Rome\'s Longest War?

[petar]

Was this Rome's longest conflict ?

http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2012/05...isci-wars/

[john m roberts]

I'd call the conquest of Spain Rome's longest war, 200 years almost to the day.

[petar]

Good point. Although that was against a number of different enemies.

[Vindex]

Well, I suppose it depends on your qualifying criteria - same enemy, same opposing general, same "theatre" that is, country...all are variables which would give very different answers.

[Timianus]

What a great post! The more I learn about the frequency with which Rome lost to "uncivilized barbarians", the more I wonder how their system lasted as long as it did.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well the Romans were extremely adaptable, they were the longest lasting continuous nation in existance (China wasn't continuous, it kept breaking up, but the Roman central government always existed.)

Rome did not collapse to "uncivilized barbarians," they collapsed to "Romanized Barbarians." The Western Empire spurred its own downfall eventually, but there were lots of factors that led to the Roman collapse. It is rather universally agreed that the point of no return was the loss of Africa.

[Macedon]

...hmmm... Rome against the rest of the world maybe? :wink:

[Timianus]

Well the Romans were extremely adaptable, they were the longest lasting continuous nation in existance (China wasn't continuous, it kept breaking up, but the Roman central government always existed.)

Rome did not collapse to "uncivilized barbarians," they collapsed to "Romanized Barbarians." The Western Empire spurred its own downfall eventually, but there were lots of factors that led to the Roman collapse. It is rather universally agreed that the point of no return was the loss of Africa.

I was using the term "uncivilized barbarians" in jest, hence the quotes. Perhaps I was a little vague in my post, but what amazes me is how Rome had the reserve manpower to come back from multiple defeats. Almost all other nations (and I use that term very loosely) needed a generation to re-plenish their stock of fighting men after a major defeat, but Rome seemed to have a near unlimited supply of pedes to throw at an enemy.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Rome had an army of 300,000 men defending a civvie population of 30 million. They could have had their army crushed twice and still have the reserve manpower to replenish all of their forces. They supplemented this with troops recruited from outside the empire.

[Ariovistus]

The Invasion of Britain was a lengthy one, but it's also fairly difficult to outline in the later years. Depending on what you go by (Caesar invaded in 55 BC), it began in 43 AD under Claudius and never really ended until the final withdrawal of the Roman military and the abandonment by the government in 410 (some argue 383).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I would argue that Britain wasn't truly abandoned until the 430's, but the military had left earlier.

[Theoderic]

I would agree that Britain stood the test of time and was never fully and completely pacified from Caesar's early incursions (not really invasions - 55 and 54 BC) until all the remaining legions finally left in AD 410 leaving a garrison force that gradually metamorphised into the war bands that followed......

For such a small country to have between 3 and 4 legions based here for so long with extra auxilliaries garrisoning the frontier shows the lack of peaceful acceptance by either the local inhabitants or indeed the invasion forces of others.

Kind Regards - Deryk

[Mark Hygate]

The real main problem with Britain is its strategic position and I suspect that the 'internal' areas of 'England' were as Romanised/pacified as almost anywhere else.

All that coastline to defend against anyone who could sail to it, be they from Ireland, Scotland, Scandanavia, Denmark, etc.

Elsewhere the Romans pretty much had pacified all the Mediterranean shores and had borders on the Atlantic, the desert and the Rhine-Danube all the way over to the Black Sea. It's that land border across the rivers that eventually became the main issue from migration (some of it forced, of course).

If I was to plump for longest war I'd probably suggest (from a cultural perspective) the Parthians née Sassanids for the continual pressure from the East.

[john m roberts]

One of the things that put Rome on top and kept her there for so many centuries is that, unlike most other people of the Mediterranean civilizations, they weren't demoralized by defeat. They understood that you didn't lose because the gods had abandoned you, but because you'd done something wrong. These mistakes could be studied and corrected. They were seldom outfought but sometimes outgeneraled. If you beat them they'd bounce back and come back at you and they'd fight smarter this time. Eventually, they'd make you settle down and pay your taxes.