Gaul was taken, North Africa was taken, southern Great Britain was taken, Southern Europe was taken, even swaths if the middle east were.
All these places were powerful in their own right, but Germania was not. What gives?
>>671239
They were savage
>>671249
Wouldn't that be easier then?
Also
>be German
>Romans come to take your stuff
>defend yourself
>win
>"omg germaniggers so barbarian"
Were the Gauls just cucks?
>>671239
It is much easier to conquer through empty land such as Hispania, North Africa, Anatolia, and the Levant, or already inhabited places such as Greece, Southern Gaul, and Italia than it is to conquer uncivilized forest.
They did manage to conquer Gaul, Illyria, and Britain, so idk.
>>671266
>easy to conquer empty land
>easy to conquer inhabited land
Were Germans aether beings?
>>671239
they were caught up with a lot of other stuff and the terrain of Germania was really difficult to conquer plus with the technology at the time they couldn't do much with it
Rome was planning to pacify the whole of Germany and then they lost three legions. A huge blow to Augustus. His decision for the strategic withdrawal due to the blood it would cost, expecially considering the topography of the land and the difficulty in holding such an expansive forested terrain
>>671239
something to do with waterways being able to sustain logistical support from the inner empire towards places like coasts and
the Rhine and coasts of south of france allowed Rome to conquer Gaul
but there's no way to supply forces beyond the Rhine/Danube plus those two rivers provide a natural defensive frontier instead of endless forest beyond that
>>671318
This makes sense to me. How come the coasts of Germany were never taken? Did Danish sailors ever encounter Roman ones out of Gaul?
>>671273
hard to conqer hilly forested land populated by batshit barbarians
>>671457
How was Gaul different?
Germans were master race of course.
it wasn't seen as worth it.
Rome's most profitable regions hugged the Mediterranean by no contest, Italy, Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant all had something to contribute to the Roman Empire, outer provinces that were undeveloped such as Dacia, Iberia, Gaul and Britannia cost the Roman's more money than they made in developing cities, building roads, and defending the frontier, Gaul wasn't exactly Rome's richest province, and to the Romans, Germania was just more of the same, dense forest, no development, a nightmare to keep order and build up from scratch.
The Campaign for Germania was pretty half-hearted compared to more intensive efforts during the Republic's wars against Carthage and Macedon, and the loss of 3 entire legions in one battle just broke the final straw, and convinced people that trying to take Germania wasn't worth it, and would only be a drain on Roman resources to attempt it, and they were probably right to think that.
>>671239
Why wouldn't you just google this?
They were just beginning as an Empire with Augustus with Superior Germania successfully defended itself for the first major time. Lesser Germania was already conquered, no reason to go even further past the Rhine when you already have the literally the rest of the Mediterranean to deal with.
>>671462
The Gauls were actually pretty damn civilized, all told. They were well on their way to becoming a society of city-states.
>>671239
It's easier to take control of an already civilized peoples than it is to take control of a bunch of smelly tree niggers who can barely keep the peace even between themselves long enough to fight you.
>>671239
There's plenty of good reasons such as the geography, the difficulty of integrating people that primitive, and other explanations. I think the reality is that it was more trouble than it was worth when there were so many more wealthy provinces left to be conquered on the periphery of the Roman empire.
>>671351
"Danes" as a whole didn't exist before the 6th century, and to some degree not before the 10th. We were made up by many tribes and had several lesser kings.
>>671318
I was going to give the stock response of "too difficult for next to no benefit" but this a good post. I will research further.
It's always interesting to learn about causes for historical events that are in a way, strictly historical. Modern people could not give a shit about resupply via rivers but for most of history it was absolutely essential.
"Rivers" will probably be a canned response on /his/ after a while.
>>671689
it will be now, thanks lad, I'll add it to the repertoire.
