RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Post Second Punic War battle help
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Need a little help here.

I need to put together a list of battles or incidents where the Romans lost at least an entire legion and then promptly returned with new forces to crush the opposition. These would have to be battles that took place after Cannae.

I am putting together a bit on Roman resiliency (or stubborness) and wanted to list some examples. I already have the Roman defeat in Germany as a partial exception. Rome did return but not immediatly and not to conquer but to punish.

Any information would be appreciated.
Quote:I already have the Roman defeat in Germany as a partial exception. Rome did return but not immediatly and not to conquer but to punish.
I think that the winter saved Germany; but when the spring came, Tiberius retaliated - I think that we might call that an immediate response. "Carrhae" may be a better example: five eagles lost (if I recall correctly) in 53, and no response until 44 - but Caesar was assassinated.

Other lost legions: XIIII in 54/53, destroyed by the Eburones, who were themselves destroyed within 300 days. There's evidence for this genocidal response, because pollen research shows that the area became empty.

The Clades Lolliana: the Sugambri take the eagle of V Alaudae, in 16 BC.

V Alaudae and XV Primegina surrendered to the Gallic Empire in early 70; immediate response.

XXI Rapax was destroyed by Decebalus; immediate response.

Perhaps XXII Deiotoriana was destroyed during the Bar Kochba revolt; immediate response.

In 161, the Parthians destroyed a legion (perhaps VIIII Hispana); Lucius Verus immediately counterattacked.
Thanks for the information. I think one of the best direct quotes I have come across is from Josephus who showed no happiness at all when the Jewish rebels destroyed the first legion on the scene. It must have been pretty well known in the ancient world that beating Rome once on the battlefield just meant you were going to suffer an even bigger response in return.
Quote:It must have been pretty well known in the ancient world that beating Rome once on the battlefield just meant you were going to suffer an even bigger response in return.
I know just what you mean. During the 1982 World Cup campaign, Scotland met a Brazil team which included the likes of Socrates, Zico and Falcão. Scottish elation at the opening goal by a young David Narey, after only 18 minutes, was tempered with the awful realisation that "we'd only made them angry". Brazil went on to win 4:1.
Quote:I know just what you mean. During the 1982 World Cup campaign, Scotland met a Brazil team which included the likes of Socrates, Zico and Falcão. Scottish elation at the opening goal by a young David Narey, after only 18 minutes, was tempered with the awful realisation that "we'd only made them angry". Brazil went on to win 4:1.
:lol:
I am sure similar thoughts were running through the mind of a particular Japanese Admiral the day after Pearl Harbor.
Back on topic.

In 110 BC, the Romans under Aulus Albinus were defeated by Jugurtha and forced to pass under the yoke. Metellus and later Marius retaliated. I do not know whether a legion was lost, but Jugurtha had been kicking against the wasp's nest and soon felt the Roman sting.

The war against the Cimbri and Teutones may be relevant too: Gnaeus Papirius Carbo was defeated in 113, Marcus Julius Silanus in 109, Lucius Cassius Longinus in 107. I do not know if they lost legions, but Rome was angry, and willing to allow the unconstitutional rise of Marius, if he would enable the Romans their revenge.
It would be interesting if these examples could be qualified by culture: did the Romans respond differently to Celts and Germanics than 'civilized' states? In the case of the Cimbric invasion, the fear (real or imagined) of a barbaric invasion surely was at least as strong a motive for allowing unconstitutional arrangements, wouldn't you agree?
Quote:It would be interesting if these examples could be qualified by culture: did the Romans respond differently to Celts and Germanics than 'civilized' states? In the case of the Cimbric invasion, the fear (real or imagined) of a barbaric invasion surely was at least as strong a motive for allowing unconstitutional arrangements, wouldn't you agree?

The fear of the Cimbrons(?), did it not stem from the Celtic invasion and humilliation of Rome from ages before?