Who were the roman republic's worst enemies?

[Zarax]

Self explanatory title:

who in your opinion were the biggest threats to Rome's survival or most relentless enemies before the empire?

Carthage?
Parthia?
the gauls?
the german tribes?

Something else?

[Βελισάριος]

Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.

The so-called "barbarian invasions" that lead to the utter demise of the [Western] Roman Empire were only a coup de grace delivered to a dying and decaying empire.

[daveoshea]

id have the gauls would have been seen as the biggest threat seeing that they had sacked rome in about 300bc (or close that that i thik it was about 330ish bc) but not actually a big threat to wipe out the republic if ya get me?
and the romans had a huge fear of gallic tribes if you mean around that early time of aound 272 bc when around EB starts

[Zarax]

Let me explain my idea a bit better:
I'm planning to make an XGM mod centered about Rome's biggest enemies (we're talking about the same timeframe as EB), using the senate feature to keep them allied plus some BI extras to spice up the game.

In order to start I need some historical backing to see which factions would be best fit.

[Custodis Hellenius]

Well... :book: ... I'd say Carthage. If Hannibal hadn't been faced with the conditions he had been faced with, I suppose he may have had a chance at beating Rome.

On the other hand, the above's argument is good as well.

Yes, one of them...:juggle2:

[Maion Maroneios]

Carthage, by far. If the Senate had backed up Hannibal, the Imperium could posdsible never have existed. The Parthians were good, but in their own lands. Europe has never been a favorable battleground for horse-archers. Guals and Germans were good, but the Romans had emerged victorious from the Punic Wars as a new superpower. Plus, they had already reformed their armies.

Maion

[Mediolanicus]

Italian peoples in the beginning (Samnites certainly until ~280BC, and even after that)
Gaul/German Tribes (Cimbrians anyone?)
Carthage
Pontos
Parthia
Migrating Tribes in the West, Sassanids in the East.

And Rome itself during the civil wars from Sulla and Marius onwards.


During the RTW era, without a doubt the greatest enemy was Carthage.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Well firstly the Parthians did not really pose a threat to Rome itself. The Parthians just threatened the Eastern territories. (The Persian Sassanids were a bigger threat than the Parthians but you haven't included them here)

Carthage was the biggest arch enemy of Rome of the settled ancient Mediterannean factions.

The Gauls in the early times were a huge threat but later not anymore.

The barbarians could never defeat a unified Rome, sadly Rome was far from unified and destroyed itself.

I did not really leave a conclusion but these are some facts.

[Krusader]

From what I recall, the Celts/Gauls were probably who the Romans viewed as the biggest threat, solely because of Brennus' sacking of Rome. That left a deep emotional scar in the Roman communal psyche if what the sources say are correct.

Otherwise I'd say Carthage, because these two peoples were those who came closest to destroying the Republic. Although I'd like to mention that if you are looking for who caused most casualties then its the Iberian tribes. Going to Iberia was the Roman equivalent of being shipped to Vietnam.

[Atraphoenix]

Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.

I agree with that, for me Constantine I, who gave up the forward policy for reserve field army defense system, namely limes that were easily overrun by germans and many others when the empire was busy with endless internal civil war, usurpers.....

[Zarax]

Not to sound annoying but the title specifies Roman republic, not empire...

[Atraphoenix]

I still agree with
Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.
even for Republic...
Sulla, Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavian were romans, were not they?

[Cyclops]

Let me explain my idea a bit better:
I'm planning to make an XGM mod centered about Rome's biggest enemies (we're talking about the same timeframe as EB), using the senate feature to keep them allied plus some BI extras to spice up the game.

In order to start I need some historical backing to see which factions would be best fit.

Carthage are the one intractable enemy Rome went out of their way to pick a fight with and destroy. I guess you could split them into subfactions with Barcids, Republicans, maybe allied numidians? Under pressure they could fall apart, also they could fracture if one sub faction went off and conquered Spain. I'd say this is the best candidate, as it couild continue from the 240's down to the Jugurthine wars.

Before Hannibal came along the Gauls were the big Roman bogeyman. They really would make a good candidate if I understand what you want to do (puddle several factions together with the option for them to squabble if one gets big). Averni, Aedui, Belgae, Aquitani, is that enough factions? Plenty more if you look hard I guess. however the Gallic wars were sporadic compared to the life and death Punic mess, and marked more by internicine conflict within the Gallic factions.

I don't think tribes in Iberia ever united or cooperated against any invader in any long-term way.

States in the Greek world rarely provided a united front, in fact it was usually one mob inviting the Romans in against the other (whether it was the Aetolians, Achaeans, Rhodians). Likewise the Diadochi did not pose a united threat to Rome, they were constantly at one another's throats.

[Atraphoenix]

States in the Greek world rarely provided a united front, in fact it was usually one mob inviting the Romans in against the other (whether it was the Aetolians, Achaeans, Rhodians). Likewise the Diadochi did not pose a united threat to Rome, they were constantly at one another's throats.

If I remember correctly when the Romans captured Athens she had more than 400 000 population, Roma herself was less than 100 000, comment or corrections are yours...
Roma just swallowed them one by one...

[Lusitani]

Had the Gauls been a unified force we would probably be studying a celtic language as a major classical influence.
Regarding Brennus (or whatever his name was) sack of Roma, I believe that the hatred/fear of the Gauls was more a propaganda move to justify its conquest than anything else.


I also agree with Burebista in what comes to Rome being its own enemy.

All IMHO of course....

V.

[theoldbelgian]

what about the epeirotes under pyrhuss?

I would think he was the Hannibal of his time for the romans

[desert]

Rome had like 200000 people by 250 BC. Athens reached it's peak at 200000(?) and then got massacred by the plague during the Great War.

[Βελισάριος]

D'you know what? All this thing about "had x tribes been unified we'd be learning Xic/Xian in school instead of Latin is so romantic that Hollywood should make a movie about it.

Herodotus said that if all the Thracian tribes would unite they could conquer the world, I'm sure there was one wine-loving Roman who said the same about the Gauls.

In chronological order, I'd say these were Rome's worst enemies:
1. Pyrrhos' Epeiros
2. Asterix and Obelix. You've mentioned Brennus, who was indeed a big threat to Rome at the time... also, the man who allegedly uttered my favourite line from ancient history: "Vae Victis!"
3. Carthage (and historically, Rome's worst ever enemy. Remember "Hannibal ante portas." anyone?)
4. The Parthians but that's already too late in history for the sake of this campaign, I suppose.

