Roman Provinces--Troubled Frontiers
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1613
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 00:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Roman Provinces--Troubled Frontiers
Posted By: pytheas
Subject: Roman Provinces--Troubled Frontiers
Date 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Cornellia
Date 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 |
Posted By: Romano Nero
Date 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. |
Posted By: Infidel
Date 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? |
Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 12:11
|
Wasn't parthia a threat or am I mistaking empires? ------------- Grrr.. |
Posted By: cattus
Date 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. |
Posted By: pytheas
Date 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. |
Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date 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 |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: pytheas
Date 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. |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 12:47
|
tough choice . I'm torn between Bitania and Germania. reasons to come later ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 15:43
|
well, either Rhine or Danube frontier... ------------- |
Posted By: pytheas
Date 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. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date 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) |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2004 at 21:38
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 11:10
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2004 at 13:54
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Cornellia
Date 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 |
Posted By: pytheas
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 13:02
|
Tin, Copper, Gold, Silver, Slaves, sheeps' wool, hunting dogs all were exports of the Britons during the Roman Empire, of course they were the same before and after the Roman Era as well. One could argue that Britain didin't produce agriculturally that much for the Romans, as Spain or S. Gaul did, but the Britons still were the source of much important products and to deny the economic importance of the province is ludicrous. Has anyone ever play the boardgame RISK? Anyone who has, tell me which of the territories is the most difficult to control and take over? Britain. Why? Because its an island. Strategically and economically important, but seperate from the European landmass and therefore difficult to control and defend. Also, one must look at it's main raw resources--mineral. When cut off by hordes of marauding Saxons, Angles, Friscans, etc, food probably was not easy to get to the troops. Napoleon, Hitler, Wellington, and any other military planner would tell you the most imporatnt thing to an army are their stomachs. If the army isn't fed and eventually paid in either salary or loot, the army will disinegrate. ------------- Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives. |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 13:30
|
I would never deny the economic importance of Britian to the empire. One of the major reasons for all the provinces was economics. Its more a case of - if the back forty is threatened at the same time as the home quarter you pull pack to the house. (excuse the farm metaphore) ------------- |
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 16:44
|
I believe Germania was the worst... ------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: J.Caesar
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 23:24
|
Biggest threat was other Romans and desease. You cannot really count the late western Roman period soldiers as the same. Their was such a decline,plus most of the legionaries were of Germanic blood near the end. I say that created an inferior fighting force as most historians agree. New age historians are taking a much different view of the end of the empire, most state in was just due to economics(over taxation) and lack of Italics in the military. As for the Romans having trouble against Celts or Germanics all you have to do is look at the battles. Maruis,Caesar, Drussus and Germanicus did a huge number on them. You must understand the Romans were alwys,always greatly outnumbered by them. Look at the battle of Vercalae* Wikpedia: Germans: over 200,000, Romans: 50,000 Roman victory, 140,000 Geramns dead,60,000 prisoners Roman dead: LESS than 1000 There are many other battles similar. The Only way the Celts/Germans won any battles was by trap and with huge numbers. A close look at writings from these battles was strange. Roman writers tried to uplift their foes to make themsleves seem even better. Reading through the lines I see German/Celts to be seriously over rated by old time historians.(were mainly German) It seems more fact that these warriors were extremely easy to beat no matter their numbers. Also, it seems that cowardice was pervasiive with them. Even Caesar hinted to their lack of ability to carry on the fight. He was amazed how many drowned in the Rhine just fleeing his small force. However some poltically minded historians tries to state the Romans were stopped at Tuetonberg forrest and forever feared the Rhine. Not so. Roamns lost battles to many and the only thing that stops them was lack of wealth or weather of the region. Also, Tuetonberg may be msileading also. As you know Arvistious was invovled but the Roamns thought he was one of theirs as he fought with them and became a knight. So they were led into a trap. However very little is known about the battle and a leading American historian,Ben Peterson, (101 st airborne,Kentucky) believes the Roamns actually won ableit losing amny men. He went there and investiagted and looked at the burial mounds. He dated them to the time period. They were Romans plus some animals buried too. He surmised that only a Roman victory could allow this. His close works believe that German historians twisted things a bit to faciltate. Also, there were many Romans suchas Drussus who went beyond the Elbe and crushed them all,with ease and with realtive few. When Caesar crossed the Rhine(just because he could) he estimated that he would be outnumberdc by 50 to one. He didn`t care! He knew the superioryty of his men. As Peterson and I believe that in reality the Celtic/Geramn warriors were just made into myth by some ancient Romans and modern German historians for propaganda.(different kinds) Also, ancient Roman soldiers writings seem to really look at a froce that was so confident while being so out numberd.Closing looking at these battles just reinforces this. The numbers are amazing. However, Rome did meet her match while she was in her prime against Parthia. Their suprior bow and horseman proved to be a force for them. Loosing an emperor in battle also! This was Rome in prime not late stages. Roame had to change her fighting forces to cope and get victories. But the greatest loss of Roman life occured here! Also Parthia offered wealth, so you know Rome was interested. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 23:46
|
It's an easy poll: the most dificult province to conquer was that that was never conquered: Germany. Too easy. In fact Germany was never a stable province of Rome, if you except those fragments west of the Rhin that were more properly Gaul. ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 04:46
|
Germany gets my vote too.
