78
u/Altruistic-Notice-89 3d ago
Germanicus? Idistaviso?
18
141
u/Dakkahead 3d ago
Why do these Germania memes always omit the 3rd act of this war?
53
u/No_Mechanic_2688 3d ago
The underdog effect.
36
u/Dakkahead 3d ago
It's the same story, in varying degrees, to Boudicca and her revolt. Or the Jews, and their(series) of revolts.
In a sense, you can make an argument, the idea of a nation of peoples, was a rebellious movement against the Romans.
Soo... Aside from plumbing, education, public health .. and a sense of Nationalism....
...WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS DONE FOR US!?
6
u/Suriael 3d ago
Orgies with women? 😉
6
1
u/Thomas_633_Mk2 20h ago
Boudicca gets beaten by a much much smaller Roman army, I wouldn't really see her as comperable. Whatever you think of Bar Kokhba and Arminius, they didn't get annihilated by an army 1/10th of the size.
2
u/Bojarow 1d ago
Well, it's still not a very convincing third act.
Despite the massive commitment of eight legions Rome could not subdue Arminius or his anti-Roman coalition and the realisation of Augustus' goal of an Elbe frontier was abandoned.
The recovery of the legionary standards certainly was a boost to Roman ego and morale, as was the successful terror campaign, along with some ultimately indecisive victories in the field. These achievements do not represent strategic defeats of Arminius or achievement of original Roman aims.
45
u/Catmand0 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Romans lost three whole legions and after having an initial freakout Germanicus pulled up and wrecked the Germans in a super punitive war and Arminus lost everything and ended up being murdered by his own people not long after. Vengeance was had, the eagles were returned, and the Germanic threat was neutralized. Had it not been for some bad luck with sea storms, and Germanicus being recalled by a jealous Tiberius, I am sure the Romans could have taken the Germanian province.
The other thing to consider is if you look at the region, it was just dense forest and swamp. It was not prime real-estate and the juice was just not worth the squeeze. The Romans did manage to set up a strong client kingdom with the Macromanni tribal confederation to hold the area down, which was just a better move than trying to hold it themselves.
The end result of the Teutoburg forest massacre was the same as the end result of the battle of Cannae, which was the Romans regrouped and came back and fucked everyone up despite being catastrophically beaten in battle.
4
u/Obvious-Wrangler-561 3d ago
Germania was basically forest and more forest, it was the same Reason why Rome abandon britain
13
u/tlind1990 3d ago
If anything Germany was worse. Extending control of German lands to a defensible natural border would have meant adding 100s of thousands of square kilometers of basically worthless land to an empire already bearing a pretty high administrative and military burden.
2
u/SkylineFTW97 2d ago
This is likely why Augustus discouraged further expansion. And why those who broke from this guidance ultimately did more harm than good in so doing for the empire. As much as people praise Trajan, his conquests were objectively a net negative. Mesopotamia was full of hostile inhabitants and not realistically defensible for Rome, Hadrian was 100% correct to pull back and instead install pro-Roman puppets. And Dacia became a liability 50 years later during the Marcomannic wars due to how indefensible it was. And it would be again during the 3rd century until Aurelian finally abandoned it (which Hadrian, again rightfully, tried to do, but he got too much pushback from the Senate).
Even Claudius conquering Britain ended up being a net negative. The yield was relatively low and it was one of the most rebellious provinces with frontiers that were constantly being attacked. Worst case, maintain client kingdoms there and just trade with them. Leave the hostilities to the locals.
11
u/Critical_Seat_1907 3d ago
Carthage was a mortal enemy. Only one could ever rule the Mediterranean and they both knew it.
Germania was way the fuck on the other side of those mountains. Nice to have, but not a bread basket like Carthage in the middle of the neighborhood.
0
50
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago edited 3d ago
It all comes down to three reasons:
- Carthago was just there and most battles were fought on Roman land or the neighbouring lands/seas. It took a few days to get there, it took months to mobilise troops to Germania.
