Rome of massive amounts of manpower and money, and created a politically imbalanced condition for far too long. They should have set up a buffer state both empires could deal with.

3: Military overextension -- too much expansion, too fast, created far more border space and military overhead than Rome and its close allies could support (see "Giving up on Germany" above). This caused Rome to rely far too much on auxiliaries and mercenaries -- and, while most of them proved reliable and able allies, this was also the open door that let in the Vandals, Goths, and Huns. With slower expansion, more of the allied territory could be Romanized, and the military needs could have been met with troops who were loyal for more than money and territory.

[Jona Lendering]

2. Giving up on Germany. I am not suggesting that there was anytihng of incredible value in Germany but a continual move to claim the region and then move further east could have given Rome a much shorter north to south border instead of the very long nw to se border that it had historically. Looking at a map that border could be half the length it ended up being historically.

They did not know. According to the map of Ptolemy, the Elbe frontier would have been longer than the Rhine.

That being said, I think there was something of incredible value over there - and quite a lot of it: the mines in the Taunus and Hartz Mountains, and the fertile land along the Lippe, Main, and Rhine. It has always struck me that ancient historians believe the crap about the poverty of Germany (cf. Tacitus, Germania, 2) while their colleagues of Medieval History say that the success of Medieval Germany depended on its agricultural and mineralogical wealth. Control of the east bank of the Rhine was, and is, the power engine of Europe, but ancient historians are strangely unaware of it.

[sonic]

It has always struck me that ancient historians believe the crap about the poverty of Germany (cf. Tacitus, Germania, 2) while their colleagues of Medieval History say that the success of Medieval Germany depended on its agricultural and mineralogical wealth. Control of the east bank of the Rhine was, and is, the power engine of Europe, but ancient historians are strangely unaware of it.

That is because Ancient Historians have tended to follow the lead of classicists, who might know their Tacitus but need not necessarily understand the world outside the classics!

A good example springs to mind: in his translation of Vegetius (LUP), Milner translates the following: 'smooth stones shot with a sling or staff-sling are more dangerous than any arrows, since while leaving the limbs intact they inflict a wound that is still lethal, and the enemy dies from the blow of the stone without loss of blood' (Veg. 1. 16).

In the footnote, Milner states that this is "reminiscent of David and Goliath, since the idea is militarily unsound". (Check for yourself, it's footnote 6 on page 16!)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would roughly agree with you Timotheus...

[Jona Lendering]

That is because Ancient Historians have tended to follow the lead of classicists, who might know their Tacitus but need not necessarily understand the world outside the classics!

Exactly.

[M. Demetrius]

As I see it, by the time the Empire broadly embraced Christianity, albeit in a perfunctory manner for the most part, it was already in decline, mostly because of Wander's 2 and 3 reasons above.

Add in to that the excessive taxation of provinces, leading to disgruntled populace there, necessitating more troops to keep order...and that the free food and games mentality in the core of the empire didn't add to production, and you have a recipe for disaster, regardless of choice of religious expression.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If they had taken Germania, they would have had a shorter border to defend as pointed out.

And of course it was the over taxation by the Religious elite that helped
increase the burden on the common people. This carried on into the middle ages.......

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

3. Christianity. Going to Christianity as its official religion changed the Empire alot. The internal problems caused by Christianity really seemed to sap the Empire at times and leave it more vulnerable.

True on one hand, but apart from the assumption that monotheist religions are more prone to be questioned IMO, I would say that massive internal feud and fighting as well as theological dispute are always signs, that the central powers (e.g. old pagan religion) are already weakened. EDIT: as Demetrius already pointed out ;-) ) (just saw your post)
And regardless of the former, Rome changed christianity a lot vice-versa, and not to the best for centuries to come. :? Just a thought.

That being said, I think there was something of incredible value over there - and quite a lot of it: the mines in the Taunus and Hartz Mountains, and the fertile land along the Lippe, Main, and Rhine. It has always struck me that ancient historians believe the crap about the poverty of Germany (cf. Tacitus, Germania, 2) while their colleagues of Medieval History say that the success of Medieval Germany depended on its agricultural and mineralogical wealth. Control of the east bank of the Rhine was, and is, the power engine of Europe, but ancient historians are strangely unaware of it.

