Rome's Biggest Military Disaster

[Furius Venator]

The loss of three legions is trifling compared to the other battles on the list. Just look at the casualty figures. The reason it sticks in the mind is because there were next to no survovors, unlike in the greater disasters where substantial numbers of Romans escaped.

 

In AD 16 Germanicus brought Arminius to battle deep in Germany. Twice. And won convincingly both times (Tacitus Annals II)

[Neos Dionysos]

The loss of three legions is trifling compared to the other battles on the list. Just look at the casualty figures. The reason it sticks in the mind is because there were next to no survovors, unlike in the greater disasters where substantial numbers of Romans escaped.

 

In AD 16 Germanicus brought Arminius to battle deep in Germany. Twice. And won convincingly both times (Tacitus Annals II)

 

Right... they defeated the Germans but other than "punishing them" for inflicting a defeat on Rome what else came of these victories? Nothing...

 

So 20,000 men, 3 legions, is a triffle? Perhaps when armies are much larger but the Imperial Army at the time was around 26 legions, so 1/8th of the Roman Army was gone and created a hole in defense which had to be quickly plugged by forces from nearby areas.

 

If it was not a major thing than why did Augustus act like this:

 

He was so greatly affected that for several months in succession he cut neither his beard nor his hair, and sometimes he could dash his head against a door, crying "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!"

besides the Roman populace being very afraid and nightly patrols and watchs held around Rome... now this is not something you do when a 'triffle' happens.

 

In addition the last battle with Arminus in 16 was not a "convincingly" Roman victory, the battle had heavy casulties on both sides and Germanicus though victorious, retreated back across the Rhine for winter quarters and Arminus was able to withdraw with most of his army intact, I would hardly call that a convincing victory... a victory nonetheless but not total.

[Furius Venator]

It was trifling compared to the magnitude of the other defeats, which all (except Carrhae) happened on Roman territory, hence also more immediately threatening to Roman interests. After Varus' defeat were Roman towns under threat as after Cannae? Did large numbers of barbarians settle under their own government within Imperial territory as after Adrianople?

 

'It was a great victory and it cost us little.' II 19 on Germanicus' first victory (I'd recommend reading the whole section for an overview).

 

The second victory was followed by the loss of many ships in a storm and the army suffered privation.

 

Nonetheless both the Chatti and the Marsi were brought to submission shortly afterwards and one of Varus' eagles recovered.

 

 

It was really the decision of Claudius to invade Britain that led to Germany becoming a secondary theatre for the Romans.

[Neos Dionysos]

Did large numbers of barbarians settle under their own government within Imperial territory as after Adrianople?

 

No, actually they did not. The Goths continued to Roam for a few more years until Theodosius finally put an end to it, though they were not settled on land, they were actually billetted in cities as an army and recieved annoae, land was never an issue in any treaty with the Goths until they were settled in Aquatine many years later.

 

It was really the decision of Claudius to invade Britain that led to Germany becoming a secondary theatre for the Romans.

 

No, Tiberius was the one who decided not to pursue anything in Germania... something he had originally declared his intention to do in 16bc, the Varus defeat was just further proof Germania should be left on its own.

[Marcus Julius]

I think the Battle of Adrianople was the biggest military disaster, because it set the stage for the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the Fift Century. If this battle would have been won, who knows, perhaps the Western Roman Empire would have lasted longer...

 

Atleast that is my view.

 

Marcus Julius

Edited March 10, 2006 by Marcus Julius

[Furius Venator]

No, actually they did not. The Goths continued to Roam for a few more years until Theodosius finally put an end to it, though they were not settled on land, they were actually billetted in cities as an army and recieved annoae, land was never an issue in any treaty with the Goths until they were settled in Aquatine many years later.

 

I know. They settled in the empire in large numbers as a cohesive social unit. I didn't mention land, why bring it up?

 

No, Tiberius was the one who decided not to pursue anything in Germania... something he had originally declared his intention to do in 16bc, the Varus defeat was just further proof Germania should be left on its own.

 

The Varus defeat was under Augustus. But under Tiberius, the Germans were harried and beaten numerous times, partly to avenge for Varus' defeat. It does not seem to me that Varus' disaster weighed too heavily on Tiberius, except in his desire to avenge it. The curtailment of Germanicus' campaigns might well be, as Tacitus suggests, to prevent him from gaining excessive prestige at Tiberius' expense. It certainly was not because he felt the Germans should be left alone. In fact the Romans fomented unrest between the Germanic tribes, ultimately leading to Arminius' deposition.

 

The Romans suffered a greater defeat against the Parthians (seven eagles lost as opposed to three). Yet that did not prevent them from campaigning against Parthia. The Romans were a deeply stubborn people (any 'sensible' nation would have sued for peace after Cannae). The Romans always bounced back and, as far as I am aware, never left a disaster unavenged until Adrianople.

[Neos Dionysos]

 

No, actually they did not. The Goths continued to Roam for a few more years until Theodosius finally put an end to it, though they were not settled on land, they were actually billetted in cities as an army and recieved annoae, land was never an issue in any treaty with the Goths until they were settled in Aquatine many years later.

 

I know. They settled in the empire in large numbers as a cohesive social unit. I didn't mention land, why bring it up?

 

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your orignal comment and so just ignore that part...

 

The Varus defeat was under Augustus. But under Tiberius, the Germans were harried and beaten numerous times, partly to avenge for Varus' defeat. It does not seem to me that Varus' disaster weighed too heavily on Tiberius, except in his desire to avenge it. The curtailment of Germanicus' campaigns might well be, as Tacitus suggests, to prevent him from gaining excessive prestige at Tiberius' expense. It certainly was not because he felt the Germans should be left alone. In fact the Romans fomented unrest between the Germanic tribes, ultimately leading to Arminius' deposition.

 

The Romans suffered a greater defeat against the Parthians (seven eagles lost as opposed to three). Yet that did not prevent them from campaigning against Parthia. The Romans were a deeply stubborn people (any 'sensible' nation would have sued for peace after Cannae). The Romans always bounced back and, as far as I am aware, never left a disaster unavenged until Adrianople.

 

Well that was due to the fact that Theodoius did not have the forces necessary to inflict any defeats on the Goths and he also suffered defeats of his own... but perhaps it was for the better since he then would use Alaric and his Goths against his rivals in the West...

Edited March 10, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[caldrail]

I'm definitely of the opinion that the Teutoberg Forest is the worst. Adrianople was indeed disastrous, but then Rome was in decline and this battle merely accelerated that process. The Teutoburg Disaster however came at the point at which the empire was expanding. It was colonising germania beyond the rhine, with new settlements being created to 'provincialise' the germans. Archaeological remains of these brief roman towns are being found further into germany than previously expected.

 

The failure of Rome to colonise Germania has had an enormous effect on history since. Not only because it slowed the expansion of Rome considerably, almost to a stop, but because it changed Romes policy on defense and relations with barbarian tribes. In effect, it more or less dictated that the barbarian north would at some point become a significant enemy - and it did. The disaster has also laid deep divisions in cultural leaning which we still see emerging today.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Pharsalus was the worst defeat for Rome.

[Neos Dionysos]

I think I know why you are saying that Cato, though I would like to hear your thoughts on it and your reasoning...

Edited March 14, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think I know why you are saying that Cato, though I would like to hear your thoughts on it and your reasoning...

 

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful?

[P.Clodius]

Pharsalus was the worst defeat for Rome.

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Pharsalus was the worst defeat for Rome.

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory.

 

Why? The forces of the state were defeated.

[Neos Dionysos]

Pharsalus was the worst defeat for Rome.

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory.

 

Why? The forces of the state were defeated.

 

I think he means because of this battle the empire was technically born...

[Germanicus]

Anyway, lets not let another thread get bogged down in this area.....