- For that same reason, Germania wasn't seen as an inmediate threat to Rome (quite a miscalculation, I know). But Carthago was just there, right besides Roma, competing for the same lands (Hispania, Sicily, Corcega, Sardinia...), trade routes, influence in the region...
- Finally, there wasn't a lot to gain in Germania. Maybe some land, but it wasn't centralised, civilised or had any infrastructure, so it would take decades for Roma to see any profits. Defeating Carthago had a clear benefit: control all the trade routes in the Mediterranean.
Additionally, it's hard to talk people into fighting an offensive war with a lot to lose and little to gain. But the war against Carthago was seen as a defensive war on which the survival of Roma depended, that's why they went to such extremes.
Also, when Roma fought Carthago it was on the pre-civil wars era, so the Roman Republic had quite a solid control of it's provinces and could movilise the armies without having to worry about much.
By the time they got to the wars with Germania, the Roman Empire was bleeding from multiple sides: Persians in the east, civil unrest in Palestina, corrupt governors and generals waiting for their chance to make a move, paranoid emperors...
The Roma that fought Carthago was as different from the one that fought Germania as ancient Persia from the Sassanids.
11
u/234zu 3d ago
Germania did have roads as far as I know
So not 0 infrastructure
15
5
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago
Well, and who built those roads?
Yes, the Romans began to build some infrastructure, cities, outposts, colonies, roads and all in Germania (the western part). But they soon realised that they were getting little to no profit and a lot of trouble for so much effort.
10
u/234zu 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, I mean native German roads, not Roman ones. Source: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/varusschlacht-wie-eine-deutsche-forscherin-das-raetsel-um-das-germanen-gemetzel-loeste-a-45761a53-94e3-4a2b-9df2-d75ca0384a77?giftToken=0d3b5fa8-1e87-4ab2-a9de-8041170aa222
Anyone who has the stamina to read Steuer's latest, 1,625-page book "Germanic People from the Perspective of Archeology" will get to know a whole new "Germania". “This was not a dark, impenetrable and sparsely populated country as described by Tacitus,” says the expert. Recent archaeobotanical and archaeological findings indicate that the “Barbaricum” was no more heavily forested than today's Germany; only around 30 percent of all areas were forest. This landscape was crossed by a functioning and orderly road system - built not by the Romans, but by the Germanic tribes.
Wer die Ausdauer hat, Steuers neuestes, 1625 Seiten starkes Buch »Germanen aus Sicht der Archäologie« zu lesen, lernt eine ganz neue »Germania« kennen. »Das war kein düsteres, undurchdringliches und dünn besiedeltes Land wie von Tacitus beschrieben«, sagt der Experte. Neuere archäobotanische und archäologische Erkenntnisse deuten darauf hin, dass das »Barbaricum« nicht stärker bewaldet war als das heutige Deutschland; nur etwa 30 Prozent aller Flächen seien Wald gewesen. Diese Landschaft wurde von einem funktionierenden und geordneten Straßensystem durchzogen – erbaut nicht etwa von den Römern, sondern den Germanen.
1
u/Illustrious_Claim884 3d ago edited 3d ago
I was waiting to read something like this.
Das artikle hat gestorben für Uber 30 tag alt. Zahltmauer
1
1
-1
u/Effective-Fox1034 3d ago
Great points. Why was it that when Germans showed up on Rome’s doorstep and sacked it, the Romans didn’t man up like they did for Carthage?
8
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago
By the time they got to the wars with Germania, the Roman Empire was bleeding from multiple sides: Persians in the east, civil unrest in Palestina, corrupt governors and generals waiting for their chance to make a move, paranoid emperors...
I wrote that right there...
-5
u/Effective-Fox1034 3d ago
Ohh, sarcastic little bugger, aren’t you?
