Worst Roman Enemy and why?

[longshotgene]

I guess I see your points on the Germans. Here is my question that I cannot answer through my research. Maybe you guys can recommend some articles or books. How did Rome get to a state where the army was mostly composed of foreigners? Was it all bad policy, or was it something more? Was it the fact that she was invaded over and over again in such a short time span? I agree that the Germans infiltrated and killed the system from within, but how did it get to this point? Was it like the Southern United States during the Civil War? Southern 'gentlemen' just did not want to fight? I know there are many factors that led to the downfall of Rome, but what do you guys think?

[Nerva]

I guess I see your points on the Germans. Here is my question that I cannot answer through my research. Maybe you guys can recommend some articles or books. How did Rome get to a state where the army was mostly composed of foreigners? Was it all bad policy, or was it something more? Was it the fact that she was invaded over and over again in such a short time span? I agree that the Germans infiltrated and killed the system from within, but how did it get to this point? Was it like the Southern United States during the Civil War? Southern 'gentlemen' just did not want to fight? I know there are many factors that led to the downfall of Rome, but what do you guys think?

I think manpower was certainly an issue. Between wars and plagues causing troop shortages, there was a need for warm bodies to fill the ranks of the Roman army. It was more than that though. Loyalty was always an issue with the troops. They were constantly naming new Emperors to the throne and maybe by bringing in foreigners into the ranks, they wouldn't have the understanding or the desire to use the military as a political machine (much to the chagrin of the Roman leadership, the barbarians quickly realized that the political power within the Empire lay with its soldiers. They became political players rather quickly once their chieftains rose to the ranks of General and Magister Militum). Which brings me to the next point, Roman arrogance. They felt that they were simply better than the Barbarians and they misjudged how clever and crafty their leadership really was. They always felt that they could control the barbarians. They had a false sense of security. The Eastern Empire finally realized this and once they sent Theodoric the Great over to Italy, they really cut down on the % of foreign troops vs native Romans (Yes Belisarius used Huns in the conquest of Carthage, but the process had begun to reromanize the military).

 

I think the "not wanting to fight" syndrome really started to take root in the 5th century. You know the stories of men cutting their thumbs off so they couldn't hold a sword. A lot of that can be tied into the horrendous taxation levied on the Roman citizenry. The Imperial leadership was crushing the populace with taxes and all they brought was war and destruction to the heartland. For some, barbarian rule was more desirable than Roman rule. Roman governance was not living up to its end of the bargain.

[Ursus]

I guess I see your points on the Germans. Here is my question that I cannot answer through my research. Maybe you guys can recommend some articles or books. How did Rome get to a state where the army was mostly composed of foreigners? Was it all bad policy, or was it something more? Was it the fact that she was invaded over and over again in such a short time span? I agree that the Germans infiltrated and killed the system from within, but how did it get to this point? Was it like the Southern United States during the Civil War? Southern 'gentlemen' just did not want to fight? I know there are many factors that led to the downfall of Rome, but what do you guys think?

 

 

Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire goes into detail about this. It is a somewhat revisionist account, but he has evidence to back up his assertions.

 

The German tribes posed a serious threat only in the post Hun era, when the Hunnish migrations forced scattered Germanic tribes to conglomerate into much larger nations. The fact that Romans settled some of them in their own territory and gave them allied status begs the question as to whether or not they really were an external threat or more of a rogue internal threat.

 

Heather also goes into detail about the rise of Sassanid Persia. The Sassanids were much capable than their Parthian predecessors. The entire political, military and financial structures of the empire had to be reorganized (largely by Diocletion and Constantine) to counter the threat. It was only after the reorganization that the Eastern front stabilized.

[DecimusCaesar]

I'd have to go with the Goths, Huns and Vandals. The Huns left the empire severly weakend (they were also much more dangerous than the other tribes because they made use of siege weapons) while it took the Goths to pave the way for the Huns.

 

Interestingly the Goths, under Theoderic the Ostrogoth admired Roman culture. He built many monuments in imitation of the Roman style and was often treated as a Roman Warlord by the Byzantines - a sort of role similar to that of Stilicho or Aetius. It was only after the Byzantine re-conquest of Italy that the Gothic armies began to tear the city apart - although the Goths had never really had a full appreciation of Roman culture, there was some inkling of it somewhere in the policies of Theoderic.

 

This also brings us to the special mention of the Vandals. It was they, under the command of King Gaiseric, that sacked Rome in AD 455. They also plundered Carthage and the provinces of north Africa, severly damaging Rome's ability to deal with the Huns and Goths. They also disrupted the Mediterranean trade - a huge blow to the economy - and one of the catalysts for throwing some of the region into the dark ages. They also inflicted a heavy defeat on the combined Romano-Byzantine forces that were sent to quash their piratical enterprises. Their final defeat at the hands of Belisarius brought control back into the region.

[Diocles]

I would have to say Carthage during the second punic war would be the worst. Multiple times Hannibal brought the Roman military to its knees at Trasimene and Cannae early in the war, yet (with the exception of Capua) he never took or took advantage of a strategic victory. It's been debated that his lack of siege equipment is what hindered or dissuaded him in his ability to take Rome after Cannae, however the psychological impact of Hannibal's victory at Cannae for the Romans, in conjunction with Hannibal marching on Rome, could have been devastating and could have possibly lead to a victory.

 

It might have been a hard won battle due to the Roman resolve to fight - after the general hysteria died down - however the majority of the duration Hannibal was within the Italian peninsula seems to me like a string of lost chances. Hannibal was surely a brilliant tactician and general, however he never took advantage of a victory and allowed Rome the opportunity to recover and reconstitute a resistance.

[Antiochus III]

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".

