Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome\'s worst military defeat
#16
I do think this thread is a waste of time, although fun. So here are my two cents worth:<br>
<br>
1) Cannae is an all time classic. Hard to argue against its tragedy. But it is true that rome won the war!<br>
<br>
1) Varus might have won, or to put it better Arminius might have lost (it wasn't easy to pull off that revolt in that way. He was a genius): in that way Rome might have consolidated germany. Hard to imagine the future consequences.<br>
<br>
2) A typical political defeat of rome: Commodus giving up after Marcus' long, bloody victorious wars against marcomanni and quadi, future alemanni. Imperial Rome did not invent a mechanism that could avoid stupid/pathological/... men from becoming emperors.<br>
<br>
3) Valens might not have lost and the goths definitely beaten with the survivors settled and slowly romanized.<br>
No Alaric. Rome, like all human things, would have fallen sooner or later but european history would have been, I my opinion, very different. It still hard, but compared to Varus episonde, it is relatively easier to imagine the consequences of a roman victory at adrianople. Because of the defeat for Rome things went down hill quite quickly after that. The goths were inside roman territory and basically did what they wanted.<br>
<br>
4) The death of Julian is, in my opinion, not significant. Had Julian won he would not have conquered Persia just like Trajan did not, nor Severus, nor Carus. Certainly India was not wide open for conquest. Rome did simply not have the resources. More interesting is the scenario that Julian NOT try the foolish conquest of Persia but find a way to stablize diplomatically the Persian issue with due use of force and not stupid Alexandrine attempts to outdated glory. Had he not wasted precious energy against Persia maybe, just maybe his reing would have lasted longer and the empire might have profited. But he had priorities all jumbled. <p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#17
You said:<br>
<br>
"By the time of the 12th century in the byzantine empire it was more a mixture of Greeks and Arabs than actual romans. The byzantine empire was on its was down seeing as the Western Roman Empire had fallen 600 years earlier, it was now a papal state so calling anything roman at this time is not completely accurate. Byzantine Empire was just the Byzantine empire at this point rather than the eastern roman empire. The seperation of byzantine from the rest of europe following the 1054 Schism kind of put byzaninte closer to the likes of Russia than to Rome and the rest of western europe who were heavily catholic. So going by this the disasterous battle you speak of would be tied to the Byzantine Empire, instead of the Eastern Roman Empire."<br>
<br>
"Byzantine Empire" is still a modern label, however, useful it may be. Regardless of the ethnic make up they regarded themselves as the Roman empire - IIRC the term in Greek was Rhomanoi - as is evidenced in the Alexiad and elsewhere.<br>
<br>
When the Seljuq's conquored Anatolia their state was the Sultanate of Rum - Rum being Rome - and this was continued by the Ottomans.<br>
<br>
Also, technically, there was never a "Western" and "Eastern" empire. The Romans viewed the whole as a single political entity even when it had multiple rulers - although there were times when it was to all intents 2 states. Laws were issued in the names of all emperors and they jointly approved consuls (most of the time) in theory. It would be more correct to say the "Empire in the west/east" IMO. But that's just a pet peeve of mine.<br>
<br>
But back to the subject and assuming we are dealing with pre-476Ad or there abouts I suspect that the civil wars of Theodosius' reign may be very significant. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#18
<br>
<br>
What's the life, without a little bit of glory? How many great things could be made without a dream? The difference between the greatness and the disaster was often a "Fortuna's choice". But the oblivion is worst.<br>
<br>
Iulianus was an "engine", that kind of men that the Mankind always needs to go ahead and create higher steps of civilization. What Iulianus did in so few years of his reign re-organization, tells us that he could find new resources to plan and realize a bigger Empire (maybe with a third partition of it). The real problem was the christian opposition, but a large part of the Empire was pagan yet, so a pagan "restoration" was not so impossible: it had to be enforced just to a part of the roman "nomenklatura" and "apparatchiks", and especially in the biggest cities.<br>
