The Nature of Roman Expansion

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Sometimes I read people opining that the Roman Empire ceased to expand due to reaching its "natural limits." To me this always sounded unconvincing.

I've read somewhere that the reason the Empire became static was due to the nature of the Principate. Under the Caesars, expansion wasn't a priority because they were mainly concerned with consolidating and maintaining their political power.

Most of the expansion the Empire experienced was during the Republic due to the fierce competitive nature of internal politics. Conquests brought prestige, triumphs, glory and thus political power to the victors.

Without the mechanism to rise independently from the Emperor under the Principate, there was no longer any inclination to expand.

Had the Republic survived, I think Rome would've expanded farther east, at least incorporating Mesopotamia and all of modern Germany up to the Elbe.

This seems to make the most sense to me.

Another reason I don't buy the "natural limits" explanation is because there are two examples of Empires that were far larger than Rome at its height : The Mongol Empire and the Omayyad Caliphate (stretching from Spain to India :!: )

So, physically speaking, there were no "natural limits" to Roman expansion. In other words, any "limits" the Romans had were almost purely psychological in nature that they set for themselves.

Anyone disagree ?

If so, please explain your position.

[Victrix]

I won't disagree, but I will say that Roman expansion was really based on two things- money and food. I agree that the Rhine was really a psychological barrier, but I think that it would have been a long time before the Germans were subdued and Romanized. As for other barriers, the Sahara counts as one- can you imagine an 800 mile supply line across a desert, with no forage in sight, with water being brought in exclusively by wagon? Southerly expansion beyond the Atlas mountains was, to all intents and purposes, out of the question, unless it was by water up the Nile or along the west African coast. Expansion beyond Mesopotamia would have meant subduing the Zagros mountains, which would have provided little monetary or agricultural incentive for the Romans. Also, it comes down to a question of logistics, just as with the Sahara- a supply line stretching nearly 800 miles, with little in the way of forage. As for the Omayyad Caliphate, their conquests in Europe were carried out from North Africa in the case of Spain- the only boundary there is the Straits of Gibraltar, which is easily overcome with a few ships. The Mongols, on the other hand, practiced a wholly different sort of warfare from the Romans (light, fast cavalry as opposed to reliance on heavy infantry), so the comparison is a difficult one at best.

So, to sum it up, I'd say that some boundaries were self-imposed, but others just couldn't be overcome.

-Matt

[Robert Vermaat]

I won't disagree, but I will say that Roman expansion was really based on two things- money and food. I agree that the Rhine was really a psychological barrier, but I think that it would have been a long time before the Germans were subdued and Romanized.

Erm.. yes. And no.
No, rivers weren't so much natural borders for only parts of them figures as a border - for about 3 centuries, the Empire lay on both sides of the Rhine.
And yes, it took a long time before the Germans were subdues..oh! The Germans inside the Empire had been subdues and assimilated for ages and ages. So, with new Germans turning up one tribe after another, would that not have happened to them as well?
For all I know the Romans counted on that assimilation as late as 418 when they settled the Visigoths in Gaul. Had the Vandals not conquered North Africa, I'm sure that the West would have had a longer leash of life.

(And yes, I remember that in an earlier thread I argued that the Empire might have gone down in the 3rd century just as likely. I still stand by that view.)

[tlclark]

I also think that you can't think of the Eastern Empire as "static" either.

I think Basil the Bulgar Slayer would have something to say about that.

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

(And yes, I remember that in an earlier thread I argued that the Empire might have gone down in the 3rd century just as likely. I still stand by that view.)

I agree with you there, Vortigern. By that time the Romans lost all their momentum in terms of expansion. Once that was killed it's hard to start expanding again, IMO.

I also think that you can't think of the Eastern Empire as "static" either.

I agree. It was a shrinking Empire :wink:

I think Basil the Bulgar Slayer would have something to say about that.

He reconquered Dacia. A province that soon again proved to be an expendable one. As gratifying as what he did to the Bulgars, I wish Basil had turned his energies Eastward Recovering the economic engine of the Empire (i.e. Egypt and Syria) would've been wiser, IMO.

[Philhellene]

A province that soon again proved to be an expendable one.

OK. Then Nicephorus II Phocas and John I Tzimiskes. And what means "soon"? After 200 years - is that soon?

I agree. It was a shrinking Empire

Shrinking and restoring.

[Theodosius the Great]

And what means "soon"?

I was being polite. I mean those reconquered terriories were drains on the meager resources available to the Empire at that time. They were merely appendages like what Britain and Dacia were to the old Roman Empire.

Basil was able to reconquer the Balkins due to Arab weakness (i.e. disunity). That was the perfect moment to strike and retake the eastern provinces. If that were accomplished, then the Empire would've had the resourses to further expand in any direction it chose.

But it wasn't to be, because of Basil's short-sightedness, IMO.

As Victrix said earlier, you have to expand where the food and money is.

Shrinking and restoring.

If you look at a line chart showing loss of territory from the time of Justinian to the last Emperor, it shows a sharp decline with occasional, modest spikes in territorial gains. If you want to call those little spikes "restorations", fine. But I see the glass always as half empty when I look at Byzantium .

[Philhellene]

Then the old Roman empire was shrinking too.

[Theodosius the Great]

True, but the Empire did not begin to retrench until the late 3rd century AD when Dacia was abandoned. When you stop growing, there's a tendency to shrink. It took almost 300 years for that to happen since the reign of Augustus. I attribute the stagnation of the Empire to the nature of the Principate.

For the entire history of Byzantium after Justinian, it is a story of decline with very minor interuptions. Basil, I think, just wanted cheap victories like Claudius when that Emperor decided to conquer Britain in 43 AD. Plus, Basil wanted to settle an old score with the Bulgars because they humiliated him in his youth.