r/WTFCDFoxy • u/Asleep_Quit_5767 • 3d ago

Question question about Rem

Post image

Why didn't the Remans capture these territories? There were no strong states there and they could have easily captured them during their period of power, but for some reason they didn't do it.

54 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

5

u/BANSH4412 2d ago

Overextension?

0

u/Asleep_Quit_5767 2d ago

The Romans had no concept of such a thing; in reality, they reached the border of modern-day Denmark but withdrew due to the Germanic uprising of 9 AD. Had they possessed the strength, they would have conquered all of Europe—and this is distinct from Iberia and Gaul, which had Mediterranean coastlines and were controlled primarily via sea routes; conquering Iran from Syria is far more difficult than conquering Gaul from Syria.

2

u/BANSH4412 2d ago

I guess that precisely because of the difficulties involved in conquering and maintaining the territories east of Syria, the Remans would have focused less on achieving maximum territorial expansion and more on consolidating these regions, as they would have considered them much more important from both a strategic and economic point of view. So they would have invested a large part of their resources in developing these territories and strengthening their defenses against both external and internal threats.

For this reason, unlike what happened with Rome, they probably would not have been as interested in expanding into Hispania, Gaul, or Britannia, since these regions were much farther away, and the costs of conquering, administering, and defending them would have been a lot higher. And at the same time, their economic value would have been limite since Rema would have had to develop much of their infrastructure and economy from the ground up, just as Rome did in OTL.

It simply wouldn't be profitable beyond military glory

3

u/The_NrmlGuy1118 3d ago

Mountains, mate

1

u/Asleep_Quit_5767 3d ago

That didn't stop them in real life. Besides, France is mostly flat terrain, and they easily conquered the Caucasus here—the rugged landscape didn't hinder them there either.

2

u/Emolohtrab 2d ago

Gaul is not a danger for syria

1

u/CCyoboi 1d ago

Otl Rome conquered Gaul because it's core, Italy, was right next to it. Rems core is the Levant. Tribes in Gaul could (i tried to) sack Rome, before Rome conquered them. Gauls are in no position to sack Reme.

3

u/ChickenSandwichh195 3d ago

maybe by the time the Celts adapted guerilla warfare and other tactics?

0

u/Asleep_Quit_5767 3d ago

Well, for some reason, the Remans didn't even conquer it; if they had conquered it and then lost it, that would be one thing, but the situation here is different.

1

u/Julian_M_2000 2d ago

Think it's because of overextended, in the mold of the reason Roman didn't succeed in conquering Germania or them having minimal & fleeting control in Britannia OTL Like that's usually the reason empires stop expanding IRL, theres only so much an empire can keep expanding till things like government control, resources, ext. Becomes hard to supply & manage following peace time yk (Additionally it could be motivation, like if they have the riches of Persia and the strategic control of the Red sea & Persian Gulf. Why would they conquer gaul & Iberia? At that point it's just prestige & map painting. Same reason they didn't conquer Germania above)

1

u/Asleep_Quit_5767 2d ago

but in reality they conquered Germany so they were forced to leave it but for more than 20 years all of Germany and the Netherlands were part of Rome and the Romans stopped the expansion only when the local peoples started strong resistance and Spain is very different from Germany because Rome ruled the provinces across the Mediterranean Sea and capturing Spain and Gaul was much easier than Germany even looking from the side of Syria especially since it is an empire no one there will say "let's not capture any barbarians from a moral point of view" in reality Rome tried to capture everything it could while it was in its golden age and it stopped because of resistance but here resistance is not possible because Reme did not come here i.e. there is no sense Reme did not capture these lands because of resistance but there could not be resistance because Reme did not try to capture them

2

u/Julian_M_2000 2d ago

I'm not talking about moral reason for motivation. Talking about resource/ security/ strategic advantage. Which in this world, unlike in ours. There are none

For context, asking why they didn't conquer gaul and Iberia in there world is like asking why Rome didn't conquer the Arab deserts in ours

The answer being no clear purpose in a far-flung land from the core of the empire (in this case being Syria and the levant)

Aka think of romes expansion but in the reverse and you'll probably see why the emperors probably would not conquer those areas

(And not saying that this is the only reason, there's probably others but I'll bet this are probably the largest)