 

I really dont think that Mithridates was a dangerous man to Rome, and neither was Parthia. Parthia was weak internally. They failed to make decisive invasions as well. Sassanid persia was much different though...

[Antiochus III]

Carthage. It was the closest to really defeating Rome, and the Roman legacy would really have been gone if Carthage would have won. No other culture after carthage was anywhere close to dfeating Rome on its own, and it only fell because of a combination of external and internal conflicts. Rome's power soared after the defeat of carthage, so carthage really was the last dangerous enemy to Rome.

 

Antiochus III

[Northern Neil]

I think I will go with the Huns. Their migration set off a chain of events in which the Germans first sought sanctuary, then land from the Empire. This happened at a time when the Empire itself was riven by political and religious divisions and was thus unable to cope with the pressures from without. Without pressure from the Huns the Goths would have posed far less of a problem.

[Klingan]

To add an unorthodox point of view, the Romans them self.

 

This is meant to be seen through foreign trade where metals constantly were exported. No enemies harmed Rome more then the constant inflation during the Empire.

[Primus Pilus]

I really dont think that Mithridates was a dangerous man to Rome, and neither was Parthia. Parthia was weak internally. They failed to make decisive invasions as well. Sassanid persia was much different though...

 

This leads me to ask what is your definition of danger? Mithridates slaughtered tens of thousands of Roman citizens in Asia Minor, swept armies across the Bosporus into Thracia and Greece, and despite being soundly thrashed by Sulla, still managed to hold on to his own kingdom for another 2 decades (while remaining a nominal threat to Rome's eastern interests). It's no less dangerous than anyone else, really. The invasions of Hannibal, Antiochus, etc. ended no better for the host nation. I don't by any stretch intend to compare Mithridates (and therefore Archelaus) to Hannibal, but dismissing the threat of Mithridates dismisses the effort necessary by Rome to remove him (the campaign of Sulla cut short by civil war, the extensive campaign of Lucullus, and the mop-up by Pompeius). It was the successful result of these campaigns that cemented Rome's power throughout the Mediterranean. I'm sure Rome would've found an excuse to spread it's influence east without Mithridates, but the record shows that the threat of his existence (and the pirates that he supported) prompted Rome's eastern march. Left unchecked, who knows what Mithridates may have done.

 

As far as Parthia goes... again I agree that in retrospect the threat wasn't as great as it may have seemed. However, I do think it's important to note Rome's actual view at the time. The behavior of Rome suggests both the perceived threat and of course the potential for obtaining great wealth through conquest. While the campaigns of Crassus and Antonius were of their own making, rather than invasions by the Parthians, neither ended well. Augustus respected Parthian power enough to use diplomacy rather than force to secure the return of Crassus' lost standards. A generation later, Corbulo's victories in Armenia still never ended the struggle for political dominance in that region. A century after Corbulo, and despite his victories, Trajan's conquests were ultimately untenable. Another century later, Severus' campaigns accomplished little more. (though his victory clearly ended Parthian power and helped usher in Persian dominance) While I agree that Parthia never presented a lasting threat as a persistent invader, their was a danger.

[Kosmo]

To add an unorthodox point of view, the Romans them self.

 

This is meant to be seen through foreign trade where metals constantly were exported. No enemies harmed Rome more then the constant inflation during the Empire.

 

Romans had forbbiden the export of precious metals, but this drain was a constant source of troubles for Europe. It became less of a problem when potruguese and spaniards strted to export the gold and silver of West Africa and America to a point when american spanish export of silver to Manila-China was, for a year, greater then those to Europe (and much of that was going to Asia by the Cape route).

Only the Industrial Revolution (and much less the opium trade) changed this pattern, but the last decade shows a return to the ancient model.

It was speculated that the roman eastern trade deficit combined with the gradual decline of mining after a peak during Trajan are an important cause for the reduced monetary circulation in the Dark Ages and the establishment of local self sufficient economies.

But with this discussion we are offtopic because it's not about enemies.

[P.Clodius]

Mithridates slaughtered tens of thousands of Roman citizens in Asia Minor, swept armies across the Bosporus into Thracia and Greece, and despite being soundly thrashed by Sulla, still managed to hold on to his own kingdom for another 2 decades (while remaining a nominal threat to Rome's eastern interests).....

True enough. But his holding onto power was due more to political machinations at Rome than skill on his part. All the scholars, (atleast the ones I've read) are universal is saying he got off very lightly. There were few generals as capable as Sulla in ancient rome and his desire to end the conflict and not prosecute it to its inevitable conclusion, to deal with the Marians must have made Mithridates breath a sigh of relief.

[Primus Pilus]

True enough. But his holding onto power was due more to political machinations at Rome than skill on his part. All the scholars, (atleast the ones I've read) are universal is saying he got off very lightly. There were few generals as capable as Sulla in ancient rome and his desire to end the conflict and not prosecute it to its inevitable conclusion, to deal with the Marians must have made Mithridates breath a sigh of relief.

 

Agreed, without the circumstances of the Marian/Sullan conflict, Mithridates likely would've been far less a threat than he was. I just didn't want to see him dismissed entirely.

[Domitianus3]

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.

 

 

I have to agree with Julius Ratus here that the Romans were indeed there own worst enemy. Sure the outside threats were there and significant, but the internal strife and constant implementing of bad policies toward the end of the empire allowed those threats to grow and pose more of a danger to the state. Had things been more secure and had the people themselves been more "patriotic"- for lack of a better word- things might be a lot different today.

[cornelius_sulla]

I would concur with Julius Ratus and Domitianus3 that the Romans were their own worst enemies. Internecine warfare between vainglorious Roman generals caused more harm to Republic and Empire than Carthage, Germania and Gaul put together. The Romans could always defeated all of those enemies and in the end was a shell of itself that was not so much conquered as put out of it's misery.