Why did Rome fail to conquer the barbarians?

But they tried to conquer then so what you're saying makes no sense

They unironically feared the Germanic warrior

Donald Trump

It's not cost-effective to conquer wild semi-nomadics.

Marching an army into the wasteland requires money and supply trains. Sending them out there to bully around goat-fuckers from the hills isn't going to make those costs go away.

Even the Celts and Britons built cities worth sacking. Dacians had gold mines. Germanics and beyond had jack shit.

Rome never tried because the land was useless and the cost of conquering and keeping it in line would have far outweighed any benefits of controlling it.

But they did try.

threads like these are the direct result of Paradox games that promote incessant blobbing and don't punish you for over-extension

This is my one big gripe with Paradox's games. I get the feeling that they try to make playing tall viable with EU4's expansions but it's like it doesn't even matter because the game mechanics fundamentally punishes you for not conquering as much land as you possibly can, and the mechanics for doing anything other than warfare just aren't that interesting regardless.

wasnt worth conquering

They feared the Nordic warrior.

>But they tried to conquer then so what you're saying makes no sense
no they didn't
when the Romans wanted to conquer someplace like Carthage or Dacia or the Greeks they attacked again and again despite wars/battles lost

Here in the Netherlands the tribes were too dangerous to fight, but friendly and loyal enough to cooperate with.
So in general the relations between the warrior tribes and the romans were fairly good. A lot of tribes also joined the roman empire. And even joined the personal guard of the emperor.

Taxing the tribes was impossible because the tax collectors and any enforcing legions would be killed. But asking the tribes to aid in wars against other Germanic or Celtic/Briton tribes was fine.

...

Also, the Roman empire conveniently extended up to the big rivers. Where they build their fortresses near possible river crossings. So they were also happy with their defensible position I guess.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Rome conquered most of it's territory because of the ambition of it's general politicians, those who succeeded got awarded with real power on the senate. Once there was an emperor that was all gone and without that incentive, there wasn't really a reason to do it after Augustus, since Germany was so poor.

Celts, celtiberians, iberians and tartessians

All of the oldest Dutch cities were founded as Roman fortresses and barracks. Where more and more Germanic people decided to trade and settle, turning them into cities.

The empire was suffering from massive overexpansion. It was hard enough to manage already, so they didn't really need dense forests and swamps full of angry germans. They could have done it if they really wanted it. The costs, though, the costs...

They didn't

They conquered the most advanced part of it, the rest was just too barbaric it wasn't worth it. Rhine was a good barrier anyway

They did a few times yes but mostly they stuck with the prudent suggestion by Augustus to maintain the 'natural borders' of the empire. Most wars with the germanic peoples was about destabilising the tribes and repelling invasions. Punitary campaigns into germanic territory were often the outcome of the latter. Plenty of client states/tribes were contained within Germania.
It simple was too costly to conquer germania and it would have provided little if any gain to the roman state as the region didn't have anything to offer but svamps, forests and ferocious, freedom-loving men. The only valuable asset (the rich silver deposits of germany wasn't known at the time) was the germanic warriors who already flocked to the roman armies.

>over extension

Can only really happen when in active conflict, Germania was, for all intents and porpuses, the only real threat the Romans faced in Europe, they would of actually made their border smaller and easier to defend if they had taken it

What are you, high?
Germania wasn't one thing but a region containing a surpising number of martial tribes and confederations. As such many tribes planned their invasions to occur when they got news that the roman border defenders were off fighting another germanic incursion. There was no way that the romans could've just taken it all in one bite and conquering it in several smaller pieces would've just welcomed further confederation-making and exploitation of the new vulnerable borders.
Actually subduing Germania would also have been a huge drain on the roman economy and military that would've likely ruined the empire. The place was basically a vast svampy forest filled with enemy hostiles who knew the terrain. That shit was a natural barrier in and of itself. Countless legions would have had to be employed to fend off uprisings and cut down the forests for the project to even be remotely possible and we all know that the imperial romans didn't exactly have legions to spare. The prudent course was setting up client states and messing with the balance of power inside Germania which was exactly what the romans did.

They lived under easy times which created weak men who were unable to fight.

Why did Romans fear the Polish Suebi so much?

They were busy with other stuff like the Parthians and internal strife.

>smaller

Nope.

>easier to defend

Please tell me how you intend to supply the Elbe from Italy.

Couldn't the Romans have peacefully expanded? Make a deal to join. They pay Roman Taxes, are administered by Rome, but they get all the benefits of Rome, like protection, and infrastructure.

