Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why the Romans used aggressive warfare to fight off the Germanic tribes
#1
Recently, I started with a school project covering the statement: Why the Romans used aggressive warfare to fight off (break the resistance of) the Germanic tribes.

I came to the following conclusion:

"The Roman army was best equipped to fight against a similar enemy that could be defeated by taking and plundering it's important cities. During Rome's' early expansion wars against the Etruscans and Carthage and Macedonia, peace was forced by the capture of important cities. Conversely, the tactical capabilities of the Roman armies could not be fully exploited if they fought against an enemy who did not value something like urban settlements. We find an example in the Roman battle against the Parthen. Even though the Parthians and, later, the Sassanids in the east had some prominent cities, their main source of combat power - cavalry - came from small, nomadic settlements. Even when the Romans captured and plundered some important Parthian cities -including Ctesiphon, the capital of the Arsacids- their power remained unbroken.

Rome's military power did not come into its own against the Germanic tribes either. It was useless for the Romans to build a paved road through difficult terrain -such as the Germanic forests and swamps- to reach the primitive cities of Germans and plunder them, because the power of Germania was not in ... Even the loss of all their cities wasn't a serious blow.
It was the same with the Dacians, Sarmatians and the nomads in Arabia and Africa Procunsularis

None of these tribes could resist the advance of Roman invasion columns, but neither could the Romans apply their strength effectively against tribes whose power and strength did not depend on the survival of a city-based economy. The only alternative for the Romans to break the resistance of such people was to attack the population itself in a war of extermination. This is the reason that aggressive warfare was carried out in many "uncivilized" areas outside the borders of the empire."

I would like to hear your thoughts on my conclusion and the following statement: Why the Romans used aggressive warfare to fight the Germanic tribes - A brief history of Roman warfare in Germania 0 AD-100 AD

Regards,

TheSugarGeneral
Thomas Overduin

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
Reply
#2
"neither could the Romans apply their strength effectively against tribes whose power and strength did not depend on the survival of a city-based economy"

Well, yes and no. Yes, because it was much harder to deal them a decisive blow.
No, because the Roman army had subduesd such tribes before. No, also, because the german tribes were not nomads without territory living off the land. the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them, or make them allies by selling them the idea of becoming citizens, as they had done with the Gauls, the British, and others.

Also, please add your real name to you signature - in your profile. It's a forum rule.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
"Even when the Romans captured and plundered some important Parthian cities -including Ctesiphon, the capital of the Arsacids- their power remained unbroken."
No, Parthian was systematically defeated and eventually lost control of their own empire. Romans arrived to control Sinagara, Anatha and Hatra, advancing the border around 500 kilometers. Something similar for Dacia.

In general it is true that Germans' the low degree of urbanization put Roman strategy in difficulty, but I don't think that Romans showed against Germanic tribes a particularly aggressive warfare. It was just the way in which they led the war, preferring when possible fighting on the enemy field instead of their own. This is the so called "forward defence", or "preclusive defence". The position of the legions in that period, near the border, almost in all the empire, is a sign of how extended was the practice.

Generally speaking, the conquest of other regions was almost never courteous and painless. We can think to Hispain, Gauls, or at the same end of Corinth and Carthage (destroyed in the same year).
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#4
"No, Parthian was systematically defeated and eventually lost control of their own empire. Romans arrived to control Sinagara, Anatha and Hatra, advancing the border around 500 kilometers. Something similar for Dacia."

Does this apply to the Parthian Empire in the First Century (0-100 AD)? I'm trying to put together a plausible scenario of the situation in Germania from 0-100 AD.

I know the Romans had some struggles with the Parthians over Armenia:
This struggle for Armenia reached a new high point under Vologases I. Neither the Parthians nor the Romans succeeded in gaining a definitive victory and in 63 Vologases and the Roman emperor Nero reached an agreement that provided a solution:
the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids would rule in Armenia, but as vassals of Rome .
Following a peace treaty, Tiridates I traveled to Rome (63 AD). In Rome the Roman emperor Nero ceremoniously crowned him king of Armenia. After Tiridates' coronation a long period of peace between Parthia and Rome ensued.

Beginning with the reign of Tiridates, Parthia would retain control over Armenia through the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. Even after the fall of the Parthian Empire, the Arsacid line lived on through the Armenian kings.

If I'm correctly, the decline of the Parthian Empire started after 100 AD.

"the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them"

Didn't (the threat of) Roman aggression allowed leaders (like Arminius, Marbod and Julius Civilis) to unite the Germanic tribes into larger groups that presented a real threat at the Roman borders. I think there was a causal relation between the Roman aggressive/passive behavior in Germania and the frequency and intensity of Germanic raids and/or uprisings. 



