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.
Why didn't Rome/byzantine empire conquer Ukraine/Russia? Rome liked to conquer lands that were flat and with few to no forests, which is why they never conquered Germany, but why did they never try to go after Ukraine and Russia? They already had Crimea, so they must have known about the lands further north, and Crimea was already a breadbasket, and so by extension they should've assumed that Ukraine would also be agriculturelly productive. Furthermore these lands would've been lightly populated with very flat wide open spaces, perfect for sending a massive army to trample through. There were the sarmatians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians who were fierce, and had some of the toughest warriors, and they aligned with the Germans to attack Rome, but surely Romes Army could have deffieted them. So why this lack of interest? And southern Ukraine/Russia's climate isn't all that cold, certainly not much colder then Germany. Or did Rome actually try to take Ukraine but failed? And if they did manage to take it, how much would it have an effect on history? Do you think Rome would just keep expanding east until they reached China like what Russia ended up doing? Also why didn't the Byzantine empire try to take those lands as well, excpecialy since they saw a superpower growing there (Kievan Rus).
There was nothing for the Romans to conquer. Russia at the time was known as Scythia and was inhabited by nomads who wear described by Herodotus as the most primitive of nations.
Also, Scythians fought as mounted archers, and it was tough going for the Romans fighting against moutned archers on an open plain. If they employed a combined arms tactical system, they could win battles, but the horsemen could merely run away to fight another day. It simply was not plausible for the Romans to conquer and occupy that much steppe land filled with hostile enemy horse archers.
As for the Byzantines, most Byzantine history takes place after the crippling war with Persia and the rise of the Arabs. It is not so much an empire in expansion, but one of halting decline. There are various periods of rebirth, such as under Alexis Comnena, but it is mostly a history of struggle to maintain in the face of Persians, Arabs, Franks, Buglars, Seljuks, Ottomans, etc.
That makes sense, but then what was the appeal of britainy and Germany, it's not like those places had much to offer Rome. Further more they could of pushed the scynthians out and used one of the numorus rivers as a natural barrier, such as the Don river. Further more they could sail/ row up these rivers to have better access to the lands farther inland, and would've been relatively easy to colonize once a wall was built, similar to the one built in britainy. Also why didn't they use the Danube river as an access point to attack Germany?
There was little incentive. The Roman was contained with easily defended boundaries. If it moved into Ukraine it was open land for hundreds of miles, very few natural barriers. This would make it difficult to protect and therefore it would eat up a lot of military resources. Also take into account that it didn't offer too much economically and the climate could be harsh during certain times of year.
So what about the kuban (Krasnodar krai) and the north Caucasus in southern Russia. The climate there is very warm, and the Romans managed to conquer Armenia for awhile, they even reached the Caspian shore. So why didn't expand more in the Caspian they could've even dug out a canal connecting the don and Volga River to fasilitate trade between the Caspian and black/mediteranian seas. Furthermore all the had to do was build a wall between the the two rivers and a strong fortified fort, and the Volga and don would act as natural barriers. They also had allies in the region, Cacuasian Albania https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma...casian_Albania they could then also trade with the Parthian empire, and on another note, why didn't the Parthians do this, surly they would want to trade with the mediteranian world directly by ship.
Part of it I'd contribute to rather remote distances. We all somehow forget that conquering a land with an army is not simply marching in in certain formation and showing your military superiority. You also have to solve logistics of providing those military troops with what they need. The farther away they go, the more and more not feasible it becomes to proceed.
Next, you have to contain that land in your hands. So you either set outposts and forts and garrisons or, as Romans mostly did, you use already established local governments/forces, to carry on, just under Roman hand - and tax.
As one of the posters mentioned, there was really nothing there to conquer. Italy was quite pleasant for Romans to be at. Why go into wild stepps and deal with guerilla warfare, as that what they would have to deal with. Remeber Dothraki people from GOT? That's pretty much what they were. Scyths, Hunns, Avars.... Fearless nomads, always on a move, always fighting. Land was prestine and barren. No infrastructure, no cities, nothing solid to grasp to.
So go there just because your eyes are bigger than your stomach? With enough hassle as it was in now European and British and Spanish lands? Like as if East itself was not giving them enough grief.
Romans might have been greedy and ruthless, but they have been very pragmatic people. No gain - no interest.
Why didn't Rome/byzantine empire conquer Ukraine/Russia? Rome liked to conquer lands that were flat and with few to no forests, which is why they never conquered Germany, but why did they never try to go after Ukraine and Russia? They already had Crimea, so they must have known about the lands further north, and Crimea was already a breadbasket, and so by extension they should've assumed that Ukraine would also be agriculturelly productive. Furthermore these lands would've been lightly populated with very flat wide open spaces, perfect for sending a massive army to trample through. There were the sarmatians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians who were fierce, and had some of the toughest warriors, and they aligned with the Germans to attack Rome, but surely Romes Army could have deffieted them. So why this lack of interest? And southern Ukraine/Russia's climate isn't all that cold, certainly not much colder then Germany. Or did Rome actually try to take Ukraine but failed? And if they did manage to take it, how much would it have an effect on history? Do you think Rome would just keep expanding east until they reached China like what Russia ended up doing? Also why didn't the Byzantine empire try to take those lands as well, excpecialy since they saw a superpower growing there (Kievan Rus).
They did, but in a different manner.
Rome was trying to attack Russia during the Northern Crusades, with the help of the Teutonic Knights; that's what the battle on the Lake Peipus was all about.
And Byzantium was hoping to get Russia into its domain, after Russian princes accepted Orthodoxy. The catch 22 was however that Byzantine was planning to take Russia *under its wing* with metropolitan bishop sitting in Constantinople only, while the Russians were asking for the one to be sent to Kiev, insisting on having the autocephalous church.
So there was quite a story behind it as well.
Why didn't Rome/byzantine empire conquer Ukraine/Russia? Rome liked to conquer lands that were flat and with few to no forests, which is why they never conquered Germany, but why did they never try to go after Ukraine and Russia? They already had Crimea, so they must have known about the lands further north, and Crimea was already a breadbasket, and so by extension they should've assumed that Ukraine would also be agriculturelly productive. Furthermore these lands would've been lightly populated with very flat wide open spaces, perfect for sending a massive army to trample through. There were the sarmatians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians who were fierce, and had some of the toughest warriors, and they aligned with the Germans to attack Rome, but surely Romes Army could have deffieted them. So why this lack of interest? And southern Ukraine/Russia's climate isn't all that cold, certainly not much colder then Germany. Or did Rome actually try to take Ukraine but failed? And if they did manage to take it, how much would it have an effect on history? Do you think Rome would just keep expanding east until they reached China like what Russia ended up doing? Also why didn't the Byzantine empire try to take those lands as well, excpecialy since they saw a superpower growing there (Kievan Rus).
An empire has many voices within. If an empire does not explode from within, then that is an miracle.
The Chinese records say the Roman legions have reached the Chinese minning outpost at the west. And two sides were staring each other within the walls. But the legions dissapeared from the records anyway. And the minning outpost was unscratched.
I don't know what happened to the Russian side. The Roman legions, if any had been sent, they were probably hybernating somewhere in the forests.
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.
Or you are not familiar with it? 