They set up plenty of client kings in Germania. They just didn't try for annexation after Augustus (save small temporary conquests in the Marcomannic wars much later)

how did Caesar conquer gaul then? He conquered gaul when it was exactly like you described

That's why I play Vicky

I'm not that guy but I'd say Caesar could have conquered Germania with his genocidal tactics like in Gaul. He would definitely have given it a better go than Varus

Not him, but it's easier to supply your legions through the southern gap in the Alps than it is by going around them. Ceasar was also successful and not biting off more he could chew in Gaul, which was easier since they were less adaptable as the Germanics. If you destroyed one tribe in Germania, you barely make a dent in the confederation that forms in its place. In Gaul, there were small states forming that fought each other over land. Rome had already secured Gaulic territory before Ceasar. He was just cleaning up what was left.

>smaller

Yes, you basically just have to worry about Russia at that point.

>please tell me how you intend to supply the Elbe from Italy

Don't, Romanize Germany and let them supply themselves with minor help from Italy.

>In Gaul, there were small states forming that fought each other over land.
no

That's not how geo-politics works.

>He conquered gaul when it was exactly like you described
That's far from true.

First of the geography wasn't the same in Gaul and Germania. Calling Gaul a svampy forest is just silly.

Secondly, a large chunk of Gaul was already part of the roman state and even more of it was composed of states that through alliances etc. were highly influenced by Rome.

Thirdly, Caesar spent the first part of the conquest as the savior of Gaul which allowed him to winter his troops deep into non-roman territory and allowed him great purchase for future dividing and conquering.

Fourth, There were availible manpower for such a massive undertaking. The same cannot be said about imperial rome conquering Germania.

Fifth, Gaul had actual cities you could siege.

Sixth, he was Julius fucking Caesar.

I'm sure I missed plenty of other differences but these will have to do.

Are you saying that there was no gallic infighting?

They feared the German warriors and their bbc

>Polish
>Suebi
?

I'm saying that there was no states in Gaul.

The Germanic warriors were supposedly better than the Celtic warriors. Caesar claims the Celts feared the Germanic warrior.

thats why I do ck2, tons of internal things going on keeps it fun. EU series is basically risk

Chiefly, economic weakness. It can be hugely profitable to conquer a rival civilization, all those cities and temples to loot, but conquering a barbarian wilderness is a huge money pit. You have to build all the infrastructure, you have to keep large numbers of troops keeping order because the barbarians don't all live in the cities where you want to be anyway and where you can keep an eye on them, but scattered across the whole territory of the region in villages, and you even have to build the goddamn cities yourself, and probably import at least the first wave of urban citizens. Yes there is money to be made from slaves, and from selling off the farmland to wealthy Romans, and from exploiting natural resources, but none of these can offset the tremendous expense involved. This is exactly analogous to the colonization of Africa by Europeans two thousand years later, nearly all the colonies where huge financial black holes that NEVER saw a return on the cost of administration.

The only times it makes sense to conquer barbarians is if you are yourself a barbarian king who can impose his own culture directly upon the conquered barbarians, or if you have the mobility to enforce your rule without making massive investments, as for the Persians thanks to their powerful cavalry, or the Europeans in our time thanks to their steamboats. In before the Gallic War, the Celts were virtually a civilization and had many of the trappings of one, not least permanent trading centers and a well-developed network of trails, pathways, and roads.

>Lumber
>Amber
>Iron
>Furs
>Salt
>Tar
>Leather (large grazing grounds)
>Strong and tall men who could become valuable slaves

>G-germania was not worth conquering guys.

>Suevi
>not Slavic

This proves the supremacy of Northern folks within Europe.

>raw materials

Who's going to pay to build the road to those mines, or for the workers to dig it, or the costs of shipping it back to somewhere you can make soemthing with it? A tonne of salt and amber is worth fuck all if its in the middle of a germ-infested forest a hundred miles from the nearest marketplace.

>>Strong and tall men who could become valuable slaves

Yeah, no, they would be the ones killed or AT BEST shipped to the mines / galleys to be worked to death in a few months. Fit young men make terrible slaves, I'll let you figure out why you might prefer to enslave children and women instead.

Blonde and blue eyed women who could become valuable sought for (sexual) slaves then.

Very likely, but tbqh female slaves of breeding age are always in high demand pretty much regardless. Sadly for nordrcucks, blonde MEN are usually seen as less attractive than normal men, so back to the saltmines for you, Lars.

That could easily be propaganda on his part to convince the senate and the people of why it was a good idea to let him conquer it in the first place. "These people are pretty much like us, but they're in need of our protection from these other foreigners who are nothing like us."

The Celts were "softened" by civilization, the Germs were full-on barbarians with a very primitive physical culture and a very high level of general violence, they probably fought more often than the citizen-millitias of the Celts, where warfare was often ritualized and conflicts between tribes could be averted by single combat between the tribe's champions.

Germanics had retained the Heroic Cult aspect of their ancient Indo-European forebearers, only those who marked themselves in combat could have their spirit ascended to live with the gods rather than fading with the indistinguished.

>Caesar claims the Celts feared the Germanic warrior
He never claimed that, on the contrary he claimed that Celts were superior warriors but later on were softened by civlization

>Chapter 24
>And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.