Worst Roman Enemy and why?

[Adelais Valerius]

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.

 

we should keep this conversation focused on outside enemies, not the fact that the Romans had there faults. It seems every conversation in the forum ends with Rome beinging its own worst enemy. Now though that may be correct, we should analyze others things for the sake of conversation. Otherwise we might as well just end every post with "....and Rome conquered itself"

[Lex]

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.

Agreed.

You listed some of the points I wanted to make. Especially about the Vandals, since they deprived Italy and a weakened Western Empire of desperately needed resources when they most needed it. Resources they could have used to build up the army.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Lex

[Caius Maxentius]

It's hard to say whether the Sassanids really were a lethal threat to the empire, but I agree with others that the Romans behaved as if they were. I think the East under Valens may have been able to win decisively against the Goths if he felt empowered to make use of the armies on the Armenian, Syrian and Palestinian borders.

[Minerva]

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.

 

Definitely Carthage. Not just Archimedes' amazing and original technology and the long drawn out war. For me the though Carthage was ultimately reduced the longterm socio-economic problems that occured as a result of or were aggravated by Hannibals 15 years in Italy were the most severe blow to Romes stability. Thanks to the Hannibalic war much of the countryside and farms were destroyed. prolonged military service lead to neglect of agriculture. The end of the war was marked by rural depopulation, over crowding of Rome which in turn lead to the formation of the idle rabble that lived off selling votes. Giving up small farms ravaged by war lead to the increase of 'lati fundia' These were evils that Rome was saddled with for right till the fall of the republic and attempts at correction lead to violence. Hannibal died and Carthage fell but their legacy to Rome lasted much longer

[M. Corvus Cato]

I really want to say Julius Caesar because as far as I am concerned the clock was ticking once the republic fell but I take the point that this thread is about external threats.

 

So for me it has to be Germania. Surely their was no foe quite so implacable and unconquerable as the Germanic hordes. The cost of keeping the long border secure in terms of men and treasure undoubtedly put a great strain of the empire and the battle of the Teutoburg Forest inflicted a great psychological blow to the empire when it was at its most confident.

 

I also think that in an indirect way it sapped the quality of the Roman army as later emperors had to rely more and more on Germanic mercenaries instead of raising loyal Latin legions.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I really want to say Julius Caesar because as far as I am concerned the clock was ticking once the republic fell but I take the point that this thread is about external threats.

 

I agree with Cato.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I really want to say Julius Caesar because as far as I am concerned the clock was ticking once the republic fell but I take the point that this thread is about external threats.

 

I agree with Cato.

Salve, Catos.

 

Even without considering the "Byzantine"(?) period of the Empire, Rome lasted at least another five centuries. Is that "ticking the clock" for you?

 

And I don't think this thread is just about external threats. Late Republican nobiles were arguably their own worst enemies and the main cause both for the fall of the Republic and for the absence of its resurgence.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Late Republican nobiles were arguably their own worst enemies and the main cause both for the fall of the Republic and for the absence of its resurgence.

 

Since Caesar was a nobile, you're not contradicting either Cato.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Late Republican nobiles were arguably their own worst enemies and the main cause both for the fall of the Republic and for the absence of its resurgence.

 

Since Caesar was a nobile, you're not contradicting either Cato.

No, I'm not.

[Scipio.]

Isn't saying the Germanic tribes were Rome's worst enemy sort of like saying the Allies were Hitler's worst enemy in World War II?

 

I mean, they weren't just one political entity like the Parthians, Sassanids, or Carthaginians. They were practically everyone in the northern half of Europe!

 

I agree that Rome was Rome's greatest enemy, but aside from that I'd say the Huns. They were the ones who started the fourth- and fifth-century mess