Rome\'s Public Enemy #1

[Alanus]

Even Alaric and Attila never managed to capture an emperor.

New reassessments of the Battle of Catalaunian Fields (Aetius vs Attila) seem to remove it from the importance it once had. Not an earth-shaking battle.
But remember that Alaric took Rome (the city) three times, by starvation, by blockade, and finally by sacking. That is a record not accomplished by the ancient Celts nor the later Vandals. Three times hammers home a sharp point. :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

But remember that Alaric took Rome (the city) three times, by starvation, by blockade, and finally by sacking. That is a record not accomplished by the ancient Celts nor the later Vandals. Three times hammers home a sharp point. :lol:

We disagree there. I do not count the coming to terms in 408 and 409 as anythink like a 'taking of Rome'. That way, you can count any bargain between the Romans and an enemy as a 'taking of Rome'. :wink:

[Alanus]

Robert,

You're correct. But Rome was impeded, shut off from the norm. And while this was not "taking Rome" on those two occasions, it disrupted the city in a way that no other "number one enemy" accomplished. As we all know, Alaric's sacking in the third round was actually the frustrated effort of a defeated general. To me, it would seem that 408 and 409 were his accomplishments. :wink:

[Brennus]

I would say Gauls. Not only were they a thorn in the Romans side on their own accord, but also while serving Hannibal in the Punic Wars. Their early sack of Rome also played a pivotal role in forcing some military reformations. Plus, you have the pesky nuisances of such disasterous moments like the ambush at Litana.

[Astiryu1]

If I was Roman I would watch closely (in order I think)

Er... The Gods(Always butting in at the most inopportune times; Anyone for a trip to Mt.Vesuvius?)
Ourselves(They live next door)
The Greeks(Don't screw around with their women! They take it personally...)
Macedonia(Alexander the Great and all of his Generals)
Carthage (Elephants across the Alps?! They're just screwin with us!)
The Slaves and/or Gladiators (They're already pissed because they are slaves;then we go and train them to fight?!)
The Gauls( They have Druids whatever those are :wink: ; Oh yeah and they live a few blocks over!)
Boudicca (However you spell it, SHE ruled a male dominated society; or so I am led to believe)
The Egyptians(I don't know yet give me 2000 years :twisted: )
Augustus Caesar (I favor Marc Anthony even though he lost)
The Christians and The Pagans (nothing like a religious war)
The Germans( Don't walk through the woods even with a friend named "Arminius")
The Huns (Too many Arrows)
The Goths (All of 'em)
The Arabs (EDIT:and the Turks :oops: ) (Ships being rolled down mountain sides,NOT FAIR!)
The Chinese (Just in case; I always wondered what would happen if Alexander crossed the Himilaya's hock: )

Sorry I am a little paranoid!
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!! hock:

[Ron Andrea]

I especially agree about checking over your shoulder to keep an eye on your fellow Romans. :roll:

[Robert Vermaat]

If I was Roman I would watch closely (in order I think)
[..]
The Christians and The Pagans (nothing like a religious war)

The Christians I can understand, what exactly (to you as a Roman) is a Pagan??? I mean, are you sure you're secretly not one of those Christians yourself?

I think I can hear someone shouting in the street.. Sounds like "Christianos ad leonem"! If it's Tertullian, I apologise. :wink:

[Astiryu1]

That's what I mean. If I was Roman I could be either. So could my neighbor. The problem is evident when you ask for that cup of sugar(or whatever) and say "God(s) Bless". hock:

In response to what I think is "pagan"
[url:18tzm2k2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan[/url]
I have seen similar definitions but this is the only one I could remember or find on the web.

[Alanus]

... and then, just to keep the whole thing under disguise (that you're still a Pagan and not one of those cracked zealots), you adjust the calender to slap Christ's birthdate on Apollo's. :lol:

[Theodosius the Great]

Enemies are often only enemies in the mind. ...

Quite true. Most of the enemies listed by the posters were not aggressors against Rome.

Warning, here's my unsolicited anti-thesis

Rome was the aggressor in all three Punic Wars, the Macedonian Wars, the Mithradaic Wars, the Greek Wars (southern Italy), the Iberian Wars, the Parthian Wars, and some of the Persian Wars. The greatest enemy is always the one bent on conquering / destroying you. The Teutons and Cimbri remain the best candidates for "Number 1", IMO. They were invaders and they could not be reasoned with or bought off unlike the Gauls (who were bought off after the sacking of Rome) or Attila (who was also likely bought off by the Pope). Spartacus was simply a freebooter who wanted to raid as much as possible before escaping from Italy. Hannibal and Pyrrhus were very willing to sign treaties but Rome's stubborness prolonged the wars. The Parthians were not expansionists. The Persians had limited territorial designs on the Eastern Meditarranean. The Hellenistic Kingdoms couldn't have cared less about Western Europe. So, none of them could qualify as the greatest threat to Rome.

Perhaps a close "Number 2" enemy would be the Vandals. They were bent on destruction and conquest. They created nothing and left destruction in their wake when they could not conquer. Or the Arabs could be "Number 2". They laid siege to Constantinople many times and almost took it. They ended up conquering two-thirds of the Eastern Empire and went on to conquer former Western imperial provinces. The Arabs were relentless and bent on conquest in all directions. Occassionally you could buy them off but that was not a permanent solution. Sooner or later they would come back. Only their own civil wars did them in. Next came the Turks but they had designs on the other Muslim caliphates rather than Constantinople before the Battle of Manzikert. Even after the battle the Empire could have been saved if not for the civil war mentality the Byzantines inherited from the Romans. If we discount the Romans as an enemy, I'm sticking with my original answer - the Cimbri and the Teutons.

~Theo

[Alanus]

Theo,

That's a good run-down of Roman and anti-Roman affairs. No mention there at all of Goths, or did I miss them. But, according to your criteria, the Goths were not aggressors in the end. While there was a thrust and parry war between Athanaric and Valens, it was not a major rip-your-head-off war. Then we had Fritigern who fought a justifiable war in what might be called "self-defense." So, I take back my earlier statement; and agreed, the really bad guys appeared in the slavering guise of Teutons and Cimbri (and their witch-like women). Never trust a witch. Especially one with a broom. :roll:

[Ron Andrea]

It's the one with the be-witching smile who's really dangerous. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

That's right, Ron. He will quickly tell you he's come to lend a hand with your problem, too.

[Ron Andrea]

The two biggest lies in military life:

"I'm here to help you."

"We're glad you're here."

:lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

Perhaps a close "Number 2" enemy would be the Vandals. They were bent on destruction and conquest. They created nothing and left destruction in their wake when they could not conquer.

Jaime, that's very 19th-century of you! The vandals were not more or less destructive than any other Germanic group. The rest is post-medieval nonsense.

Or the Arabs could be "Number 2". They laid siege to Constantinople many times and almost took it.

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