Why did Rome stop expanding?

Civil Wars, Civil State system of government not ready or able to handle further expansion and maintenance of an empire so wast, lack of manpower, Germanic tribes, etc.

>>1717662
There's nothing worth expanding to

>>1717685
>What is Persia?
>What are the Silk Road cities in Central Asia?
>What is India?
>What is China?

>>1717692
He isn't wrong

>>1717662
The Sahara desert is suicide to expand into if you lack medieval technology, and the thousands of hostile blacks that will greet you with some old fashion mutilation when you reach the jungles of Africa from the Sahara will also deter you from expanding as well.

They could expand into Asia because their Asian enemies were too competent to overrun.

As for why they didnt just went North in Europe who knows.

oVeReXtEnSiOn

>>1717692
True, but those all had states that were both relatively remote and powerful for a populace that was far from numerous enough or even able due to its violate system of governance to maintain all of its conquered lands at their height for very long. Had they managed a reform fit for an empire instead of a city state, allowed their Italian allies to become Roman citizens, given their soldiers the land they were owed and their peasantry the reforms everyone pretty much knew were necessary (but was held hostage by catch 22 political power games and greed), and focused their efforts to defend what they had for a few generations, a state might have been reached where further conquests became viable

>>1717720
Not only that, but also underexpansion when it came to handing out lands to the Roman people, in part because of the Equites class's senseless hoarding of landmass for taxation, and in part because most people didn't want to leave Rome or be too far from it.
So soon, there were people bearing grudges governing on all sides of the map that weren't even culturally or ethnically Roman, yet were expected to defend their interests with little to no benefits as they were overtaxed and had their populace sold into slavery when they couldn't pay of their debts.

By the early 2nd century they had trouble administering the land they already had, no reason to expand further.

Empires are like stars, they all eventually collapse under their own gravity.

>>1717662
> Why did Rome stop expanding?
Economics. However, Marcus Aurelius was trying to wipe out the Germanics and integrate them into Rome to create a much easier to protect northern border during his reign and prevent future barbarian attacks into much of the western and central empire.
Too bad he went full nepotist and chose his son as his successor, which reversed everything he fought for in his life in a generation.

>>1717662
They needed to build infrastructure, which took time, and when they finished they had lost considerable amounts of their army. iirc they wound up being down to 10 legions for the entirety of the Roman Empire. They just hit a point where they could no longer expand.

>>1717662
Because the rule of law falls apart every single time. A state that sustains itself despite the people will fall because of the people.

>>1717662
Well they couldn't expand down through the Sahara, for obvious reasons. It wasn't worth it to subjugate the picts just to conquer the shithole we now know as Scotland. The Rhine and Danube were pretty nice defensive borders, and expanding past them wouldn't just mean abandoning their defensive positions but also dealing with pretty terrifying barbarian tribes, mainly in Germania. Eastern Europe was also a shithole with a mixture of Germanic and nomad type tribes. To the east was the only land worth conquering, but there also lay the only state that could properly resist against the Romans: Parthia/Sassanids. So the effort required to permanently conquer that land wasn't worth it if it was even possible at all. Also Roman society was getting used to peace and liked it. And in the third century and beyond civil strife and other issues made sure expansion would be nigh impossible.

File: 1474362171999.png (363KB, 2534x1540px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 2534x1540px

>>1717662
Because there was nothing left to conquer, except the Parthian-Sassanid empire but it was too diffcult to conquer it anyway.

>>1717876
Its SNOW NIGGERS not swamp niggers you idiot.

>>1717662
The Roman Empire never existed.

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-ancient-history-completely-made-up-by-the-man-1694539419

>>1717943
Germanic porpaganda

>>1717718
Any centralized push the empire was making in this time period was pretty much exclusively focused around expanding into or defending from Persia.

There is no gold, no cities of worth and nothing of value to conquer in the north of Europe Not to mention it hardly would look like a honorable thing to your fellow romans to be the man who defeated a bunch of savages.

If you were a Roman general and you had the choice of conquering
>Fertile, civilized land in the warm and fertile crescent ruled by fellow lovers of Greek culture
or
>Frigid dense forests ruled over by savage Germans and Scotsmen

What would you chose? Which would make you richer and which would be a better fit for the empire?

>>1718143
>it hardly would look like a honorable thing to your fellow romans to be the man who defeated a bunch of savages
Marius got called the third founder of Rome after the cimbric war. Caesar made his political fortunes by subduing Longhaired Gaul (which was considered full barbarian). Germanicus owed his military fame to his german campaigns. Claudius chose Britannia (a land so backward its inhabitants still used war chariots) to create himself a military reputation.
Being savages wasn't an issue for Rome, they had more respect for barbarian armies than those of most eastern kinglings. It was an issue of control. You can put a client king on an eastern throne, but you need to create a full province to control barbarians.