Oh, and did I mention the Romans?

[Atraphoenix]

Parthians did not utilized their victories against Roma, they lack infantry to hold their conquest in asia minor and levant and syria. In addition Romans learned how to fight with them later and captured her capital many times. But I cannot remember any faction that captured Emperors or strong leaders like them.
Senate of Carthage also did not support Hannibal logistically well enough to march him to Roma, Phyrrus had also same problem, he had no manpower to continue his campaign.
so Fortuna really favoured Romans,..
Again the only rivals were themselves..

[Cbvani]

Carthage. Hannibal was a beast on the battlefield.

That said, the greatest threat to Rome was the endless civil wars tearing it apart.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I am surprised no one mentioned Mithridates VI of Pontus. After Hannibal and then Pyrrhos, he was the most formidable of the tacticians Rome faced, fighting Sulla, Pompey, and Lucullus. Now, as a whole, his people were not as much of a threat, as say, the Parthians, but as a single man, he was brilliant, and Rome felt it.

[Cyclops]

Carthage. Hannibal was a beast on the battlefield...

Yes its a fair point about Hannibal. He bitchslapped the Romans all over their home turf.

The Gauls did it in 380 BC, well out of our timeframe. After that it was salami tactics from Bononia to Belgium, almost all one-way traffic.

The Germans ambushed a few incompetents on the frontier but never ever won a stand up fight against a Roman army. Ever. Also at least as many germans fought for Rome as against it, hardly sworn enemies.

The Parthians gave some thrashings but as pointed out that was in the East, they didn't really get serious like the Achaemenids did vs Hellas or the Sassanids vs East Rome. Rome vs Parthia was more neighbours hosing each others' dogs than a la outrance.

The Pontians? Obviously the Mithradatic wars were a nasty surprise but was there a serious threat to Romes existence, or was it an oriental imbroglio that barely interupted the civil disturbances of the day? Like the Diadochi, the various dynasties of asia minor didn't pose a mortal threat to Rome, and for the purposes of the proposed mod they weren't part of any broader political entity that could be constructed along the lines of Vanilla Rome's senate and factions.


...That said, the greatest threat to Rome was the endless civil wars tearing it apart.

I guess vanilla has already done the "Rome as multiple factions" set-up.

[NeoSpartan]

I was Republican Rome's wrost enemy! :smash:

https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g75/Neospartan/Charge.jpg

https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5928/img0411qg4.th.jpg (https://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0411qg4.jpg)

:clown:

[A Very Super Market]

You were out chargin around the during the middle of night? How many neighbours did you wake up?


And to make this not spam, I think her worst enemies were the Samnites and other city-states. Early on, there was no clear victor, and when Carthage invaded, many of Rome's old enemies joined up with them

[Βελισάριος]

The Germans ambushed a few incompetents on the frontier but never ever won a stand up fight against a Roman army. Ever. Also at least as many germans fought for Rome as against it, hardly sworn enemies.

I'm guessing you never heard of Arminius, then.

[duncan.gill]

I wouldn't necessarily call the Battle of Teutoburg Forest Wald a stand up fight, although a great victory - perhaps that is the point, the smart option against the Romans was not necessarily to go toe to toe.

[Dayve]

The republics worst enemies were Carthage... without a doubt. Gauls may have sacked Rome, but they would never have kept it long... they just wanted epic loot. If Hannibal had taken Rome, which would have made all of Rome's other territory dissolve into independent states, then Hannibal would have kept Rome and made it a permanent part of the Cartheginian empire... putting an end to Rome as a power.

The Roman empire's worst enemy, once the republic had disappeared, were themselves.

[Βελισάριος]

Guerilla tactics or otherwise, Teutoburg forest is a victory the likes of Cannae, I daresay... for its impact on history and culture, even to this day. Not only did it halt Roman expansion, but it made Germanic tribes later on even bolder. It gave us the expression we use today "to fall on one's sword" and it gave the histories one of its most colourful quotes: "Varus, give me back my legions!" Augustus nearly lost hold of his sanity, the numbers of the three legions that were decimated were never again used. So imagine the impact this had on Roman military pride.

Had Arminius afterwards managed to unite the Germanic tribes, then... vee'd all be shpeaking German today, ja?

[A Very Super Market]

Nope, we'd speak a strange, primitive guttural dialect, that would make us all sound angry.

So it'd be close to German

[SwissBarbar]

Guerilla tactics or otherwise, Teutoburg forest is a victory the likes of Cannae, I daresay... for its impact on history and culture, even to this day. Not only did it halt Roman expansion, but it made Germanic tribes later on even bolder. It gave us the expression we use today "to fall on one's sword" and it gave the histories one of its most colourful quotes: "Varus, give me back my legions!" Augustus nearly lost hold of his sanity, the numbers of the three legions that were decimated were never again used. So imagine the impact this had on Roman military pride.

Had Arminius afterwards managed to unite the Germanic tribes, then... vee'd all be shpeaking German today, ja?

Teutoburg forest was a great slaughter, but not that dangerous for the roman empire like the battles hannibal fought. The 3 legions have been replaced immediately et voilà.

Teutoburg forest was a great struggle, a cruel slaughtering but I never, never, never would put it on the same level as Cannae. Cannae was a strategically geniously fought battle causing the death of 70 - 80'000 romans who had arrayed in battle formation and charged themselves, Teutoburg on the other side was a well-conceived, large-scaled ambush with 20'000 roman casualties, who were not prepared and spread on a wide area.

[Subedei]

Nope, we'd speak a strange, primitive guttural dialect, that would make us all sound angry.

So it'd be close to GermanOh, you are gemein!

Battle of Teuteborg took place exactly 2000 years ago. There will be some coverage on that one in the media.

[Atraphoenix]

thanks to Phyruss, Romans learned how to fight against Elephants during punic wars.
and thanks to Crassus they learned how to fight against cavalry dominated armies.
The one that does not kill you makes you strong.
so when they had no mutual enemy to face they fought with themselves.
remember The Gallic Empire under usurper Costantine, he had repelled many germanic assaults, but his realm did not last long.

[machinor]

The Germans ambushed a few incompetents on the frontier but never ever won a stand up fight against a Roman army. Ever. Also at least as many germans fought for Rome as against it, hardly sworn enemies.
So you obviously never heard of the Cimbri and Teutones incursions into Italy. They wiped out a few legions. Rome was pissing its pants, for them it seemed like Brennus had returned as a German.

