Rome's Biggest Military Disaster

[Hamilcar Barca]

What do people think? I personally believe it was the Teutoburg Wald as it more or less stopped Rome's European expansion. However, all these battles had significant outcomes.

[pompeius magnus]

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.

[Germanicus]

I'll have to go with the Varus disaster. Although I don't kow a lot about Adrianople. It really depends on your definintion of disaster - lives lost ? Borders compromised ? Empire collapsed ? Emperor killed ? Standards taken ? I've decided to go with lives lost, and the psychological effect of that loss on Romans.

[Hamilcar Barca]

lives lost ? Borders compromised ? Empire collapsed ? Emperor killed ? Standards taken ?

 

 

By the "worst" diasaster, I'm basicly asking for all these factors to be taken into consideration. However, just taking casualties into account, the standings are as follows:

 

1. Aurasio: up to 80,000 infantry and 40,000 camp workers killed, this may be an exageration but the Romans rarely added 0's to their own casualty figures

 

2. Cannae: 45,500 infantry and 2,700 cavalry killed, 18,500 captured

 

3. Adrianople: About 40,000 men killed including Valens

 

4. Carrhae: 20-30,000 killed including Crassus

 

5. Teutoburg Wald: 12,000 men killed.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Of all the battles I say Teutoburg Wald. This completely ended tries to conquer the Germans, though I don't think it would have succeeded anyway and was a complete mistake on the side of Varus. The roman army was moving through unfriendly terrain and were a complete mess. They had sent no scouts ahead. Nothing.

Though the defeat didnt exactly bring Rome to its knees like Cannae. It eneded further propects of conquest in Germania. Wars against them were now mainly punitive.

The year after Andrianople. The East had pretty much recovered. It now sported the much finer heavy cavalry and had around 40k of them.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Adrianapole, and the varus disaster were the worst, I belive.

 

Rome lost two legions in teutoburg, and rome never recovered from the Adrianapole disaster.

[Germanicus]

Three legions in Teutoburg Perfectimus

[PerfectimusPrime]

Three legions in Teutoburg Perfectimus

Three? oh,yeah... now I remember...

[Julius Caesar]

Of all the battles I say Teutoburg Wald. This completely ended tries to conquer the Germans, though I don't think it would have succeeded anyway and was a complete mistake on the side of Varus. The roman army was moving through unfriendly terrain and were a complete mess. They had sent no scouts ahead. Nothing.

Though the defeat didnt exactly bring Rome to its knees like Cannae. It eneded further propects of conquest in Germania. Wars against them were now mainly punitive.

The year after Andrianople. The East had pretty much recovered. It now sported the much finer heavy cavalry and had around 40k of them.

 

Isn't that a subject of debate among historians; the question of whether or not Germanicus' campaigns in Germany were strictly punitive or a serious attempt to reestablish the frontier at the Elbe as his father and uncle had done? Germanicus' second and third campaigns across the Rhine in 15 and 16 were massive ones involving 8 legions and their auxillaries. I think the Romans certainly could have completed the conquest of Germany and then pacified it if they had been willing to pay the price. Afterall, Drusus and Tiberius had already established military superiorty once, and Augustus only entrusted the province to Varus because he thought it was ready for romanization.

 

 

One of the things that made Rome so great was its ability to recover from and eventually avenge most of its worst defeats, as it did with all on this list with the exception of Adrianople.

 

Marius avenged Arausio

 

Scipio avenged Cannae

 

Ventidius Bassus avenged Carrhae, on its very anniversary in 38 BC, and Rome would go on to fight several succesful wars against the Parthians, particularly those of Trajan, Cassius Avidius, and Septimus Severus.

 

Germanicus avenged Teutoberg, and several other Roman armies would later campaign in Germany.

[Germanicus]

Isn't that a subject of debate among historians; the question of whether or not Germanicus' campaigns in Germany were strictly punitive or a serious attempt to reestablish the frontier at the Elbe as his father and uncle had done? Germanicus' second and third campaigns across the Rhine in 15 and 16 were massive ones involving 8 legions and their auxillaries. I think the Romans certainly could have completed the conquest of Germany and then pacified it if they had been willing to pay the price. Afterall, Drusus and Tiberius had already established military superiorty once, and Augustus only entrusted the province to Varus because he thought it was ready for romanization.

 

 

 

So JC, whats your opinion - Punative or Expansionist ?

[Julius Caesar]

Isn't that a subject of debate among historians; the question of whether or not Germanicus' campaigns in Germany were strictly punitive or a serious attempt to reestablish the frontier at the Elbe as his father and uncle had done? Germanicus' second and third campaigns across the Rhine in 15 and 16 were massive ones involving 8 legions and their auxillaries. I think the Romans certainly could have completed the conquest of Germany and then pacified it if they had been willing to pay the price. Afterall, Drusus and Tiberius had already established military superiorty once, and Augustus only entrusted the province to Varus because he thought it was ready for romanization.

 

 

 

So JC, whats your opinion - Punative or Expansionist ?

 

Well I think its impossible to say with certainty. I think part of this debate is tied to the debate over Germanicus himself -- was he simply a moderately-competent general propped up by Tacitus beyond that which he deserved as a contrast to Tiberius, or was he the brilliant and charismatic general held back by Tiberius, and tragically dead not long past the age of 30?

