"Rome's enemies weren't especially hard"

[Carpathian Wolf]

"The Romans are great warriors no doubt about it,but look at their enemies also.They weren't especially hard.The Gauls,weak.Britons weak though,they killed 50,000 legionary's from guerilla tactics.Carthaginians under Hannibal wreaked wholesale havok,with mercenaries. The Greeks were already week from fighting and allied with the Romans against other Greeks. Antiouchus was heavily defeated in battle at Raphia before the Romans.Macedon with the help of most of Greece. Oh,i forgot this is the Republic? Parthia,Armenia, internal civil war ,I will do post on Parthia and civil war after this one since i can now paste articles,and assume you read them,but I know you will selectively reply to them or misword my statement.I guess it takes a barbarian like the Germans(especially you're beloved Goths) to destroy the Romans,and the Romans keep putting themselves into decline."

~FreeRadical

So what do you guys think about this gem? Were Rome's enemies not especially hard?

[Chukada1]

Easy Peasy. Romulos was a sissy.

[cottontail]

Rome's perseverance won the day. It was in no better a situation in the beginning than any other state in the Mediterranean. But they were willing to take horrendous losses, and their single minded total war attitude defeated other states who were not prepared. All in all, it does not matter who you fight but what you gain.

And why should we blame Rome for other country's idiotic policies? How does it degenerate Rome's image if they used other Greeks against the Macedonians? How they attacked Gaul after a civil war in it so that it would be easier ( and they still had plenty of fights)? How they defeated Carthage, an empire with a much larger population and monetary base at the beginning, through perseverance even after taking horrendous losses? What about Parthia, where the Romans learned from their mistakes at Carrhae and marched to the Persian capital quite a few times? How exactly is that humiliating for the Romans.

If you ask me, their intelligence and perseverance is to be admired, not denegrated.

[FreeRadical]

Oh my goodness I am going to have so many enemies on this forum wanting to stab at my jugular-lol

And why should we blame Rome for other country's idiotic policies? How does it degenerate Rome's image if they used other Greeks against the Macedonians? How they attacked Gaul after a civil war in it so that it would be easier ( and they still had plenty of fights)? How they defeated Carthage, an empire with a much larger population and monetary base at the beginning, through perseverance even after taking horrendous losses? What about Parthia, where the Romans learned from their mistakes at Carrhae and marched to the Persian capital quite a few times? How exactly is that humiliating for the Romans.

I don't want to spend all my time here,but some of that I answered in the Mongols versus Roman,and it was used to prove a point in relation to Mongol,cunning,deception,psychological warfare.

Hannibal was in Rome territory for 15 years after crossing the Alps and surprising the Romans. Rome didn't pay for troops in the Republican era.Citizens were required to serve without pay.Hannibal was destroying the countryside for 15 years and ruining Rome economically,but they just kept pumping more citizen soldiers even after defeat after defeat.That's where the Roman determination comes from,but if they had no money they wouldn't be so determined.Legions,Auxilliaries paid for after Marian reforms.No money=no troops.Look at Carthaginian senate compared to Rome and you will see weakness.They also used to crucify a general if he lost a battle

Battle of Nisbis 217 Parthia versus Rome.Rome paying 2,000,000 sesterces to Parthia.Rome lost at least 3 pitched battles to Parthia.. Most of Rome's battles against Parthia were against sieges not pitched battles.Take a look at Parthia's feudal system, wars against the east, terrible rulers,better yet read this,and the conclusionhttp://www.allempires.com/article/in...roman_parthian All people hear about is Carrhae and Parthia being,sacked,but there is so much more to it. Things were getting so bad for Parthia that generals were starting rebel kingdoms in India, and Sarmatians were defeating them.Surena was killed by his king after the Battle of Carrhae .That's how they reward their generals.I am very surprised they lasted as long as they did.I think we need to do a thread on Parthia-lol

[Poach]

Rome's enemies were not weak, Rome itself was extremely strong.

