Roman Armenia, Britannia, Dacia, Germania, Osrhoene and Mesopotamia: Was it worth it?

[Tupiniquim]

Some people argue that regions like Britannia, Dacia, Germania and Mesopotamia brought instability to the empire, which was relatively safe with its borders in the Rhine, Danube and Osrhoene/Western Armenia.
What do you think? Were these regions really worthy of conquest? Would the empire survive with shrunk, but stable borders (like Iranian-based and China-based empires) for centuries to come if these regions were never annexed by the romans? Could the future invaders be defeated or assimilated into the graeco-roman culture of the Roman Empire?

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure that any of those conquests were truly a "not worth it" as far as borders/instability within the empire. Rome did not fall because of any of these territories being fatal to the stability of a system that took a long time to actually establish stability..

 

[DocJamore]

To an extent Armenia was useful as a buffer against the Persians but that could’ve been accomplished with an independent Armenia. Then again, that isn’t how the Romans worked so I think they would try their damnedest to hold it regardless.

The mines in Britannia and Dacia were massively beneficial to the Roman economy and brought in valuable ore and gold.

Also the Roman economy ran on the slaves that they captured from conquered territory so from the Roman perspective, “more land equals more slaves.” Part of the transition to the late empire seemed to be running out of sustainable sources for slaves.

 

[Tupiniquim]

I'm not sure that any of those conquests were truly a "not worth it" as far as borders/instability within the empire. Rome did not fall because of any of these territories being fatal to the stability of a system that took a long time to actually establish stability..

But wouldn’t the Crisis of the Third Century be repealed if some of these conquests never happened?

 

[Silver01]

I can say Germania would not he worth it there is at this point no heavy plow to help with the soils of norther Europe , good warriors from the tribes Cesar marched for days and found nothing Gual had bigger population than Italy big towns and trade networks Germania didn't

 

[Furry Fractal Multitude]

Dacia, Mesopotamia, Oshroene and some parts of Armenia are certainly worth it. These are rich and fertile provinces, with potentials for large new settlements, to get tax revenues from, if used well. Granted, they were mismanaged by the Empire.

 

[LeoII]

To an extent Armenia was useful as a buffer against the Persians but that could’ve been accomplished with an independent Armenia. Then again, that isn’t how the Romans worked so I think they would try their damnedest to hold it regardless.

It is how they worked. Most of the time, Armenia was a client Kingdom, not a province of Rome. There was a time under Trajan when they fully incorporated Armenia into the Empire, with its own governor to boot, but before and after that, they were content to let kings rule Armenia as a tributary, but culturally and governmentally independent state.

 

[Furry Fractal Multitude]

It is how they worked. Most of the time, Armenia was a client Kingdom, not a province of Rome. There was a time under Trajan when they fully incorporated Armenia into the Empire, with its own governor to boot, but before and after that, they were content to let kings rule Armenia as a tributary, but culturally and governmentally independent state.

So, the only reasonable period when Armenia was a part of the Roman Empire was during the reign of Basil-2?

 

[Evil Crusader]

Eh, not really. All of those places simply were left and never recovered when they truly became unsustainable, but offered enough incentive for conquest in the first place - aside probably from Germania who was more of a prestige project with cool hindsight-approved benefits. Rome did not take land at random, but expanded through absorption of polities that were at least somewhat urbanized and could better be incorporated within the wider Roman world.
While stabler and more economically sound borders would have helped, Rome did fast approach the ceiling of what could be accomplished with its technology, so I'd say stuff such as faster adoption of watermills could have offered way better help than just relinquishing those lands.

 

[Elfwine]

But wouldn’t the Crisis of the Third Century be repealed if some of these conquests never happened?

I'm not going to say I'm an expert, but I don't think so. That was a consequence of a system where the difference between "legitimate emperor" and "usurper" was purely is that a usurper lost, not of (say) Britannia being responsible for shaking norms that hadn't really firmly established that there was any reason to make a better distinction between the two things.

 

[LeoII]

So, the only reasonable period when Armenia was a part of the Roman Empire was during the reign of Basil-2?

Yeah, that was also when Armenia was fully incorporated into the Roman Empire. But that was also when the Seljuks began their advance

 

[Diego]

If you are talking about Germania Magna I can see a discussion if it was worth or not, but if you are talking about Germania Superior like in the map I think that there is no discussion that it was worth, it was of strategic importance and when it was lost it served to the Barbarians like a dagger pointed to the heart of the Empire.

About Britain, it was worth, the problem was that the Romans never pacified the entire island, maybe if Severus lived 5 years more...

 

[Avrorrange]

Mesopotamia would have worth it if the Romans were actually able to subjugate the whole region instead of being driven out, if only to deny whoever owned the Iranian Plateau from using its’ position and wealth to attack other Roman provinces.

 

[GodEmperorG]

If you are talking about Germania Magna I can see a discussion if it was worth or not, but if you are talking about Germania Superior like in the map I think that there is no discussion that it was worth, it was of strategic importance and when it was lost it served to the Barbarians like a dagger pointed to the heart of the Empire.

About Britain, it was worth, the problem was that the Romans never pacified the entire island, maybe if Severus lived 5 years more...

Yeah that bit of Germany that is shaded in most certainly was worth it to the empire, holding it kept more valuable provinces to the west and south safe from barbarian incursion since that region would be the first to get hit in any raid. Had Marcus Aurelius succeeded in subjugating the Marcomanni, I could see all the lands south of the Main river easily fortified as a new advanced border that would help keep Raetia and Noricum safe.

As for Britain, it took centuries before the provinces there really started turning a profit, but that was because the island needed minimum 3 preferably 4 legions to hold. Had Agricola succeeded in subjugating the Picts or at least finishing the construction of the legionary camp at Inchtuthil alongside the Glenblocker forts system, then the island would have been a lot cheaper to hold, and face less setbacks like the loss of the 5th British province of Valentia.

To add another region that was defenitly worth it would be Dacia, which provided substantial gold supplies to the empire. Had they bothered to conquer the rest of the Pannonian plain, it would have actually been rather easy to hold the slavic tribes back with a fortified Carpathian defense system. Why they left the region half-taken is beyond me.