Enemies of Roman Empire

[Meroveo92]

Hi all!! I'm new in the forum!! So, I'd like to ask your opinion about the peoples who attack the Empire: I think that the most civilizated peoples after the romans were the Persian and the Dacians, but they weren't so much strong for a full-scale victory against the romans; for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

[Primus Pilus]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

[Meroveo92]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

 

 

Yes right..I agree...but how that germanic people can't be submitted by Romans?? I know the battle of Teutoburg or Kalkriese, and I ask to myself: "Why they try again to submitt the parthian but not the German??" Of course I know that the German was organize in tribes, so they were more difficult to defeat and submitt, but if the Romans concetrated they troops against them, they could do the conquest of Germania Magna??

[JGolomb]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

I'm certainly not as well versed in this area as Primus, but Alessandro Barbero in his "The Day of the Barbarians", states: "The Persians had no wish to enter Roman territory and settle there; at most, they wanted to conquer the empire's rich eastern provinces. Here the clash was not between civilization and barbarians but between two civilizations that despised each other and had fought for centuries."

 

Barbero argues that in the mid-to-late 4th century AD "had an ambivalent attitude toward...barbarians." While the masses absolutely feared barbarians, the government looked at them as a resource to be used for war - sparing citizens who were increasingly turning away from careers in the army - to keep them working the land and generating revenue for the empire. "The barbarians were a potential resource that should not be wasted."

 

A few years before the Battle at Adrianople in 378, Emperor Valens allowed a mass immigration of barbarians across the Danube. In part, the barbarians would feed Valens growing army in the East - he was preparing for war against the Persians. In short, this immigration ultimately became an invasion, Valens abandoned his war against Persia and he was ultimately killed and his army was defeated at Adrianople.

 

So...that's all a long way of saying that the Empire's greatest enemy really probably depends on what timeframe you review. Could one argue that the Empire's greatest enemy was Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon? Clearly the Empire felt that Persia was a great threat (or perhaps it was considered an opportunity) in the 4th Century. And it's certainly hard to argue that the barbarians, as a whole, became the greatest enemy in the later years, and perhaps the most persistent throughout the Imperial Roman period.

[sylla]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

I'm certainly not as well versed in this area as Primus, but Alessandro Barbero in his "The Day of the Barbarians", states: "The Persians had no wish to enter Roman territory and settle there; at most, they wanted to conquer the empire's rich eastern provinces. Here the clash was not between civilization and barbarians but between two civilizations that despised each other and had fought for centuries."

 

Barbero argues that in the mid-to-late 4th century AD "had an ambivalent attitude toward...barbarians." While the masses absolutely feared barbarians, the government looked at them as a resource to be used for war - sparing citizens who were increasingly turning away from careers in the army - to keep them working the land and generating revenue for the empire. "The barbarians were a potential resource that should not be wasted."

 

A few years before the Battle at Adrianople in 378, Emperor Valens allowed a mass immigration of barbarians across the Danube. In part, the barbarians would feed Valens growing army in the East - he was preparing for war against the Persians. In short, this immigration ultimately became an invasion, Valens abandoned his war against Persia and he was ultimately killed and his army was defeated at Adrianople.

 

So...that's all a long way of saying that the Empire's greatest enemy really probably depends on what timeframe you review. Could one argue that the Empire's greatest enemy was Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon? Clearly the Empire felt that Persia was a great threat (or perhaps it was considered an opportunity) in the 4th Century. And it's certainly hard to argue that the barbarians, as a whole, became the greatest enemy in the later years, and perhaps the most persistent throughout the Imperial Roman period.

"Internal enemies" are difficult to asess, because it is usually hard to define which side was more "Roman" than the other; even Caesar couldn't have done what he did without the support of a huge proportion of the Roman population. In any case, Mereoveo's original question was about "other peoples".

 

"Barbarians" is just the Roman term for "aliens" : all aliens.

We all know that the city-state that Rome was at the early IV century BC conquered anything from the Atlantic to the Euphrates; irrespectively of their intended historical or moral justifications, that simply can' be explained by mere coincidence or perpetual self-defense.

