Why could Rome completely conquer Germania?
>>18527356Couldn't*
>>18527356Why are those blondcucks holding that medbvll head with dark brown hair
>>18527356Germans adapted their military technology. They were so impressed by Roman militarism that they even gave their own Chief God a Roman cavalry helmet. So Romans really had no realistic way to beat them and instead relied on German manpower to keep functioning, because degenerate Romans rather mutilated their own children than go on badass campaigns with their bros to conquer the world in the Roman Legion.
>>18527356Empires didn't conquer territories just to expand. Conquest often follows very sensible objectives such as economic & geopolitical incentives.There were no such incentives in Germania: there were no wealthy kingdoms & states up there, no noteworthy trading routes, products nor sizable population to exploit, the place was absolutely underdeveloped even for shit like basic agriculture. MAAAAYBE you could argue that at least the Roman Empire could get living space from this, but there were already better living fucking spaces in Gallia, Hispania, Illyria, and Britannia. (which was already considered a waste of space by Roman administration)Also during the high point of the Roman Empire, expansionism was focused not North but East. That was where the wealth & the glory was: the Silk Road, sophisticated cities filled with enterprising merchants, civilized people. There was also the allure of replicating the achievements of Alexander the Great. Trading blows with hut dwelling forest apes in the north for...more forests was super unsexy compared to Eastern expansionism.
>>18527356Tacitus answers this in his book Germania.>"Rome was in her six hundred and fortieth year when the alarm of the Cimbrian arms was first heard, in the consulship of Caecilius Metellus and Papirius Carbo. Reckoning from that year to the second consulship of the emperor Trajan, we get a total of about two hundred and ten years. Such is the time it is taking to conquer Germania. In this long period much punishment has been given and taken. Neither by the Samnites nor by the Carthaginians, not by Spain or Gaul, or even by the Parthians, have we had more lessons taught us. The freedom of Germania is capable of more energetic action than the Arsacid despotism. After all, what has the East to taunt us with, except the slaughter of Crassus? And it soon lost its own prince Pacorus and was humbled at the feet of Ventidius. But the Germanic barbarians routed or captured Carbo, Cassius, Aurelius Scaurus, Servilius Cacpio, and Mallius Maximus, and robbed the Republic, almost at one stroke, of five consular armies. Even from Augustus they took Varus and his three legions. And we had to pay a high price for the defeats inflicted upon them by Gaius Marius in Italy, by Julius Caesar in Gaul, and by Drusus, Tiberius, and Germanicus in their own country. The boastful threats of Gaius Caesar ended in farce. After that came a lull, until the Germanic barbarians took advantage of our dissensions and civil wars to storm the quarters of the legions and make a bid for possession of Gaul. This attempt ended in another defeat for them; but the more recent 'victories' claimed by our commanders have been little more than excuses for celebrating triumphs."
>>18527669Don't you have this backwards? The Romans copied Germanic and Celtic helmets and chainmail (and pants later on). They also used their cavalry.
>>18527356The ancient Germanic barbarian tribes were ferocious and extremely warlike which allowed them to take on the military might of Rome and win. With the benefit of hindsight they were the most dangerous adversaries the Romans had.
>>18527990>The Huns show up at your doorstep>Mass migrate to the Roman empire in the hopes of getting hired as a field slaveVery ferocious and warlike of you, Hans
>>18527356Germania was extremely undesirable territory for the Romans. The land was difficult to till and not very fertile, the weather was cold and wet, and there was a plethora of obstructive, useless swamps. The dense forestry and uneven terrain negated the strength of the Roman legions' famous line formations. Top it off with semi-nomadic, extremely aggressive natives, and there was simply no incentive to push for conquest.
>>18527990ROFLRomans walked over Germanic tribes easily. Arminius barely killed 10% of Roman army in a trap and then he had to watch Germanicus ravaging his land and ensalving his family.
>>18528113>>18528188Immediate shitskin seethe
>>18528469Saar this is the history board. You are supposed to make a history based argument or get the fuck out. Thank you saar.
>>18528474Already made one sir
>>18528476>He thinks his shitpost is an argumentOh no no no saar.
>>18528483Not my fault you're blind
>>18527718What about southern Germany + Austria and Switzerland?
>>18528113>>18528469Alaska defeat the Roman Republic...https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7354934/
>>18527356Could they? Yeah probably if they could mobilize their entire military under one command like in the lukewarm hit strategy game Imperator: Rome.Would they? No, because the Roman state did not have effective central leadership and nearly all military operations were single people using govt. money to aura farm on savages and farm glory for their bid for governor or consul.
Roman expansionism was largely dead by the principate. Besides taking Dacia for its gold deposits and a back and forth over the Syrian borderlands. Attempts like Germanicus' conquests and the Marcommanic wars were exceptions that were abandoned once everyone realized they were spending precious resources on something that just wasn't worth the price in lives. Taking Germania would weaken richer border provinces, so better to negotiate with the tribes and either pay them to remain your clients or pay your clients to beat them up.
>>18528171>Germania was extremely undesirable territory for the RomansPlease see >>18528188And stop peddling this retarded cope. They wanted Germania. They had largely conquered it but could not hold it. Romans were extremely persistent but the Northmen just kept coming. It's more analogous to China or the US vs. Vietnam than Rome vs Persia, where you have relative equals in the latter case. In this clash it was the entire machine of an empire going up against illiterate and still migrating farmers and despite all that asymmetry, losing. >>18528113Many did not submit to the Huns, but the Huns had pushed into Gaul at that point. No agricultural population went unconquered by them until the Alans, Romans and Germanic tribes combined forces.
>>18528188>>18528914Rome lost.