Britain was not so unimportant as suggested by many, though. Britain was yet another of the great metallurgical centers that the Romans so valued, and far more industrious than many might think. It was very valuable to the Empire, but, I believe, when they were under pressure it was decided not to invest more in defending it - they could just trade with it instead. The British province was certainly not difficult to rule - it was quickly conquered and, apart from a single notable rebellion that was very short-lived, it was rather passive compared to places like Spain or Germany. The Picts and Hadrian's Wall are a different matter, since they lay outside Roman provinces and don't belong in a discussion about which provinces were easiest to rule. Britain was originally taken because it was believed British made weapons were being used by Gallic tribes on the continent to resist the Romans. Those areas were pacified by the time the Romans abandoned Britain. The Romans probably figured no barbarian peoples could mount an invasion across the Channel, in either direction, and if they needed anything from the Britons they could probably just trade Roman luxuries for it. Another difficult province to rule was Judea. Not as difficult as Germany militarily, but it presented social problems for the Romans, particularly after the inhabitants were resettled and the new populations became the breeding grounds of a new religion which was rooted in hostility to Rome. Spain was also an exceedingly difficult province to take and rule. Most of the great Punic Wars were fought on Iberian soil, and the Spanish Wars - a series of massive rebellions lasting over a century - followed as Rome attempted to take control of the rest of the peninsula. Polybius called the wars with the Celtiberians the "fiery wars", Cassius described the Cantabri as committing mass suicides before the Roman soldiers rather than face capture, and Livy proclaimed the inhabitants of Spain were more suited to war than any other people on earth. So obviously they made an impression and couldn't have been easy to rule. |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 14:07
Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning above statement out of patriotic duty, but the notion of a Roman victory at the Battle of Teutoborg Forest seems a bit far fetched. I agree that the military importance of the battle might have been overrated, as with many other battles, and especially by German 19th century historians, and that it was probably more of a psychological blow. But as all contemporary Roman sources make no secret that the battle was a total defeat for the Roman Army, so much that the Battle became known as in Roman times "Clades Variana" (The Varus disaster) and I don't think even Roman historians, who have been known for being economical with the truth when needed, would have changed a victory into a defeat. I don't know what your airborne Professor unearthed here, and how he came to his conclusions, but it would have come as a huge surprise to Tacitus. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 08:59
|
I have to second Komnenos on this one. Something can be screwed up if a man thinks that the Romans were the only
people sacrificing animals in a certain manner in those
days. Even the ancient Celts were described as having
performed some pretty bizarre rituals with the carcasses of horses set
in a heated cauderon in one case, so it wouldn't quite be unlike the
Germans to have carried on similar animal sacrifices of their own.