 

There are very few absolutes in History, but one of them is that up to the early II century AD Rome attacked and conquered (or at least tried to) absolutely all its neighbors, including of course 100% of its allies and friends; even the Parthians were technically Roman allies (of Sulla) against Tigranes the Great.

Plainly, Rome was permanently attacking, even at the Hannibalic War.

Then, strictly speaking, it was Rome which was initially (virtually by definition) the enemy of any barbarian (ie, non-Roman), even the unknown ones.

 

Rome became an extremely efficient military machine quite early in its history and there is no evidence that any enemy ever became strong enough not to be ultimately defeated by the undivided attention of the Legions.

When and where the expansion of the Empire stopped, it was entirely explained by logistic reasons; the Empire was just too big and complex to grow any further (ie, the phase II of Luttwak).

Even so, there were repeated Roman attacks well beyond essentially all the established borders when and wherever the Romans were (or feel) strong enough to try, from Caledonia to Arabia Felix, at least up to Julian (not to talk about the re-conquest campaigns of Justinian, Heraclius and others).

 

"Germanic people" is too unspecific; virtually anything west to the Rhine and north to the Danube (or Dacia at most) from at least six or seven centuries; people then which have quite few things in common among them, besides the fact of being "Barbarians".

Instead of "Germanic peoples", we might then select the Huns, The Visigoths or the Vandals.

As military menaces and irrespectively of the specific timeframe, I suppose we may measure them by the objective damage they actually did to the Empire.

My personal choice would then be the Fourth Crusade; however, the Islamic Arab armies of the VII century were probably an even more formidable enemy.

Selecting exclusively from the Germanic peoples of the V century, I think the Visigoths did the worst damage.

Edited September 23, 2009 by sylla

[Meroveo92]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

I'm certainly not as well versed in this area as Primus, but Alessandro Barbero in his "The Day of the Barbarians", states: "The Persians had no wish to enter Roman territory and settle there; at most, they wanted to conquer the empire's rich eastern provinces. Here the clash was not between civilization and barbarians but between two civilizations that despised each other and had fought for centuries."

 

Barbero argues that in the mid-to-late 4th century AD "had an ambivalent attitude toward...barbarians." While the masses absolutely feared barbarians, the government looked at them as a resource to be used for war - sparing citizens who were increasingly turning away from careers in the army - to keep them working the land and generating revenue for the empire. "The barbarians were a potential resource that should not be wasted."

 

A few years before the Battle at Adrianople in 378, Emperor Valens allowed a mass immigration of barbarians across the Danube. In part, the barbarians would feed Valens growing army in the East - he was preparing for war against the Persians. In short, this immigration ultimately became an invasion, Valens abandoned his war against Persia and he was ultimately killed and his army was defeated at Adrianople.

 

So...that's all a long way of saying that the Empire's greatest enemy really probably depends on what timeframe you review. Could one argue that the Empire's greatest enemy was Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon? Clearly the Empire felt that Persia was a great threat (or perhaps it was considered an opportunity) in the 4th Century. And it's certainly hard to argue that the barbarians, as a whole, became the greatest enemy in the later years, and perhaps the most persistent throughout the Imperial Roman period.

"Internal enemies" are difficult to asess, because it is usually hard to define which side was more "Roman" than the other; even Caesar couldn't have done what he did without the support of a huge proportion of the Roman population. In any case, Mereoveo's original question was about "other peoples".

 

"Barbarians" is just the Roman term for "aliens" : all aliens.

We all know that the city-state that Rome was at the early IV century BC conquered anything from the Atlantic to the Euphrates; irrespectively of their intended historical or moral justifications, that simply can' be explained by mere coincidence or perpetual self-defense.

 

There are very few absolutes in History, but one of them is that up to the early II century AD Rome attacked and conquered (or at least tried to) absolutely all its neighbors, including of course 100% of its allies and friends; even the Parthians were technically Roman allies (of Sulla) against Tigranes the Great.

Plainly, Rome was permanently attacking, even at the Hannibalic War.

Then, strictly speaking, it was Rome which was initially (virtually by definition) the enemy of any barbarian (ie, non-Roman), even the unknown ones.