[/Bean\]

I wouldnt have said Rome's worst enemy was Carthage, par se, but rather Hannibal. We all know the results between Rome and Carthage when Hannibal was not commanding the troops. Same thing goes for Epirus and Pyrhos.

Cimbrians were without doubt a major threat, though it was their own fault they didnt reach Rome. However I do not believe Rome would have been finished had they turned towards it. I dont think the Cimbrians could have conquered the empire.

But apart from Carthage, Rome did not face very many united enemies or states at the height of the power during their early expansion years. Thus personally I would choose Samnites, or Epirus, or Carthage, simply because they were powerful and united. There are many factors in it though.

[Atraphoenix]

no one votes for etruscans?
They captured Rome and for many decades they dominated her, and many marks during that time is still can be seen..

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.

The so-called "barbarian invasions" that lead to the utter demise of the [Western] Roman Empire were only a coup de grace delivered to a dying and decaying empire.

I agree. But i want to point out that many historians says there was no fall of Roman Empire only a change. The date of the fall is also hugely controversial. Other then that hundreds of of internal and external factors cause the fall of the greatset empire ever. Nevertheless it stood until 1453, being the western civilization it´s legacy.

[Zarax]

So, what would you put ingame as hypothetical triple alliance against Rome (meaning powers that would not consider fighting each other before the romans are destroyed)? Please consider that there is nor Epirus or Numidia in XGM and by Gauls I mean the XGM equivalent of the Aedui.

Here are some possible choices:

Carthage - Gauls - Germans
Carthage - Gauls - Iberians
Carthage - Gauls - Pontus
Carthage - Gauls - Parthia
Carthage - Gauls - one of the Diadochii
Carthage - Pontus - Parthia (even though this would mean goodbye AI Seleucids)
Carthage - Macedonia - Seleucids (this actually is a plausible choice as these powers had good relationships to each other, practically allies imho)

[Maion Maroneios]

Carthage - Gauls - one of the Diadochii
:yes:

Maion

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

So, what would you put ingame as hypothetical triple alliance against Rome (meaning powers that would not consider fighting each other before the romans are destroyed)? Please consider that there is nor Epirus or Numidia in XGM and by Gauls I mean the XGM equivalent of the Aedui.

Here are some possible choices:

Carthage - Gauls - Germans
Carthage - Gauls - Iberians
Carthage - Gauls - Pontus
Carthage - Gauls - Parthia
Carthage - Gauls - one of the Diadochii
Carthage - Pontus - Parthia (even though this would mean goodbye AI Seleucids)
Carthage - Macedonia - Seleucids (this actually is a plausible choice as these powers had good relationships to each other, practically allies imho)

Carthage - Macedonia - Seleucids seems the most plausible choice

[Mediolanicus]

I would go for : "Carthage - Gauls - Pontus".

But for game playing reasons "Carthage - Gauls - one of the Diadochii" might be better.

[Zarax]

Well, Pontus is one half-diadochii anyway, their roster is right there.

[Βελισάριος]

Nope, we'd speak a strange, primitive guttural dialect, that would make us all sound angry.

So it'd be close to German

Well, Germanic, if you want to be picky.

And SwissBarbar, I have to disagree with you. To organise an ambush of that scale it would take nothing less than a military Genius. Remember Hannibal organised several ambushes himself, one of them was, if I recall, the largest ambush in recorded history.
Don't get me wrong, between Arminius and Hannibal I'd pick the Carthaginian general on any rainy Sunday, but that doesn't undermine Arminius' accomplishment in the least.
And simply because Cannae was on a larger scale doesn't mean Teutoburg did not have a great impact. It drove the Emperor nigh mad.

And as for the alliance, I'd go with Carthage-Macedonia-Seleucids... simply because you couldn't get the Germanic tribes to ally each other, let alone other factions.

[Cbvani]

I agree. But i want to point out that many historians says there was no fall of Roman Empire only a change. The date of the fall is also hugely controversial. Other then that hundreds of of internal and external factors cause the fall of the greatset empire ever. Nevertheless it stood until 1453, being the western civilization it´s legacy.

There was a fall. Western communications and trade collapsed.
Also, technically the empire didn't properly fall until the death of the Czar of russia, Depending on how you measure the empire.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

There was a fall. Western communications and trade collapsed.


I do believe there was a fall but i´m just pointing out that there´re some who believe it did not fall or that the correct date is not 476. As for communication and trade, i think we can agree that at 476 the situation was extremely poor, in fact sea trade was completely controled by the Vandals.

Also, technically the empire didn't properly fall until the death of the Czar of russia, Depending on how you measure the empire.

You´re right about this. My apologies

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

There was a fall. Western communications and trade collapsed.
Also, technically the empire didn't properly fall until the death of the Czar of russia, Depending on how you measure the empire.

I do believe there was a fall but i´m just pointing out that there´re some who believe it did not fall or that the correct date is not 476. As for communication and trade, i think we can agree that at 476 the situation was extremely poor, in fact sea trade was completely controled by the Vandals.

As for the Czar of russia.
You´re right, my apologies

[Βελισάριος]

...Also, technically the empire didn't properly fall until the death of the Czar of russia, Depending on how you measure the empire.

You mean Czar Simeon II of Bulgaria if we're to get technical.

[Recoil]

Guerilla tactics or otherwise, Teutoburg forest is a victory the likes of Cannae, I daresay... for its impact on history and culture, even to this day. Not only did it halt Roman expansion, but it made Germanic tribes later on even bolder. It gave us the expression we use today "to fall on one's sword" and it gave the histories one of its most colourful quotes: "Varus, give me back my legions!" Augustus nearly lost hold of his sanity, the numbers of the three legions that were decimated were never again used. So imagine the impact this had on Roman military pride.

Had Arminius afterwards managed to unite the Germanic tribes, then... vee'd all be shpeaking German today, ja?

i was under the impression that 'to fall on ones sword' was simply known since many commanders killed themselves in defeat/ shame, not simply because of the teutoburger ambush. also, since a lot of people speak english...which is in itself derived from germanic origins....we are speaking zee german! :beam:


but back on topic, i reckon ambitious romans were definitely the republics worst enemy- perhaps you can mod characters in your own mod so that they rebel against rome and try to take rome?

[brandt]

but back on topic, i reckon ambitious romans were definitely the republics worst enemy- perhaps you can mod characters in your own mod so that they rebel against rome and try to take rome?