These are just my thoughts and I enjoy learning from everyone. Please let me know your opinions and share your thoughts



P.S. I can't seem to change my signature ...
Thomas Overduin

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
Reply
#5
Hello TheSugarGeneral. Before you have made a reference to the capture and plunder of some important Parthian cities, including Ctesiphon.
This happened mainly following the first century, so I have completed the scenario including that centuries. And, your initial statement seems to be general "even after some defeats the Parthian remained umbroken." So, my reply remains unchanged. That statement is simply incorrect.

Then, there is the other part, that is centred on the topic "Why the Romans used aggressive warfare to fight the Germanic tribes". To me, the fight against Germanic tribes was not so much different than others, for the example against the Celts. And, replying to your last point concerning the unification of tribes in federations, it is something the Romans already experimented in the Gauls, where Vercingetorix was able to create a union of tribes able to fight (almost) as a single entity. The big difference with the Germanic federations is that these were created outside the Roman territory. Apart this, it was the natural response in order to be able to fight against rome. The old tribes were too small to have a critical mass capable of resisting Roman power.

So, for your last question, I partially agree. But it is not the "roman aggression", but the "roman presence". And, I would not forget the migration of Cimbri and Teutons that migrated around the first century BC. They moved together, not at all following a roman aggression, following the decision of their rulers in something not very different from what the Germanic federations will be.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#6
Hello there,
It's been a while since I visited the forum
Let's jump straight in ...

Because of the impossibility of both sides (Parthia and Rome) to defeat one another, the dominance over the kingdoms that lay between Rome and Parthia (-->Armenia) was more important and caused a lot of battles.

The Romans started most conflicts with Parthia (except in A.D. 155 when the Parthian king attacked Armenia and invaded Syria for no reason) Due to the fact that the Parthians were poor at siege warfare, most of the Parthian campaigns were large-scale raids.

Parthia was internally very weak (you're absolutely right Marco Parente, the decline and fall of the Parthian empire) and rarely posed a serious threat to the Roman Eastern provinces. The Parthian king had enough wealth to guarantee his power over the Parthian aristocracy, but in practice the important noble families had usurped many 'royal' privileges. Besides, they provided the cavalry contingents that were so important for Parthian warfare.

For example, Surenas/Suren/Rustaham Suren, (the Parthian general who won the decisive Parthian victory at Carrhae) was :
""an extremely distinguished man. In wealth, birth, and in the honor paid to him, he ranked next after the king; in courage and ability he was the foremost Parthian of his time; and in stature and personal beauty he had no equal.""
as described by Plutarch.
He was executed because the king feared him as a potential rival.

To conclude, these internal struggles weakened Parthia, but in the first century the Romans and Parthians were stuck in a stalemate. the Romans could not deliver the decisive blow to the Parthians in battle, but neither could the Parthians prevent the Romans from entering their lands.

This was the case in the first century ...

The ever-flaring wars against the Parthians can be interpreted as 'aggressive' Roman imperialism. Furthermore, it also shows that many Roman generals still dreamed of emulating Alexander the Great.

Another view on Roman warfare: The Parthians had battled and humiliated the Romans (same for the Germanic tribes in A.D. 9 ) which made them enemies. They would always remain enemies until they were incorporated as a vassal state or if the Parthian kingdom turned into provinces after Roman conquest. As long as that was not the case, hostilities continued to break out.
Thomas Overduin

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
Reply
#7
Well... I still think that you have not replied to my points, one for all having mixed first and second century Wink

Anyway, apart all imperialistic things... (come on Smile ), why do you think that with Germans there was "a war of extermination"?

When? Which period? Who made that and for how long?

I think that, especially after Teutoburgo and Tiberius and Germanicus Campaigns, Roman Legions were mainly concerned with putting in place a forward defence. There were orders not to conquer, just to keep the status quo. About the "why", there were several and valid reasons. Apart geographical difficulties in Germany, Rome had other points to consolidate (not last, the need to reconsider the client kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa), before being in condition to consider newly to conquer Germany. If there would had been the will to do it. And, apart this, Germany... up to the Elbe? Today's Poland? or where?

In short, nothing of particulalry aggressive or strange for the period. And I would say nothing that could make one think of an extermination war. And, mainly, against whom? Against populations that could retreat thousands of kilometers?
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#8
Mixing the first and second century is -indeed- an unforgivable mistake, and I bear all responsibility for it.  Wink
I want to emphasize that I mainly focused on the Roman warfare in the first century. I used 3 conflicts that could help me out answering my statement. 1) Teutoburg Forest 2) Germanicus' campaigns in Germania 3) revolt of the Batavi.
I will now try to give decent answers to the questions asked ..

Aggressive warfare ?
I earlier stated: 

-"The only alternative for the Romans to break the resistance of such people was to attack the population itself in a war of extermination. This is the reason that aggressive warfare was carried out in many "uncivilized" areas outside the borders of the empire." 

A statement I based on the following: 
In the absence of a settled pattern of life that the army could control and reorganize under Roman rule, peace required first that a desert be made. Thus at the conclusion of Domitan’s campaign against the Nasamones of North Africa, he reported to the Senate that the war had been won, and that the Nasamones had ceased to exist (based on Dio, 67.4.6).  


-“the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them, or make them allies by selling them the idea of becoming citizens, as they had done with the Gauls, the British, and others.”

-“In short, nothing of particulalry aggressive or strange for the period. And I would say nothing that could make one think of an extermination war.”

This tactic of placing taxes on them and denying them the use of their lands, could/did encourage aggressive reactions. For example:

When Drusus brought Roman forces through Frisii lands in 12 BC and "won them over", he placed a moderate tax on them. However, a later Roman governor (Olennius) raised the requirements and exacted payment, at first decimating the herds of the Frisii, then confiscating their land, and finally taking wives and children into bondage. By AD 28 the Frisii had had enough. They hanged the Roman soldiers collecting the tax and forced the governor to flee to Flevum, which they then besieged.
Roman reaction
Propraetor Lucius Apronius summoned Roman legionaries and threw them on the Frisii, raising at once the siege of the fortress. Next, he began constructing solid roads and bridges over the neighbouring estuaries for the passage of his heavy troops (). He ordered the cavalry of the Canninefates, with all the German infantry which served with us, to take the enemy in the rear. They were defeated and according to Tacitus, nine hundred soldiers died and four hundred killed each other in Cruptorix's villa, fearing treason. Flevum was given up and the survivors fled back south. 

-"Why do you think that with Germans there was "a war of extermination"? When? Which period? Who made that and for how long?"

I am not saying that there was an war of extermination going on (at least not in Germania), but to break the Germanic resistance the Romans simply had to act aggressively. Military displays of power and punitive expeditions were the way to keep the Germans under control. Germanicus' campaigns against the Germans are a good example of (t)his relatively aggressive warfare to fight off the Germans.

-“And, apart this, Germany... up to the Elbe? Today's Poland? or where?” 

For the world of barbarians along the Rhine and further east, the Romans had their own name: Germania Areas on the western bank of the Rhine were incorporated into the Roman Empire and divided into several areas: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. On the other side of the Rhine there was Germania Magna, which stretched east. 

Nico Roymans, a Dutch archaeologist, showed how the Romans carried out the 'restructuring' of Germania by describing three aspects of the (conquered) tribes and their behavior. In Germania Inferior, the Eburones and Atuatuci were brutally exterminated, because they resisted Roman expansion. (this mainly happened before the first century, but it is a good example of aggressive warfare). At the same time, Germanic settlers moved from Germania Magna to the other side of the Rhine to form 'new tribes' (Batavians, Ubii). Furthermore, the Romans also offered Germanic tribes the opportunity to gain social status and influence. Some tribal chiefs did so and welcomed the Romans as their new rulers, while other chieftains saw a way of gaining status and influence by resisting the Roman rule. 

Conquest of Germania ?
-“I think that, especially after Teutoburgo and Tiberius and Germanicus Campaigns, Roman Legions were mainly concerned with putting in place a forward defence. There were orders not to conquer, just to keep the status quo.” 

In 5 CE, Tiberius moved north from Pannonia and fought his way to the Elbe. Tiberius built several military camps east of the Rhine (forward defence). Haltern is an important example of this, because Haltern (due to its strategic location near the Lippe) quickly developed into a complex of fortified military camps with a naval port. 
The existence of fortified army bases does not automatically mean that the surrounding area is controlled. Nevertheless, Augustus seems to have been convinced that Rome controlled the area between the Rhine and the Elbe, which made him able to turn his attention to other areas (the client kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa). 

It remains an unanswered question whether Augustus really wanted to conquer Germania and make it a Roman province. 
Possible evidence for the conquest of Germania is Waldgirmes. in Waldgirmes is a Roman settlement located. It isn't a military camp or castrum, as it doesn't have the typical layout of a Roman camp. Instead, the buildings have a non-military character, and remains of a forum and basilica have been found. The houses and kilns clearly indicate that Waldgirmes was a civil settlement. Moreover, there were references to Roman presence, such as a bronze equestrian statue of Augustus.
This may indicate that the Romans were planning to live in Germania.

Furthermore, because Julius Caesar had conquered Gaul in 10 years with a force that never exceeded 10 legions, the conquest of all of Germany must have seemed a perfectly feasible proposition (even with the downsized army of Augustus and if it were a matter of geographic depth and not of the intensity of resistance, a question answered in 9 CE).
Thomas Overduin

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Arminius and his motivations to fight the Romans Shield And Spear Art 0 899 06-18-2019, 09:49 PM
Last Post: Shield And Spear Art
  Germanic Tribes jbd_29349 26 9,977 11-16-2006, 08:55 PM
Last Post: Treveri Gaul

Forum Jump: