Why were the Romans unable to conquer Germania and Caledonia?

The size of the Empire is something to consider. For example Romans did launch expeditions into Caledonia and could've possibly even conquered them but legions had to be recalled to def me places such as the expansive Danube frontier which was a constant hotbed of barbarian incursions. I forgot the details, but I remember reading about a Roman governor who was doing well conquering and subduing the tribes beyond Hadrians wall but he was recalled by the emperor, I believe it was Constantine, because barbarians were attacking elsewhere.

There were many, many more germans than gauls, and there was no Caesar there to put on a divide et impera masterclass. It also helps that the gauls were half latinized by Caesar's time, whereas the germans were wholly extraneous. Gaul didn't put up much of a fight after conquest, whereas Germania was always rebelling. Rome reached the Elbe and tried to set up a province twice, it's not like the conquest was the issue. It was about retaining the area without having to commit a ridiculous amount of troops.
The political situation was also different. No emperor could afford to spend 10 years doing nothing but german campaigns, and no emperor would allow a general to spend 10 years cultivating the loyalty of tens of thousands legionaries.

>Why was Gaul so easily conquered in comparison though?

it wasn't, it took hundreds of years of pretty evenly matched wars before a guy like Caesar seized the opportunity to utterly buttfuck the Gauls beyond any fighting ability.

Germany was like Gaul but there was no money to be made.

Gib legions

>it took hundreds of years of pretty evenly matched wars
Gaul and the celts aren't the same thing. It took Caesar and ten legions 10 years to conquer all of Gaul.
The romans fought against various waves of celtic people for centuries in northwestern and central Italy, southern Germany and the Balkans.

>The romans fought against various waves of celtic people for centuries in northwestern and central Italy, southern Germany and the Balkans.

yeah, and those were called Cisalpine Gauls, and were actually even more advanced and strong than their Transapline relatives.

Gauls overall were very advanced compared their neighbors, receiving influences from Italians, Greeks and Phoenicians.

May have been Diocletian, I know for a fact it was one of the five good emperors.

>Because Gauls wouldn't fight in the rain
I've never heard this, can you tell me about it

This. Few people know that Germany was black-majority until after WWII.

Germanicus was about to do it but got recalled by Tiberius, possibly because the emperor thought he was getting too popular

>Diocletian
>five good emperors
5 good emperors were Nerva/Trajan through Marcus Aurelius. Diocletian was at the end of the crisis of the 3rd century.

Caledonia is Scotland right? From what I recall, Scotland is filled with bogs, swamp lands, dense forests, and mountains that were absolutely not ideal for large troop formations or armies the Romans used. Germania was basically the same except far more forested instead of swampy.

1. There wasn't much of worth to conquer in Germania, slaves could be captured in the multiple successful Roman incursions, or bought off rival tribes. Everything else was successfully traded for more or less glas (beads) so very cheap items
2. Teutoberg kinda dissuaded the Romans from trying to rule over the uppity Germanics (it was a de facto rebellion), and the loss of 3 legions, during the time of a rebellion elsewhere was quite significant
3. establishing the Rhine/Danube Limes made a lot more sense than pushing for a Weser or Elbe border, since the Rhone could be used as an easy ship supply route with minimal land resupply route to the Rhine, while the Weser/Elbe would require either sailing around half of Europe or long land supply routes

You could be thinking of Agricola, who was recalled by Domitian after beating the Caledonians.

Tacitus stated that Domitian was wary that Agricola was a more successful general than him, and recalled Agricola to prevent him from being a threat. The truth of this is in dispute, since Tacitus was Agricola's son in law and personally hated Domitian.

That was probably it. I remember the part about if the General was recalled because of political reasons involving popularity or because of pragmatic reasons with barbarians attacking other parts of the empire.

Wasnt worth conquering, as it would not produce enough food or tax revenue to make the effort worthwhile. Still the romans invaded on occassion, for a bit of fun and pluder. A few years ago a battle site was found near lower saxony where, according to what has been found so far, the romans under the command of Maximinus Thrax beat the ever living shit out of the germans.

You recall wrong. Scotland isn't that different from England. Especially the parts where you'll find people inhabiting it.

Like I said it wasn't like they tried to conquer each and Gaul was easier. Caesar wanted to get rich and so started a bunch of wars and later on they decided to integrate it. Romans never really had any intention of conquering Germania

Easy answer was for the case of Caledonia it had no civilization structure worth a damn. Was almost entirely rural-tribal societies which are hard to conquer and even worse to administer. The only solution would have been to give war powers to a local official in Britain to engage in skirmish tactics across the border to keep the tribals in check and deplete their numbers through war plunder. Every time a tribe hits across the border, send a legion marching through supported by Auxiliary to capture slaves to work to death in the mines. The constant warfare and skirmishing would have forced the tribal societies to merge together, giving the Romans the ability to negotiate with them and subjugate them.