>>18527356https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_warfare_between_the_Romans_and_Germanic_peoples
>>18529855>Visigoths had fewer cavalry, Ostrogoths had more cavalry than the Roman army, while Vandals were dominated by cavalry.What? Visigoths did train under semi-nomadic warfare.
>>18527356Slavic bulls stopped them
>>18530325Consider that the Germans encountered the Huns a long time before the Romans did, and had to contend with them as neighbors for generations. They picked some things up from them, just like they did with the Romans.
>>18527718This point needs to be slightly nuanced, although it is right. Why did the Romans ignore Germania, while the Carolingians and Merovingians expanded the similar roman institutions of it's elite and urbanization beyond the Rhine? Germany would become the center of aristocratic power through the middle ages (which was descended directly from the roman, specially the militarized gallo-roman nobility). It's mostly a matter of militarization of the local elite. In Rome, the monopoly of the armies was mostly in the very restricted Imperial circle, sometimes with the Emperor itself. This was the nature of the principate, which was so successful because, through a monopoly of power, sovereignty, the emperors disarmed the elite and stopped the civil wars through a armed peace, managing to keep intact the civil, peaceful institutions that would bring prosperity to the Empire. Conquest didn't make sense in this context. Rome had it's riches through highly organized latifundia and industry + the safe mediterranean routes, all kept through peace and de-militarization. Besides, the conquest of a new nation would mean integrating them into the fold, as with Gaul, which would be a problem for a Emperor that had limited honors and offices to distribute. But as the third century rolled around, the Empire failed to defend itself. Descentralization and arming the local elites was the new deal. Now that elite needed to own their own land, because it needed supplies fo mustering armies, not what the principate brought. This would evolve into the feudal nobility, and they had a incentive not only to keep expanding, but to "civilize" (build cities/forts or castra, infrastructure, that is to say, reinvest) into these new lands, so they could be productive for this new system in a way the romans wouldn't find useful (that is the logic of feudalism). The Emperor had little interest in Germania, because it was unproductive land to him.
>>18530460It was highly important land, but the political and economic circunstances or rome didn't allow the expansion to it in the same way as Gaul, or Britannia, which was similarly "uncivilized" in it's majority. The little incentive Rome had to keep expanding was strategical. The Rhine was a natural frontier, but it still wasn't enough of a frontier, otherwise the romans wouldn've stayed trying to build organized client germanic confederacies to easily control, like they did with the Franks. The "natural borders" thing is a weak argument. The only thing Germania had as value to the Principate was it's strategic position as a buffer, exactly as a big part of northern gaul, the balkans and the Britannic interior and far north.
tiberius was a nigger i dont want to write 1000 words in foreign language i hate (english) but just trust me,tiberius was fucking nigger and empire collapsed hundred years later because only of him not trusting germanic
>>18530419Slav monkeys didn't even exist until after the Fall of the Roman Empire.
>>18527358>Fock yer taxes, rome!
>>18530460>But as the third century rolled around, the Empire failed to defend itself. Descentralization and arming the local elites was the new dealYou managed to get it completely wrong. The empire centralised further under Diocletian and Constantine and the power of individuals was broken even harder in both civil and military spheres by splitting the two. There were no such thing as private armies, no Romans were armed or militarised. Military power was solely in the hands of the state, attempted rearming of citizens was only allowed under Valentinian III in the last years of his reign and it largely failed. Northern Gaul remilitarised because the state was not there to protect them and it took decades>This would evolve into the feudal nobilityFeudalism emerged in the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.
>>18531293>28, Revolt of the Frisii, Tax collectors hanged, Romans defeated in the Battle of Baduhenna Wood.
>>18527356It could have been done. Great Mediterranean Roman Bvll Germanicus ripped a gaping wound through the albino germangolians, but he was denied his conquest for fear his prestige would eclipse the emperor of the time. Germania would have been his GaulGermania would have been pacificed.
>>18531938
You can tell this thread is filled with hispanics, because grafting themselves to rome and considering themselves non-barbaric isn't enough to quench their insecurity to those of less swarthy complexion, they need to think of excuses for why rome couldn't defeat them on top of it.
>>18532199Im litteraly right. Buck broken rat arminius himself was murdered by his countrymen for being incapable of stopping Olive skinned march of Germanicus's legions
>>18532416
>>18531938>It could have been done. Great Mediterranean Roman Bvll Germanicus ripped a gaping wound through the albino germangolians, but he was denied his conquest for fear his prestige would eclipse the emperor of the time. Germania would have been his Gaul>Germania would have been pacif-ACK
>>18532622That picture is insane
You guys realize there is continuation right?
>>18532958>>18532622>Arminius save me from Germanicus-ACK
>>18528914Your point doesn't contradict mine, and your examples support me. I guess it would've been more accurate to say "Germania *turned out* to be undesirable". Conquest of Vietnam had also been untenable as much because of the geography as the natives' stiff resistance. You can punch through the Germanic tribes relatively easily because they lacked the technology and discipline of the Roman legions, but you'll need to fight for every inch in unfavorable terrain, and what you're left with is cold, hard, wet territory, and extremely uncooperative subjects. How much of a disadvantage the legions had in Germania is best exemplified in the Battle of Teutoberg Forest. The dense, thick forestry prevented the Romans from forming lines like they were trained, leaving them completely vulnerable to Germanic guerilla tactics. Importantly, the Germans had deliberately chosen the location for that battle *because* of how unfavorable the geography was for Roman tactics.
>>18532416Arminius was killed for the opposite reason. He was growing too politically powerful and was attempting to establish an absolute monarchy among the Germans, threatening the traditional sovereignty of the chieftains under his banner.
>>18533254Imagine Arminius form powerful kingdom resemble Frankish and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth later on?
>>18532346Huefags keep down play Germanic achievement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Fwk1JWSmo
Germans were unironically too tough, simple as that