 

One of the ancient sources say that Germanicus wrote Tiberius a letter saying that he thought he could complete the conquest to the Elbe with one more year of campaigning, so obviously if there is any validity to this then its pretty strong evidence for conquest as the goal. The size of the force Germanicus committed to the campaigns of 15 and 16 could also point to this, but then again one could point to Trajan's massive first war against Dacia where he committed an enormous army to what turned out to be a punitive war. And it could be said that Germanicus was just being careful in making sure that what happened to Varus did not happen to him, and 80,000 Roman troops was a pretty good insurance against that.

 

In the end, I come down on the expansionist side. It is thought that Germanicus was indeed planning on invading Germany again before being recalled in 17, and it just seems like overkill if punishing the Germans was his only goal. He had already beaten Arminius (though was unable to capture him), and 3 yrs of campaigning certainly was enough to put an end to the unrest of the legions that broke out upon Augustus' death. Futhermore, Germanicus knew that a triumph awaited him in Rome, so it seems he had no need to risk his life in further campaigning if he did not have greater aims in mind. Following from all of this, it just seems like too much of a risk to keep going for mere punitive expeditions. Just consider how the campaigns of 15 and 16 ended: In 15, half the army under the capable command of Germanicus' lieutenant, Caecina, fell into a Teutoberg-like ambush while marching for the Rhine, and only the cool and calm resolve of Caecina turned a near disaster into a Roman victory. In 16, Germanicus himself and his fleet was scattered by bad weather while attempting to return to Gaul by sea. It is said that Germanicus was in such despair that he considered taking his own life, but was relieved to learn that his losses weren't as bad as he thought upon finally returning to the Rhine.

 

So taken as a whole, it just seems odd to me that this popular heir to the throne, with his popular wife, and his popular children, and established military reputation would risk his life on yet another dangerous campaign if his goal wasn't to emulate and improve upon his father's conquests in Germany. The only thing that could make me think he would go back yet again for punitive purposes was to do the one thing he hadn't -- capture or kill Arminius.

 

 

 

So I tend to favor the expansionist view, though I'm by no means adamant about it. Likewise, I tend to take the pro-Germanicus view of the man. I think he is one of the great What Ifs of Roman history. What if Augustus had made him his heir instead of Tiberius, or what if Germanicus had not died in the East and assumed the purple in due time? Would he have gone back and finished what he started in Germany? Would his status as emperor and many children led to a more stable and longer-lasting Julio-Claudian line?

[Lex]

Adrianople.

The Emperor is slain in battle and two-thirds of the eastern army is lost in a single day! The East now has no defences and they are at the mercy of the barbarians, who are raping the countrside, burning cities to the ground, enslaving Romans, looting their properties, and destroying the faith of Roman subjects in their government to protect them.

 

It doesn't get much worse.

[hannibal_barca]

Cannae cuz it was a defeat that very possibly could have brought an end to Rome

[Fatboy]

I think its rather debatable just how disastrous the defeat at Adrianople was. Theodosius thoroughly repaired the situation leaving the Danubian frontier area pacified, stable and now a great source of manpower for the Legions. A vindictive and brutal character such as Valens would never have been capable of the delicate touch needed to achieve this.

 

In all likelihood had Valens not been killed the situation would have continued to deteriorate. There was a major reversal coming in the East sooner or later and had Theodosius not been around when it happened it may well have proved fatal. The incident was also the making of Theodosius. Gratian made Theodosius Augustus on the strength of his achievements with the Goths - no Adrianople, probably no Theodosius the Great.

 

Whether Theodosius's concessions to the Goths ( particularly the incorporation of thousands of them into the legions ) contributed to the fall of the West or saved the East ( probably both ) is also debatable, but the fall of the West was at this stage probably just a matter of time and without Theodosius the East was headed the same way. It didn't though, amazingly it survived and prospered( eventually ). I think Adrianople may have been a blessing in disguise.

 

I would go for Teutoberg Wold as whether that particular campaign was expansionist or not, had it been successful the next campaign( or the one after that, or the one after that..) would have been. Germany would have been well on the way to becoming another province of the Empire. A romanised Germany could have made all the difference when the Empire finally began to struggle, providing huge extra manpower and a geographical bullwark against attacks from the East. The terrain East of Germany, wide open plains and gentle hills and valleys, was much easier terrain so I imagine most of North Eastern Europe may have quickly followed. The awkward " L " shape of the Northern border the Empire ended up with was very difficult to defend. If Rome had managed to establish a border from the Baltic to the Caspian sea ( and with the conquest of Germany, they probably would have ) the Empire would have been immesureably easier to defend, hell, it would probably still be going, lol.

 

The other, earlier battles on the list, despite being dramatic defeats taken by themselves were really just blips during Romes inexorable rise to greatness, I reckon.

[MARCELLVS]

Rome's worst defeat was not the Teutoburger Wald fiasco-- i.e. not in military terms, but it certainly was the worst one for Octavian's ego, and it found its way into literature. On the other hand, modern Germany made a propaganda victory out of it (the 'Arminia battle'). Probably these two combined account for the 'popularity' of the varus battle as Rome's worst one. Then I 'd even prefer Gergovia ;-)