Rome's Biggest Military Disaster

[Felix Marcellus]

you have to look at what it did to the romans after the battle down the line.  After Adrianople the roman western empire never fully recovered.  The romans won the war with hannibal, the parthians were eventually defeated by Agrippa and the standards recovered, the loss of the legions never led to rome's downfall, but adrianople was very significant to the fall of the west.

 

It seems to me that when Adrianople occured the Roman Empire was already on the down swing. A major defeat of the Romans was inevitable at this time. The result of the battle wasn't a surprise given the condition of the empire at the time. The west was falling already. With or without Adrianople it still would've fallen. Just my humble opinion. In other words, Adrianople was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

My vote goes to Teutoberg. 3 Legions gone and expansion into Germania halted. The news when it got back to Rome must have had a similar effect as the news of Napolean's defeat at Borodino had with the French. It had to have been a significant psychological blow to all of Rome. It showed Romes weakness and encouraged future invaders to go after Rome. Had Rome taken all of Germania maybe it would have fallen much later in history. The terrain in Germania would have been much more conducive to defense than the terrain in Gaul. Also, with the heavily wooded terrain, would the barbarians that eventually would destroy Rome have been able to use their cavalry to as great an advantage as they did in their engagements with the Romans. Who knows how far Rome could've gone if they hadn't met with this disaster?

[roman wargamer]

most of those defeat speaks for itselt as history say...

and Cannae and Adrianople have 594 years time span difference. Old Rome already live long enough to be remember even today.

[Virgil61]

Although Teutonberg forest can arguably be the greater disaster, Cannae has had the most influence. As late as the first Gulf War Schwarzkopff claimed to have used it as an inspiration.

[Felix Marcellus]

Although Teutonberg forest can arguably be the greater disaster, Cannae has had the most influence. As late as the first Gulf War Schwarzkopff claimed to have used it as an inspiration.

True, but in regards to being Rome's biggest military disaster I would say no only because the Romans learned so much from this defeat and the other defeats inflicted on them by Hannibal. And after the Second Punic War they were clearly the masters of the Med.

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

I think its Adrianople no Roman wants to remember that battle

[mquish]

you have to look at what it did to the romans after the battle down the line. After Adrianople the roman western empire never fully recovered. The romans won the war with hannibal, the parthians were eventually defeated by Agrippa and the standards recovered, the loss of the legions never led to rome's downfall, but adrianople was very significant to the fall of the west.

 

I think you are steering away from the question comletely. The question was which was the worst roman defeat not which roman defeat had the worst effect on the roman empire or which was the worst in terms of recovering in the future

 

you have to look at what it did to the romans after the battle down the line.

[Neos Dionysos]

you have to look at what it did to the romans after the battle down the line. After Adrianople the roman western empire never fully recovered. The romans won the war with hannibal, the parthians were eventually defeated by Agrippa and the standards recovered, the loss of the legions never led to rome's downfall, but adrianople was very significant to the fall of the west.

 

The West was not affected by Adrianople... the East was... the West was affected by Frigidus River in 394AD when Theodosius defeated his rival in the West and destroyed a sizable portion of the Western Roman Army which up till this point had not suffered any setbacks...

 

In addition, following the division of the empire again in East and West to the sons of Theodosius, the West was the stronger of the two militarily, Stilicho had at his command not only the Western Army but most of the Eastern Army as well. The West was until the last couple decades of it's exisitance, the stronger of the two armies and I'd be willing to argue was the strongest even when the West fell... so saying Adrianople led to the West's downfall is erronenous.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Furius Venator]

Adrianople had the greatest consequences. But if you mean casualties then the question's already been answered above.

 

 

Teutonberg Forest was nowhere near on the same scale as the other defeats. And whatever effects it may have had on Augustus' mind, it did not stop later Imperial expansion neither did it prevent them regularly invading and fighting in Germany. It has always baffled me why people have made such an issue out of it...

[Neos Dionysos]

Adrianople had the greatest consequences. But if you mean casualties then the question's already been answered above.

 

 

Teutonberg Forest was nowhere near on the same scale as the other defeats. And whatever effects it may have had on Augustus' mind, it did not stop later Imperial expansion neither did it prevent them regularly invading and fighting in Germany. It has always baffled me why people have made such an issue out of it...

 

 

Adrianople did not have the greatest consequences... the Eastern Army was crushed in this battle... Rome suffered a terrible defeat, and yet it was the West, not the East that fell... so... how did it have the greatest consequences... what terrible things came after this battle which led to the downfall of Rome?

[Virgil61]

...

 

Adrianople did not have the greatest consequences... the Eastern Army was crushed in this battle... Rome suffered a terrible defeat, and yet it was the West, not the East that fell... so... how did it have the greatest consequences... what terrible things came after this battle which led to the downfall of Rome?

 

The effects of Adrianpole were that the Goths were 'allowed' to be a semi-independent permanent fixture within the borders of the empire. The descendent of this group ended up playing a serious role in the events of the Western Empire including the sack of Rome in 410 and so on.

[Neos Dionysos]

...

 

Adrianople did not have the greatest consequences... the Eastern Army was crushed in this battle... Rome suffered a terrible defeat, and yet it was the West, not the East that fell... so... how did it have the greatest consequences... what terrible things came after this battle which led to the downfall of Rome?

 

The effects of Adrianpole were that the Goths were 'allowed' to be a semi-independent permanent fixture within the borders of the empire. The descendent of this group ended up playing a serious role in the events of the Western Empire including the sack of Rome in 410 and so on.

 

Rome allowed them to remain this force because one, they could not completely get rid of Alaric and once they had the strength to do so, conflict b/w East and West prevented Stilicho from destroying Alaric when the chance arrived to him... also... after which time, Stilicho found it in his best interests and those of Rome's to allow Alaric to live and to go so far as to plan with him an assault Eastward against Rufinus and after he was killed Gainas, etc. Adrianople simply meant they would not be kicked out... but the sack of Rome was the fault of Honorious and the terrible polices of the adminstrations.

[Virgil61]

... Adrianople simply meant they would not be kicked out...

 

That was the point. They were now a political and military equation that had to be dealt with. They roamed Dacia and Macedonia without much interference trying to extract deals with Stilicho or the East.

 

Honorius notwithstanding, the Goths wouldn't have been in the position to do the sacking without Adrianople.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Virgil61

[Neos Dionysos]

 

... Adrianople simply meant they would not be kicked out...

 

That was the point. They were now a political and military equation that had to be dealt with. They roamed Dacia and Macedonia without much interference trying to extract deals with Stilicho or the East.

 

Honorius notwithstanding, the Goths wouldn't have been in the position to do the sacking without Adrianople.

 

Right... but then this was not a terminal nor sudden and terrible consequence following Adrianople to cause the fall in the West. One could argue that save for Alaric and his Goths, any wrongs that Rome suffered had already been righted...

 

My point continues though... Adrianople is not the battle which killed Rome... so then why is it assumed to be the major 'cause' of Rome's fall when the evidence is not there, (I strongly beleive this and will try to show anyone here why I beleive so if asked)...?

 

Perhaps I make this a little personal crusade of mine but I always try to show how Adrianople isn't that "defeat that killed Rome"... as we are generally led to beleive...

Edited March 9, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Furius Venator]

I'll grant you that Adrianople didn't lead to the immediate collapse of the west. Yet it did sow the seeds. Which is simply not true of the other battles. After each of the others Rome came back stronger and inflicted crushing reverses on their foes. That was not the case post Adrianople.

[Neos Dionysos]

I'll grant you that Adrianople didn't lead to the immediate collapse of the west. Yet it did sow the seeds. Which is simply not true of the other battles. After each of the others Rome came back stronger and inflicted crushing reverses on their foes. That was not the case post Adrianople.

 

This was not the case in Germania... Rome raided and attacked across the river but never gave the Germans a 'crushing defeat' that reversed all the woes of the past and Rome never held any ambition to take the land west of the Elbe and east of the Rhine.

 

If Adrianople sowed the seeds for the West's collaspe then I would argue because of the defeat, the East was in a much better position to survive and continue. Now you may think this sounds absurd; however, following the defeat the Eastern Army, (even when reinforced from it's units which had gone West in 370), was in a very bad state and the governement of the East began a system wide culling of the army ranks of all Germans in any position of power, curtailed any one general from becoming too powerful and left itself with an army that did not a single accomplishment of notable act in years after Adrianople to the fall of the West, in fact the army had trouble just dealing with simply raiders and bandits in Asia Minor so the idea they would hold against a concentrated foriegn power or large invading force would be implausible. As extreme as these measures seemed, it allowed the Eastern Governement and civic adminstration to hold onto all power and denied the military from becoming to powerful, unlike the West which controlled everything. In the West, the Generalissimos and the army under them controlled affairs of state and set foriegn policy, a great example is Stilicho imposing a trade embargo against the East and acting agressively toward it. The Emperor and civic administration had no control... and this is what I think the primary downfall came from.