Worst Roman Enemy and why?

[longshotgene]

Here is one for you guys. I was looking over some of my new textbooks for my masters' degree in Classical Studies. The thought came to me. Which Roman enemy was the worst? Which one do you guys think was the worst and why? I thought the Germans at first, but when looking at the Gauls, it is easy to see them as the worst. In my opinion, they were the worst because they were around the longest.

[G-Manicus]

Here is one for you guys. I was looking over some of my new textbooks for my masters' degree in Classical Studies. The thought came to me. Which Roman enemy was the worst? Which one do you guys think was the worst and why? I thought the Germans at first, but when looking at the Gauls, it is easy to see them as the worst. In my opinion, they were the worst because they were around the longest.

Carthage

 

They could've conquered Rome had Hannibal headed there following Cannae.

[CiceroD]

Carthage

 

They could've conquered Rome had Hannibal headed there following Cannae.

 

Not so I believe! Hannibal could not do much after his victory at Cannae.

 

"Hannibal had no option. His army was not large enough to invest a city the size of Rome and starve it out, and he had no siege machines"-Ernle Bradford Hannibal pg 118

[Primus Pilus]

The Germanics... specifically the Goths. While the Germanic people were held at bay for the better part of 4 centuries, it was ultimately the Germanics who toppled Roman the Roman administrative and authoritative presence in the West. The Goths were among the first to successfully invade Roman borders (the Thervingi sacked Byzantium in 263) and maintain a presence in former Roman territory (the Greuthungi in Dacia even after their defeat at Naissus in 271).

 

The Goths opened the door for later invasions of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Vandals, etc. While there were clearly more dangerous foes through the history of Rome: Carthage, Macedonia, Antiochus of Syria, Mithridates, Parthia, Persia, etc., Rome either conquered, or recovered from defeats to each of these in one way or another. Ultimately, Germania Magna was never held for any significant period of time (despite the attempts of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius) and it was the Germanics that ended the western empire regardless of all the other factors involved in "the fall".

[CiceroD]

Yes truly insofar as damage done the Goths take the cake

 

But they would have been nothing to the earlier legions

 

And therefore not the worst enemy (meaning force). To me that means a choice between the three largest civilizations the Romans battled

 

Carthage

Epirus

and Parthians/Persians

[G-Manicus]

And therefore not the worst enemy (meaning force). To me that means a choice between the three largest civilizations the Romans battled

What about the German invasion circa 110 BC +/-? They wiped out several armies before Marius' army stopped them at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae. You guys would know better than me, but the readings I've done indicate that had they failed to stop them there, then nothing would have stood between them and Rome.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

Carthage

 

They could've conquered Rome had Hannibal headed there following Cannae.

 

My vote goes to Carthage as well. Let's remember the roman tactic when annihilating ( the second meaning = conquering ) a new people : a process of romanization would have started. Now, why on earth, would Scipio Aemilianus and his fellow romans wipe out Carthage? And why was the 'salted farmland' legend born? Probably because they thought Carthage was their worse enemy... BTW Roman Carthage doesn't count!

[Ursus]

I'll have to go with the Persians. The threat they posed changed the very way the Empire was organized on political, military and financial lines.

 

PS: G-Manicus: welcome to the forum. Just roll with the conversation and stick to topic, thanks.

[Julius Ratus]

The Romans.

 

The most destructive wars that Rome fought were her civil wars. Had it not been for the century or so of internecine struggle, the Germanics would have had no chance at taking on Rome and the Persians would have been held off at arms length as they always had been.

[G-Manicus]

(Edited because now I know what he's talking about ... I can be a little slow on the ol' uptake at times)

Edited September 14, 2007 by G-Manicus

[Honorius]

i agree with Ratus the romans themselves were their own enemies.

 

the innumerable civil wars drained necessary man power to defend the frontiers aswell as the fact that it disrupted the economic side of the empire

[caldrail]

Its difficult to say who was the worst because Rome endured for some time and enemies came and went in many cases. The gauls were undoubtedly people to be reckoned with around 390BC (they invaded Rome) yet Caesar with one legion and a few mediocre allies conquered them. The germans were fierce tribal warriors yet it was only the leadership of Arminius that got them such a victory over Rome. The Britons kept more than a fair share of roman legions busy keeping the peace in Britannia, yet even with Boudicca's lead a huge army of british tribesmen were crushed by outnumbered romans. Spartacus gave Rome brown trousers, but even with his able leadership he was unable to compete with roman reinforcements. Hannibal ran riot in Italy but without a secure supply line he too was unable to compete with roman reinforcements. Shapur led a powerful persian army and threw the romans out of Mesopotamia, yet the city state of Palmyra with fewer troops than Rome had available pushed him back more than once.

 

Leadership is a vital consideration. A well led enemy is something more dreadful than a few badly behaved and chaotic barbarians. Circumstance too - are you able to marshal your resources to defeat an enemy, or must you allow him to cock a snook at you whilst you deal with another threat somewhere else?

 

In order to answer that question, you have to decide on the basis of longevity of threat and behaviour of the enemy. Its mostly opnion I guess, but yes, I agree Rome was its own worst enemy. Carthage must be considered too, because they fought three wars to a bitter conclusion in a struggle for commercial and cultural dominance. The gauls had a moment of glory - they weren't as strong afterward. The germans too must be seen the same way. I wouldn't overlook the persians. They were probably even crueller than the roman empire to their own subjects.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

The Parthians, were a right pain i bet, they just shot you down and flittered light infantry everywhere. I think Crassus would have voted with me.

vtc

[longshotgene]

I can't say it was anyone from the East. The Persians, the Sassinids never posed a threat like the northern peoples. I still stick with the Gauls. Yes, Caesar wiped them out, but they were the first to truly sack Rome. They set the example, and everyone followed.

[Nerva]

The Germanics... specifically the Goths. While the Germanic people were held at bay for the better part of 4 centuries, it was ultimately the Germanics who toppled Roman the Roman administrative and authoritative presence in the West. The Goths were among the first to successfully invade Roman borders (the Thervingi sacked Byzantium in 263) and maintain a presence in former Roman territory (the Greuthungi in Dacia even after their defeat at Naissus in 271).

 

The Goths opened the door for later invasions of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Vandals, etc. While there were clearly more dangerous foes through the history of Rome: Carthage, Macedonia, Antiochus of Syria, Mithridates, Parthia, Persia, etc., Rome either conquered, or recovered from defeats to each of these in one way or another. Ultimately, Germania Magna was never held for any significant period of time (despite the attempts of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius) and it was the Germanics that ended the western empire regardless of all the other factors involved in "the fall".

If we look specifically at external enemies and leave aside the Romans themselves as the worst enemies of the Empire, I have to agree that it was the Germanic tribes who were the worst enemy of the Romans. By infiltrating the Empire and becoming part of the military structure yet not really loyal to the Empire in their hearts they almost cooked the Empire from within, rather than smashing the gates down. Now you can argue it was bad Roman policy that led to this, but having the ability to learn your enemy's strengths and more importantly his weakness gave them a considerable advantage that other enemies didn't have over the Romans. With the legions stationed mainily on the borders, once you got past them, you could really run roughshod over the softly defended underbelly of the Empire.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Nerva