Most disastrous Roman Military Defeats

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

Yeah, Germanicus was the man, all right. A pity his killers didn't see the 'Smack Down Applier' sign on him...

Well, I don't know enough about the later Empire to talk about it with any knowledge. But I would echo what Byron/Caesar said about Teutoburger being the turning point. Romans had been horribly defeated before, but they kept trying. They kept trying after Teutoburger too, what with Germanicus going after Hermann and winning. But Hermann's win over Varus rocked the Romans' world, and changed their whole strategic direction. He and his tribesmen lost the battles after that, but he'd made his point, and the Romans got it for once. All in all, a very long term victory for Trans-Rhine Germania, and defeat for Rome.

Likewise with Parthia's win at Carrhae. They had to make some diplomatic concessions, like returning the eagles of Crassus' legions, but they never had to deal with the legions again to my knowledge. Though Caesar would tried, had he lived.

[Natuspardo]

what with Germanicus going after Hermann

Oh come on! Arminius was a Roman name - we dont know his German one. Definitely it was not "Hermann", cause thats a modern name. Many relatives carried a Seg- in their name, so maybe Arminius too.

[Sardaukar]

Yeah, Germanicus was the man, all right.

Likewise with Parthia's win at Carrhae. They had to make some diplomatic concessions, like returning the eagles of Crassus' legions, but they never had to deal with the legions again to my knowledge. Though Caesar would tried, had he lived.

Well, yes they had to. There was Marcus Antonius, invading in 36(?) BCE (it would even have succeeded but he lost his baggage and sienge engines due to defeat of his subordinate. His composition of his army clearly suggested he had learned from Carrhae. Parthians wisely avoided combat with his main forces.

And of course there was Trajanus who invaded successfully.

[taira1180]

Biggest defeat in consequences is the destruction of the roman fleet in 461 against the vandals. Without Africa and it's money, the empire was doomed.
Carrhae had no real consequences: even if Crassus would have winn a couple of battles, no way he could with his army smash the parthians.
The defeat of Varrus could had been of no consequences if Tiberius had let Germanicus finish his war.

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

I agree with Fabiano. Loss of Africa was kind of a final blow to empire. I don´t know much about Carrhae but in a case of Teutoburger I think that this defeat is bit overhypped. What can Rome gain there? Not much IMHO.

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree with Fabiano. Loss of Africa was kind of a final blow to empire.

Yes, that one was a killing blow.

Iohannes, please add your real name to your signature - it's a forum rule.

[Robert Vermaat]

what with Germanicus going after Hermann

Oh come on! Arminius was a Roman name - we dont know his German one. Definitely it was not "Hermann", cause thats a modern name.

Yep. 'Hermann the German' is definately out. But 'ASrminius' is not a Roman name, it's a Latinised Germanic name. So 'Armin', or some variant, is also a good possibility...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Biggest defeat in consequences is the destruction of the roman fleet in 461 against the vandals. Without Africa and it's money, the empire was doomed.
Carrhae had no real consequences: even if Crassus would have winn a couple of battles, no way he could with his army smash the parthians.
The defeat of Varrus could had been of no consequences if Tiberius had let Germanicus finish his war.

Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007, 11:58 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Fabiano. Loss of Africa was kind of a final blow to empire. I don´t know much about Carrhae but in a case of Teutoburger I think that this defeat is bit overhypped. What can Rome gain there? Not much IMHO.


I think you have missed the point I was making , that the defeat was a major blow to the Roman psyhe, and wall a long term effect, on the emperors who followed, who in effect, were Rome. This is the biggest defeat you can face, when you no longer follow the path that took you where you want to be, but start to second guess yourself! Gold and silver can be replaced! :wink:

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

I get your point, but my opinion is different... I don´t think that this tragedy was so big blow to their psyche. Sure, in 9 AD it was great catastrophe, but after Romans did take many other provinces. Much more richier and much more important provinces. IMHO they never attempted again to take full control of Germania Magna because it was just not profitable. They just turn they expansion to the other places. The time of greatest expansion was after this defeat - this could not be possible with shattered psyche :wink: but I respect that without this battle it would be much more easier

[Natuspardo]

Yep. 'Hermann the German' is definately out. But 'ASrminius' is not a Roman name, it's a Latinised Germanic name. So 'Armin', or some variant, is also a good possibility...

Arminius is one of the most discussed names in history (ranging from Armenius the Armenian to the one with blue eyes like Armenian stone and Irmin or from Irminsul and many many other thoughts). But - the German name hypothesis for Arminius is OUT. Linguist regard it definetely Roman! Klaus Bemmann: Arminius und die Deutschen, S. 104. Essen; Auflage: 1 (Dez. 2002). It was usual to get a Roman name when getting the Roman citizenship as Arminius got. Hermann only appeared around 1530!!!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes there were the ones who were true Romans, I agree, like Trajan, Vespasian, to name a few, but I think it was the start of the rot! I always prefer to look for the cause, not the symptoms...... :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

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.... )
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.

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

what with Germanicus going after Hermann

Oh come on! Arminius was a Roman name - we dont know his German one. Definitely it was not "Hermann", cause thats a modern name. Many relatives carried a Seg- in their name, so maybe Arminius too.

And here I was thinking Germans would be miffed that I called a national hero by a Roman name. Yes, I know it's what the moderns calls him, and he was called Arminius while serving Rome. He had a brother named (by Romans) Flavus, who never joined him, didn't he?

[Tarbicus]

And here I was thinking Germans would be miffed that I called a national hero by a Roman name. Yes, I know it's what the moderns calls him, and he was called Arminius while serving Rome. He had a brother named (by Romans) Flavus, who never joined him, didn't he?

The two brothers were pretty muched raised in Rome who stepped up the ladder to become auxiliary officers, and Arminius was apparently a favourite of Augustus and his family. Flavus was not only his brother but fought against him after the Varian disaster.

One speculation of the name Hermann is it derives from Irmin, and Arminius is a latinisation of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herminones

[Robert Vermaat]

Rome's boundaries were decided by Geography, not military defeats !! 8)

I'm not sure I agree wholly there.
I mean, every empire is limited by the ability to raise forces that expand and defend the borders. That ability is limited by political and economical circumstances, which vary over the period of time in which an emoire exists. Sometimes an empire simply has bad luck, when a general gets ill just before a major batttle, or when a meteor falls on the capital or something like that. 8) More usually though, economics define demography (manpower), social issues influence politics (civil wars) and culture (advanced medical science vs. plagues etc.) to name just a few.
But in fact, when an empire is close or across the limits of its abilities to expand, there will be defeats. So in that way, defeats really decide boundaries, even when defeats are (mostly) due to several factors.