------------- "There you go again!" -- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s) |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 05:00
|
I think the German frontier was way too much for
the Romans to handle, so I would have to pick that. Wasn't this the
frontier that later delivered the final blow to the Western Roman
Empire with its series of migrating peoples? I must note that the poll leaves out the Armenian frontier with the Parthians, which was one of the hardest provinces for the Roman Empire to capture and hold onto, and was the cause of much of the strife between Rome and Parthia. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 05:22
|
In Palestine was really difficult to establish control! The constant rebellions of the Jews effected 3 legions to stay stuck in the area! ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 18:09
|
Disagree. The Franks didn't cause the decline of the Romans empire, on the contrary, they were allied to the romans and shielded the roman empire for sometime. Only after Gaul was almost completely overran that the Franks made their move to take a piece of the empire. ------------- |
Posted By: J.Caesar
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 00:52
|
There are very few scholars who take Tacitus seriously. He was the king of propaganda and the ultra liberal of his time. He glorified all of Romes advisaries to the point where they were so superior to the Romans in every way. So, Roman victories were just a cruel and illegal act against noble people. Yes, romans acknowledged the Varus dissaster and there were survivors too. Petersen did much archelogy at the sites and insists Tuetonbeg was adisater for the Romans but they still drove the Germans off. Lokk at most of their battles agianst the Germans, the numeric superiority of the Germans was irrelavant. Caesar and other Roman soldiers account that the Geramns were really bad fighters. However, back in Rome they could not say this, it would ruin there victories. The truth is the Romans had little trouble with the Celts or Germans but had monumental trouble with Carthagians and Parthians. Cathagiinians were feasome fightters the Celts or Germans were not! Roman propganda built them up as Romans did to ALL their enemies to make themselves seem greater. This ios reality and was carried on by German historians for their own motives. Rome had all they could handle against Parthia ..lost many more men here than any battles gainst North Europe, not to mention Emperors head...and relocation of Roamn catptives to the far far east. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 01:27
None of the Classical historians are regarded without a grain of salt. Tacitus is not particularly ill-regarded by modern scholars - not any more so than most other Classical authors.
Really. And how many times did the Carthaginians or the Parthians sack Rome itself? The closest the Carthaginians got to defeating Rome was Hannibal's unsanctioned war, but he led a force primarily composed of Iberian Celts. Neither the Carthaginians nor the Parthians even came close to having a Brennus proclaim "Vae Victus" in the Roman streets with his bloodied sword, or having an Odoacer exile the emperor and style himself "King of Italy". It just didn't happen. Romans had considerable difficulty with both of these groups at various points in time. They may have adopted the trireme from the Carthaginians, but virtually all the weapons and armour designs of the late Roman infantryman were copied either from the Germans or the Celts. The oval shields, the Gallic helmets, the gladius, the pilum, chain mail ... in short, the standard outfit of the late Roman infantryman - all Celtic or Germanic designs, originally. Nor was Teutoberger the only notable Roman difficulty with these groups. The Romans had many crushing defeats, eg Battle of Noreia and the even worse Battle of Arausio during the Cimbrian War. At Arausio, the Romans suffered nearly 80 000 casualties and were decisively routed from the field. Most Roman authors agree that the Marcomanni Wars were very much comparable to the Punic Wars - just far less succesful, and rather than expanding the Empire, caused it to shift to a weakened and defensive state. If anything, the Romans tend to downplay the threat that so-called "barbarian" peoples represented to their security, until that threat is all too obvious. The unfortunate fact is that prejudice of Roman historians tended to weigh against the capabilities of the "barbarians" and in favour of powers that more closely resembled themselves - a prejudice we have inheirited. One can say that the Romans exhibited great ease in certain conquests, like the Gallic Wars, but this does not mitigate the difficulties they often had, difficulties which were of such excess that Rome itself was threatened and even defeated militarily on more than one occasion, and never by any but armies composed of Celts and Germans. Other times, such as during Attila's campaign (one waged largely by Germanics) the Romans only saved themselves by paying tribute. The Parthians and Carthaginians were formidable defenders - but, with the exception of the Second Punic War (involving, as previously noted, a force of primarily Iberian Celts and not Carthaginians), they proved offensively incapable of penetrating mainland Italy to any great degree. The Celts and the Germans, on the other hand, were formidable aggressors with far more success waging aggression against the Romans - either on their own or as mercenarial armies - than any other group. On the other hand, they were very, very poor defenders! Roman aggressive campaigns against them were nearly universally succesful. |
Posted By: J.Caesar
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 23:59
|
