Rome\'s Public Enemy #1

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

It depends on how you define 'Rome,' but I'll go with either Eunus or Spartacus.

[M. Demetrius]

Hannibal? He's at the gates, you know...

[constantius]

Yes ,it depends on what you are definning as Rome ;Of the Republic ,i'd say Cathage ;Pricipate ,it would be Parthians and much later the Bulgars and Caliphate .But this could start a its not really the Roman Empire debate .

[Jesper D]

The Etruscans subjugated the romans (a village back then?), annected Rome and Ruled rome for several generations until they were thrown out. The first step is always the hardest as they say. The etruscan domination must have been seen as hugely demeaning for the romans. After all if the etruscan city states would have been able to unite when Rome rose against its masters history would most likely be very different. Perhaps this was the most unlikely moment in Rome's rise?
This is the only time the Romans had unfavourable odds on preserving their independence up until late empire.

[Alanus]

If the criteria was "tremble behind their walls," as the lead of this thread points out, then I'd have to agree with Theodosius the Great. It was the human sacrifices that showed how demoralized the Romans were by prospects of being done-in by the Teutones and Cimbri.

That back-seats Julius Caesar and everyone else. And it would appear that the one faction that did overthrow (or inherit) the Western Empire were the Goths. They just snuck in--wearing togas, no less! And nobody seemed to care. :roll:

[Arminius75]

Well allways is hard to give an single answer searching for an superlative "greatest" "number one" because all the long timeline about Roamn empire, for those romans who lived to saw their army destroyed by Celtic peoples on early republic times after Alia Battle (Correct me if i`m wrong, i cant remember exactly) the Celts with their Brennus were the public enemy number one in these moment; for those romans who saw Alaricus with their gothic warriors enter to Rome on late imperial age were the same...well seeing the trascendence of their acts we can say: Hannibal for republican age and Attila for late empire,..inner enemies ...mmm Spartacus and every roman general on the army too :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[diegis]

I think the nr.1 enemy varried from time to time. It start with etruscans, then samnites. Then was gauls of Brennus. Next was Hannibal and his carthaginians. Then cimbri and teutoni (but briliantly and brutal resolved by Marius), and parthians (Crassus). Then dacians (during Domitian and Traian, and even during Caesar, who planed his next campagnies against them and parthians). Then sassanids (especialy for east) and barbarian invasions (when empire was already in decline), mostly germanic. Huns come then to play too, even if just for a short period. But, above all, romans themselves, especialy later, with many internal fights, civil wars, constant pretenders to throne, fall of economy, spread of corruption, drop of martial interest for many of roman citizens (this combined with constant civil wars lead to receiving in army many "barbarians" who later will become a problem from diferent points of view), all this making the empire to fall from the inside, foreigns invasions just make the agony to end sooner.

[Alanus]

Hello, Diegis

... all this making the empire to fall from the inside, foreigns invasions just make the agony to end sooner.

You hit the nail on the head. :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A point on Ceasar, though, perhaps if he had survived to take the campaign east, the out come would have been totally different for Rome.
The moment passed, and once the enemies were up to holding off Roman advances, it was inevitable that it would only be decline and collapse. There are pivotal moments in history, where the course of events turn on a needle, and if missed, the path is gone forever.
The assassination of ceasar closed a path for Rome it was never able to find again.

Sorry for the off topic.

[M. Demetrius]

the out come would have been totally different for Rome.

And certainly different for Caesar, eh? :wink:
Could it be said that Rome's #1 enemy was Rome?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

the out come would have been totally different for Rome.

And certainly different for Caesar, eh? :wink:
Could it be said that Rome's #1 enemy was Rome?

That would be a perfectly feasible and logical conclusion to come to, I would say!

[Timotheus]

Enemies are often only enemies in the mind. The Romans believed Catilina and the Gracchi were dangerous - so I add them to the list.

Catilina was nothing more than a convenient target used by Cicero to elevate his own position and try to make his term as Consul historic. The Gracchi were enemies of the Senate of Rome, who no matter what they thought not the end all be all of Rome.

[Alanus]

I thought we were discussing major enemies of Rome, cultures like the Goths whom I still support as the singular ruination of the West, not petty subversives or political anti-establiment sects (or in the case of the Gracci, families). :?

[Zenobia of Palmyra]

I vote for Zenobia of Palmyra :twisted:

For real, though, I think Shapur the First was Rome's most fearsome foe. He defeated several emperors in battle, and even captured one of them. Even Alaric and Attila never managed to capture an emperor.

[Robert Vermaat]

Even Alaric and Attila never managed to capture an emperor.

Well, that would have been difficult because in their day, the emperor did not take the field. Shapur did not exactly go to Rome (or even Constantinople) to capture his prize. Valerian made it easy and invaded Persia. :wink:

And Shapur managed to lose his harem to the praefectus praetorio Ballista.