For that, the kill of Iulianus, as the last charismatic pagan augustus, was fundamental for the Romans destiny, because that kill was THE ultimate defeat after that the roman Empire was not more the same, neither the byzantine was really "roman". The "classical flavour" disappeared forever and the end of a world began.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus<br>
<p></p><i></i>
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#19
I think Manzikert qualifies as Roman. The byzantines considered themselves Roman right up to the end. Saying Manzikert wasn't a Roman defeat is like saying Belisarius wasn't a Roman general or Justinian or Heraclius not Roman Emperors. True it was not the classic Rome but then neither was the Rome of 5th Century. The Roman Army at Manzikert was at least as Roman as Aetius' at Chalons. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#20
Alright I'll give you guys your Roman victory. But to me I still think as the Byzantine empire at that point in history as being more of an eastern empire seperated from Europe by the great seperation between Catholic western europe and Orthodox Eastern Europe(by eastern I refer mainly to the Byzantine empire, or what was left of it Kiev, and Muscovy. What I think it boils down to is a contrast in opinions, i will give you the ideological feeling of the Byzantines as far as they consider themselves Romans, however I am a stubborn person so will stick to my opinion about the Byzantine Empire being more closely tied to the Greeks than to the Romans by religious means. I feel, like I have said before that the Roman empire ended in 1054 AD.<br>
<br>
Peace<br>
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#21
Historians divide the history into period for reasons of clarity. For this it doesn't help to use the period's own view as starting point.<br>
When Charlemagne was crowned emperor, he was crowned at Rome and was considered a Roman emperor. The German kings coveted the title of Holy Roman Emperor for centuries to come, wasting their energies accordingly in Italy. The German league was Known as the Holy Roman Empire (heiliges romisches Reich deutcher Nation) until 1806, when it was dissolved by Napoleon. No historian in his right mind would consider this a Roman state.<br>
I think the same would apply to the Byzantine Empire. The only question is: were do we draw the line? <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drsrob>drsrob</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/573/16/25731628.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 7/21/04 12:27 pm<br></i>
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#22
Exactly what I was getting at. Somewhere else I had an argument, maybe it was on this thread its been several weeks since I posted in this thread, that the Holy Roman Emire was no part Roman, granted the part about the crowning from the pope. <p></p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#23
Hi!<br>
I'm new here but i will try to give my opinion.<br>
I think that Adrianople was the most important defeat for the lost of roman soldiers and equipment, and the need to recrute barbarians as substitute (but don't forger that it was lost by the east empire, and they survive of another 1000 years). <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#24
Avete !<br>
<br>
Well for me the worst military defeat is the one that you can never completely recover from. So I agree with the last commentator and with Pompeius that Adrianople tops all other defeats for Rome. The sheer scale of the disaster permanently crippled the Western empire and thus had the most dire consequences.<br>
<br>
Now if we're leaving out reprecussions of individual defeats, I'd say Cannae was the worst defeat for Rome. But for me reprecussions are the determining factor. Rome emerged stronger after the Punic Wars, not weaker.<br>
<br>
Valete.<br>
-Theo <p></p><i></i>
Jaime
Reply
#25
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The sheer scale of the disaster permanently crippled the Western empire <hr><br>
Hi Theo,<br>
<br>
How do you reckon this crippled the Western Empire?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#26
I don't think it crippled the empire so much as gave the Goths the thought that they could drive further into the empire. I beleive the Romans came to a truce with the goths for several years after Adrianople and it was only when Aleric emerged as their leader did they drive towards Rome. The Goths just wanted land to settle on and fair treatment which they got after Adrianople, even though they were looked down upon by the Romans. So in other words I think that Adrianople was a showing that the Romans were weakening and could no longer protect their empire like they used to, even though the eastern roman empire would last until 1054 when it became the Byzantine Empire and that empire would finally end in 1453. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#27
