Enemies of Roman Empire

[caldrail]

You're underestimating the menace of the Irish Scots, who effectively outflanked Hadrians Wall and made a nuisance of themselves into the Dark Ages.

[sylla]

Actually, aside from some notable exceptions already quoted more than once (like the Persians or the Goths), it is actually pretty difficult to objectively estimate the menace from any frontier non-Roman population.

We can never be absolutely sure to what extent were the Picts, Nubians or Arabs left unconquered for their actual military proficiency or just for logistic reasons.

Virtually all Barbarian populations seem to have been a "nuisance" for the Romans at one time or the other.

What we can be absolutely sure is that the Romans always represented a huge and real menace for any non-Roman population.

Edited October 9, 2009 by sylla

[Centurion-Macro]

Actually, aside from some notable exceptions already quoted more than once (like the Persians or the Goths), it is actually pretty difficult to objectively estimate the menace from any frontier non-Roman population.

We can never be absolutely sure to what extent were the Picts, Nubians or Arabs left unconquered for their actual military proficiency or just for logistic reasons.

Virtually all Barbarian populations seem to have been a "nuisance" for the Romans at one time or the other.

What we can be absolutely sure is that the Romans always represented a huge and real menace for any non-Roman population.

You are right. They were all annoyances at different times and places throughout the Roman Empire. And you are right with the fact that Rome was a huge menace to the non-Roman population everywhere.

 

The only thing I am completely sure about was the Barbarian menace over the Rhine. They were by far the worst threat to the Empire from pre Pax Romana all the way to the fall of Rome. They never gave up attacking and so the Roman defenses on the Rhine had to be heavily fortified.

[caldrail]

The Romans were less of a menace to 'barbarian' folk than commonly supposed. True, their regimes were often uncompromising but part of this image of ruthless conquest is down to the fallacy that barbarian nations were assimilated. Again, it is true the Roman encouraged the adoption of Latin culture, but as long as native peoples obeyed laws (usually their own ones) and paid taxes, the Romans left them to carry on business as they pleased.

 

It remains a odd circumstance to our eyes that Roman governors would adjudicate differences not only according to infractions of Roman law, but oversee native justice as well, and it's worth remembering the events in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius in this light. It wasn't just high ranking officials either. Roman legions sometimes had a surplus of centurions (to reward long and dutiful service, as well as promote men with leadership ability) and these extra officers were routinely given territorial assignments rather than military command, so that this junior officer could learn about government. The Romans were nothing if not career minded.

 

The Germanic invasions in the late empire were all about perceived wealth. Certainly the Roman soldiery wasn't entirely well behaved in that period and there was raiding on both sides of the border, which resulted in a turbulent frontier reminiscent of the Wild West but in reverse. The essential problem remained the Romans themselves and their political ambitions of men encouraged to seek status by their competitive society. The reason Britain was abandoned was to bring troops over to Gaul to take part in developing rebellion, not to deal with barbarians.

 

The British Isles were increasingly ungovernable in any case and that was a failure of Roman administration as much barbarian threat, particularly since the Roman system collapsed so spectactularly after the legions were withdrawn. As much as the Romano-British elite wanted to remain within the Roman sphere, there was a period described as a golden age in which no-one paid taxes and life was easy. Society abhors a vacuum of course and Gildas refers to the rise of 'petty tyrants'. These new warlords were britons, not barbarians, people who knew the Roman empire by what it left behind. Of course the external threats were many and various. With a weakening central empire and suyrrounding tribes rising in confidence and co-ordination, there was bound to be a change in the balance of power.

 

The increasingly unified barbarian response to Roman decay should be viewed as partially a failure of Roman politics too. Habitually the Romans had divided their neighbours for centuries in order to prevent exactly the circumstance they faced in the late empire, but also the increasng ability of foreign tribes in such matters as warfare and ship building, much of which was learned from the Roman world. The Romans were, effectively, creating their own nemesis and proving less and less able to contain it.

[Northern Neil]

The increasingly unified barbarian response to Roman decay should be viewed as partially a failure of Roman politics too. Habitually the Romans had divided their neighbours for centuries in order to prevent exactly the circumstance they faced in the late empire, but also the increasng ability of foreign tribes in such matters as warfare and ship building, much of which was learned from the Roman world. The Romans were, effectively, creating their own nemesis and proving less and less able to contain it.

Indeed, Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) implies that the German super - tribes of Allemanni and Frank were dangerous in the 5th century precisely because they were part Romanised.

[sylla]

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla