Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So how come the Romans couldn't beat them?

They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory.
But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had.
Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them.
Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new.
Also, the principate system was one of the reasons.
The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him.
Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to.
But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
Parthia wasn't all that strong

Trajan was doing a good job, until the Parthians and the Jews of the Messopotamia financed a Jewish revolt in North Africa that forced Trajan to withdraw in order to suppress it. Trajan never made it, dying of some illness on the road back.

But it is interesting that the Romans never did well against the Parthians or the Persians until Heraclius virtually destroyed them, leaving them wide open for Arab conquest.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson


They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory.
But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had.
Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them.
Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new.
Also, the principate system was one of the reasons.
The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him.
Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to.
But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

I think the potential rise of rival commanders was THE major reason why Rome did not expand in a big way after Augustus. Still, it is remarkable how many civil wars the Romans suffered after that.

I still think, though, that Caesar would have conquered Parthia had he not been assassinated. Rome was the very Zenith of her power and had perhaps her most ablest general ever as Dictator. Parthia would have been lucky to survive.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Heresson


They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory.
But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had.
Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them.
Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new.
Also, the principate system was one of the reasons.
The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him.
Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to.
But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

One of the reasons they couldn't expand anymore was because of the resource drain they had by fighting Persia all of the time. It was the original Cold War except this time they actually fought head to head.

During other times it was a similar Soviet-NATO fight where they fought each other through proxy wars.

[Heresson]

Nah, the Empire had innumerable resources. If it really tried, it'd destroy Persia in a week

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson


They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory.
But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had.
Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them.
Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new.
Also, the principate system was one of the reasons.
The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him.
Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to.
But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

Well, in addition to Ted's observation on the resource drain a war with Parthia would cause, I guess there were never enough legions on the Parthian border in the first place to attempt a wholesale or even partial invasion of Parthia.

Secondly, as opposed to other borders of the Roman Empire (with only barbarians to face), on the eastern border there was a rival Empire with an Empire's resources and logistics. This changed the whole picture. Therefore, I'm skeptical about whether Rome would be able to thoroughly conquer Parthia if tried to. It sure would be able to win battles, but I think they would not be able to reach India at all.

But I agree to your general observation that there was less and less wish for adventures on the side of Romans anyway as time progressed and a balance was established in the east.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Romans did make attempts to take on the Parthians but they lost badly and that meant moving legions from the barbarian frontiers. The Barbarian tribes were always seen as Rome's main threat, and eventually destroyed Rome.

So in the end the Romans decided that having a strong empire on their Eastern frontier was more an asset than a threat.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Romans did make attempts to take on the Parthians but they lost badly and that meant moving legions from the barbarian frontiers. The Barbarian tribes were always seen as Rome's main threat, and eventually destroyed Rome.

So in the end the Romans decided that having a strong empire on their Eastern frontier was more an asset than a threat.

Agreed. Plus, you could actually make treaties with them that would hold. The Germans, in contrast, always behaved like wild animals.

[Heresson]

It's not always like that. I've read several late Roman chronicles and Romans acted in the most despicable (if that's the correct word) way towards them.

[Ned]

Yes, it is well known that the Romans would invade German territories, and rape and pillage to their heart's content.

[chequita guevara]

Raping and pillaging!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Raping and pillaging!

Spoken like a true Communist.

[chequita guevara]

No, no. I'm in Roman solider mode now.

[Heresson]

No, really.
Some stories.
the Romans are at peace (alliance) with a tribe. The emperor decides to built a fortress on their ground without asking the tribe.
So they are building it. A king of the tribe complains, and is invited by the gouvernor - and killed.
The tribes get angry and destroy the fortress.
The emperor gets angry and massacres the tribe.

Another

The Huns push the Germanic tribe south. The tribes ask the emperor to be able to settle on Roman ground. He agrees.
The gouvernors keep the tribes in one place, without food.
Eventually, they are forced to sell their fellow for slaves in exchange for meat - dog meat, to be precise.
Eventually they have enough of it and revolt.
The emperor tries to stop them and dies at Hadrianopolis.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ancyrean



That's not a point I "designed" to bring Alexander on top but an aspect of his circumstance that should not be omitted in the argument. You have been detailing Napoleon's circumstance, and this one is part of Alexander's. It's sign of certain factors in his time which should at least be drawn attention to. This should not be as difficult to understand as your incredulity suggests.




Your cynicism aside, the world is and was of course more than what Alexander knew it to be, but what I was trying to say is that the general perception in Alexander’s time and geography about the world to be as limited as we now know it is only a sign of how difficult things were at the time, in all aspects of life as well as warfare you can think of. It's imperfect and intangible but it's still a sign, and indication.

The difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander’s time and the odds he faced can simply not be compared with Napoleon’s time for this very reason, and that should be definitely considered when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz or Borodino, or when making a comparison between marching an army from Poland to Moscow in the early 19th century and marching one from Macedonia to India in the 4th century BCE.

I actually have not detailed any significant circumstance that would place Napoleon on top (read back). Mostly I have spent time defending why I think he is the greatest against the charges of others. The opinion that he is, btw, follows mostly from my personal intuition. As I've repeatedly stated, if any of us were to go up to a PhD body of historians and present our work on this forum, we'd be both laughed and beaten out of the room. If you're interested in irrelevant debates, that's fine. I, however, am not interested in a final conclusion to this, only that in this process we maintain some perspective.

"It's sign of certain factors in his time which should at least be drawn attention to." -- And it is often drawn attention to. Review your original post, however, and you'll find that you said "most" of the known world was under Alexander's reign. Clearly this is false. If you misspoke, then say so here and I'll leave it at that.

"Your cynicism aside, the world is and was of course more than what Alexander knew it to be, but what I was trying to say is that the general perception in Alexander’s time and geography about the world to be as limited as we now know it is only a sign of how difficult things were at the time, in all aspects of life as well as warfare you can think of. It's imperfect and intangible but it's still a sign, and indication. " -- It's more than imperfect, it's wrong. By this token I can claim that the Spanish in the 16th century also ruled "most" of the known world. What actually matters is the civilized world as a whole, not what one civilization thinks is civilized (refer to Spanish example...and I realize the issue of what entails a "civilization" is complex, so I hope it won't become a problem here).

"The difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander’s time and the odds he faced can simply not be compared with Napoleon’s time for this very reason, and that should be definitely considered when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz or Borodino, or when making a comparison between marching an army from Poland to Moscow in the early 19th century and marching one from Macedonia to India in the 4th century BCE." --- Just for reference purposes, Napoleon never faced the odds that Alexander did but he was heavily outnumbered in the 1796 Italian Campaign and at Austerlitz in 1805. You need to expound a bit more on what you mean by "the difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander's time". I understand the gist of what you're saying (though I don't agree with it) but more explanation (ie. the use of historical evidence) would help. Many factors, such as political stability at home, logistics, weakness of the enemy, influence the ability to conduct an expedition and what type of expedition it should be (punitive, involved, or something else). I would agree that it was more difficult for Alexander than Napoleon to wage the campaign that he did, but military expeditions in those times were just as frequent if not more than in Napoleon's time (note: when I say "time", I'm referring to the ancient period at large and the 18th-19th century).

"when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz " - I believe if you review your history books you'll find that Austerlitz was one of the most decisive battles in military history, and certainly more decisive than the Hydaspes. So I'll compare it to whichever engagement I please.