I think that's a good idea, but it should only be triggered when rome is not in immedeate danger from foreign powers. I think several conditions should be fulfilled before a character rebels:
1, Marian reforms have taken place
2, Only succesfull generals can rebel
3, No foreign army must be in the vicinity of the Italian peninsula

As for my two cents about Rome's worst enemies:

I'd have to say slaves and pirates :whip:

[Zarax]

Err, no thanks, this would be just re-making vanilla, plus we're on the brink of ditching the roman rebels from XGM due to their uselessness.

[Cyclops]

I'm guessing you never heard of Arminius, then.

Yep, ex-auxilia? He surprised a pencil pusher in a swamp on the frontier.


So you obviously never heard of the Cimbri and Teutones incursions into Italy. They wiped out a few legions.

I heard of them. They went OK at Arausio against a divided command with squabbling praetors, on the frontier. There's a pattern forming here.


Rome was pissing its pants, for them it seemed like Brennus had returned as a German.

Yes exactly like Brennus returned, except they didn't take Rome, and they were exterminated.

The Germans never won a fair fight against the Romans. As I posted earlier, they fought for the Romans as often as they fought against them, so I think they don't qualify as "greatest enemy" material.

Interesting call about the Etruscans btw, just not in the EB period.

[Βελισάριος]

I still say you're ignoring the impact that the Germanic tribes had on the Roman ethos, but pursuing this argument here will be as futile as discussing the end of Knights of the Old Republic II.

However your point that the Germanic tribes fought both for and against the Romans does make a valid point and if you will kindly look above I already said the tribes would not have been such a big enemy in EB times because they were not united.

Case closed.

[Frostwulf]

During the EB time frame I would have to say Carthage and potentially the Greeks. The Teutons, Cimbri and Ambrones could have caused havoc had they headed south instead of west, but it is very doubtful they would have defeated Rome. The only other Germans of the time that might have caused problems would have been the Suebi under Ariovistus. Who knows what would have happened had Caesar chosen to go for Dacia instead. Would Ariovistus have been able to take on Rome later on as his power and warriors grew? As with the TCA, very doubtful.

The Germans ambushed a few incompetents on the frontier but never ever won a stand up fight against a Roman army. Ever. I guess this depends on what you consider a stand up fight. What about the battle of Noreia Where the consul Carbo tried to ambush the Teutons and Cimbri but failed and lost most of his army.

[Scipio Asiaticus]

Most certainly at any one point in time all these groups would have been a danger to the Roman Way. I would like to add the ancient Britons, the Romans went out of their way to destroy the Celts. They feared the druids, they took an army to Anglesey in North Wales, but Boudicca changed their plan when she sacked Colchester and London. The Romans built Legionary Fortresses at Isca(Caerleon) and Deva(Chester) to keep the Celts in order. Then later the Picts caused them a similiar headache, hence Hadrian's and the Antonine Walls. It is considered that these walls may have been constructed to keep his Legionnaire's busy, to stop trouble.
Wales and Scotland are hilly at best, but also very mountainous and the Roman way of large flat battlefields would always put them at disadvantage this way.

[mikil100]

I agree with whoever said whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

THe only true enemy that posed a threat to rome after the wars with Carthage was Rome itself, but if you have to choose a unified, organized group of people, I would choose the Carthaginians. The amount of time the Romans spent fighting them is longer than the time fighting anyone else, I believe.

[Cyclops]

... I guess this depends on what you consider a stand up fight. What about the battle of Noreia Where the consul Carbo tried to ambush the Teutons and Cimbri but failed and lost most of his army.

Call me crazy but I'd guess it was an ambush? Gone horribly wrong by the sound of things.

Trying to out-smart a barbarian way out on the frontier is like arguing with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I agree with you that in the EB timeframe (especially since I guess most games don't make it past 200BC) Carthage is it.

Is it possible to "Vanilla Rome-ize" the Carthies? Here's a stab at it.

Carthage City is the Senate faction, with Sacred band units and cheap reliable citizen levies. The minor factions can be awarded the Sacred Band units for succesful mission completion.

Barcids get their missions focussed on Spain and ultimately southern Gaul. Special units might include elite Gallic and Iberian mercenaries as well as the usual Carthie spread (maybe they get exclsuive use of the Loricati scutari and heavy Iberian lancers?).

There'd be an African focussed faction, and then an "Island" faction focussed on Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia and ultimately southern Italy. One might have extra Numidian types available, the other might get more Greek and italic elites.

Maybe the Slave revolts could be modded into the Mercenary war, or minor wars with Greek city states like Syracuse. If you're cutting down the map, then Syracuse could be a really cool faction of its own.

[Cyclops]

I agree with whoever said whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

I believe it was Neitsche, and he was completely bananas. A stroke may not kill you but its not going to make you superman.

[seienchin]

In the Time of EB I would also say Carthago because they were the only Empire, who was interested in the lands the romans held. :book:
By the way the biggest enemy the romans ever had, where of course the germanic tribes. They caused the fall of the western Empire by constant warfare and by making the romans depending on their strength. Germany was densely populated as modern studies show so practically they were the only ones having the manstrength to threat the romans.
Oh by the way the Ostgoths caused the greatest roman defeat ever at adrianopel. An dead Emperor and nearly all of the mobile forces of the eastern Empire crashed. Unlike Cannae it had a big effect on history.

[Frostwulf]

Call me crazy but I'd guess it was an ambush? Gone horribly wrong by the sound of things. Of course it went bad, the TCA were ready for it and then had a "stand up" battle and won, both sides were ready for the battle its not like the Romans were surprised.

So what do you consider a "stand up fight"?

In my opinion the Romans were simply superior to the Germans and Celts they came against. The Romans had better tactics and were generally better armed and won the vast majority of the time while usually outnumbered. After the Celts sacked Rome they really were not a threat as compared with others, Rome could have dealt with them even with their militia/conscript armies.


Oh by the way the Ostgoths caused the greatest roman defeat ever at adrianopel. An dead Emperor and nearly all of the mobile forces of the eastern Empire crashed. Unlike Cannae it had a big effect on history.There are others such as:
"According to the historian Eutropius, the forces of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius battled against the Marcomannic confederation for three years at the fortress of Carnuntum in Pannonia. He compared the war and Marcus Aurelius' success against the Marcomanni and their allies to the Punic Wars. The comparison was fair in that this war marked a turning point and had significant Roman defeats. It began in 166 and lasted to Marcus Aurelius's death in 180, involving the unheard-of defeats and the death of two Praetorian Guard commanders. It was in fact only a limited success since from the next century onwards the Danube was the main Roman battlefront until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century."

