Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
pytheas
Samurai
Joined: 14-Dec-2004
Location: Wales
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Roman Provinces--Troubled Frontiers Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 00:02 |
Warriors fought fiercely against the Roman war machine all over Europe, Africa, and west Asia. Which Province was the most difficult to conquer? Measure you answer by looking at how difficult it was for the Romans to administer and control the province once initial invasion and establishment of administration ocurred.
|
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.
|
|
Cornellia
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 08:11 |
I voted for Germania. Most of the provinces listed gave Rome a good run for her money, granted, but in the end, it was Germania who was the obdurate resister. As Derek Williams puts it so well in Romans and Barbarians,
"The conflict would remind the caesars that the easy way to get an empire had been to acquire someone else's; the hard way to chase irreconciliable barbarians through bog and marsh."
A 4th century Roman still thought of them as "Germanos hostes truces et assiduos formidantes" - the Germans, our ferocious and implacable foe.
|
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
|
|
Romano Nero
Samurai
Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 08:20 |
Agreed with Cornellia, Germania was the bane of the Romans for quite some time and caused the downfall of the Empire in the long run.
|
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 12:08 |
Obviously Germania, and the germanic tribes above the rhine. Those frontiers were always problematic and the first successful raids into roman soil by the barbarians were from there.
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
demon
Chieftain
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 12:11 |
Wasn't parthia a threat or am I mistaking empires?
|
Grrr..
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 14:18 |
They gave the romans some good fight when they encountered them, but the Parthians were never a threat on Rome itself.
|
|
pytheas
Samurai
Joined: 14-Dec-2004
Location: Wales
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 17:24 |
I'm going to be brave and actually vote for Hispania. The Celtiberians allied themselves with the Carthaginians and were considered fierce warriors by other groups. So much so that there were always contingients of them fighting as mercenaries. Then we fast forward to the Late Republic when Rome decided to take out the threat of a region hostile or at the very least unsupportive of Roman power. Tribes that really fought tooth and nail included the Lusitanians, with a leader by the name of Viriathus (of the same quality warrior-leader on par with Vercingetorix of Gaul or Arminius of the Germans), who fought from hill-fort to hill-fort in the Guadalquivir Valley, dealing the Romans several devastating defeats. A city (large hill-fort) named Numantia became the rallying point for the Partisans that included additional tribes like the Arevaci. Other tribes that fought in Iberia include the Astures, Cantabri, Vettones, and Vaccaei. I think that reading many different authors on the subject, many describe the campaigning in Iberia as some of the bloodiest and most savage era of Roman expansion.
I agree that the Germanic groups were the ultimate end of the Empire, but I'm going to stick to Hispania...
|
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.
|
|
Imperatore Dario I
Shogun
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 204
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 20:08 |
I'd go with Rome's eastern provinces of Mesopatamia and Armenia, always under threat from either Parthian or Sassanian attack.
|
Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
|
|
J.M.Finegold
Baron
Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 00:09 |
As in the hardest to keep control of I put Brittania - it suffered a
large scale rebellion (Boudicca) and several smaller rebellions
throughout the years, and it was the constant target of 'barbarian'
invasions, especially from the Picts during the early years, and then
various German tribes. It was also a provence that didn't give
much in return, except sheep. The Romans were forced to abandon
it for Gaul in the 5th Century C.E. and due to the invasion of Gaul by
Atilla in 452 C.E. Aetius even refused to aid it in the light of
Germanic invasion.
However, not the hardest to conquer. The conquest was rather easy
- the keeping of it was the hard part - which I think this poll
connotes to. Germania could never be conquered, however, it never
had to be administrated either and although it was the source of hell
during the barbarian invasions of ca. 100 B.C.E. and 300 to 500 C.E. it
didn't give the Romans the long term uprisings that it suffered in
other areas.
|
|
pytheas
Samurai
Joined: 14-Dec-2004
Location: Wales
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 11:47 |
I agree with you Dux, to some degree. I am actually on the fence as to whether I'd vote for Britiannia or Hispania. I find alot of the events in both Provinces to be of high interest to me...
|
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.
|
|
Dawn
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 12:47 |
tough choice . I'm torn between Bitania and Germania. reasons to come later
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 15:43 |
well, either Rhine or Danube frontier...
