rome\'s most fearsome enemy

[Ross Cowan]

I'm surprised no one has suggested the Samnites.

[Ceannt]

Barbareans trying to be romans 8)

[sonic]

I'm surprised no one has suggested the Samnites.

I'll second that. If the Samnites had only been a bit luckier, we could have now been on the 'sat' forum talking about leading Samnite generals of the Empire.


However, I disagree that Rome could have survivied if it had remained the same and not changed over time. Stasis leads to stagnation and stagnation to decay. It is probable that, had the Romans stayed the same, their civil wars would have criippled them long before they actually did - think of the relative peace in the second century!

However, there is one thing that beat the Romans more than any other: distance. Without the means of moving fast between provinces/war zones/threatened zones, the Empire began to fragment into areas where the population began to look for protection from any reasonable source. Loyalty to the 'Emperor' was lost and gradually the Empire lost its unity. Rebels from far-flung provinces could now set themselves up as emperor with a reasonable chance of success - at least until the real man turned up with his army, after which most rebels lost.

If the Empire had had a reasonable transport system (ie railways), rebellion would have been more rare, as the Emperor himself could arrive before the rebellion had gained a good hold and crush it. As it was, the rebels could look forward to six months of preparation time before facing opposition, and so become fairly well established.

And didn't the empire at one point flirt with steam power? If only they had carried it through.......!! :roll:

_________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Marcus Julius]

Probably bad decisions from the emperors. Imagine if Tiberius had allowed Germanicus finish his campaign. Or ir Comodus had continued his father campaign. Or Caracala had finished the conquest caledonia. And so many other cases.

"What if's" can always be brought up. What if Patton had been allowed to march on Moscow?

Sorry for the modern correlation there. However, the more I learn about Roman history, the more I see it correlating to our modern governments, and yes, history is repeating itself. However, that is not the topic of this thread, nor is it a topic for this board.

I bring it up, only because what I view as the worst enemy of Rome, as an Empire, is the loss of Rome's identity. When the capitol was moved, the Empire was no longer centered around Rome. When a majority of historians were writing in Greek, instead of Latin, Rome was no longer Roman. Without it's central ideology, it was doomed to break apart.

All that being said, I don't think it was the intent of the original quesion to discuss what caused the fall, but to discuss who was the greatest threat on the battlefield. On that subject, I would have to lean on the Dacians. The fact that the legions started wearing more and better armor is an obvious indication of ...respect (since someone else mentioned that Romans didn't fear anything, they must have respected the capabilities of the Dacians, rather than feared them, right?) :wink:

[Goffredo]

It woud have been sufficient for Patton to take Prague and many things would have gone differently.

[Lawless John]

In Rome's case, the cost of... and the subsidizing the increasingly demanding, but unproductive population of Rome itself gradually became more than the empire could support.

I'm surprised that no one as brought up slavery! It took away the lively-hood of most common people and created a huge welfare state of bread (and games).

John

[Tarbicus]

I'm surprised that no one as brought up slavery! It took away the lively-hood of most common people and created a huge welfare state of bread (and games).

Slavery wasn't introduced overnight during the 2nd C AD, it had been around in all cultures and civilisations since the year dot. How could it have possibly "taken away jobs"?

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Rome's most fearsome enemies were, in order:

1) Usurpers
2) Civil Wars that followed the usurpers
3) Italy's gradual decline from a military ethos
4) The de-romanisation that followed.
5) Its actually enemies, such as Carthaginians, Germanic Tribes, Boudicea, Sassanids, Vandals, Goths, Huns, etc.

The Empire fell from within.