[seienchin]

The romans werent better armed only more consequent. They were kind of uniformed, while celts and germanic warriors weare the armes they bought themselves and fought in kind of a mob formation :laugh4:
I think thats the reason, why rome was so afraid after the battle in the teutoburger wald. Because gemanic tribes started to fight like "civilized" countries. But the blades of the celtics were as deadly as their roman counterparts and the germanic axes and swords around 300 were probalby even deadlier then there roman counterparts.

[Cyclops]

Of course it went bad, the TCA were ready for it and then had a "stand up" battle and won, both sides were ready for the battle its not like the Romans were surprised.

So what do you consider a "stand up fight"?

Actually I am being a little faecetious, my original point was to distinguish Hannibal, who won multiple victories against superior number on Roman home territory, against the Germans who won a couple of battles on or over the frontier (Arausio was in a newly formed province, Noreia was in an allies territory, Teutoburger wald was in a supposedly allied territory). I think its a fair test if you can win "away" as well as "at home".

Thank you for informing me about Noreia, its an interesting precursor battle in the Cimbrian war that I knew little about. Is there a source for it on-line? I'm just getting dusty old Mommsen or some bogus wiki-military history.


In my opinion the Romans were simply superior to the Germans and Celts they came against. The Romans had better tactics and were generally better armed and won the vast majority of the time while usually outnumbered.

I completely agree. the Romans were able to organise their forces in a way the Germans could not. Certainly the Romans respected the Germans as individual fighting men, and eventually included them in their forces in large numbers.

After the EB period, with the collapse in the west, the Romans were unable to organise any army, other than by hiring germans, so that made it easy for the Germans to take whatever portions they could from one another. I have this theory about the saxons in britain, but its all a bit wooly atm.


After the Celts sacked Rome they really were not a threat as compared with others, Rome could have dealt with them even with their militia/conscript armies.

I agree again, I mentioned earlier that after the sack of Rome by the Celts (which is outside the EB period) that the story was a progress from the Po to the Clyde, pretty much one way. Once again, the Romans respected them as fearsome individuals (especially the naked ones) but their lack of success or even sustained hostility in the EB period cannot justify the epithet "worst enemy".


There are others such as:
"According to the historian Eutropius, the forces of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius battled against the Marcomannic confederation for three years at the fortress of Carnuntum in Pannonia. He compared the war and Marcus Aurelius' success against the Marcomanni and their allies to the Punic Wars. The comparison was fair in that this war marked a turning point and had significant Roman defeats. It began in 166 and lasted to Marcus Aurelius's death in 180, involving the unheard-of defeats and the death of two Praetorian Guard commanders. It was in fact only a limited success since from the next century onwards the Danube was the main Roman battlefront until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century."

Very interesting, but outside our period.

I think the historian is getting a little excited if he compares a 14-year border pacification (which left the map unchanged) with the Punic wars (which are self-evidently and universally aknowledged as a turning point in world history).

I do not follow the logic that says a war in the alps in 180 AD was a limited success because two centuries later the empire was over-run by steppe peoples.

The later pressure on the Danube was not exclusively German. I'd say it was primarily driven by the steppe peoples.

At the time of the Western Empire's fall, I'd guess the worst enemy would have been the Huns (the one foe against whom Goth, German and Roman were prepared to combine), or the Persians (who continued to hammer the east until the coming of the Prophet).

The Germans were often Rome's ally, and in fact sustained and renewed parts of the empire (as foederati, legionaries, even as Western Emperors in the person of Charlemagne) in a way hardly consistent with the epithet "worst enemy".

Maybe at the time of Varus the Germans were seen as the number one foe? I don't think so though, there were also Partians to consider, and to fear.

[mikil100]

I believe it was Neitsche, and he was completely bananas. A stroke may not kill you but its not going to make you superman.

But we're talking of history, and in a sense, you get a stroke and you may learn to eat healthier (if it was a clot, ect...) The Romans learned to adapt, and it does seem like when they aren't fighting outside enemies, they fought themselves.

[soup_alex]

I believe it was Neitsche, and he was completely bananas. A stroke may not kill you but its not going to make you superman.
Ahem,
"You had best be trolling", sir.

Also, how exactly do we define a "stand-up fight" if not on terms acceptable to the Romans? Just because some barbarians preferred (?) to fight from ambush does not guarantee that their method of warfare was inferior, only different; just as the parthians' predisposition to fight with bow from horseback doesn't make them less capable of winning wars than any other nation. A Roman loss from anything but a "stand-up fight" doesn't necessarily mean that their adversaries were "cheating" (although they no doubt chose to see it this way at the time, sore losers that they were), more likely it was a Roman inability to adapt its tactics.

Not that you don't raise a fair point here and there! but provocative statements like the above (accusation that barbarians "never won a stand up fight") probably do more to undermine your arguments than support them.



Now, I'm going to duck out of this Big Boys History Discussion humbly as I may, as I don't feel qualified to comment further... and for my bit, I vote Carthage for the Republic's greatest foe (Hanno, you bloody clart!)

[Cyclops]

Ahem,
"You had best be trolling", sir.

I take mikil100's point about learning from your defeats, but the principle that "anything that doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is simply claptrap, and I believe Nietzsche (please forgive my clumsy variant spellings) did suffer from mental ilness, which is no laughing matter.


Also, how exactly do we define a "stand-up fight" if not on terms acceptable to the Romans? Just because some barbarians preferred (?) to fight from ambush does not guarantee that their method of warfare was inferior, only different; just as the parthians' predisposition to fight with bow from horseback doesn't make them less capable of winning wars than any other nation. A Roman loss from anything but a "stand-up fight" doesn't necessarily mean that their adversaries were "cheating" (although they no doubt chose to see it this way at the time, sore losers that they were), more likely it was a Roman inability to adapt its tactics.

Not that you don't raise a fair point here and there! but provocative statements like the above (accusation that barbarians "never won a stand up fight") probably do more to undermine your arguments than support them.

You're quite right and Frostwulf has correctly pulled me up on the same point, I went too far in saying the Germans never won a fair fight. I meant to say they never won a fair fight in the Roman heartland like Hannibal did. They did win fights against the Romans (fair and foul) on or beyond the Roman frontier, and were part of many wins under Roman leadership.


Now, I'm going to duck out of this Big Boys History Discussion humbly as I may, as I don't feel qualified to comment further... and for my bit, I vote Carthage for the Republic's greatest foe (Hanno, you bloody clart!)

In the end we all seem to agree, Hannibal is the big bad wolf. Whats a clart?

