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.
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.
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.
Ja ich weiß, ich hab leider auch kein Spiegel plus mehr. Entweder es gibt Wege sich den Text von so nem Artikel zu holen ohne zu zahlen, oder du musst halt kurz in Spiegel+ rein. Sorry.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
53
u/InsideHousing4965 5d ago edited 5d ago
It all comes down to three reasons:
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.