Who were the roman republic's worst enemies?

[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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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

[Subedei]

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

So it'd be close to German

Oh, 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.

[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.

[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.

[/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..

[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.
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."

[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.

[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!


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

[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 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.

[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?

[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.