It is, as mentioned above, wholly unfair to claim Rome wasn't great just because it won decisively all the time. The Gauls may not have wore heavy armour and marched in step, but they were still capable fighters and almost always outnumbered the Romans (200-300,000 vs 40,000 at Alesia, for example), but the Roman virtues of perseverence and sound military thinking won them the day consistently.

The Roman Empire did not fall militarily, her armies were near unbeatable in the field. The Empire fell because the politicians became so corrupt they placed their own interests ahead of the Empire's, used her armies as their own henchmen and conspired with her enemies for personal profit.

Edit: Even thinking on the level of "Rome's enemies weren't very good", Rome was right in the middle of them. Ok, so every culture surroudning Rome was backward and Rome used cheap tricks and underhanded diplomacy to beat them all. Is that not worthy of being dubbed great anyway? The Romans pulled themselves above the cultural level present in Europe and dominated the Med Sea and everything around it. Pathetic enemies or not, that's an achievement whether it be via a first class army (which they certainly had) or a first class diplomatic flare (which they did display at times).

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well the argument in context came out of the "Rome vs Mongols" thread and FreeRadical was trying to say in one of his points that the Roman's enemies weren't even that tough attempting to "give a point" to the Mongols. That's the context anyway.

[bushbush]

depends who you compare rome's enemies to i guess. If you compare them to cavemen, yes they are very tough indeed. In you compare them to ww1 industrial armies, ya they are pretty soft. Was he comparing them to mongols' enemies? With all the technological improvement, you can probably make a case that Rome's enemies were "easier" to finish off than Mongols' enemies.

[conon394]

With all the technological improvement, you can probably make a case that Rome's enemies were "easier" to finish off than Mongols' enemies.

or not.

Rome likely polished off the Mamluks but the Mongols could due to the logistical constrains imposed by their main war fighting method.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

I would rather say that Rome was fortunate enough not to face an enemy as stubborn and as determined as they were.

[KaRoU23]

I would rather say that Rome was fortunate enough not to face an enemy as stubborn and as determined as they were.

Well i woudn't say so.....We must bear in mind that the Roman army was the elite and the only <<professional>> army of the era....Not many opponents had the discipline of the Roman Legions....especially in the Northern Campaigns

[Helm]

I would rather say that Rome was fortunate enough not to face an enemy as stubborn and as determined as they were.

Technically they did seeing as they often fought civil wars against themselves.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I hate to use a video game example but I think Europa Barbarorum is the closest and best manner in which to experience ancient warfare today without perhaps actually getting thousands of people together in full armor and re-enacting it out. But to me I usually place the elephants on a flank or the back and use them once fighting has already gone under war. I use them to possible even trample the enemy general after i've lured him out or to cause mass routes. Using elephants right off the bat is just stupid. They may cause a lot of initial damage but then they get bogged down, freak out, and run back into my own lines.

[CiviC]

There were no technological discrepancies between Rome and her Barbarian adversaries as is today bewteen US and her third world adversaries. I mean US has nuclear boms, very advanced aircrafts, tanks, satellites, missiles, seacarriers, etc, while her adversaries have ... Kalashnikovs and human bombs.

Between Rome and Germanic tribes the discrepancies were not so great and it seems in some aspects the Celts or Germanics had superiority in terms of military technology or tactics.

[KaRoU23]

There were no technological discrepancies between Rome and her Barbarian adversaries as is today bewteen US and her third world adversaries. I mean US has nuclear boms, very advanced aircrafts, tanks, satellites, missiles, seacarriers, etc, while her adversaries have ... Kalashnikovs and human bombs.

Between Rome and Germanic tribes the discrepancies were not so great and it seems in some aspects the Celts or Germanics had superiority in terms of military technology or tactics.

