why did the Roman Empire take so long to expand?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

The Roman empire went from Italy in early 3rd century to the largest empire of the ancient world encorporating up to 50% of the worlds population but it took nearly 300 hundred years to do so why did it take so long other nations with much lesser militaries expanded much quicker, with their imense military supremacy and prowess and the ease of which they won most conflicts you would have thought there expansion would have been quicker i mean Ceaser and Augustus between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long.

[bushbush]

do you have a quantitative comparison on the speed of roman expansion comparing to others to back up your claim?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

do you have a quantitative comparison on the speed of roman expansion comparing to others to back up your claim?

well i was thinking of the persian empire, Alexander's expansion and even Carthage

also refering to the ease of conquest the war with Carthage was against a roman military that had not quite developed but i also say usually not always.

[PointOfViewGun]

well i was thinking of the persian empire, Alexander's expansion and even Carthage

also refering to the ease of conquest the war with Carthage was against a roman military that had not quite developed but i also say usually not always.

Comparing Roman Empire expansions to Ottoman expansions would be more convenient I believe.

[Babur]

Comparing Roman Empire expansions to Ottoman expansions would be more convenient I believe.

are you referring to Mehmet II's adoption of the title Kayser-i-Rum?

[PointOfViewGun]

are you referring to Mehmet II's adoption of the title Kayser-i-Rum?

Not really. I compare Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire solely on their similarities.

[Last Roman]

Comparing Roman Empire expansions to Ottoman expansions would be more convenient I believe.

Not really. Totally different circumstances to the ancient world.

[Lysimachos11]

why did it take so long other nations with much lesser militaries expanded much quicker

Indeed which other nations? You cannot compare them to say the Mongols, for Roman expansion led to centuries of peace and prosperity and export of Greco-Roman culture. That is not the same as a highly succesful military conquest with little lasting influence from barbarians.

with their imense military supremacy and prowess and the ease of which they won most conflicts you would have thought there expansion would have been quicker i mean Ceaser and Augustus between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long.

The Romans actually had extreme difficulties in defeating Carthage and the invading German tribes, and their wars against the Greek states weren't easy either.

Basically I think the answer to your question is that the Romans as a sedentary and civilized society had to fight other well-organized states for a long period of time. While barbarians are sometimes quick in destroying less-warlike civilizations, they are in the end mostly deconstructive. Expanding and constructing an empire takes much more time and effort.

[Boyar Son]

The Roman empire went from Italy in early 3rd century to the largest empire of the ancient world encorporating up to 50% of the worlds population but it took nearly 300 hundred years to do so why did it take so long other nations with much lesser militaries expanded much quicker, with their imense military supremacy and prowess and the ease of which they won most conflicts you would have thought there expansion would have been quicker i mean Ceaser and Augustus between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long.

Alexander knew what he wanted to conquer, could you say the same for the Romans in 272 B.C. who could not even imagine controlling much of the known world yet.

besides Rome only annexed/conquered the next nation over after being in contact at the border. Take gradual Roman expansion to the east for example. after Macedon, then pergamum, the cappadocia, down to Syria..

[Tiberius Tosi]

The Roman empire went from Italy in early 3rd century to the largest empire of the ancient world encorporating up to 50% of the worlds population but it took nearly 300 hundred years to do so why did it take so long other nations with much lesser militaries expanded much quicker, with their imense military supremacy and prowess and the ease of which they won most conflicts you would have thought there expansion would have been quicker i mean Ceaser and Augustus between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long.

Well Rome liked to fight "offensive defense" meaning that they would not attack anyone unless attacked, protectorate or ally of someone attacked, or were threatened to the point of war. This means that they could not simply go around fighting everyone they so pleased as much as many of the other militaristic Empires that preceeded it had the comfort to do.

Rome's immense military supremacy is really a myth, they lost many battles. In all they were probably better than most every one of their enemies, but they were far from able to "steam roll" them like some imagine.