Avete !<br>
<br>
Valerius, I should've elaborated before. I apologize. The disaster (Adrianople) in itself didn't cripple the Western Empire, it's just that it led to the Goths being permitted under their own terms to settle within the empire : virtual autonomy, no taxes to Rome, Goths fighting for Rome to be led by Gothic commanders, etc..<br>
<br>
The Eastern Empire managed to secure (transfer) the best remaining Roman troops for Constantinople which led to the West becoming more dependant on barbarian recruits.<br>
<br>
So there just weren't enough seasoned troops left to go around the entire empire after Adrianople.<br>
<br>
Pompeius Magnus, Rome negotiated from a position of weakness when they came to terms with the Goths. That was unprecedented for negotiations between Rome and barbarian immigrants applying for residency within the empire. The terms of their settlement placed Rome in a precarious position. So the Goths were a cancer just waiting to erupt. <p></p><i></i>
Jaime
Reply
#28
That is what I was getting at without actually saying it, a bad habit of mine. The goths needed a strong leader and got that in Aleric, a spawn of the Roman legionaire system as a result of the integration of the Goths. I believe that Aleric witnessed massive Gothic deaths as they were just thrown into a battlefield as if they were nothing causing the hatred in Aleric which eventually led to his march on Rome as Rome's former enemies in Italy joined the Goths. The Romans took the Goths too lightly even after the Adrianople disaster and it bit them in the rear. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#29
Theo,<br>
<br>
I beg to differ. Sure, I agree this was one of the worst defeats and it certainly did set a standard. But I would hesitate in calling it the beginning of the end, etc.<br>
Goths were indeed settled undertheir own leaders and with tax deductions (I presume you refer to the settlement of 41, but that was no permanent state of affairs. After all, these Goths were so dependent on the Roman authorities for supplies that Rome was in complete control over them. This was borne out by fact several times, and the only lebverage the Goths had after 418 was the damage they would cause. All in all, they werre loyal subjects while settled in Gaul, and no Roman source ever thought they would not be assimilated.<br>
<br>
A generation earlier, after 378 and Adrianople, the situation was different. here, too, the Goths eventually accepted terms, mainly because they had no means of an independent food supply. They could settle of course, but all parties realised that the Roman state would gain the upper hand.<br>
Then came Frigidus, the battle in which so many Goths were killed, and that indeed set some standard. Alaric never hated the Romans. Such Goth vs. Roman scenarios work as propaganda or hollywood stuff, but it is not borne out by what we know about him. Alaric mainly tried to get huis troops to be enrolled in the Roman army as regulars, this is what he demanded and what the Romans would not give him. It would have ensured his position as leader of the Goths (and surely endager Stilicho as de facto leader of the West), but it would also have ensured a stable economic position for the Goths These would then be sure of stable income and supplies, instead of having to fear being dismissed after each campaign. The sack of Rome was not so much a thing of Roman humiliation by Goths, as well as the making good of a threat by a disgruntled general.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#30
Valerius, how could the Goths be properly assimilated into the Empire given their large numbers ? <br>
<br>
Unless the Goths were broken up into smaller groups and settled throughout the entire Empire then they could perhaps be assimilated with relative ease. When groups stick together usually it is for the purpose of resisting assimilation into the dominant culture. At best it would take decades to assimilate the Goths if they were to remain in control of Gaul.<br>
<br>
The Goths dominated the ranks and officer corp of the armies of the Western Empire into the 5th century. How could the Western empire feel that they "would get the upper hand" over them?<br>
<br>
Later the Romans would always delude themselves with that mentality after they lost province after province to the Arabs. Just shows an empire in denial as it declines. <p></p><i></i>
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome - its own worst enemy, or everyone else\'s nightmare? Tarbicus 17 4,088 04-07-2007, 03:33 PM
Last Post: drsrob

Forum Jump: