Who were the roman republic's worst enemies?

[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.

[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

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!


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 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.
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
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.