|
|
pytheas
Samurai
Joined: 14-Dec-2004
Location: Wales
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 02:23 |
The Rhine-Danube became a very well-defined frontier on which many Roman forts, earthworks, and palissades were constructed to keep the Germanic tribes on their side of the fence, so to speak. My main question is where else did the Romans feel it was necessary to build not one, but two large, all-encompassing defensive stone walls (Hadrian's and Antonine's), with several setbacks leading to the abondonment of the Antonine Wall due to pressures from the north from the Picts/Caledonians and the west, from the rebellious Welsh tribes. No where else in the Empire were the Romans forced to continually deal with a Province by impossing a near 100% police state than Britannia. Britannia was the source of numerous rebellions and ursupations (see Constantine or his father Constan's careers), not to metion other warlords that continued to sap troop strength and economic resources than Britania.
|
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 13:07 |
but overall britain was a insignificant province after all, losing britain wouldn't have had any major effects for the existence of the Roman empire. closign to the end the romans willignly left brtain alone and simply withdrew, so much for the threat theory.
there was also a Limes frontier in the Numidian/African province, but it was of no major significance because unlike britain africa was vast and dd not offer the possibility to draw a small but effective frontierline like in britain. also, compare the number of legions stationed on the rhien frontier greatly outnumebr those stationed elsewhere.
|
|
YusakuJon3
Shogun
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 223
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2004 at 21:04 |
The Germans indeed posed quite the problem for Rome, especially during
the declining years of the Empire when they could take advantage of the
opportunities provided by frequent civil strife. Roman factions
even made use of German mercenaries in their campaigns. When
tribes such as the Franks began to settle in Roman territories, the
decline of the Empire was accelerated. While Roman-style rulers
held on to an eastern Empire based at Byzantium, the western portion
fell within 150 years to Germanic invaders
Even so, I was wondering about the region of Palestine and Syria, which
was by then also facing subsequent inroads by the Sassanid Persians and
by Islamic conquerors. The former were certainly close to
realizing an old goal of their founders of reclaiming former Persian
territory in Anatolia (modern Turkey), but all territories in the
Levant and Egypt fell into the hands of the Arabs.
|
"There you go again!"
-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)
|
|
J.M.Finegold
Baron
Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2004 at 21:38 |
Originally posted by Temujin
but overall britain was a insignificant province
after all, losing britain wouldn't have had any major effects for the
existence of the Roman empire. closign to the end the romans willignly
left brtain alone and simply withdrew, so much for the threat theory.
|
Which is only reinforcing our arguments. As a 'worthless' provence it
was considerably harder for the Romans to occupy it with constant
rebellion and constant breaches in both the Antonine Wall and Hadrian's
Wall by the Picts of the north. It would also suffer severe
Germanic invasions until the Roman withdrawl - and after that it still
suffered Germanic invasions.
Brittania offered Rome some four hundred years of rebellion, war, and usurpations.
|
|
Dawn
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 11:10 |
Originally posted by Temujin
but overall britain was a insignificant province after all, losing britain wouldn't have had any major effects for the existence of the Roman empire. closign to the end the romans willignly left brtain alone and simply withdrew, so much for the threat theory.
|
they didn't have much choice in the matter. Threat or no threat the legions had to go elsewhere. Any other speculation about if they lost Brittian before the end of the empire and what effect if any it would have had is nothing more than a "What if senereo"
The facts are that the empire expended a great deal of man power and reasorces on capturing,subduing and maintaining control of the Island.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 13:54 |
Originally posted by Dawn
Threat or no threat the legions had to go elsewhere. |
yes, and that's the proof, if Britain was the most troubled frotneir, why did they had to withdrew troops to another frontier? and later british tribe sonly occupied Bretagne, but never went further, while Britain itself was subject to Belgic, Roman and Germanic invaders.
|
|
Dawn
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3148
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 15:55 |
No it was only proof that Britain was etheir expendable ,no longer worth the trouble or to far away and the later is my thought.
|
|
Cornellia
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 19:09 |
I have to agree with Dawn. Britain had never proven to be a success as far as provinces go - she always cost more money than she brought to the empire.
|
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
|
|