Odd consider how much effort it took to hold it. The Carthaginian never setup colonies outside of the southern coastline, and the Roman effort after the 2nd Punic War gradually expand inland when they found silver deposits. It required quite a few legions to pacify.
Not so removed. Consider the year of the 4 emperors, the Sertorian Civil War, the Gallic emperors, the Cimbrian invasion, the Bagaudaes, Nepotianus usurper, and all the Vandal activity from Africa from the 450' on. Not to mention that the Vascones were never truly incorporated into the empire.
I forget the story exactly, but there was a great story in Marcellenus about raiders coming and the nefarious captain in charge did not protect the province. 300s AD
Not off hand. But consider. Carthage got into the 3rd punic war due to attacking raiders from the desert without Rome's permission.
So probably raiders didn't go extinct.
Even then, from what i can tell, they got their looting out in spain and italy. In africa, they just kinda moved in. Not so great if youre upper class, but the common people were fairly fine. I saw a thing years ago about the catholic church. One of the things they argued about back then i dont remember which. Anyway, under vandal rule, the citizens of Carthage sent a message to Constantinople because the Emperor was head of the Church, and anyway, the letter eas written as if africa was still part of the empire, even though it most def was not. And when Belisarius took it back it was basically a cake walk.
So as a common person, by and large, i would think africa was fairly safe for the duration. Im not sure when the Arabs took it though how much actual fighting and destruction there was.
Not at the height of the Empire. It was even peaceful during the Crisis of the Third Century.
But yes, it was regularly raided when there were pirate problems in the Republic as well as when Rome lost the African coast.
The Province (Gallia Narbonensis) as well as Gallia Lugdunensis had always been sweet places to settle down for Roman veterans, but were especially so at Rome’s height (2nd century AD). They were relatively far away from the frontier but close enough to get attention/protection from the Empire. The land was cheap and plentiful, and you could live near Narbo, Massalia, or Lugdunum. The local population consisted of Latin speaking Gallic aristocrats or other veterans who probably would do their best to relate and welcome you. Also, the land and economy was perfect for running rural villas/manors, so you usually didn’t have to worry about the traditional problems associated with being a veteran (unemployment).
Greece, Corinth to be exact.
Idk why but Ive always thought that, I was born any other, I would wish to live in an Grecian Urn, wanting for nothing unneeded. Perhaps the Greatest Generals would seek my counsel, but probably not. Just wanna be more of a dog-man.
I spent some time contemplating and looking this up before, and I came to the conclusion that across almost every point in time that the Roman Empire existed in, the two safest provinces would have been either Narbonessis of modern day southern France, or Epirus of West Greece. Both beautiful places to live in that had fair enough trade and development, but both also avoid almost all invasions and internal strife.
I was going to say anywhere in spain. Until the 300-400's anyway. By all acounts, Africa got off fairly easy even when the vandals took it. And when the East took it back. Better than Italia anyway.
I’m high and misread this as “What do you think were the best height of the Roman Empire for a normal citizen?” and I was like… would height factor into it that much? lol
Idk man, but in height of Roman empire i think peace anywhere except for Gaul, Macedonia, far East, Syria. Else maybe the concern of pirates or bandits.
The best place should be the heart of Roman politic and economy: Carthago, Alexandria, Constantinopolis, Thessanoliki, Lusitania/Baetica.
Spain seemed to be far removed from much of the conflict of the later civil wars.
Odd consider how much effort it took to hold it. The Carthaginian never setup colonies outside of the southern coastline, and the Roman effort after the 2nd Punic War gradually expand inland when they found silver deposits. It required quite a few legions to pacify.
I think that's exactly why it was removed from a lot of the strife of the Empire.
Your point being?
600 years of Roman rule. Iberia.
Not so removed. Consider the year of the 4 emperors, the Sertorian Civil War, the Gallic emperors, the Cimbrian invasion, the Bagaudaes, Nepotianus usurper, and all the Vandal activity from Africa from the 450' on. Not to mention that the Vascones were never truly incorporated into the empire.
Spain most def
Africa, I believe that province has the least amount of legions stationed there
The Sahara might as well have been an ocean, no enemies were crossing that.
There were def raiders out of the desert. Would not want to live without security.
I don't doubt that, but no large armies were going to cross You have any interesting stories to tell of raiders from across the golden desert?
