Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
I think one of history's more interesting questions is what would have happened if Rome had stopped trying to expand and defend its borders and instead did what China latter would do - take prisoners and instead build a huge wall to keep them out.
Is it possible that the Roman Empire could have remained in tact much longer - maybe another 500 years - if it had done that?
Short answer: No. Static defenses prove virtually useless over time, the reason one half of its empire fell was it was beaten from within: Forced to rely on "outsourcing" to maintain an empire it didnt have the manpower to maintain, it hired its own mercenary army, trained them, and treated them like second class citizens, both in society and their employment on the battlefield. They, in turn, saw a weak, bloated, poorly led army it could take on, and it did, led by Alaric.
Any wall or impregnable fortress will be conquered over time. One of Romes most successful tactics was to surround such defenses and starve its occupants out.
Well, they did build at least one wall, Hadrian's Wall in England to keep the Celt's out of Roman territory.
As for whether or not it would have worked, the Romans did create a fort network throughout the border territories to resist attack and maintain the area. The problem is, as odanny pointed out, was that Rome died from within. As it was, static defences are easily overcome.
They did it and failed. The "Limes" was a vast array of fortifications all along the Rhine that drained Rome.
Had the Romans relied more in exporting their "way of life" and commerce, instead of vicious land grabbing and slave hunting, they could have created the necessary population to sustain a more modest empire.
The main weakness of the Western Roman empire was that it was depopulated. Large farming exploitations based on slavery were not sustainable in the long run. When they tried to settle the empire with Barbarians, it was too late and those Barbarians were not "civilized".
Well, they did build at least one wall, Hadrian's Wall in England to keep the Celt's out of Roman territory.
As for whether or not it would have worked, the Romans did create a fort network throughout the border territories to resist attack and maintain the area. The problem is, as odanny pointed out, was that Rome died from within. As it was, static defences are easily overcome.
Hadrian's Wall was not built with the idea of resisting an invasion, the idea was controlling border traffic, discouraging raids and regulating commercial traffic.
And there were Celts all over Britain, not just North of the wall. The wall was aimed at non Romanized Celts, those damned Picts and Scots.
The Great Wall of China was a failure in keeping the hordes of Mongols entering the interior of China. The issue is, of course, who could man a fortification of such length?
Genghis found the great wall to be of no hinderence at all. I think (I have a book on Genghis around here somewhere) he simply bribed the local Chinese tribe leaders around the wall to quitely let his hordes pass.
Yes, fortifications existed in Northern regions, and they were useless...just because the threat came from South-eastern Europe. The hunnic have made indirectly fall the Roman Empire, without confronting the walls.
So, the question should rather be : would the Roman structure have been able to resist to the Gothic assaults (who themselves were fleeing the Huns) with such fortifications in South-East Europe ?
If they built a great wall, they would have ended up contracting it out to the barbarians, who would have started work, then disappeared for a few weeks every month.... eventually they would have built in secret "back doors" and .... end up coming in way over budget!!
If they built a great wall, they would have ended up contracting it out to the barbarians, who would have started work, then disappeared for a few weeks every month.... eventually they would have built in secret "back doors" and .... end up coming in way over budget!!
Funny, but you have also hit upon the major reason why a wall would have been ineffective. The collapse of Rome was never a matter of an ongoing border war between Rome and all the Germanic tribes. Numerous times there were tribes who contracted their way into the empire rather than invading it. The larger the empire became, the greater the need for military to defend it. Consequently, some tribes would be invited into the empire, given specific lands as their own, and in exchange agreed to either serve in the Roman army, or serve as auxillaries to the Roman army, in holding back other more dangerous tribes. The first time Rome was sacked it was at the hand of Alaric's Visigoths...and it was done in anger after Rome had made the very deal described above with them, and then stiffed them on the promised lands. No wall, no matter how high or thick, provides protection from someone who is already on your side of it.
The first time Rome was sacked it was at the hand of Alaric's Visigoths...and it was done in anger after Rome had made the very deal described above with them, and then stiffed them on the promised lands. No wall, no matter how high or thick, provides protection from someone who is already on your side of it.
Goths have entered in Italy because they fled the Hunnic migrations. They had settled near Black Sea before, and had probably the aim to stay there. And the Huns were never "invited" in the Roman Empire. So, for me, the Huns are more responsible in the fall of Rome than the Gothic raids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
