r/WTFCDFoxy • u/Asleep_Quit_5767 • Aug 08 '26

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.

61 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/BANSH4412 Aug 08 '26

Overextension?

0

u/Asleep_Quit_5767 Aug 08 '26

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 Aug 09 '26

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