Rome\'s Public Enemy #1

[Robert Vermaat]

Crap...you took my answer Vorti.
Ugh...no thanks!

:wink: :wink: D lol: :lol: :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Certainly feared by the Senate in the Late Republic: Julius Caesar! On his way back from Gaul :twisted:

GJC..... :wink:

[Laurentius]

It's difficult to say who is the greatest enemy of Rome. I should say Carthage and Hannibal. But the Cimbri and the Teutones were also a terrible threat for Rome (Orange, 105 BC).

[taira1180]

The italian ex-allies in the social war. They could have beat Rome. Even if they just separate from Rome, it would be a major blow, losing all that manpower. Hannibal never tried to destroy Rome.

[Wander]

That raises an interesting thought: Is the greatest enemy of Rome the one the Romans fear the most, or is it the one who can actually hurt them the most? Not always the same thing, as even the variety of answers here suggest.

For instance, Gaius Julius Caesar has been mentioned here over and over. Sure, Pompey and his faction feared him -- probably most when they evacuated Rome at his approach. But then "the worst" happened -- he took Rome, without a fight -- and it wasn't that bad. If the Pompeians had let it drop gracefully, there need not have even been a Civil war. Of course, they were fighting to preserve the Republic as they saw it, and it's undeniable that Caesar's dictatorship changed Rome forever.

On the other hand, was it inevitable that Rome become an empire? If not Caesar, would someone else have done the same? Or could the Republic have continued indefinitely? (I realize that's a totally different question, but related.)

[taira1180]

Another one created the empire-Octavian. And if not Octavian, it would be Mark Antony or another one.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I agree with that assessment..he was definately feared by the Aristocracy due to his populare sentiments, so to them he was someone who was to be feared and threatened to destroy their their way of life....
purely for selfish reasons though, not because he was a real danger to Rome as such!

I feel things would have had a positively democratic outcome, if not for the coniving of those who opposed him. Relatively speaking......

[Wander]

Caesar was an interesting case: Speaking and acting as a populare, while at the same time aggressively consolidating dictatorial powers within his grip. Yes, he never became imperator like Octavian, but he made it possible for Octavian to do so.

And if he had not been assassinated, would he have relinquished powers again, like Sulla did? After being voted dictator for life, he was really imperator in all but title anyway -- but Sulla could have held it, too, and he chose to retire. (I'm not saying Sulla was a great guy, but that was a move I'd never have expected, and it suggests he really thought he was restoring the Republic.)

Caesar, incidentally, is quoted as commenting on this: "Sulla did not know his political ABCs." That certainly does not suggest plans of retirement.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I figure his hand was forced by events....had henot been forced to chose between being an outlaw, or being tried for trumped up charges, perhaps he may have chosen the better options.

With Crassus dead and Pompey turned against him.....anyone could change.....

[Theodosius the Great]

I wanted to ask the members who they think was Rome's most feared adversary. The one that made Romans "tremble behind the walls". I think of Hannibal during the republic period and Attila the Hun during the late Roman period, but there were many others. Which one in your opinion was the greatest?.

Occassionally when the Romans trembled behind their walls they resorted to human sacrifice to soothe their fears. As Laurentius mentioned above, the Teutones and Cimbri invasion was one such occassion and the last. A Greek couple and a Gallic couple were buried alive in the Boarium Forum. This was in reaction to the staggering losses against the Germanic invaders whose destruction of a consular army rivaled Hannibal's achievement at Cannae in scale. So, that should narrow down your choices in answering your question since the Roman rarely resorted to human sacrifice.

~Theo

[Jezz]

I'd have to say that Mithridates the Great posed quite a threat to the Republic at the time. After all, it took three great generals - Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey - to bring him down. I have also read that Mithridates had also been in contact with the renegade Sertorius, asking for men who could help train his forces and posing the possibility of jointly crushing Rome from two sides. Mithridates was also lending support to the pirates who were menacing the Meditteranean. Added to all of that, his massacre of 80,000 Roman citizens in 88 BC would have struck a nerve throughout the Republic.

Jeremy Elkington

[Ross Cowan]

I'd put in the Samnites: the only enemy on Italian soil that they truly feared. Not surprising after the Caudine Forks!

The Samnites were the only ones who actually threatened the actual existence of Rome except for Hannibal.

I agree. The Samnites were the most dangerous opponents of Rome.

For a preview of Igor Dzis' excellent new illustration of Samnites ambushing the legions of Iunius Bubulcus in 311 BC see here:

http://rosscowan.wordpress.com/2010/02/ ... k-preview/

The full-size illustration, in all its glory, and my article about the Samnite Wars, will be published in Ancient Warfare IV.1.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Personally i think Sulla, because he gave others the idea that with military prowess you could rule the Republic.

Love that Samnite drawing!!

M.VIB.M.

[Gäiten]

For the Late Roman era I think the following:

Alaric
Attila
Gaiseric

(Justinian :wink: )

[Ron Andrea]

I'm inclined to agree with Gaiten.

Not just Justinian, but a whole parcel of the later emperors (and pretenders) exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the decline and fall. Had they been half as interested in good and just government as they were in power we might be speaking Latin. (Okay, a bit of an exaggeration.)