Germany was a similar case, lack of urbanized society and on the fringes of the power-base of the empire. Once Trier became an important regional center rome finally had the ability to make treks into Germany, but by than it was impossible for the empire to expand.

Actually, what made Gaul a tantalizing target and a welcoming target was a combination of being next to the roman powerbase in italy and highly developed urbanized societies. Same reason why Romans were able to pacify and colonize Romania.

They were inferior race

Looks a lot like rural America, DESU.

Wasn't worth conquering

It wasn't worth conquering OP

OP it just was not worth conquering, it wasn't at all

No value in conquest

Conquer? Not worth it.

Not a worthy conquest OP to be honest

No use conquering worthless land

They didn't see the value in conquering it

OP there was no value to be had in conquest

because those were shitholes not worth spending money on conquering and occupying.

They thought about conquering it, but then they ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that is is just not worth it.

It was a useless land filled with savage useless barbarians.

It took man like ceaser to domesticate gallic tribes. Considering germans were even more wild it would took lots of money, time and strong political power. Also it wasn`t really worth it. Also varus got cucked pretty bad so they didn`t feel like getting inside all that much.

see

Gaul was far more urban compared to Germania and could transition to Roman rule.

Augustus attempted it, but after Varus' failure he saw further expansion as unwise and consolidated the empires borders instead.

Don't think it was worth conquering OP

Was it really worth conquering??

Shitholes not worth conquering OP

OP, they were not even worth annexing.

No point in conquest if it's not worth it OP

OP I'm telling you it wasn't worth conquering dude.

OP listen here you fucking pleb. It wasn't worth it

>Why were the Romans unable to conquer Germania

They did conquer Germania tho, but after Teutoburg Forest they demolished their cities and withdrew. They could have easily conquered it again, but the corruption in Rome was too deep rooted. Germanicus absolutely annihilated the Germans:

>the enemy were slaughtered from the fifth hour of daylight to nightfall, and for ten miles the ground was littered with corpses and weapons. - Tacitus

Then why conquer Gaul? Seriously, even Britain provided raw materials, Gaul was pretty useless.
>Spain: gold, olive
>Greece: education, olives
>Anatolia: minerals, manpower
>Egypt: grain
>Syria: grain, olives
>Africa: grain, pottery
Only less useful province I can think of is Mauretania.

Gaul was one of the richest provinces in the western empire. Also, like Britain, it was as much a prestige conquest as an economic one

Gaul had tonnes of metals, manpower and is very fertile land.
Plus when you conquer someone with loads of people you get a lot of slaves.

>Why were the Romans unable
They were able but Germania was just a barren shithole thus there was no point to control it

go welcome some rapefugees, Hans

The German plains is some of the most fertile land in all of Europe. Roman economy was primarily agricultural-based. Ergo Germania was very lucrative, but there were Germans there so it was deemed not worth it because Rome was weak
tldr don't talk about shit you know nothing about

>The German plains...
...Weren't a thing yet. Germany was still forest and bog outside of the small areas used by the germans.

Germania at that time was composed of swamps and forests

End yourself

>Romans didn't have axes and couldn't deforest
What the fuck do you people think happened in Gaul and in Britain?
Go read an actual book you fuckheads

You are literally a fucking utter retard. Fuck you and your entire family

Making land arable was the Romans fucking THING you inbred piece of monkey shit
That was the whole fucking point of the Marius' Army Reformation

evidence or I don't believe you.

Germany was not worth it

I don't have 2000 year old pictures, so fuck off because I suspect you will just skip sources longer than 3 sentences

Just as I thought, you're making up bullshit as you go along like a big fucking tard, and you aren't even grown up enough to admit that I'm right and you're a fucking loser. Go back to /pol/, it might be more your speed.

If you actually looked at human development in the western european mainland you would see the reason for the emergence of feudalism is because ROMANS were so fucking great at making lands arable.
What did the Romans view as the most important economical attribute? Agriculture.
As such, what would be the primary reason for starting wars, economically speaking? Arable land followed by agricultural supplies(slaves) then whatever was #2 profit on their economy.
What did the Marian Reform do? It promised Roman Citizenship(enticement) and LAND(profit for the state) for veterans in exchange for military service. It was literally a win/win for the state.
What was the one thing that was deemed unimportant in the middle ages? The one thing that was seen as contempt-worthy and its life expendable? The peasantry. Why? Because there was so much farmland thanks to the Romans that food was never a fucking issue until the population booms after the agricultural revolution caused by the Enlightenment/Industrialization made cities able to supports millions instead of tens of thousands.

fuck you, im not gonna read your made-up bullshit.

>so fuck off because I suspect you will just skip [...] longer than 3 sentences
pottery

nice meme, next time how about you substantiate your "arguments"

Hadrian didn't relinquish Dacia, Aurelian did over two centuries later.