 

Rome became an extremely efficient military machine quite early in its history and there is no evidence that any enemy ever became strong enough not to be ultimately defeated by the undivided attention of the Legions.

When and where the expansion of the Empire stopped, it was entirely explained by logistic reasons; the Empire was just too big and complex to grow any further (ie, the phase II of Luttwak).

Even so, there were repeated Roman attacks well beyond essentially all the established borders when and wherever the Romans were (or feel) strong enough to try, from Caledonia to Arabia Felix, at least up to Julian (not to talk about the re-conquest campaigns of Justinian, Heraclius and others).

 

"Germanic people" is too unspecific; virtually anything west to the Rhine and north to the Danube (or Dacia at most) from at least six or seven centuries; people then which have quite few things in common among them, besides the fact of being "Barbarians".

Instead of "Germanic peoples", we might then select the Huns, The Visigoths or the Vandals.

As military menaces and irrespectively of the specific timeframe, I suppose we may measure them by the objective damage they actually did to the Empire.

My personal choice would then be the Fourth Crusade; however, the Islamic Arab armies of the VII century were probably an even more formidable enemy.

Selecting exclusively from the Germanic peoples of the V century, I think the Visigoths did the worst damage.

 

 

Thank you for your answer, very clearly and interest!

[marcus silanus]

Hi all!! I'm new in the forum!! So, I'd like to ask your opinion about the peoples who attack the Empire: I think that the most civilizated peoples after the romans were the Persian and the Dacians, but they weren't so much strong for a full-scale victory against the romans; for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

If we go to the very late 2nd Century BCE, the Cimbri and Teutones must rank surely as at least one of the most terrifying opponents of Rome. The defeat inflicted on the Republic at Arausio was at least as devastating as that of Cannae in terms of shear carnage on the day.

 

According to Strabo, the cruelty of the Cimbri stood out even in an age of religious practices distasteful generally to modern sensibilities. The hanging of prisoners over vast vats and slitting throats or disembowling to assist in predicting the outcome of a battle, must surely put these in the frame.

[Onegesius]

for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people.

 

While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west.

 

(Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

I'm certainly not as well versed in this area as Primus, but Alessandro Barbero in his "The Day of the Barbarians", states: "The Persians had no wish to enter Roman territory and settle there; at most, they wanted to conquer the empire's rich eastern provinces. Here the clash was not between civilization and barbarians but between two civilizations that despised each other and had fought for centuries."

 

Barbero argues that in the mid-to-late 4th century AD "had an ambivalent attitude toward...barbarians." While the masses absolutely feared barbarians, the government looked at them as a resource to be used for war - sparing citizens who were increasingly turning away from careers in the army - to keep them working the land and generating revenue for the empire. "The barbarians were a potential resource that should not be wasted."

 

A few years before the Battle at Adrianople in 378, Emperor Valens allowed a mass immigration of barbarians across the Danube. In part, the barbarians would feed Valens growing army in the East - he was preparing for war against the Persians. In short, this immigration ultimately became an invasion, Valens abandoned his war against Persia and he was ultimately killed and his army was defeated at Adrianople.

 

So...that's all a long way of saying that the Empire's greatest enemy really probably depends on what timeframe you review. Could one argue that the Empire's greatest enemy was Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon? Clearly the Empire felt that Persia was a great threat (or perhaps it was considered an opportunity) in the 4th Century. And it's certainly hard to argue that the barbarians, as a whole, became the greatest enemy in the later years, and perhaps the most persistent throughout the Imperial Roman period.

"Internal enemies" are difficult to asess, because it is usually hard to define which side was more "Roman" than the other; even Caesar couldn't have done what he did without the support of a huge proportion of the Roman population. In any case, Mereoveo's original question was about "other peoples".

 

"Barbarians" is just the Roman term for "aliens" : all aliens.

We all know that the city-state that Rome was at the early IV century BC conquered anything from the Atlantic to the Euphrates; irrespectively of their intended historical or moral justifications, that simply can' be explained by mere coincidence or perpetual self-defense.

 

There are very few absolutes in History, but one of them is that up to the early II century AD Rome attacked and conquered (or at least tried to) absolutely all its neighbors, including of course 100% of its allies and friends; even the Parthians were technically Roman allies (of Sulla) against Tigranes the Great.

Plainly, Rome was permanently attacking, even at the Hannibalic War.

Then, strictly speaking, it was Rome which was initially (virtually by definition) the enemy of any barbarian (ie, non-Roman), even the unknown ones.

 

Rome became an extremely efficient military machine quite early in its history and there is no evidence that any enemy ever became strong enough not to be ultimately defeated by the undivided attention of the Legions.

When and where the expansion of the Empire stopped, it was entirely explained by logistic reasons; the Empire was just too big and complex to grow any further (ie, the phase II of Luttwak).

Even so, there were repeated Roman attacks well beyond essentially all the established borders when and wherever the Romans were (or feel) strong enough to try, from Caledonia to Arabia Felix, at least up to Julian (not to talk about the re-conquest campaigns of Justinian, Heraclius and others).

 

"Germanic people" is too unspecific; virtually anything west to the Rhine and north to the Danube (or Dacia at most) from at least six or seven centuries; people then which have quite few things in common among them, besides the fact of being "Barbarians".

Instead of "Germanic peoples", we might then select the Huns, The Visigoths or the Vandals.

As military menaces and irrespectively of the specific timeframe, I suppose we may measure them by the objective damage they actually did to the Empire.

My personal choice would then be the Fourth Crusade; however, the Islamic Arab armies of the VII century were probably an even more formidable enemy.

Selecting exclusively from the Germanic peoples of the V century, I think the Visigoths did the worst damage.

 

 

Thank you for your answer, very clearly and interest!

 

 

 

The greatest threat was corrupt Emperors,(in the later empire) the barbarians made great headway after assaninations Stilicho,Ateius all because they had armchair Emperors with no military experiance, arrogance and jelousy

[guy]

The greatest threat was corrupt Emperors,(in the later empire) the barbarians made great headway after assaninations Stilicho,Ateius all because they had armchair Emperors with no military experiance, arrogance and jelousy

 

Agree!

 

I agree with Adrian Goldsworthy when he asserts that it was Rome's frequent and bloody civil wars that sapped the Empire's strength and led to its downfall. A stable Rome could have easily defeated any of its traditional enemies or, at least, defended itself against the many invasions.

 

Imagine, if you will, the amount of trained manpower and resources lost during conflicts between competing Roman emperors and the potential usurpers.

A properly led and united Rome would have presented an unbeatable force against any of its enemies.

 

However, there is one great forgotten and underestimated enemy to the Roman empire: disease. It was disease that destabilized the empire as much as anything else. Disease disrupted trade routes, depleted populations needed for agricultural production and distribution, and forced Rome to seek replacements from "barbarian" soldiers for its military weakened by disease and civil wars.

 

Social instability caused by disease and the incessant civil wars along with poor leadership weakened Rome to the point where an attacking force; e.g., the Goths or the Vandals, could easily sack Rome and permanently disupt the Empire.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[Centurion-Macro]

Definitely the Germanic tribes in the north. They were a constant battering ram on the Roman defenses on the Danube and were eventually the downfall of the Roman empire. They never stopped, they just got defeated over and over, no matter how many they lost. Eventually like water constantly dripping onto a stone, eventually the Romans cracked and the empire was in ruins.

I also think the Parthian's were quite formidable. They used to use arrows to destroy the Roman shield wall, then ride in with heavily armored horsemen and disintegrate the formation. They were very smart as well, which puts them near to the top of the list.

But I think that the Germanic tribes were the worst.

[Meroveo92]

The greatest threat was corrupt Emperors,(in the later empire) the barbarians made great headway after assaninations Stilicho,Ateius all because they had armchair Emperors with no military experiance, arrogance and jelousy

 

Agree!

 

I agree with Adrian Goldsworthy when he asserts that it was Rome's frequent and bloody civil wars that sapped the Empire's strength and led to its downfall. A stable Rome could have easily defeated any of its traditional enemies or, at least, defended itself against the many invasions.

 

Imagine, if you will, the amount of trained manpower and resources lost during conflicts between competing Roman emperors and the potential usurpers.

A properly led and united Rome would have presented an unbeatable force against any of its enemies.