I forget the story exactly, but there was a great story in Marcellenus about raiders coming and the nefarious captain in charge did not protect the province. 300s AD
Not off hand. But consider. Carthage got into the 3rd punic war due to attacking raiders from the desert without Rome's permission. So probably raiders didn't go extinct.
Those were Numidians, not from across the Sahara
Yeah, but there are ppl who lived in the desert.
I was going to say that post the final civil wars of Octavian, Africa province would be where I'd wanna be.
I always wanted to live in Bordeaux during the Pax Romana. The Turkish Riviera would have been nice as well.
Well, fewer earthquakes in western Gaul...
Carthage was nowhere near the frontier and safe til those pesky vandals showed up.
Even then, from what i can tell, they got their looting out in spain and italy. In africa, they just kinda moved in. Not so great if youre upper class, but the common people were fairly fine. I saw a thing years ago about the catholic church. One of the things they argued about back then i dont remember which. Anyway, under vandal rule, the citizens of Carthage sent a message to Constantinople because the Emperor was head of the Church, and anyway, the letter eas written as if africa was still part of the empire, even though it most def was not. And when Belisarius took it back it was basically a cake walk. So as a common person, by and large, i would think africa was fairly safe for the duration. Im not sure when the Arabs took it though how much actual fighting and destruction there was.
Sicily. It had a mix of peoples, was extremely fertile, great weather, literature, art, architecture.
100% agree
And the biggest slave population in the empire
Didnt Sicily regularly get raided tho?
Not at the height of the Empire. It was even peaceful during the Crisis of the Third Century. But yes, it was regularly raided when there were pirate problems in the Republic as well as when Rome lost the African coast.
Best province to start from as an ambitious warlord that would eventually usurp the throne, Illyria.
If it’s in the late empire, then as far away from Gaul and the Balkan provinces as possible!
Greek islands would’ve been sweet. Definitely don’t want to be in Dacia or anything on the borders.
Damascus may not be the safest, but it would be the most interesting
Hegra would be interesting
Greek Islands…
The Province (Gallia Narbonensis) as well as Gallia Lugdunensis had always been sweet places to settle down for Roman veterans, but were especially so at Rome’s height (2nd century AD). They were relatively far away from the frontier but close enough to get attention/protection from the Empire. The land was cheap and plentiful, and you could live near Narbo, Massalia, or Lugdunum. The local population consisted of Latin speaking Gallic aristocrats or other veterans who probably would do their best to relate and welcome you. Also, the land and economy was perfect for running rural villas/manors, so you usually didn’t have to worry about the traditional problems associated with being a veteran (unemployment).
Probably Alexandria just for the library.
Greece, Corinth to be exact. Idk why but Ive always thought that, I was born any other, I would wish to live in an Grecian Urn, wanting for nothing unneeded. Perhaps the Greatest Generals would seek my counsel, but probably not. Just wanna be more of a dog-man.
Asia Minor, away from the frontier and almost never the place for any battles.
Rhine Frontier? /s
I think Southern France/Eastern Spain were the most peaceful. Southern France during the early Empire and Eastern Spain for the later.
I spent some time contemplating and looking this up before, and I came to the conclusion that across almost every point in time that the Roman Empire existed in, the two safest provinces would have been either Narbonessis of modern day southern France, or Epirus of West Greece. Both beautiful places to live in that had fair enough trade and development, but both also avoid almost all invasions and internal strife.
Troy. The Roman myth of Aeneas founding Rome resulted in a certain amount of deference from Romans to the people of that ancient city.
Greece
Greece or North Africa. Somewhere like Corinth or Carthage (post Roman rebuild of course).
I was going to say anywhere in spain. Until the 300-400's anyway. By all acounts, Africa got off fairly easy even when the vandals took it. And when the East took it back. Better than Italia anyway.
Probably close to the sea and as far away from barbarians as possible, so hispania around Carthago Nova?
I’m high and misread this as “What do you think were the best height of the Roman Empire for a normal citizen?” and I was like… would height factor into it that much? lol
Idk man, but in height of Roman empire i think peace anywhere except for Gaul, Macedonia, far East, Syria. Else maybe the concern of pirates or bandits. The best place should be the heart of Roman politic and economy: Carthago, Alexandria, Constantinopolis, Thessanoliki, Lusitania/Baetica.