Rome\'s Public Enemy #1

[Theodosius the Great]

The vandals were not more or less destructive than any other Germanic group.

The most savage sackers of Rome ? They left the city in ruins. As I said, what they couldn't conquer they destroyed.
They didn't build cities in their kingdom. The Goths did create new cities and were infinately more agreeable to the
Roman state. The Vandals could not be brought to terms for any great length of time. At most there was a decade of
cease fire between them and the West. How can one simply lump them with other germanic groups. Someone is the
worst, no one is equally bad.

In that case I would vote for the Turks because in the end they really did

I can't agree. The Turks finally took it because even then the Romans were fighting among themselves.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

The vandals were not more or less destructive than any other Germanic group.

The most savage sackers of Rome ? They left the city in ruins. As I said, what they couldn't conquer they destroyed.
They didn't build cities in their kingdom. The Goths did create new cities and were infinately more agreeable to the
Roman state. The Vandals could not be brought to terms for any great length of time. At most there was a decade of
cease fire between them and the West. How can one simply lump them with other germanic groups. Someone is the
worst, no one is equally bad.

I still don't see that as proving your statement that 'what they couldn't conquer they destroyed'. Rome was apparently not rebuilt in a grand scheme afterwards (I'd say because it did not need to be rebuilt), so either we live in a parallel universe or the city was not so much 'in ruins' as you claim. Besides, that was just one city. Did they raze everything the could not conquer to the ground? But of course not. That statement is a huge overreaction, and everybody knows that the equation of 'vandal' with 'mindless destruction' was coined much, much later.

What did the Goths create? Remember that the Vandals controlled Africa for only a much shorter time (roughly a century, 429-534) than the Goths controlled Spain, for instance. What cities did the Goths build in 100 years? Or the Franks? The Lombards? The Burgundians? Or the Huns?

I'm sure that the Vandals were a formidable enemy of the Romans during the 5thc century. But Public enemy no. 1?

In that case I would vote for the Turks because in the end they really did

I can't agree. The Turks finally took it because even then the Romans were fighting among themselves.

The reason why does not matter. The Turks took it and the Arabs did not. The Arabs did hardly besiege Constantinople when it was in her prime, right? Besides, when the Turks finally breached her walls, there was hardly anything left to conquer besides and overstretched city state.

Neither Turk nor Arab figure as my choice for 'Public enemy no 1'. Much of their achievements were due to Roman weakness at the time.

[Theodosius the Great]

Rome was apparently not rebuilt in a grand scheme afterwards (I'd say because it did not need to be rebuilt), so either we live in a parallel universe or the city was not so much 'in ruins' as you claim. Besides, that was just one city. Did they raze everything the could not conquer to the ground? But of course not. That statement is a huge overreaction

Yes, it is an exaggeration. Thank you for catching that. The city went through its most destructive phase during the sixth century. Nevertheless, the fact that the city remained largely intact after the Vandals sacked it over a fortnight doesn't negate my estimation that they wrought the most destruction in the Westen Empire more than any other Germanic group. From Carthage they raided along the coasts of Italy and Spain and all the western islands (some of which became bases to launch further raids later). No western province was safe from them. The shear scope of their reach was unparalleled.

What did the Goths create? Remember that the Vandals controlled Africa for only a much shorter time (roughly a century, 429-534) than the Goths controlled Spain, for instance. What cities did the Goths build in 100 years? Or the Franks? The Lombards? The Burgundians? Or the Huns?

The Visigoths built their first known city (Reccopolis) in the late sixth century. The Vandals built none in the fifth or sixth centuries. True the Vandal Kingdom did not last as long but it was roughly as old as the independent Visigothic Kingdom. But the Vandal Kingdom was much more wealthy, prosperous, and internally stable.
(By the way, the Visigoths alone created new towns and cities in western Europe between the 5th and 8th centuries).

I'm sure that the Vandals were a formidable enemy of the Romans during the 5thc century. But Public enemy no. 1?

No, I was considering them for "No. 2". My choice for "No.1" is the Cimbri and Teutons.

Neither Turk nor Arab figure as my choice for 'Public enemy no 1'. Much of their achievements were due to Roman weakness at the time.

We agree. I don't blame anyone for the fall of Rome or Constantinople except the Romans. But, to me at least, that is a separate question if we discount the Romans as being their own worst enemy.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

The Visigoths built their first known city (Reccopolis) in the late sixth century. The Vandals built none in the fifth or sixth centuries. True the Vandal Kingdom did not last as long but it was roughly as old as the independent Visigothic Kingdom. But the Vandal Kingdom was much more wealthy, prosperous, and internally stable.
(By the way, the Visigoths alone created new towns and cities in western Europe between the 5th and 8th centuries).

Ah, nice one, i did not know about that one. thanks.
Well, I think the Franks and the saxons also ceated towns, but probably not on the scale of Reccopolis. The Huns I added as a rethorical group. :wink:

[Alanus]

Well, actually kudos to you both. This thread had stagnated and now it's fresh again.