Drussus and Germanicus conquered most of Germany east of the Rhine...easily. There are settlements and many historical accounts of this. The Romans elected to not stay in such a useless and cold region or they would have. They punished or anihilated who they wanted. Tribes on their side were ussalu moved to the west of the Rhine where Rome wanted to have a natural border. Read about Drussus,this has been so dwonplayed by general historians but not serious ones. Germany was in realty subdued but had rebelions just like other provinces. It was easy to advance in those days because it would take a long time to respond and pursue because of the obvious lack of technology. Hannibal and Sparticus did that so well. Also, many legions were spread out all over so response slow. The late Roman era was not the same fighting force and Rome (city) became a side show. However, even Belisarius had such an easy time with the Vandals and the Goths reatking Italy...he was also amazingly outnumbered. Roamn figure are generally acuurate. Geramn histrians also agree with accounts of Veracealle and others. List of Roamn battles will show an amzing lst of battles won and very few losses. They were alway heavily ounumberd.(Not just Roan writers) Also, Roman accounts of slaves were exact. Rome had a huge German and Celt slave force. Just because Carthage did not raid the city of Rome is meaningless because the city was raided when Rome was really no more or (in the case of the Celts) just in its beginning phase. If Carthage had the numbers of the Germans or Celts we would be on this forum today because Rome would have lost in its prime. The Carthiginians and with their Numidian cavalry would have overwhelmed the legions every time where the Celts/Germans failed. The fierceness of the enemy is in the numbers. Carthage did not have numerical superiority and this well documented too. They were fairly equal in numbers. The Germans/Celts failed to use their numeric superiority because they would lawys flee instead of just continueing the pressure. They had to wear down the Roamns eventaully with their huge numbers but they did not. Why? They were not the soldiers some say they were. As I stated before...if it was Carthage or Sparta with those numbers... |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 08:10
They were not soldiers at all ... they were tribal warriors fighting in a mob or crowd, rather than an organized fighting force. They did have small high-response units - the naked religious fanatics of the Celts, or the professional war-bands (the comitatus) of the Germans - and though these numbered only a few dozen, they were absolutely devastating. One thing to remember as well is that although the barbarians usually outnumbered the Romans overall, the Romans in almost every instance outnumbered the barbarians greatly where it mattered - at the front of battle - by virtue of their closely-packed ranks. It matters little if the battle as a whole is 10 to 1 against the Romans, if at the front line, the barbarians are fielding 2 or 3 men - and only lightly armoured - per ten feet and the Romans are fielding 7 or 8 heavy infantry in the same ten feet. |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 12:47
|
Of the conquered provinces, Hispania was the most troubled. But if we
count frontiers and not conquered territories i think the lower and
medium Danube, between the actual Austria and the Black Sea was the
more dangerous, in fact this include two regions in the military
deplyment of the romans the eastern side of Germany and the region
around of Dacia. The frontier of western Germany, specially the Rhin
border lost importance after 150 AC, the briton front and the north
african front was secundary. The other important border was the East,
specially in sassanid time, but althougt the persian armies was by far
more dangerous and they tried to conquer and not only sack, their treat
appear and dissapear; contrary, the Danube front was always treatened
and the invaders always wanted to take a portion of the empire. So my
list of troubled frontiers is as follow: 1. Danube 2. East 3. Rhin 4. Briton 5. North frica I think that the briton front is more dangerous because the position of the romans in Brittania was fragile in comparasion with the African provinces, where the romans stablished a very well developed, populated and romanized system so the berbers in many regions will had problems with the "foreign" romans, a thing that can't be said about Brittania where the entire population was celt (ok, a minority of romans, but a very small minority) bye |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 12:59
|
Getting back to the question, the most troublesome province for Rome must surely have been the Armenia, eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq region, Armenians, Parthians and Sassinads at various times. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 16:46
Hmmm ... Roman Britain was one of the most "Romanized" provinces in the frontier. They may have been "Celtic" (or at least, Britons - the Romans seem to distinguish them from Celts) but they also seem to have been quite eager to adopt the Roman way of life, sporting togas and taking to the luxuries of Roman life like the bath quite readily. After Boadicea's short-lived revolt, they seem to have been very passive and enthusiastic about the Roman presence, and it became a very developed province with an extensive infrastructure of roads and towns. The problem with Britain was the northern border with the Caledonians and the Picts, who were masters of guerrilla warfare. Initially, they were pushed back to the Antonine line, but it was not long before they adapted and forced the Romans to retreat back to Hadrian's line. Like the Danube, this was a constantly threatened border, but unlike most other borders, the Caledonians and the Picts posed no threat at all to the main body of the Empire. Defending Britain did not at all contribute to the security of Rome, other than the fact it secured access to vast mineral resources like iron and tin. |