What allowed or prevented Roman conquest in terms of population, climate and geography?

Upvote:0

I'd say nothing related to population, climate or geography. It was a problem of timing.
In fact, if you shift places, changing Germany by Gaul for example, Caesar would have conquerer Germany in the same way he did with Gaul.

Rome greatness was due its institutions, once they fell, Rome declined as well. After the fall of the Republic, Rome grew only when efficient emperors stayed in power for enough time, like the Antonines, after that civil wars consumed the energy of the Empire.
The only thing related to population might be the lack of citizens in the army, because with time the army was composed by mercenaries working for its general, instead of former army composed by citizens working for its city.

Upvote:1

Proximity to the Mediterranean Sea

Of course there is no one all-encompassing answer, but the most conspicuous reason is simple. You can't get to Germania by boat.

The same is true for Britain, of course. But Britain is an island and didn't have a seemingly infinite number of barbarians weighing upon it. (And the threats that existed were more easily fended off by walls across the fairly narrow width of the isle.)

The further inland that the legions had to travel, the harder it was to supply and control them. Whenever the empire pushed more than a hundred or so miles beyond the sea (or major rivers such as the Danube and Rhone that connected to the sea) it struggled to maintain itself. Thus the empire could only hold onto Mesopotamia for the briefest time, and their control over northwest Spain and France was comparatively weak.

More post

Search Posts

Related post