Login

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-12-2004, 01:30 AM

Now that I still have the Goths on my mind it would like to know what you think the worst militay defeat was for the Romans, from the old days of the Kings, up to the last days of the empire. Instead, perhaps the battle that had the most profound impact on Rome. 
 
My personal choice would be Adrianople. This battle saw the Roman Legions get crushed by the Goths and started a series of Gothic wins that eventually led to their sack of Rome. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

07-12-2004, 01:54 AM

Ah, another fan of the big, bad barbarians from the north. 
 
For me it's the civil wars from Marius against Sulla up til Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon which showed the innate weakness of the Empire, despite the fact it florished for centuries to come. 
 
Also the Varus battle, because it demonstrated expansion was not unlimited. <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-12-2004, 04:47 AM

To be technical the crossing of the rubicon by caesar was still during the republican era of rome, but it was right at the brink. If you are really particularly interested in this part of roman history and don't mind historical fiction, I sugest Colleen Mcculoughs First Man in Rome series. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

07-12-2004, 11:15 AM

Manzikert?

07-12-2004, 12:01 PM

I didn't realise it was restricted to the Imperial Times - which, in a way started because Caeser demonstrated that the check and balance system of Roman government no longer worked. 
 
I have read the series by Colleen McCullough, though I think the latter ones aren't as good as the first two, at least from a writer's point of view. The historical background is still ok as far as I can tell (I'm no specialist for that time). <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-12-2004, 12:21 PM

Being 11th-c., I would hardly call Manzikirt a Roman defeat.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 7/12/04 2:22 pm

07-12-2004, 03:51 PM

Rome faced massive losses in battles such as Cannae, Aurasio or Teutoburger Wald, but in each of these, Rome was able to recover. 
 
I look at a defeat more in terms of its impact then in losses of shear numbers. Its hard for me to call Cannae its greatest defeat, when in the end, Rome persevered and won the Second Punic War. (Despite the fact that things could have been much different, depending on several factors). 
 
I think a battle such as Adrianople in 378 AD is more significant. This was the beginning of a long series of 'barbaric' incursions with concessions or losses by a weakened Roman state. Valens, after years of civil war had re-established some sort of stablity, but mismanagement of his new Gothic 'allies' led to his own defeat and death. While some credible Roman strength was re-established after, such as Stilicho, the victory by Fritigern at Adrianople stands out to me as a huge event. Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris 
--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-12-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:<hr>I didn't realise it was restricted to the Imperial Times - which, in a way started because Caeser demonstrated that the check and balance system of Roman government no longer worked. <hr> 
 
By saying the part about that being technically part of the republic was not by any means a way of restricting the time period to focus on, but was saying that the Marius/Sulla Battles were simply still in the republican era, even though the republic was weakening. Even during caesars dictator days it was still a republic, as the position of dictator was legal under the unwritten roman constitution, of which the offical name has slipped my mind its mos something, not until the first emperor Octavius Augustus Caesar was Rome a true empire. 
 
THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

Uwe Bahr · 07-13-2004, 03:46 AM

Avete omnes, 
 
I agree with Primus Veredus, Adrianopel was one of the most significant defeats because the Roman army never recovered from the losses of men and military structure. 
 
But for me personally it was also a bitter defeat that Julianus II (from his Christian enemies so called 'Apostata') failed with his campaign against Shapur at Ktesiphon 12 years before; at the retreat and under permanent attacks of the pursuing Persians he was killed June, 26th 363 in a battle at Maranga nearby the river Tigris. IMHO this date marked the beginning of the end of antiquity as Julianus was the last Emperor who wanted to restore the old religion and philosophy and thus stood in a tradition of Emperors like Marcus Aurelius. His successors finally made Christianity to the official religion of the state and the destruction of the old temples and buildings began. 
 
So both events, Maranga and Adrianopel, only 12 years apart what is a short distance in the history of Roman Empire, for me mark the turn of an era. 
 
Uwe Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=uwebahr>Uwe Bahr</A> at: 7/14/04 7:56 am

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-13-2004, 04:13 AM

Thank god christianity decided to not destroy one remarkable building that is to the left, my picture under my name. The Pantheon. How did it survive in the heart of Catholicism. I heard something like Rafeal helped keep it from destuction, as his grave is there. any more info on the pantheons survival. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

07-13-2004, 06:30 AM

"Being 11th-c., I would hardly call Manzikirt a Roman defeat.. " 
 
Well as "Byzantine" is a modern label and the empire still considered itself Roman I'm quite happy to see it as a Roman defeat - East Roman if you wish

07-13-2004, 10:26 AM

Your right in saying Adrianople was a significant Roman defeat, but you could also argue that it was already too late for a rivival in the west anyway. good question though, i'll get back to you when ive had a chance to think

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 07-13-2004, 10:35 AM

Uwe, about Maranga, I agree with you that was the last light of the classical/pagan era and Iulianus the last classical/pagan Emperor. Anyway I have to make clear that the first and the second fights of the Maranga battle were victorious for the Romans (Ammianus Marcellinus, Historiae - XXV). Persian army was practically defeated and the way to India was open. Only and just after the Iulianus' death, and after the cowardly Iouianus was "created" new emperor, that the Persians (informed by deserters about the killing of Iulianus) saw a new chance and started to torment the roman army that Iouianus made suddenly retire. Then it was the incredible "Iouianus' pax" with Shapur signing a sad end of the Iulianus' campaign. It's fun that, after that, the Persians attacked the Romans crying and insulting them as "killers" (it's suspected that the javelin killed Iulianus was thrown by a christian roman soldier) of the great and good emperor Iulianus. 
 
Vale, 
Titus

07-13-2004, 12:44 PM

Ok, ive had a think about it, and im surprised nobody has mentioned the Varian Disaster (9 AD, Publius Quintillius Varus' 3 legions slaughtered in the Teutoberg forest, Germania, by Arminius). I agree that the worst military defeat should be judged by the consequence and result, not purely by the number of Romans killed (if that was the case it would be Cannae or Arausio) If the Varian Disaster had not happened the Romans most probably would have gone on to conquer all of Germania, but they didn't because of it. who knows the significance of this, the possibilities are endless! you COULD say that if Germania was Romanized like the rest of Europe, then there would have been no Kaiser Wilhelm II, no Hitler...no World Wars (or anything else significant in Germanys history) this is scepticism, but something to think about eh?

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 07-13-2004, 04:20 PM

Quote:<hr>Well as "Byzantine" is a modern label and the empire still considered itself Roman I'm quite happy to see it as a Roman defeat - East Roman if you wish <hr> 
 
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. THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Rome - its own worst enemy, or everyone else\'s nightmare?	Tarbicus	17	4,196	04-07-2007, 03:33 PM Last Post: drsrob