 

However, there is one great forgotten and underestimated enemy to the Roman empire: disease. It was disease that destabilized the empire as much as anything else. Disease disrupted trade routes, depleted populations needed for agricultural production and distribution, and forced Rome to seek replacements from "barbarian" soldiers for its military weakened by disease and civil wars.

 

Social instability caused by disease and the incessant civil wars along with poor leadership weakened Rome to the point where an attacking force; e.g., the Goths or the Vandals, could easily sack Rome and permanently disupt the Empire.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Yes, but the imperialistc organization after the numerous conquest was necessary for the Repubblic. If only some stupid emperors don't destroy the resource of the Empire for a civile war...and, another questions: the disease was so much frequently on that period?? Why??

[Meroveo92]

Definitely the Germanic tribes in the north. They were a constant battering ram on the Roman defenses on the Danube and were eventually the downfall of the Roman empire. They never stopped, they just got defeated over and over, no matter how many they lost. Eventually like water constantly dripping onto a stone, eventually the Romans cracked and the empire was in ruins.

I also think the Parthian's were quite formidable. They used to use arrows to destroy the Roman shield wall, then ride in with heavily armored horsemen and disintegrate the formation. They were very smart as well, which puts them near to the top of the list.

But I think that the Germanic tribes were the worst.

Yes I agree..also because if the Romans could did the peace with the Parthians, at least they had a king with talk about, but with the Germans that situtation was very difficult because they were divided in a lots tribes. A questions: the Germanic tribes, how many warriors had?? Because they were always fought with Romans..

[Centurion-Macro]

Definitely the Germanic tribes in the north. They were a constant battering ram on the Roman defenses on the Danube and were eventually the downfall of the Roman empire. They never stopped, they just got defeated over and over, no matter how many they lost. Eventually like water constantly dripping onto a stone, eventually the Romans cracked and the empire was in ruins.

I also think the Parthian's were quite formidable. They used to use arrows to destroy the Roman shield wall, then ride in with heavily armored horsemen and disintegrate the formation. They were very smart as well, which puts them near to the top of the list.

But I think that the Germanic tribes were the worst.

Yes I agree..also because if the Romans could did the peace with the Parthians, at least they had a king with talk about, but with the Germans that situtation was very difficult because they were divided in a lots tribes. A questions: the Germanic tribes, how many warriors had?? Because they were always fought with Romans..

To be honest I don't know. I think that each tribe would have at least 500 warriors, probably more, and there were hundreds and hundreds of tribes. But when they grouped together they used to number in the hundreds of thousands.

[Caius Maxentius]

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Islamicized Arabs and their successors, the Turks, were most directly responsible for the extermination of the Roman Empire. Not the West, of course (what's been said about the German tribes already explains the West's passing), but were it not for the unforseen explosion of Arab military and religious energy, there might still be a Roman state with its capital at Constatinople. The loss of Syria, Egypt and Carthage -- all that wealth, population base and grain -- was certainly a big blow. The fact that these provinces could never be retaken certainly speaks to the threat that the Arabs represented. Even with Western help during the Crusades, military gains against the Arabs and Turks were only fleeting.

[sylla]

Even with Western help during the Crusades, military gains against the Arabs and Turks were only fleeting.

If the implicit bitter irony was not intentional, you really ought to check out your sources.

 

It was the "western help" which actually crushed the Empire; for their credit, in doing that, the Crusaders required no Islamic help.

 

The Crusaders were hostile against the Romans from the very beginning; for example, when Richard I Lionheart conquered Cyprus, he took that island from the Romans, not the Arabs.

 

When the IV Crusade sacked Constantinople, they also effectively destroyed a millennium-plus Empire, which they were utterly unable to replace with anything better than the absolutely inefficient so-called "Latin Empire" and its feudal dependencies.

 

The Nicean monarchy that eventually recovered Constantinople half a century later was just one among many residual states, which all together were only a shadow of the destroyed Empire.

 

Even more, without such definitive Roman defeat, it's quite unlikely that the Ghazi emirate that eventually became into the Ottoman Sultanate would have been able to thrive across the XIII and XIV centuries as it did.

Edited October 1, 2009 by sylla