Why didn't the Romans ever expand towards the North? Nothing worth conquering...

Why didn't the Romans ever expand towards the North? Nothing worth conquering? They knew that there was stuff deeper into Africa. Why didn't they bother expanding towards Ethiopia? Why was it always Persians they tried to fuck with?

>Why didn't the Romans ever expand towards the North?
Barbarians
>Why didn't they bother expanding towards Ethiopia?
no point, its just desert
>Why was it always Persians they tried to fuck with?
They were enemies

Persians wanted Syria. Persia and Mesopotamia were also very rich. Germania and the Sahara? Not so much.

Actually I think it was Augustus that tried to conquer Arabia Felix but failed.

Nubia was between friendly and subordinated and Ethiopia became friendly after christianization.

There was nothing worthy in the north of Europe or south of the Sahara apart from the aforementioned ethiopians.

Because tactics used by the Roman army weren't as effective in dense florests and moutains.

Got btfo by Germans once really hard desu.

It's ok cause they killed Huns side by side later.

They completely ravaged Arminius and his men. Teutoburg was a minute of glory.

Then why did they retreat from the Elbe if Teutoburg was as insignificant as you claim

It cost about a hundred times as much per mile to transport goods by road than by sea.

Also, not a lot up there the Romans cared about.

Northern europe never produced anything of value in great numbers, until the dutch begun to produce a shitload of clothes in the middle ages.

And never attempted to conquer Germania again

>To South, niggers
>To West, sandniggers
>To North, forestniggers
>To West, water

Optimal expansion reached

Germanicus assfucked the Germanics so hard it took centuries before any pale snownigger ever dared to fight Rome.

is there anything of value in Germany? I mean, from the point of view of the romans.
It must have looked like a giant forest to them.
Amber was the only valuable thing they got form the mysterious north/north east, and they could get it from trading.

It's a lot more profitable to conquer people who you can then force to work for you.

In somewhere like BC0AD Germany, you had people who were not organized into plantation style farms, or people who were accustomed to being forced into the mines or military. Conquer them, and you get land that you then need to work yourself, and they run away to live with other Germans. You don't conquer people at that level of development, they can always just fuck off.

The Gauls were far more sophisticated than we give them credit for (thanks Roman historians), but it should be obvious to a modern historian that they were conquered because Rome just had to beat a few guys to get control of a massive and functional tax-farm in Gaul. Couldn't happen in Germany. Happened in Dacia, happened in Palestine, happened in GREECE at least a dozen times.

Germany was sort of lucky, if they were a few hundred years more sophisticated, Rome would have conquered them like Gaul. If they were a few hundred years less sophisticated, Rome would have wiped them out and colonized Germany.

>to west sand niggers

What

Ethiopia is not desert you moron.

Snowniggers are tough

But Augustus did try to conquer and subjugate them. Things were going well until Teutoburg.

>no point, its just desert

Not anymore desert than fucking Libya.

>Why didn't the Romans ever expand towards the North?
They did, they had all of Germany up to the Elbe confederated until Arminius.
> Why didn't they bother expanding towards Ethiopia?
Numerous expeditions into Africa were made, and Nero even prepared for Ethiopia's conquest.
>Why was it always Persians they tried to fuck with?
It wasn't. They were constantly meddling in the affairs of the Germans, among other tribal groups surrounding the Empire, and there were hundreds of punitive and economic military raids on them. However it was the Persians who consistently provided the greatest threat against the Romans, so it was them who received the greatest attention (most of the time).

To more generally answer your question OP. Conquest was hard and expensive work, and the further away from your home you expanded the harder it became to control. Also not every emperor was interested, or capable, of large military expeditions. The latter became increasingly the case until Hadrian said fuck it, its not worth it, and re-focused the military into a primarily defensive force.

Because at the time the only thing in Germania of worth to the Romans was the people itself. If they couldn't be trusted then it simply wasn't worth trying to hold.

Yes and Teutoburg showed the Romans exactly was that user's point was.

Germanicus niggers.

Tiberius recalled him before he could rekt Arminius for good.

In the end it didn't matter because the traitor got traitor'd by his own tribe.

They were a plunder economy, Persia was the only rich empire that was left to steal shit from.

But Germany had potential slaves, right? What did Celts have that Germans didn't? Why didn't they bother with Ireland, or Scotland? Was there nothing in Ukraine?

I am asking if they could possibly end up creating a bugger zone against the Huns and swampniggers.

>What did Celts have that Germans didn't?

Walled towns, coinage, gold jewelry, horses, cattle.

Farms and vineyards too.

No, but there's a lot of desert between the Roman empire and Ethiopia.