Well not exactly.... Of course the military technology of the Romans were at least superior than the Celtic tribes.... For example, although Celts had excellent craftmanship,they could not surpass the Lorica Hamata and Lorica Segmentata.....Moreover the Pilum(roman javelin) surpassed the Gaesum in terms of constuction...Now about the swords...I don't really know if the Gladius was better than the Celtic Swords, however Romans were very profficient with it

[hellheaven1987]

Well not exactly.... Of course the military technology of the Romans were at least superior than the Celtic tribes.... For example, although Celts had excellent craftmanship,they could not surpass the Lorica Hamata and Lorica Segmentata.....Moreover the Pilum(roman javelin) surpassed the Gaesum in terms of constuction...Now about the swords...I don't really know if the Gladius was better than the Celtic Swords, however Romans were very profficient with it

Blah, please bring out source suggests Gauls could not surpass Lorica Hamata and Lorica Segmentata.

What Gauls lacked were training, organization and logistic, which their social structure was not supporting those developments.

[KaRoU23]

Blah, please bring out source suggests Gauls could not surpass Lorica Hamata and Lorica Segmentata.

What Gauls lacked were training, organization and logistic, which their social structure was not supporting those developments.

I know that the Gauls lacked on discipline....However check this:

Celtic Armor:
Shields: The primary defensive equipment of the Celt was the shield. These were normally just over a meter tall, constructed of wood reinforced with metal, and shaped in either an oval or an oval flattened at the top and the bottom.
Helmets: Helmets were expensive to produce and it is thought that only the wealthier warriors would have owned them. Styles varied immensely from a simple conical metal cap, to a cap with heavy cheek guards and stylized metal ornamentation displayed on the top.
Armor: Body armor was very rare among the Celts. However, the wealthiest warriors and chiefs probably wore some kind of scale or chainmail shirt.
Nudity: In many classical depictions, Celtic warriors are naked. This has lead to a lot of debate among scholars. Current theory is that these men were part of special mercenary units that used nudity to identify their status.

Read more at Suite101: The Celtic Warrior in Britain: His Weapons, Equipment, and Armor http://britishhistory.suite101.com/a...#ixzz0iBwUwW5O

A scale armor was better against blunt attacks, but the Roman Lorica Hamata, the Lorica Segmentata and the Lorica Musculata of the Centurions offered flexibillity and protection.

[Odovacar]

Rome's enemies varied greatly. They were actually harder to finish than the enemies of mongols who were heavily divided and mostly demoralised each time.

Hannibal was an enemy for example who was hardly "not so though".

[DAVIDE]

You guys are comparing equipment with military strenght? but just equipment do not make you victorious in a long term war. You need a strong and solid economy, men at arms, strategic and politic far-sightedness, the right dosing of propaganda etc. etc....

[KaRoU23]

You guys are comparing equipment with military strenght? but just equipment do not make you victorious in a long term war. You need a strong and solid economy, men at arms, strategic and politic far-sightedness, the right dosing of propaganda etc. etc....

Of course my friend everything that you said, was necessary for a war...But we don't talk about the situation that existed,but about the military itself.The Roman army was the only professional army of the era, due to the soldiers' discipline and the strategy of its leaders...The only exception was Fabius Maximus who did victories to Hannibal with skirmishes and avoiding straight, frontal attacks. But generally the discipline and the heavy equipment of the roman army made the Romans almost invincible in straightforward combat

[DAVIDE]

Of course my friend everything that you said, was necessary for a war...But we don't talk about the situation that existed,but about the military itself.The Roman army was the only professional army of the era, due to the soldiers' discipline and the strategy of its leaders...The only exception was Fabius Maximus who did victories to Hannibal with skirmishes and avoiding straight, frontal attacks. But generally the discipline and the heavy equipment of the roman army made the Romans almost invincible in straightforward combat

Romans were formidable (i did not say invincible) just on large and wide battlefields where they could deploy their usual battle formation according to their military standards. In tight and narrow areas as forests, woods, valleys, towns etc. etc. they were easily beatable by everybody. Why? Because a wood cannot permit you to deploy the formation as you desire. And in loose formation Romans were extremely weak