11-09-2014, 03:03 PM
I think Romans had problems with Celts mostly at the begining, when Rome was still a small town with some agriculture lands around in the middle of Italy. Once they started to grow they administrated them a solid defeat and conquered any Celtic lands and people they thought is worthy. Surely Celts werent as barbaric as some may think but neither a big problem after Rome get on her feet and start the expansion.
I mean if we look at the purposed numbers involved in Caesar vs Vercingetorix or the Boudica rebellion we see that Romans were badly outnumbered but they still crushed the enemies armies
About Germans, the problem was more like the comand structure and some internal problems that lead to the disaster at Arausio. After that and after Romans fixed that and appointed an able (I can say a great) general as Marius they easily defeated the much larger Germanic tribal armies.
Caesar seem to not have huge problems in defeating the Germanic tribes that he clashed with (Suebii of Ariovist and such).
Before Teutoborg Roman armies reached (I think even passed over) Elbe river. After Teutoborg Germanicus reached the North Sea and defeated every time the armies of Arminius.
Even in III century AD Roman armies were traveling as far as northern Germany and were beating the Germanic tribes there. The big part of Germania over the Rhine was usually not included as Roman province because it wasn't considered quite worthy. The investment needed to make that a clasic Roman province was considered to big compared with what they could extract from there, as resources and economy,
Teutoborg was an exception as Arminius was a trusted Roman and considered loyal by Varrus. I think Arminius had even the rank of Tribune at some point, or officer in Roman army. That helped him a lot I think, but still he wasnt able to resist to the onslaught done by Germanicus and his army, despite he had under his command most of the Germanic tribes (except Marcommani)
Then Spartacus, the leader of the slaves army was again a special character. He was a Thracian warrior, so already a very good soldier and accustomed to Thracian way of warfare. Then he served as a auxiliar in Roman army I think, and trained and get used with the Roman way of doing war (as Arminius was too, later).
In my opinion Spartacus was trully one of the greatest commanders of ancient times. He managed to rise an army of tens of thousands (if not more then 100,000 at some point), going from 73 people (including his wife). He bring those people together, men, women, probably elderly and kids too, various nations and beliefs, and take care of their needs as well (food and shelter) and defeated too several times the Romans, including some consular and proconsular armies.
But he used the experience of both Thracian and Roman warfare, combined guerilla and surprise attacks with Roman organization and training, knowing as well how Romans will probably act.
I think that if those previous 2 army corps that departed from his army would have been with him in the last battle he had very good chances to defeat Crassus as well.
As a conclusion, Romans were maybe defeated or surprised at first, then rise up and won whatever war they had with their enemies. The worse defeates they suffered when Rome was still small or less refined as military, or when the enemy had some intimate knowledge of how Roman army work, and even trained his own troops in Roman style, and was able to combine what he had good on his own with what he learned from the Romans.
Sure, I am not talking here about the (very) late period of Roman empire, when the economic (including the fall of commerce with Asia and Far East) and other internal problems (including the power struggle betwen various generals, wannabe emperors and emperors) weakened them too much and allowed those to combine with external pressure and bring them down eventually
I mean if we look at the purposed numbers involved in Caesar vs Vercingetorix or the Boudica rebellion we see that Romans were badly outnumbered but they still crushed the enemies armies
About Germans, the problem was more like the comand structure and some internal problems that lead to the disaster at Arausio. After that and after Romans fixed that and appointed an able (I can say a great) general as Marius they easily defeated the much larger Germanic tribal armies.
Caesar seem to not have huge problems in defeating the Germanic tribes that he clashed with (Suebii of Ariovist and such).
Before Teutoborg Roman armies reached (I think even passed over) Elbe river. After Teutoborg Germanicus reached the North Sea and defeated every time the armies of Arminius.
Even in III century AD Roman armies were traveling as far as northern Germany and were beating the Germanic tribes there. The big part of Germania over the Rhine was usually not included as Roman province because it wasn't considered quite worthy. The investment needed to make that a clasic Roman province was considered to big compared with what they could extract from there, as resources and economy,
Teutoborg was an exception as Arminius was a trusted Roman and considered loyal by Varrus. I think Arminius had even the rank of Tribune at some point, or officer in Roman army. That helped him a lot I think, but still he wasnt able to resist to the onslaught done by Germanicus and his army, despite he had under his command most of the Germanic tribes (except Marcommani)
Then Spartacus, the leader of the slaves army was again a special character. He was a Thracian warrior, so already a very good soldier and accustomed to Thracian way of warfare. Then he served as a auxiliar in Roman army I think, and trained and get used with the Roman way of doing war (as Arminius was too, later).
In my opinion Spartacus was trully one of the greatest commanders of ancient times. He managed to rise an army of tens of thousands (if not more then 100,000 at some point), going from 73 people (including his wife). He bring those people together, men, women, probably elderly and kids too, various nations and beliefs, and take care of their needs as well (food and shelter) and defeated too several times the Romans, including some consular and proconsular armies.
But he used the experience of both Thracian and Roman warfare, combined guerilla and surprise attacks with Roman organization and training, knowing as well how Romans will probably act.
I think that if those previous 2 army corps that departed from his army would have been with him in the last battle he had very good chances to defeat Crassus as well.
As a conclusion, Romans were maybe defeated or surprised at first, then rise up and won whatever war they had with their enemies. The worse defeates they suffered when Rome was still small or less refined as military, or when the enemy had some intimate knowledge of how Roman army work, and even trained his own troops in Roman style, and was able to combine what he had good on his own with what he learned from the Romans.
Sure, I am not talking here about the (very) late period of Roman empire, when the economic (including the fall of commerce with Asia and Far East) and other internal problems (including the power struggle betwen various generals, wannabe emperors and emperors) weakened them too much and allowed those to combine with external pressure and bring them down eventually
Razvan A.
