Johnny :
What kept the Roman Empire together and made it last longer than any other empire was imo the fact that they realized that expanding to infinity isn’t realistic (in Britannia, as they fought the then Scotts, they realised that it was not worth it because they resisted too fiercely and the area wasn’t particularly profitable, in Germania because they were too far, and too densely forested with once again, too many enemies they decided to defend the Rhine and the Danube which were more realistic borders, same was with the Persians, which Trajan did in fact defeat but never annex). That made their actual conquered land far easier to control because they focused on building infrastructure there, which in return reduced instability and corruption. What seemed like an insane fact to me when I read The Pursuit of Glory by Tim Blanning was that the Western European roads up until the 1700s were the same roads the Romans built and maintained until the 500s, only unmaintained and in some parts destroyed. Think about that, so many hundreds of years and no rulers came close to the Roman roads despite technological advancements and more localized authority. Humans are corrupt, they are ambitious and they are also hard to control. If an empire is built on the shoulders of a few incredible warlords, generals or armies, the people eventually revolt, the generals and successors kill each other in their ambition and local governors embezzle funds for their own gain. Moving around their populations like the Ottomans did, suppressing them with vastly superior recourses and technology the way the British did, or terrifying and slaughtering many of them the way the Mongols did only works for so long until the administration, civil wars and new foreign threats stretch the central government so thin it breaks.
2026-11-03 06:23:53