Also, many of the earlier empires merely piggybacked off of the preceeding Empire in the Mesopotamian regions' collapse. When one empire began to fall, another would simply rise up and replace it and usually expand on it a little, and the vicious cycle would continue. With Rome, there really wasn't a dominant force in the Western Meditteranean, or even the Eastern, as Alexander's former empire was split among several powerful states. So, Rome had to fight many powerful empires instead of just replacing one that was already on the decline.

Rome rose to power in a time when other nations were also attempting to do the same, such as Carthage and many of the Greek States to the east. Gaul was a powerful and threatening enemy to the north which always had to be watched carefully, and sending all armies off to conquer one enemy could have resulted in Rome being conquered from another direction.

Caesar's campaign in Gaul was nothing short of absolutely amazing in its success. Not only was it successful short term in subduing the Gallic tribes to Rome's will, but it was so successful that no serious rebellion threatened the Gallic France region for some 150 years. Rome many times also would fight outside its' borders, fighting entire wars only to literally gain no land at all, only its dominance. Many times it did not wish to expand, but merely consolidate.

In the end this was probably what separates Rome from the other Empires that came before it. The fact that it did not rise up in 10 20 or 100 years meant that it was a more stable (well, not so much internally politically lol) Empire than those who preceeded it. Instead of rising with a bang and going out in a bang, Rome rose steadily climbing and fell steadily declining. Unfortunately what did not happen, and this may be due to how large and complex and difficult it was to match Rome, was that another Empire did not replace Rome.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Tiberius Tosi Touched on this perfectly.

Most of rome's acquisitions came about through treaties and not through conquest. Italy was acquired through the alliances created to withstand gaulic invasions. There were many client states. Others sought Romes protection (Greek cities, Iberian tribes). Rome couldnt steamroll anyone, what they possessed wasnt an invicible warmachine but the organization and the structure that other nations/empires lacked.

Carthage was also a Republic, similar structure to rome. Their empire was also an earlier version of Venice. Military was based on mercanaries and the economy was through trade. Carthage's Navy was the supreme force in the western mediterranean. Rome literally had no navy when the first punic war broke out.

What I think Tosi really acknowledged was what I was thinking when I first read the title. Rome was far more stable because it took it so long to expand. Look at every other empire in history that ever expanded fast it resulted in the very same problems. Consolidation of the peoples it conquered. Even Rome suffered from this. Hitittes, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Alexanders Greek Empire. Alexanders Empire expanded so fast that it literally fell faster than it was created.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well Rome liked to fight "offensive defense" meaning that they would not attack anyone unless attacked, protectorate or ally of someone attacked, or were threatened to the point of war. This means that they could not simply go around fighting everyone they so pleased as much as many of the other militaristic Empires that preceeded it had the comfort to do.

Rome's immense military supremacy is really a myth, they lost many battles. In all they were probably better than most every one of their enemies, but they were far from able to "steam roll" them like some imagine.

Also, many of the earlier empires merely piggybacked off of the preceeding Empire in the Mesopotamian regions' collapse. When one empire began to fall, another would simply rise up and replace it and usually expand on it a little, and the vicious cycle would continue. With Rome, there really wasn't a dominant force in the Western Meditteranean, or even the Eastern, as Alexander's former empire was split among several powerful states. So, Rome had to fight many powerful empires instead of just replacing one that was already on the decline.

Rome rose to power in a time when other nations were also attempting to do the same, such as Carthage and many of the Greek States to the east. Gaul was a powerful and threatening enemy to the north which always had to be watched carefully, and sending all armies off to conquer one enemy could have resulted in Rome being conquered from another direction.

Caesar's campaign in Gaul was nothing short of absolutely amazing in its success. Not only was it successful short term in subduing the Gallic tribes to Rome's will, but it was so successful that no serious rebellion threatened the Gallic France region for some 150 years. Rome many times also would fight outside its' borders, fighting entire wars only to literally gain no land at all, only its dominance. Many times it did not wish to expand, but merely consolidate.