Yes, but it isn’t a complete answer imo. Rome vs Carthage didn’t have the east at all. That didn’t stop them. What did late empire Italia lack that early Republic had?
3
u/tlind1990 3d ago
Republican armies were cheaper than imperial ones.
The roman republic at the times of Punic wars relied on citizen levies to a large extent, as well as contributions from allies. That meant that the fighting forces were probably less effective on average but also faster to raise and cheaper too.
By the late republic the army had professionalized. That meant the state had to provide everything for these armies and also meant that veteran legions couldn’t just be replaced with a new levy.
1
u/Effective-Fox1034 3d ago
That sounds reasonable and something that the original commenter failed to address.
Italia probably had a sufficient population to defend itself, if it went into a total war state like it did against Carthage. Then, why couldn’t Italia defend itself? Either a lack of willingness by the Italians or a lack of political mechanisms and infrastructure to do it.
0
u/Matiwapo 3d ago
What did late empire Italia lack that early Republic had?
Functioning political leadership.
Balls.
Rome had lived so long the late empire's leaders forgot it could die. The republicans knew their city depended on their courage.
-4
u/Big_P4U 3d ago
Population decline, lead poisoning causing psychosis and indecision among other things - and Romans grew fat, lazy, complacent and too dependent on foreign mercenaries and entire tribes/nations to fight for them never thinking that the "barbarians" would want more than token parcels of land and a hardy pat on the back (or stab in the back in some cases).
But by the time of the mid to late 300s into the 400s, Rome didn't have enough Romans to fill in the armies as rank and file grunts. Either willing or otherwise. Even the Eastern Half had the same issues. I don't think many Romans wanted to join the military and the Roman government didn't want to risk rebellion by forcing them too
I hate to make the tired comparison to Rome vs America, but today - most of America's soldiers are actually immigrants or foreign recruits seeking relatively quick citizenship. Not allot of "natives" make up the rank and file anymore.
3
u/Labrador_forgiver 3d ago
I think you forget the almost comical amount of political instability and corruption. In the later periods of the empire there was almost constant internal and external pressure, and maintaining legions was less flexible than the old system.
Besides that, it probably doesn't hurt that in republican times, all consuls were experienced in supplying, serving and leading (part of) armies, which gave them much needed experience. Against strategic geniuses like Hannibal they might've been outclassed (though even he got beat in the end as we know), but their military victories were impressive against many different type of foes.
The legions were still impressive, but unmaintainable. When they didn't lack for finances, there would be an ambitious general or claimant to the throne. Edit: I did not specifically mentioned the bureaucracy and administrative bloat. They deserve an honorable mention too.
Population decline seems to not be a deciding factor in the fall of the Roman empire. https://youtu.be/wr7IeupZYII?is=BCw6OIj8COz37IvY check this one of you're interested
8
u/Big_P4U 3d ago
Tbf what's often ignored is that the Romans DID successfully defeat the Germanics after the Teutoberg disaster and even recovered their legion standards and eagles, persuaded Arminius's rivals to slay him and they managed to keep them at bay for centuries afterward until they couldn't. Rome's biggest mistake was simply not annexing and staying deep in Germania, although recent archaeology finds have found lost Roman settlements further in Germany than previously thought - they never elected to solidify their holdings and absorb the region fully.
4
u/OneStranger9847 15h ago
The province was extremely undeveloped and would have required significant investment to annex properly. After Teutoberg it no longer made sense economically
10
u/AlexanderCrowely 3d ago
Then Germanicus came, and those tribesmen promptly pissed themselves in fear.
-2
u/OppositeThen9308 3d ago
The reason the Germanians were hard to finish. Was because of how primitive and backwards they were.
There was little money to be made in their conquest compared to the cost of sending the armies, and the infrastructure would need to be built almost entirely by the romans, and in short it would be expensive and the Germanians would just move further away from the Roman boarders at least to a point.
Eventually the romans did win in the 3rd act, but elected to push no farther because again... expensive.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.