Who were the roman republic's worst enemies?

[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. The diadochii were never a threat. Gauls were a pian in the 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.

I read the first post.
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.
Whatever

[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/...c_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.