[Ravenic]

In my opinion Carthage was probably Rome's worst enemy, or more precisely their arch-nemesis. The struggle between Rome and Carthage marked the struggle between two opposing cultures and empires for pre-eminence in the Western world. The Germans and certainly the Parthians never represented an actual threat to Rome itself beyond pure border skirmishes (if we talk in terms of Republican to early-Imperial era at least).

The Gauls, while initially dangerous triumphed over an antiquated and weakly formed army that existed in Rome's formative years. Rome never would've been sacked in the 300's if Polybian, or perhaps even Camillan legions had been around to oppose them. After their one early (and admittedly impressive) victory they never formed a true threat to Roman existance, and with their expulsion from Northern Italy altogether it took only the initiative of a cunning man with a handful of legions to conquer them all in the span of a few years.

The 'Empire' of Mithridates is something of a laughable entry into this contest because Mithridates simply never won any major battles. The only reason he was able to do what he did was turmoil caused by the Maria-Sulla intrigues, atop of others. Lucullus came, he saw, he conquered, then Sulla came, he saw, he conquered. Whenever the Romans turned their attentions away Mithridates would spring up, but as soon as they cleared their plates he was beat back down like an errant child only to die in obscurity in the Crimea if I remember correctly.

The fact that Carthage came so close to defeating Rome, and did so even after losing one war is very telling. The further fact is that upstart Kingdoms like Pontus and Barbarian hordes could not defeat Rome in its Republic and early Imperial years, and the latter only succeeded in doing so after many, many years of Rome rotting from the inside out once the legions had become tired shadows of what they once were, and once the name 'Roman' had become prostituted and cheapened to the point of where it meant nothing. In the late Empire there was simply no patriotism left, and perhaps that can ultimately be ascribed to 'Why the Romans fell'.

As a final analysis of the Second Punic War you could argue that Hannibal and Carthage's loss were a result of politicing within their ranks, which the Romans were bereft of. When the Romans lost a fleet their citizenary would donate to build a new one, they'd elect dictators to defeat Hannibal, and ultimately went on to become what is arguably the greatest Empire in history. The Punic side of things, on the other hand, had trouble even sending supplies to Hannibal because half of the ruling body back home wanted him to fail in the first place. Had these situations been reversed than the world would've turned out differently.

So all of that is why I suggest Carthage to the original poster as the worst (and certainly bitterest!) of Rome's enemies. Besides themselves of course...but since I believe the OP was looking to create a mod based around foreign factions and not Romans destroying themselves I think Carthage better serves the purpose.

[soup_alex]

I take mikil100's point about learning from your defeats, but the principle that "anything that doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is simply claptrap, and I believe Nietzsche (please forgive my clumsy variant spellings) did suffer from mental ilness, which is no laughing matter.

I still think there's something in it, though you're perhaps not to take it too literally under certain circumstances (although Nietzsche would have it differently, bless him). Also, I hadn't known before now that this motto(?) was one of Nietzsche's (though it doesn't surprise me, on reflection: I must have gotten fed up with Zarathustra before those explicit words), or even that he was definitely mentally ill, which shows you what I know.


You're quite right and Frostwulf has correctly pulled me up on the same point, I went too far in saying the Germans never won a fair fight. I meant to say they never won a fair fight in the Roman heartland like Hannibal did. They did win fights against the Romans (fair and foul) on or beyond the Roman frontier, and were part of many wins under Roman leadership.
Apologies for taking your words the wrong way. I wonder if the Germans (or anyone else apart from the Celts and Carthage for that matter) couldn't have made significant incursions into Roman Italy if they'd been united under a strong head and felt that there was profit in such an invasion?


In the end we all seem to agree, Hannibal is the big bad wolf. Whats a clart?
A clart is somebody who disbands your navy, refuses to pay mercenaries who can potentially hold your empire to ransom, and denies reinforcements to one of the greatest generals (and dare I say, dudes*) to have ever lived after years in the field on enemy soil. I might be overlooking some historical context here (I honestly don't know, THX ROME for burning Carthage), and I suppose I am a Barcid; but you must agree ("hindsight is 20/20" duly considered) that under most circumstances responsibility for the above would put you pretty firmly in the clart/git/eejit/arse/fool camp.


*"When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this, and said: 'What would you have said if you had defeated me?' 'In that case', replied Hannibal, 'I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus - in fact, before all other generals!'"—Livy, "Hannibal and Scipio: BROS 4 LYF"

[roadrunner]

The Germans ambushed a few incompetents on the frontier but never ever won a stand up fight against a Roman army. Ever. Also at least as many germans fought for Rome as against it, hardly sworn enemies.

The battle of Arausio (105 BC) was a stand up fight where the Romans were slaughtered to the man. If the Teutones hadn't been gone off to fight Gauls first before marching into Italy Rome might've been sacked once again. Was all the reason Rome needed to enact the Marian reforms...

[Husker98]

id have the gauls would have been seen as the biggest threat seeing that they had sacked rome in about 300bc (or close that that i thik it was about 330ish bc) but not actually a big threat to wipe out the republic if ya get me?
and the romans had a huge fear of gallic tribes if you mean around that early time of aound 272 bc when around EB starts

That's solid i'm gunna say carthage though just cuz no other general destroyed so many Roman armies in the field, Attila was good, Mithridates was good, and Arminius too, but hannibal was the only real general that rome ever feared, they feared him so much that they chased him to asia minor to make sure he could no longer hinder them.

[Macilrille]

I am too busy atm to respond properly to the many issues awaiting my comment, but in brief.

Res Publica Romana was Res Publica Romana's worst enemy. I have made a post elaborating this in the "Fall of Rome" thread.

Second is Carthage, in the time frame of EB that is, the struggle with Carthage was literally a struggle for survival, and for power in the central-western part of the Med, when the Romans had won that they ruled surpreme and could dictate events in all of the Med, though some Diadochii were a tad slow in discovering that and had to have object lessons. Nothing threatened Rome's survival in Republican times after Carthage. I have 10 pages of this in Danish should you be able to read this ;-)

Off again, be back with a vengeance later.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I am too busy atm to respond properly to the many issues awaiting my comment, but in brief.

Res Publica Romana was Res Publica Romana's worst enemy. I have made a post elaborating this in the "Fall of Rome" thread.

Second is Carthage, in the time frame of EB that is, the struggle with Carthage was literally a struggle for survival, and for power in the central-western part of the Med, when the Romans had won that they ruled surpreme and could dictate events in all of the Med, though some Diadochii were a tad slow in discovering that and had to have object lessons. Nothing threatened Rome's survival in Republican times after Carthage. I have 10 pages of this in Danish should you be able to read this ;-)

Off again, be back with a vengeance later.

I agree with all of what you said. Of course, the germans won some battles but, undoubtly, they were destroyed most of the times:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:. The diadochii were never a threat. Gauls were a pian in the:furious3: but after they were pushed out of italy they were no longer a major threat. Phartia and their cowordly tactics were a fierce enemy but not much of a threat for Rome itself. But Hannibal was a major problem, in fact his chances of beating the romans only ended after the battle of Metauros.

[soup_alex]

in fact his chances of beating the romans only ended after the battle of Metauros.
No, Hannibal's conquest of Rome was doomed by that bloody shower Hanno (whichever Hanno he was), much as Rome was repeatedly "doomed" by successions of incompetent, blundering and self-serving senators etc., much as my own nation is shamed by its pathetic foreign office.

[Βελισάριος]

Has anyone stopped to analyse the fact that Germania was one of the few lands that the Romans never conquered?

[Ravenic]

That is true Burebista, and as such offers the Germans a modicum of respect as well as their own unique place in the hierarchy of Rome's enemies. However, as far as 'worst' enemies go they were never a threat to the Republic in and of itself. They represented a threat to the area immediately around the Rhine and that was it really...even the Teutones and Cimbri could only maraude around until the Romans got their crap together and certainly were only able to penetrate into Northern Italy at that time because that was the Roman frontier rather than the edge of Germania.

[Macilrille]

Yes Burebista, I am a great fan of the Germans (being Danish), and I am atm conducting as much of an analysis of Germanicus vs Arminus as time permits me. The Germans were fierce warriors, but not organised enough to actually threaten the Republic. Carthage did (though it is a question whether Hannibal could have subdued Rome itself, I find it more likely that had Rome lost 2. Punic their fate would have been similar to Carthage's own eventually). The Diadochi mifgt have if they had pulled their act and state together, but they did not. In the communication between autopoietic systems Rome's proved the strongest.

[seienchin]

Why does every one only the romans as the republic and the early empire...
The germanic tribes destroyed the western empire. They sacked Rome several times, they destroyed augusta treverorum, which was the third biggest city in the roman world that day, they overran gaul, italy, spain and afrika.

[Macilrille]

seienchin, read the thread's name and you will know the short of why. If you also take the time to check why the original poster posted the question you will learn that he wishes to make a mod within the EB timeframe. Now that could concievably be why we talk Res Publica Romana, and why it is often an idea to read the entire thread before posting. If you wish to talk Germans, there is another thread dealing with the fall of the empire, enjoy yourself there, it is long and many-facetted, it may be that all points are already covered, but perhaps you can add something new, if so I encourage your posting it.

Enjoy ;-)

Edit, yes I know I am an insufferably arrogant and high-headed bastard, but it does annoy me a tad with people only reading the last two or three posts in a thread then posting something already covered and/or irrelevant.

If you feel slighted seienchin I apologise, and I welcome your participation, but please take time to read the entire thread before posting- that goes for all, including myself.

[Cyclops]

Has anyone stopped to analyse the fact that Germania was one of the few lands that the Romans never conquered?

Actually they did conquer it, they just didn't hold all of it. They did end up with several provinces called Germania.

..and what of Ireland? Maybe the Goidels were Rome's greatest enemy.

Also the Olmecs. Rome failed to defeat the Olmecs in a single battle.

[seienchin]

seienchin, read the thread's name and you will know the short of why. If you also take the time to check why the original poster posted the question you will learn that he wishes to make a mod within the EB timeframe. Now that could concievably be why we talk Res Publica Romana, and why it is often an idea to read the entire thread before posting. If you wish to talk Germans, there is another thread dealing with the fall of the empire, enjoy yourself there, it is long and many-facetted, it may be that all points are already covered, but perhaps you can add something new, if so I encourage your posting it.

Enjoy ;-)

Edit, yes I know I am an insufferably arrogant and high-headed bastard, but it does annoy me a tad with people only reading the last two or three posts in a thread then posting something already covered and/or irrelevant.

If you feel slighted seienchin I apologise, and I welcome your participation, but please take time to read the entire thread before posting- that goes for all, including myself.
:drama2: :drama2: :drama2:
I read the first post. :egypt:
Dont know where my post is off topic.
Destroying the empire few hundred years later proves, that the germanic tribes even in the EB timeframe would be a great thread to the republic if united. :juggle2:
Whatever :2thumbsup:

[BurningEGO]

The biggest enemy of the romans? I would say the Turks. Either that or the Arabs - after Justinian managed to grab most of the former roman empire, the bastards overwhelmed the empire, making all the cash Justinian wasted in such costly adventures be for nothing. Not to say that they conquered pretty much everything except for the balkans/anatolia/south italy. Which made the roman empire advance slowly towards its destruction in 1453.

Of course that is a bit quite out of EB's timeframe. But as a previous poster said, the greatest threat to rome, was rome itself. Apart from a couple talented leaders, Rome was led by ignorant fools who cared for nothing except themselves.

One can even go as far as saying that the romans were only destroyed because of that. Ranging from the times of the barbarian invasions to Manzikert and even to the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders.

But if you really want an external enemy, of EB's timeframe, then definetely Carthage. They were the only ones who could have actually defeated Rome. The Seleucids were also formidable oponents, but due to their diplomatic ego of alienating pretty much everyone in greece, they never managed to do much during the Syrian war. Apart from being absurdly defeated in Thermopylae.

As for Parthia, they did manage to cause some nasty surprises to rome (poor Crassus), but i doubt they were that big of a threat to rome itself. Oh, and about the Germans - they were never conquered, but does that alone make them "rome's biggest enemy"? Rome never conquered China either, you know.

[Macilrille]

Pasted from "When was Rome doomed"-thread where I originally posted it.

End of Res Publica Romana is something I have just done a lot of research in and can say for certain what caused, but remember that the end of The Republic was not the end of Rome.

Rome's constitution was made for a city state, like hundreds of others around the Med at this time. It could not cope with empire.

Problem was by and large the senate.

Manpower in Italy and thus the potential pool of recruits for the læegions was dwindling, badly because the smallholders were away warring all the time. Before they had been able to war some months, then return to their farms, Cincinnatus is an example in point. As Rome gained overseas provinces it had to keep soldiers in the field year-round and they could thus not till their land. This went fallow and was to some extent taken over by magnates who tilled it using slaves. Not the Latifundia system, this was not invented yet, nor did smallholders ever disappear entirely from Italy as some ancient writers ascertain in their rethorics. For they recognised the problem as well.