In the end this was probably what separates Rome from the other Empires that came before it. The fact that it did not rise up in 10 20 or 100 years meant that it was a more stable (well, not so much internally politically lol) Empire than those who preceeded it. Instead of rising with a bang and going out in a bang, Rome rose steadily climbing and fell steadily declining. Unfortunately what did not happen, and this may be due to how large and complex and difficult it was to match Rome, was that another Empire did not replace Rome.

[DAVIDE]

Carthage's Navy was the supreme force in the western mediterranean. Rome literally had no navy when the first punic war broke out.

who said they didnt have a navy before punic wars?

[Mathias]

who said they didnt have a navy before punic wars?

Rome had only a very small navy. There were two magistrates in the duoviri navales classis reficiendaeque causa, and, IIRC, they commanded about 20 triremes each. The navy was founded in 311 IIRC. 40 ships is little, and the triremes were greatly outclassed by the quadriremes and quinqueremes, so the roman navy was barely worth mentioning.

Actually, it seems probable that it was disbanded before the first punic war broke out and that the Romans relied solely on the socii navales

[Lysimachus]

besides Rome only annexed/conquered the next nation over after being in contact at the border.

Actually they had no intentions of going further East until Attalus granted his Kingdom to Rome upon his death and I think Mithridates VI wanted this and so he began a series of wars which eventually resulted in his defeat and then to the Armenian defeat at Tigranocerta after he seeked refuge there.

well i was thinking of the persian empire, Alexander's expansion and even Carthage

Alexander's expansion was easy because the Achaemenid Empire was decaying at the time, and even then it was quite hard. It took sheer military genius and alot of luck which the Romans didn't always have. Also, back in the day of Cyrus the Persians were a small, compact, powerful nation which hadn't been overextended and exposed to decadence.

Finally, I don't even know where you're going with Carthage because they didn't really do any serious expansion compared to Rome. I mean, they were never able to fully conquer "Iberia" and they never secured all of Sicily. Hmmm?

[Boyar Son]

Actually they had no intentions of going further East until Attalus granted his Kingdom to Rome upon his death and I think Mithridates VI wanted this and so he began a series of wars which eventually resulted in his defeat and then to the Armenian defeat at Tigranocerta after he seeked refuge there.

well, yea, contact with other nations at the border more or less decided which nations Roman politicians would look to for military glory.

[Nik]

The Roman empire went from Italy in early 3rd century to the largest empire of the ancient world encorporating up to 50% of the worlds population but it took nearly 300 hundred years to do so why did it take so long other nations with much lesser militaries expanded much quicker, with their imense military supremacy and prowess and the ease of which they won most conflicts you would have thought there expansion would have been quicker i mean Ceaser and Augustus between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long.

The roman republic did not view itself as expansionistic or as a annexing power. In their view, their wars were purely defensive. They eliminated hostile powers on their periphery (hostile being defined as being big enough to be a possible military or political threat and not having client or ally). The etruscans, the latins, the greek cities in italy, carthage, the cisalpine gauls.
Therefore, the roman republic expanded by increments, annexing and assimilating their enemies as the went.
In imperial times, wars were lead to straighten front lines, punish rebellious tribes or further the glory of the emperor.

[Lysimachus]

between them massively increased the empires size in two short (relatively) periods so why did it take so long. The roman republic did not view itself as expansionistic or as a annexing power. In their view, their wars were purely defensive.

'Course they wanted to expand, they simply tried to justify it with any excuse.

Not really. I compare Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire solely on their similarities.

Yes, the ... "similarities"

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, the ... "similarities"

Yes the similarities. Some Ottoman Sultans even saw their empire as the continuation of the Roman Empire. They're similar in the way they expanded. Both took centuries to grow and both took centuries to collapse.

[bleach]

Perhaps the slow expansion of Rome contributed to its longevity, by creating a higher degree of stability and better integration within the different constituent parts, as compared to more rapidly expanding states...

Just a thought.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Some roman historian, polybius I think, im prob wrong.

They had a navy of course to deal with pirates and such but nothing to take on Carthage with.
Rome developed the landing plank revolutionizing naval combat.