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?
Printable View
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?
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.
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.....Quote:
Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.
Not to sound annoying but the title specifies Roman republic, not empire...
I still agree witheven for Republic...Quote:
Rome's worst enemy was, without a doubt, Rome itself.
Sulla, Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavian were romans, were not they?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarax
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.
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...Quote:
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.
Roma just swallowed them one by one...
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.
what about the epeirotes under pyrhuss?
I would think he was the Hannibal of his time for the romans
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.
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?
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..
Carthage. Hannibal was a beast on the battlefield.
That said, the greatest threat to Rome was the endless civil wars tearing it apart.
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.
Yes its a fair point about Hannibal. He bitchslapped the Romans all over their home turf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
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.
I guess vanilla has already done the "Rome as multiple factions" set-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
I was Republican Rome's wrost enemy! :smash:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
:clown:
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
I'm guessing you never heard of Arminius, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
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.
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.
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?
Nope, we'd speak a strange, primitive guttural dialect, that would make us all sound angry.
So it'd be close to German
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
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.