One of the Scipii (I forget which) considered proposing agrarian reform in 140 bc, but was dissuaded byt his friends. Thus Tiberius Gracchus was the one to propose it in 133 bc- and pay the price. It is important to note that he proposed it as a Plebejian Tribue and to the people, just as his brother Gaius did 10 years later when he continued and even radicalised Tiberius' policy of agrarian reform and curbing senatorial power. He too paid the price, but these two had taught the people that it had power. And at this point the Plebs of Rome was numerous and volatile- it would become worse. Note that the Senate (who would loose use of Ager Publicus) resisted agrarian reforms intensely, just as they did enfranchisment (? Giving citizenship) of Italy, leading to the Social War.

Now to another, seemingly unrelated, subject. The Cursus Honorum, as Rome got more and more provinces and riches poured to Rome(Roman aristocrats) making a name for yourself- as was necessary in politics- became more and more expensive. Building projects, Gladiatorial games and free grain became a necessity. To name an example Caesar was deep in dept to Crassus from this. This means that the aristocrats greed became larger, they needed money if they were to make a name for themselves, and they could only pay back those debts by propraetorship or proconsulship, which would allow them to skim the incomes from the province. Even honest men were caught in this trap, for all of them had generations of great men and expectations on their shoulders, they HAD to climb Cursus Honorum and do great things. Competetion thus became more and more intense and ruthless, end more and more expencive. Catilinia was a point in case, he failed and was so indebted that he had basically no other choice then try a coup. Now, remember this if you please.

Next step towards destruction was taken by Marius, he did not in fact professionalise the army as has been often ascertained, the average service time remained 6-7 years as it had been through all 2nd century BC. What he did was enroll everyone without considering the limits on income. Others had in fact done this to some extent, but he got a massive wave of volunteers who suddenly saw prospects for land when service was over. Rural Plebs, not urban, made up Marius' new army and indeed it was loyal only to him.

This brings us to good old Sulla, senate gave him command against Mithidrates of Pontus, and he wanted it cause Asia was very rich- much loot- People gave command to Marius, so Sulla used his army, made on the new model and loyal only to him, to march on Rome itself!!! and enforce the Senate's decision.
Marians took power while he was gone and repressed his followers and he exacted bloody revenge when he returned, with HIS army- loyal only to him, gained dictatorship, whith his army, gave them land and reformed some laws, etc. he then resigned and died.

The one to learn all these lessons, about the power of the people and the power of a private army was Gaius Julius Caesar, intelligent and ambitious, he used all the lessons learned by looking at Gracchii, marius, Sulla, and he gained absolute power. The Republic was dead.

But what killed it?

As should be evident, the depletion of recruits caused by the Senate's reluctance to agrarian reform and enfranchisment of Italy led to the recruiting of private armies that were loyal only to their general as only he could reward them sufficiently with land. This was one "branch of the cause".

Ambitious patricians had to spend more and more as the competetion in Cursus Honorum and provincial commands grew more intense. At the end people like Sulla and Caesar were willing to do anything, genocide, turning on Rome itself, proscriptions in Rome... to gain power, fame and a name. The Senate's stubborn resistance to reforms handed these ambitious men the ultimate tool, private armies, and with them, they killed Res Publica Romana.

All of this, recruitment for legions and the Cursus Honorum, as well as the way conquered land was shared was part of the constitution of Rome, the CITY STATE constitution that could not cope with empire and the riches it brought while taking the soldiers from the land.

Hope that helped.
In case you wish to learn more and in more detail, here is some literature on the matter.

Badian, E.: Roman Imperialism in The Late Republic, Oxford, 1968.
Beard, Mary & Crawford, Michael: Rome in The Late Republic, London, 1999.
(a) Brunt, Peter: Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London, 1971.
(b): Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971,


Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC, Oxford, 1979.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

The biggest enemy of the romans? I would say the Turks. Either that or the Arabs - after Justinian managed to grab most of the former roman empire, the bastards overwhelmed the empire, making all the cash Justinian wasted in such costly adventures be for nothing. Not to say that they conquered pretty much everything except for the balkans/anatolia/south italy. Which made the roman empire advance slowly towards its destruction in 1453.

Of course that is a bit quite out of EB's timeframe. But as a previous poster said, the greatest threat to rome, was rome itself. Apart from a couple talented leaders, Rome was led by ignorant fools who cared for nothing except themselves.

One can even go as far as saying that the romans were only destroyed because of that. Ranging from the times of the barbarian invasions to Manzikert and even to the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders.

But if you really want an external enemy, of EB's timeframe, then definetely Carthage. They were the only ones who could have actually defeated Rome. The Seleucids were also formidable oponents, but due to their diplomatic ego of alienating pretty much everyone in greece, they never managed to do much during the Syrian war. Apart from being absurdly defeated in Thermopylae.

As for Parthia, they did manage to cause some nasty surprises to rome (poor Crassus), but i doubt they were that big of a threat to rome itself. Oh, and about the Germans - they were never conquered, but does that alone make them "rome's biggest enemy"? Rome never conquered China either, you know.

Yeh, but much latter than justinian. I mean Arabs after they destroyed the sassanids ( 670dc) and the turks after Manzikert. I completely agree with you

[Frostwulf]

The romans werent better armed only more consequent. They were kind of uniformed, while celts and germanic warriors weare the armes they bought themselves and fought in kind of a mob formation Oops! I meant to put armored not armed. I would consider better armed in conjunction to the tactics of the Romans, the gladius for the formations they used, the spatha for their cavalry, etc.


Thank you for informing me about Noreia, its an interesting precursor battle in the Cimbrian war that I knew little about. Is there a source for it on-line? I'm just getting dusty old Mommsen or some bogus wiki-military history.Livy writes very little on it as does Strabo. Here is a link to Appian:
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_gallic_3.html#%A711


Once again, the Romans respected them as fearsome individuals (especially the naked ones) The stereotype of 'Celts' was generally the naked barbarian. If you are referring to the Gaesatae, the Romans were nervous of them, until they engaged them and crushed them; at Telamon it was the Insubres who turned out to be the real trouble.

As far as the Marcomannic Wars are concerned there is not to much I can say right now. I know it was a big problem at the time and the Romans lost quite a few soldiers. I will have to do some more reading on it.