Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Most disastrous Roman Military Defeats
#31
Hi Robert ! Although you say you do not agree, I suspect in reality we do, save that we are approaching the same nexus from different directions ! Smile
You say Imperial boundaries are limited by political and economic circumstances, or looked at another way, when population density becomes too low to sustain the empire for some reason.
I say geography is what limited Rome's boundaries, or looked at another way, where the population density is too low.......etc !! :wink:
Largely for geographical reasons, the populations beyond Rome's borders were relatively sparse............
And I do appreciate there is a difference between raw population density and 'useable' population density.
I also agree with your point about "bad luck" - statistically, over a vast length of time and space, Rome was bound to suffer 'bad-luck' events such as you describe, but my point was that such military disasters did nothing, either individually or collectively, to bring about " disaster" for Rome.
Instead, the multitude of factors you refer to combined collectively to bring about a political/social end to the existing structure, and change ..in other words, evolution. Military 'failure' is but a minor factor whether it is the large-scale loss of a major battle or the small-scale inability to garrison a frontier fort.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#32
Quote:I really don't think there was a "greatest" defeat - and certainly not one which can be pointed to as the 'downfall' of Rome. No single Military defeat ever crippled or destroyed the Roman Empire. Indeed, arguably, it was never " destroyed" in any meaningful sense, but rather evolved.
The Western Empire evolved into the loose states of 'Western Europe' who continued to have a similar identity and languages, and the Eastern Empire evolved into the Islamic/Arab/Ottoman empire, with a broadly similar culture, identity and languages, even if politically splintered. ( A very broad generalisation, I know, but roughly speaking.... ) Smile
Quite often in its history, Rome had 50,000 man armies/navies 'destroyed'(not forgetting that rarely, if ever, did this actually mean that many killed, except maybe some of the naval disasters).......and overcame these blows and carried on militarily anyway - Cannae, Carrhae, Teutoburgerwald, Adrianople etc are but a few examples. After each of them, the Roman Military returned 'bigger and badder' than ever (excuse another generalisation, but a big topic demands a broad brush).There may have been "rot" in the sense of a decay in Roman military abilities ( and that's arguable too!) , but this was due mainly to non-military reasons.
Let us not forget that Rome never conquered for the sake of conquest, the reasons for a 'takeover' were always complex - greed, pursuit of glory,'lebensraum' etc...and rational. If Rome chose not to occupy Western Germany, or Scotland or Africa or Iraq, it was because those places were simply not worth it (to a Roman) - sorry if that offends proud Brits or Germans ! :wink:
To Roman tenacity, a military defeat, even a massive one or several massive ones, was just a 'hiccup' or 'speed-bump'.
Consider the borders of the Empire at its height - desert to the south in Africa/Egypt, desert to the East in Palestine/Syria/Anatolia, a cold desert to the North across the steppes, a desert of trees to the North in Germany and of Ocean to the west !!!
Rome's boundaries were decided by Geography, not military defeats !! 8)
I would submit that none of Rome's defeats were ever disatrous in the sense of leading to Rome's destruction.


I don't quite agree. The east empire evolved to the Byzantine empire, but the west was conquered. True, the barbarians were more interested to use the roman confort, but they were too diferent to be a mere continuation. Several kingdoms with a warrior and iliterate aristocracy isn't the same (or even close!) as a unified empire.
Reply
#33
In a juridical sense the Roman empire never ended till perhaps 1806 but in fact the western part expired slowly after the 2nd c. AD. When I look at the social, emotional and economical side I often have difficulties to see a Roman empire after the 2nd c. AD.

Military defeats don't count much if the defeated state is able to cope with it. From 218 till 216 BC about 100000 Romans were killed, a tenth of the militarily abled population, but in 212 the Romans again had 25 legions travelling around. In 410 a city with a population of 1 million (with perhaps 100000 able bodied males) was not able to defend itself against an army of perhaps 30000. Why not was a militia army formed? The social and ideological circumstances were totally different and against it.

The defeat at Adrianople and the reactions after it were important because it showed the actual conditions of the state. It was a symbol of the things to come.

The defeats in the east (260 AD for example) were important because it kept the empire busy and was a never ending black hole for money and lives.

The defeat in the Teutoburger Wald was important because it unfortunately stopped the spread of Roman culture and law to the east. In the area of the former province Germania the small tribes could form big dangerous leagues in the 3rd c. AD. That Germania was not important for the Romans is possible (it is sure they did not want it at all costs) but I often question myself why they struggled for it nearly 20 years before the province was founded in 4 AD? Why did they start to build civilian cities in the new province? Why did they later build and manned an expensive border wall from Rhine to Danube to cover the south-west parts of Germany which were only left after 260 when the soldiers were needed in the east and to kill other Romans?
What happened 15/16 AD in north Germany is a bit cloudy. The Romans won the three battles but left the country suspiciously quickly. Parts of the army nearly suffered the same fate as their comrades 6/7 years before. If decisive victories would habe been achieved Tiberius would have been an idiot not to use it. Germanicus had shown before that he was loyal to the emperor so the story about Tiberius' fears has never convinced me totally. Tiberius was a talented and realistic military leader and might have seen more problems than covered in the sources.
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#34
In the V century you still have in the west a roman empire; in the VI, no. Odoacer made the fiction of unifying the empire by giving the imperial regalia to the east, but the reality is that the west empire finished in 476 (even if it's power had ended several years before). Of course that the roman empire in the V century was different form Augustus, but the USA of Bush are very different from those of Jefferson and its still the USA. One thing it's the existence of a state in juridically point of view, the other it's the influence and some institutions that may survive for some years.
Reply
#35
Looking at it from a "turning point" philosophy, I would rate the Teutenborg disaster, losing three whole legions, as a very important kick in the teeth. Do not forget the Romans until then had looked upon the locals as barbarians not capable of standing up to the might of Rome. The Varus-slacht (Varsus massacre) proved them very wrong, the barbarian calling the terrain and forcing the Romans into a fight on very unfavorable terrain for their proved tactics. This must have shaken their confidence to the core. It was also a resounding defeat at a high point in Roman expansion, forcing a rethink of strategy and giving rise to the fortification of the Limes in Germany and Holland, creating a static border for the first time. Other (later) expansions were "bought" by enticing local troops to side with them to victory. As a defeat it most definitely comes high in the ranks, in my opinion.
Salvete et Valete



Nil volentibus arduum





Robert P. Wimmers
www.erfgoedenzo.nl/Diensten/Creatie Big Grin
Reply
#36
Well, actually, the East, however distastful I may find this rather bitter pill I offer, was conquered, by the (spitting in disgust icon required) Ottomans!
It was not really an evolution, but military conquest, which brought about the end of the empire! IMHO Caesar wouldn't have let it be so.... :roll:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#37
I wouldn't put Carrhae in the same league with the other great military disasters. It was a humiliation, especially losing the eagles, but the war was colossally unpopular with the public and with the Senate and ritually cursed by the tribune Ateius. It was seen as pretty much a one-man operation so that "Rome" wasn't defeated, just Marcus Crassus and his private army.
Pecunia non olet
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman defeats by cavalry Aulus Perrinius 3 1,307 10-14-2010, 06:28 AM
Last Post: Robert Vermaat

Forum Jump: