

The Romans were however betrayed and defeated in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, in 9 AD. Afterwards, they abandoned the region and established the limes on the Rhine and Danube rivers.

The Roman Empire outlasted this defeat for half a millennium: why there was no further attempt at conquering the region?

  • 1
    German biologist Josef Reichholf (he has written about the history of climate) argued in an interview that the Roman empire extended only into regions where they could grow their wine ... :) BTW, can you please be a bit more specific about the act of betrayal you are referring to: do you mean Arminius' betrayal? – Drux Jan 21 '13 at 11:55
  • 2
    @Drux While the statement about wine maybe an exaggeration, there were little practical gain but high cost to keep and defend northern territories. A land that cannot used for agriculture and has no valuable minerals or protecting a trade-root is worthless. – Greg Dec 22 '15 at 6:50
  • The Romans may have been most interested in Southern Scandinavia/Denmark. There is evidence that there was a 'client state' of the Roman Empire there. – AlaskaRon Dec 23 '15 at 0:17
  • 1
    This topic has fascinated me for years - and I've found all answers unsatisfactory. What made "Germania" worse than Gaul (up to the North Sea) in 55BCE better? Did Britannia in 50AD have better weather? Was Dacia in 100AD less forested and swampy? The Romans tended to have a "they just keep on coming" attitude when it came to conquest and weren't above near-genocide, as seen in Gaul or Judaea. Why did they give up in Germania when even later they would spend years crushing other "wild, wet and cold" areas into provincedom? – Marakai Jul 6 '17 at 0:02

To sum it up: The costs simply outweighed the benefits.

You have to consider that Germania at this time was essentially one huge forest, which was very, well empty. No cities to conquer, the first German cities were actually founded by the Romans, like e.g. Aachen, Cologne or Trier. The Germans were primitive tribesmen and had little to offer to the Roman Empire. Yet they were warlike and fought many hard battles against them. Although the Roman armies were generally much more advanced with regard to arms technology and tactics, there were also huge setbacks like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest.

Even Germanicus' campaign from 14 to 16 AD is not considered a success. While Germanicus won the battles with only small losses, he lost ships and material to a storm in the North Sea after a generally successful campaign, and was recalled later.

Consider also that the northern European climate is not very attractive for people who are used to the Mediterranean. You might want to read what Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Germania, the land and its inhabitants:


Source: Tacitus

Another fact that should be taken into account is that the Roman invasion actually created a dangerous enemy for the Roman Empire, as the German tribes of that time were rather small groups that were hostile towards each other. In my opinion, only the threat of Roman aggression allowed leaders like Arminius or Marbod to unite them into larger groups that presented a real threat at the Roman borders.

So that eventually, the emperor Tiberius recalled his nephew Germanicus and decided to leave the Germans to their own discord (I can't find an English translation of the exact quote). In my opinion, this is exactly what the Romans would repeat later in northern England/Caledonia, where they decided that further conquests of hostile territory and peoples were not worth the effort, and just put up a wall (the limes in case of Germania, Hadrian's wall in England) to guard the frontier.

  • I wonder if the logistics cost accounts for transverse the Alps. I imagine that at that time, crossing the Alps would be a very expansive journey. The mountains should create some division between the Italic peninsula and the German valleys. – rdllopes Nov 19 '19 at 17:00

The Romans were able to "conquer" large parts of Germania, briefly. They were unable to HOLD it for any length of time.

The reason stemmed from the region's "backwardness." There was no central government or central power through which the Romans could operate. There were no cities (except the ones the Romans built). There were few roads, and the country was broken up by large forests, through which it was difficult to "project" power.

Hence, the Romans would have to control the country on a tribe-by-tribe, village by village basis if they could do so at all. That is a tough exercise. (The most recent modern example is the United States in Vietnam.)

  • Did the Celts have more cities in Gaul and Britain? I can recall only a few (a couple?) from Caesar's Gallic War. Aren't most cities in Britannia at the time also the result of Roman building? (York, London) – Marakai Jul 6 '17 at 0:04
  • 1
    @Marakai: The Germans had more forests (there was no Alesia siege in Germany as in Gaul), and smaller tribes. Meaning that the Romans couldn't subjugate large numbers of people just be defeating or winning over their chiefs. One problem with the U.S. in Vietnam was the (relative) "backwardness" and fragmented nature of the country. Same with the Romans and Germany. – Tom Au Jul 6 '17 at 0:12
  • yes, it's precisely that I've been wondering about in another comment. Maybe I should try and pose it as a question regarding the comparison of Germania, Gallia, Britannia, Dacia, which made conquest feasible in some but not others. – Marakai Jul 6 '17 at 0:58

Like we discussed in my answer in Why China was able to unify and not Europe?.

This video documentary gives an explanation:

The Germanic tribes, although being quite capable fighters didn't have enough to offer the Romans. The area was poor and difficult and dangerous to travel, like the massacre of 9.AD. proved.

So the most beneficial activity for the Romans was to just apply divide and conquer upon it to keep them divided and weak, and at that just stay out of there.

It's not that they weren't able to. Had the Roman empire taken on the task with full force to take over Germania they pretty surely would have succeeded. But just conquering for the sole purpose of conquering isn't what matters really are about. It's about economic interest, you have to benefit more from the conquest, all variables taken into account, than what the conquest costs.

And conquering Germania simply wasn't a profitable endeavour.


Well, the Romans did conquer "Germania", specifically, Southern Germany-(parts of greater Bavaria) and especially Western Germany-(The Rhineland).

In fact, many of Germany's oldest cities, were founded or heavily populated by Romans. Trier, for example, is Germany's oldest city and its Roman ruins are very well preserved among the larger Medieval looking town. One of Germany's largest cities, Cologne, was also founded by the Romans around 40 AD/CE. Even the famed Casino town Baden Baden, also known for its hot springs, dates back to the time of the Roman Empire. The Emperor Constantine established his Church-Palace in Trier-(and it is located on, "Konstantinople Road") and Trier's most sacred Cathedral, known as The Cathedral of Trier, was also founded by Constantine and his Mother Helena.

So, as one can see, the Roman colonial legacy within greater Germania/Germany dates back 1700-2000 years ago.

As far as I know, the Romans did not conquer what is today, Central and Northern Germany, namely, the Saxon region or the area around Berlin. However, the Roman colonial presence within Southern Germany and especially Western Germany/The Rhineland, is well documented and in the cases of Cologne and especially Trier, there exists a well preserved Roman architectural legacy as well.


To add to the existing answers, I think an important factor to consider is the population growth of Germans.

Germanic people came to Germania from Scandinavia, probably mixed with the native Celts, then their population continued to grow, eventually spilling over into the Roman Empire (France, Britain and Italy)

Each century when the Roman Empire coexisted with the Germans, the Germans were getting stronger, or at least more numerous, reducing the prospects of the Roman invasion.
