Rome's Top 3 Worst Defeats

[dy-nasty]

It is quite ironic that the greatest and most efficient empire in history was probably that of Rome, yet three of the most smashing defeats of an army in military history came at her expense. One was during her rise just before she was an international power, the 2nd occurred during her zenith, and the third was when she was decadent and near collapse.

 

1. In 216 B.C., Hannibal inflicted perhaps the most devastating defeat ever on an army in military history, annhilating 8 legions, the largest Rome ever pitted on the field, within few hours. His classic double-envelopment resulted in the destruction of 80% of a total Roman force of over 90,000 foot and horse. Cannae would enter military textbooks as the model of a perfect battle of annihilation, and never again would an army rely solely on superior numbers of infantry. Cannae was not only one of the bloodiest battles of ancient times, it was one of the bloodiests battles of all time. Around 70,000 Romans and a few thousand Carthaginians were killed in a few hours of fighting. There are few instances in history were such a one-sided battle has so many men been killed. And it was all thanks to Hannibal's genius.

 

2. In A.D. 9, three legions led by Q. Varus, numbering some 15,000 soldiers and auxiliary cavalry, practically all perished at the Teutoburger Wald (the Rhineland) at the hands of Arminius I, known in Germany as Hermann. Germany would prove unqonquerable to Rome.

 

3. In A.D. 378, the Goths led by Fritigern, destroyed the 60,000 force of foot and horse under Valens, the Byzantine emperor. 50,000 or so swift Gothic horsemen joined the same number of infantry and descended upon and surrounded Valens' force near Adrianople, a town in modern Bulgaria. The result was comparable to Cannae, with 3/4 of Valens', including himself, wiped out. This smashin

[Valens]

It is quite ironic that the greatest and most efficient empire in history was probably that of Rome, yet three of the most smashing defeats of an army in military history came at her expense. One was during her rise just before she was an international power, the 2nd occurred during her zenith, and the third was when she was decadent and near collapse.

Rome's zenith was really in the Late 1st Century AD to the Early Second Century AD.

[Ursus]

It is quite ironic that the greatest and most efficient empire in history was probably that of Rome, yet three of the most smashing defeats of an army in military history came at her expense

 

 

I guess it shows that empires are built on more than military power. Hannibal could smash as many armies as he wanted, Rome could always raise more due to the treaties it had with its allies requiring them to levy troops.

 

I'd say the brilliance of Roman imperialism rested in its diplomacy and political machinations. And the Roman legions should probably be remembered more for their construction projects than their military victories (or defeats).

[dnewhous]

In the days of the late republic the Roman legions were truly intimidating, very well trained and well disciplined in the Spartan tradition. They formed their shields in a wall and clanged their swords against them in unison.

 

But Hannibal showed tactics and technology (elephants) could overcome that.

 

It is not simply the ability to levy troops. The empire had far more resources at its command at the time of the battle of Adrianople than they did during the late republic, yet they couldn't recover from the defeat at the hand of the Goths. Hannibal's army was eventually defeated, though that was after he was forced to retreat to defend Carthage - I wonder if in his haste he had to give up some of his advantage (elephants).

 

What I have been told is, that during the days of the republic, the people actually were willing to die for the republic and not so for the empire. The empire had become very exploitive economically. There was always slavery. Serfdom started when people sold themselves to patricians to protect them from the Roman tax collectors, and Rome issued edicts that a man had to follow the same profession as his father; I forget what institagated it, but Rome had regulated several professions into impofitability. The Roman legacy of strangling centralized regulation is with Europe today.

 

I'm really curious how much of the nobility of dark age Europe was descended from Roman patricians. The social stratification of "knight" is an obvious Roman holdover. Was the Republic conquered, or did it fragment? Local prefects mustering what was left of the Roman military and becoming petty kings?

[dnewhous]

Talking about the worst defeats in history, didn't the Persians lose 200,000 men invading Greece?

[Primus Pilus]

I certainly can't disagree with Dy-nasty's choices. I would, however put Adrianople first, simply because it was a decisive back breaker. The other two were recovered from, and in the case of Cannae, actually made Rome stronger in the end. (The entire war that is, obviously the battle itself didn't help )

[pompeius magnus]

This is a difficult question to answer because it can have a two different ways of classifying the worst defeats. Do you judge it based on the number of troops lost, or, and this is the way I judge them, by the effects they had on rome. In my way I would view them as follows:

 

1.) Adrianople: even though it wasn't the sole reason for rome's fall, or even that rome fell afterwards, it was a precursor of sorts of things to come. It proved to the Goths what they could do if they worked together, however they were content with just having their own living area and wanted proper treatment. And the weakness issue of the eastern empire can not be applied here because the battle was fought in the western empire. What it did prove to some of Rome's traditional enemies, Italian inparticular, is that the empire was having problems managing all its territory and when Aleric invaded Rome, because of unfair treatment of his people and the wasting of gothic lives in battles, the italian enemies of rome sided with aleric, I guess it proves that old enemies die hard. Also there was something about this angry guy named Attila that helped Romes fall, I keep hearing good things about him.

 

Any other ones did not have that kind of effect on Rome, but if i had to list other battles that were bad for rome:

 

Carrae

The various civil wars

The defeat of Crassus by the Parthians, thus capturing several eagle fasces and forcing their recapture by Augustus, caesar was murdered the day before his expedition was scheduled for the Parthians.

The throwing away of various noble lives before the conscriptions of marius, leading actually to the conscription ideas.

 

Here is an intense discussion me and two other guys had on another board about the worst battle in roman history.

Roman Army Talk

 

It is on page two, however page one has another intense argument I had with several people on the composition and concept of the byzantine empire, page two has the Adrianople dispute. I am Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.