amcrazyjus Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 to start off... why did rome take so long to defeate some of the enimies and why did it take them even longer to defeate hannibal? sure he was great but they coulda stomped him out like fire but hannibal kept burning their toes, more like scorching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyGee Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 It Wasnt for the lack of trying that Rome Struggled to defeat hannibal, He was a great General and military Tactician. Rome needed to stack the deck as it were to beat him. As For taking a long time to defeat some Peoples, well there can be many reasons. Firstly Some terain was easier for the Roman Legions to work in Heavy Forests or Mountains were not best suited to the Legion or its fighting style. Also you cant defeat a people unless they want to be beaten, Sure you can Destroy its armies and burn its towns/Cities but to Defeat them they have to stop Fighting back. I suppose National/Racial Identity comes into it too. And sometimes i suppose the wrong person was the man in charge, while the Roman Army was a great Fighting machine it needed a good Comander to realise its full potential, And sometimes a good Comander was nowhere to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Also, remember that there were campaigning seasons. They generaly took a break in winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Rome wasn't built in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Yeah the Celts were a pain in the neck for most of the mediterranean world, they had forests and mountains to conduct guerilla wars from, large numbers, and loose tribal structure (this allowed that if one tribe was defeated the others would keep fighting regardless). Most of the northern barbarians weren't like say the Persans where if the king was killed the army lost effectiveness, plus tall red-haired people painted blue are just creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amcrazyjus Posted February 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 true rome was not built in a day but hannibal was a pain to beat, and the real problem was the romans were trying too hard to beat him, that they didn't see the easiest way to beat him. okay new question who do you think did rome have the hardest time with (besides hannibal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Single individual? Probably Jugurtha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Mithridates VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fafnir Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Mithridates VI Refresh my memory, Mithridates VI was from... Pontus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Yes, he was a thorn in the Roman side (in various levels of iritation) from Sulla to Pompey. Mithridates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amcrazyjus Posted February 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 these are good answers but why do you think/ know why they were a pain (i have a terrible time remembering things) thanx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 My pick would be the Latin tribes and those damn Saminites, whenever there was any show of Roman weakness a Saminite army would form. Same with the Volscians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Regulus Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 The fact was at the time it looks like Carthage and Rome were evenly matched and in a battle where the two sides are almost even your going to have a long struggle. In the end Carthage seems to have been done in by one bad strategical move-- the dismantling of their fleet after the first war. Without their fleet, Rome had naval superiority in the Med. Doom on Carthage. Kind of like having air superiority today. It may not make you win, but it sure makes it hard for you to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Most professional armies take awhile to grind down an enemy, especially if the enemy is somewhat professional. The only time you will have lightning wins if the enemy is: a lower caliber, vastly out numbered, or poorly supplied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetJon Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Why did Rome take so long to beat some enemies? Simple answer really, Romans lacked intelligent leaders. The whole military structure made it almost impossible for a competent leader to do anything with his ability. He was always contradicted by other people who didn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.