But all this is nothing, if you have to constantly fight for it. I read somewhere, what it took some 20 years in the average to develope a province and as I got it Rome never made a bargain out of Britain. (similiar with the EU today ;-) ) ). And I think Rome was through trading perfectly able to make some profit out of Germany without having to waste its legions there.

So the first Roman major mistake was the change in the policy from controlling territories by treaties and dependency to the direct installation of provinces with all the consequences.

1. The Senate's refussal to create a program and spend the money to properly settle legion veterans. If such a program had be initiated and maintained a large reason for generals gaining such loyalty from their men would have gone away.

This would basically be the second mistake for me. The Roman inability to solve the social question with anything other than "panem et circensem".

[M. Demetrius]

Was it religious or political (I know in the Middle Ages, the two were very entangled) motive that was at the heart of the high taxes on the outer lands? I favor the political--Rome was too big to support its population, and not productive enough to feed everyone who flocked there, so they raised taxes elsewhere and lowered to zero the taxes on the common people in Rome to keep the peace.

I know that's hopelessly oversimplified as explanations go.

Did the priests in Rome play a part in that problem? If so, what?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Not so much priests in rome, but every general who saw the power lay in the religious posts.........and so on.....it's just fact , nothing to get upset about, after all priests are just people, not gods....and they were prone to all the weaknesses of man.

[Jona Lendering]

I think the ultimate problem was traditionalism. If it had wanted, Rome could have reached self-sustained economic growth. Within the borders of the Empire, there were scholars, scientists with good ideas, roads, all kinds of minerals, and rulers who were not worse than others. But the Romans continued to invest money in land instead of innovation and labor-saving inventions were rarely applied. All this was due to the conservative attitude of the Roman elite, which did not like risk investment (as the English nobility did) and believed that everything worth knowing was already known (unlike the members of the Royal Academy of Louis XIV).

When the pressure on the borders was rising, the only solution was to raise the number of legions, which meant that more money was needed; Marcus Aurelius decided to debase the denarius and created a deadly spiral of inflation. The money might also have been raised with internal economic development, but the Romans were too conservative for that.

It reminds me of the Vikings on western Greenland, who were agriculturalists and despised fishermen. When the climate started to change, they refused to adapt, and they died. It was the nearby Inuit (or Eskimo) fishermen who could survice.

[Timotheus]

Was it religious or political (I know in the Middle Ages, the two were very entangled) motive that was at the heart of the high taxes on the outer lands? I favor the political--Rome was too big to support its population, and not productive enough to feed everyone who flocked there, so they raised taxes elsewhere and lowered to zero the taxes on the common people in Rome to keep the peace.

I know that's hopelessly oversimplified as explanations go.

Well at least in the Republic and probably the early Empire the problem was that tax collection in the provinces was a business. You bid on how much you would collect for Rome and you kept everything over that you were able to wring out of the province. This must have caused anger in the provinces as you didnt know year to year how much Rome was going to try and take from you.

[Timotheus]

That is because Ancient Historians have tended to follow the lead of classicists, who might know their Tacitus but need not necessarily understand the world outside the classics!

Exactly.

To me I think this was just a continuation of a common Roman problem. Reputation was more important than the truth or facts. It was a basic component of their legal system and seemed to be a basic component of their thinking process. The opinion of a well respected person was given more weight than actual physical proof.

Unfortunately this did not die with the Romans and you saw this impede the sciences (Galen and medical science) in Europe for quite a long time til the Renaissance.

[M. Demetrius]

Not so much priests in rome, but every general who saw the power lay in the religious posts.........and so on.....it's just fact , nothing to get upset about

I'm not upset at all. I was wondering if it were a political source or a religious source (whether Roman gods or Christian God) that you were referring to. If I understand you correctly, it was a tangle of both, in your opinion?