Interesting debate. Unsurprisingly I haven't changed my views though
LOL, that should be the slogan of AH.com
What I was saying was that after the Caesar and the republic, there was little (not none) expansion for glories sake. The main counterexample would be Britain, which was less successful and against an inferior enemy than Caesar faced in Gaul.
You keep bringing up the idea of conquering for glory, and that personal repute was the main factor in Roman expansion before Caesar. This doesnt fit at all with what actually happened. Lets look at some of the lands Rome took, and see if glory had any real role in it, eh?
All the Carthaginian lands (Spain, N. Africa, Sicily, etc.) were seized not for glory, but because Carthage was too potent a rival to allow to survive. Glory had nothing to do with it- for geopolitical and economic reasons, Rome couldn't have a more commercially and navally powerful state mucking around in their backyard. Rome was completely dependant on being able to use the Mediterranean to ship goods- a document from the 2nd century showed it was cheaper to ship a shipful of Grain from Rome to Syria than it was to transport it by land 25 miles away. Rome and Carthage both needed the Western Mediterranian and its best ports, they fought a series of wars over who got to dominate the area, and Rome won. End of story. Certain individuals may have achieved glory *as a result* of the wars, but glory was certainly not the motivating factor for taking Carthaginian lands.
Macedonia allied with Carthage and was conquered along with Carthage.
Parts of Asia Minor were taken after the King of Pergamum asked the Romans for help in defending his kingdom from the Seleucids.
Pergamum was willed to the Romans after its last king died.
Cilicia was the main base for pirates that had been ravaging Roman trade ships and transports, and was conquered to ensure safe shipping lanes.
Western Numidia allied with Carthage, Eastern with Rome. Rome granted the Eastern Numidians control over all of Numidia, and gave them client kingdom status. When Jugurtha started making some noise, the Romans took him out, and gave Numidia to King Bocchus of Mauritania. Numidia wasnt even part of the empire until after Pompey and Caesars civil war.
Pontus invaded Roman territories while the legions were engaged elsewhere, only to get conquered when Pompey returned with a full force.
Cyrenaica was bequethed to Rome.
Up til the invasion of Gaul, the only areas that were conquered because some general wanted to make a glorious name for himself were Syria (Pompey), Crete (Metellus),and some bits and pieces of Asia Minor. So basically that entire line of reasoning is invalid.
I thought that Caesar exaggerated the Germanic movement to justify his aggression to the geographically ignorant Senate. Regardless of events 4-500 years later, at the time Rome had nothing to fear from Gauls, let alone Germans.
"Rome had nothing to fear from Gauls, let alone Germans?" Is that some kind of joke? As recently as 105 BC the Cimbri and Teutones had come within a hair of trashing the entire Republic. They showed up in 109, and completely destroyed Marcus Silanus' army in Northern Italy. In 107, the Consul at the time, Lucius Cassius Longinus, marched up north with a fully army, and again was completely routed. A few years later, BOTH consuls marched up, with full legions,and succeeded in getting 80,000 legionaries killed. The Cimbri and Teutones essentially depopulated the entire Roman army. By 105, they had so devastated the legions, they could have essentially gone to any piece of the Republic they liked and claimed it as their own. Luckily for the Romans, they were incredibly disorganized, and basically just cooled their heels in Spain and Gaul for 5 years while Marius frantically finished up in Numidia and hurried back to Italy. Marius routed the Teutons, but the Cimbri and Tigurini (one of those Celtic tribes you portray as harmless, but just so happened to jump on the barbarian invasion bandwagon) beat ANOTHER Roman army, marched through Brenner Pass into Northern Italy, and only got beat because Marius was a military genius.
You might take a closer look at the Cimbric Wars before you say the Gauls and Germans posed no threat to the Romans.
As I recall Caesar, who was looking for justifications for his Gallic War, never mentioned that Gaul was a good place to grow corn (correct me if I am wrong). There was always enough corn for the plebs, it was only when war or Senators restricted the supply that there were problems.
He mentioned that Gaul, with some development, could be an extremely rich place. And the best way to make money in the Roman world was to be given control of a rich province you could rule as your personal fief, tax the shit out of everyone, and reap incredible profits as long as you gave the Senate their cut.