Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've heard (in an interview with German biologist Josef Reichholf) the argument that the Romans extended their empire as far north as they could grow their wine. A first glimpse at the map suggests that this could be true at least as a general rule. (The climate in Britain was warmer at the time.)

Would this then be a coincidence or could it be something that indeed had influence on the expansion strategies of the Roman empire? In particular, are there any relevant traces in contemporary (Roman) sources that point towards an answer?

share|improve this question
1  
It doesn't sound very likely. The Romans had advanced commercial transportation, so it's not very plausible, imho, that they'd condition their expansion on such considerations. –  Felix Goldberg Feb 24 at 14:01
9  
I think it was the other way around: Romans expended as far as they could, and then grew wines on that territory, thanks to warmer climate at the time. There a few territories adjacent to Roman empire at its furthest expansion that were wonderful for growing wine, but never conquered: modern Georgia and Armenia. Romans made some attempts to conquer Armenia, as a part of Roman-Parthian standoff, but if wine was the reason Romans would put far more effort into specifically that region. –  Michael Feb 24 at 15:02
1  
Actually legions did fairly well in rough terrain. Italy isn't flat in most places. Phalanxes had much more trouble. –  Oldcat Feb 24 at 22:30
1  
in the end the boundaries of the Roman empire were determined mostly by logistics and strategic overstretch, where supply chains could reach the border forts, how much land the legions could subdue long enough to Romanise the population before the outside pressure on the borders became too much. –  jwenting Feb 25 at 7:45
1  
There is an alternate theory, which states that the Romans expanded North as far as the Celtic civilization had done. The theory states that (limited to these regions) the Celtic society was still a "profitable" conquer for the Romans, while societies less structured than that (like the Germans') were not. As for the wine, consider that the range of a crop can change over time due to changes in global/local climate as well as in the varieties selected by farmers. –  astabada Feb 25 at 11:05

4 Answers 4

This looks more than a coincidence than anything else. Romans did conquer lands which could not grow wine, e.g. the British Isles: the climate of Atlantic-facing areas of Europe is reputed to have been somewhat warmer than usual in Roman times, but this does not mean that winegrowing was actually possible, let alone done by Roman colonists. In fact, archaeological evidence points at massive imports of wine rather than local production. Conversely, Romans did not conquer some neighbouring lands where winegrowing could be done, e.g. what is now Ukraine.

According to Edward Luttwak, the pattern of Roman conquest is best explained through strategic and economic reasons, of which winegrowing is not a significant part. In his analysis, Rome first had an expansionist phase which was building an Empire (in fact, though not in name): to the core group of Roman provinciae was adjoined a vast number of client states, who were subservient to Rome and served as buffer against hostile foreigners, especially raiders from Germanic people. In the client state system, that state is responsible for its own policing, and Roman citizens are safe; the cohesion of the Empire can be maintained with a relatively small number of highly mobile legions.

This expansionist phase mostly ended after Augustus' reign. Afterwards begins a phase where external boundaries do not move much; there were some external campaigns but only in some places, and conquests in Parthia and Dacia proved too expensive to be maintained in the long term. During that phase, client states were gradually converted into provinciae, which allowed for direct taxation and thus a large increase in revenues for Rome; however, it also implied ensuring the safety of these new taxpayers, hence the limes: a linear, static defence system at the boundary. This process was mostly complete by the third century AD. The abandoning of the "mobile legion" system implied also a stop to expansionism.

Wine does not appear anywhere in this analysis of Roman strategy. It seems unlikely to serve as a primary motive for expansion. Instead, Rome conquered the neghbouring tracts of land that were already, at that time, harbouring large chiefdoms or states, and thus could be conquered and turned into client states with minimal post-conquest occupation cost. What is true, though, is that Romans were great consumers of wine and tried to grow grapes wherever they could; this can go a long way toward explaining the approximate overlap of Empire and winegrowing areas.

share|improve this answer

Some people said that wine is not grown in Britain but I have read of contemporary British wine growing. the climate of Britain was warmer during the Roman Era than in some later eras, and there is evidence of wine growing in Britain in the Roman era and in the medieval era.

Lord Bute grew grapes and made wine at his castle in Cardiff, Wales, about 1900.

Obviously it made economic sense to grown wine, if possible, for drinking and for Christian sacraental use in Britain to save the expense of importing it, and equally obviously the vast majority of wine wine in Britain in the last 2,000 years has been imported.

Since the Romans, and even the Post Roman Britons in Cornwall and Wales imported wine from as far away as the Eastern Mediterranean, The Romans wee obviously willing to conquer countries where they had to import wine.

share|improve this answer
    
These assertions would have been more valuable if they'd been backed up by research/citations. –  Mark C. Wallace Aug 22 at 11:22

No, the roman Empire extended into parts of Russia and Egypt. Russia was too cold (Russia was called the Balklands back then) and Egypt's weather was to hot. Instead of grapes they got raisins.

share|improve this answer
1  
Which parts of Russia are you thinking of? –  Drux Feb 26 at 19:00
1  
Balklands? The furthest north the Romans went in terms of land they ruled was northern Britain, Caledonia. They ruled the whole of what are now known as the Balkans, part way up the Black Sea towards modern Russia and Crimea but it would be Dacia, roughly modern Romania you might be thinking of but it has never been part of Russia. Was conquered late in the empire by Trajan but abandoned by his successors. The Byzantine Empire, arguably still the Roman Empire held sway over Kiev and parts of the Rus through religion marriage and alliances but did not "conquer" militarily. –  PurplePilot Mar 28 at 20:50
    
@PurplePilot While they did reach parts on England they made a parallel at Hadrian's Wall. While Rome did control parts of Russia they didn't control it long enough to actually assimilate into the empire. –  Young Guilo Apr 3 at 13:24
2  
No Young Guilo, the Romans went well into Caledonia, modern-day Scotland, and actually built a second wall, The Antonine Wall, some 100 miles further north of Hadrian's Wall which is would seem to be the farthest north they went. Although one assumes they would have scouted even further north to locate the best place to build the new wall. It was abandoned after 20 years or so but still marks the furthest north the Romans "Conquered". Assuming as you say the Romans controlled parts of Russia tell me which parts in both Roman and modern terminology please. –  PurplePilot Apr 4 at 7:29
    
Probably the two closest interactions with modern Russia would be to check on the relations with the Greek cities in the Crimea, and Rome and Persia did have a joint security treaty to hold the passes of the Caucasus mountains in the later Empire. Both these were more in the Byzantine Era. –  Oldcat May 6 at 0:20

No, that sounds like a popular myth. The Roman empire went wherever it could for many reasons; prestige or simply to just to get valuable goods and riches (Egyptian grain was one of these, especially important since so much of the ancient Roman diet was bread).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.