Rome's Strongest Enemy

[bushbush]

Anyway, for short Dacians wasnt completely crushed, and Romans used the biggest army ever to defeat the kingdom of Decebalus, and this at the peak of Rome power. I think for that period or roman history, yes, Dacians was the strongest enemy

you already know why i disagree with you on this diegis. I think we agreed to disagree on that.

 

[Lysimachus]

So lets get this straight. An enemy being crushed makes them the strongest? The troop numbers are all nice and lovely, but if you actually get destroyed by your adversary, how on earth does that make you the strongest? All it means is that you were steamrollered by superior numbers.

 

[Tiberios]

Indeed.

Anyway I'd say Parthians and Sassanids. No way was it the Dacians.

 

[Ludicus]

Indirectly, the Huns?
They appeared in the east in 370, destroyed at least one of the Gothic tribes, and menaced others. As a result, Gothic tribes (Tervingi and others) sought entry to the Roman empire, and others stayed north of the Danube and accepted Hunnic hegemony. As a result of the steady development/pressure of the Huns, a large number of barbarian groups invaded the empire, and political errors in handling them would be problematic.
To the east, there was always Persia (Sassanian dinasty, 220/640s)
Indeed, this was a permanent threat, but a stable one. The Persia state, almost as large as the Roman empire was held together by a complex tax system and it had a powerful military aristocracy...

 

[Babur]

Well, your historical knowledge didnt imprese me at all. I know you start this thread as a kind of debouch from the one with superpowers, where you are upset about some posts. The problem was discussed on several other threads before, so i will not re-write again all that stuff.

Anyway, for short Dacians wasnt completely crushed, and Romans used the biggest army ever to defeat the kingdom of Decebalus, and this at the peak of Rome power. I think for that period or roman history, yes, Dacians was the strongest enemy

the fact that the Dacians were defeated though shows that they weren't the strongest , let's keep nationalism out of this thread.

 

[Last Roman]

Carthage at the early stage, Hannibal basically paraded his army across Italy.
Then the Sassanids, which probably could have defeated the Roman Empire

defeated in what sense? defeat on the battlefield? sure. but ultimately bring down the entire empire? no.

 

[KngGilgamesh]

To defeat an empire one doesn't have to bring down the entire empire by conquest.

 

[Last Roman]

To defeat an empire one doesn't have to bring down the entire empire by conquest.

Nor did I say otherwise. but the Sassanids, while very powerful and a threat to Rome's eastern border, couldn't have brought down the Roman Empire. In fact, we can easily see this because they didn't.

 

[{II}Sovereign]

Carthage or the Huns those were the two capable enemies that could have tumbled it to ruins.

 

[Ottaman Emperor Mehmet]

"In first century BC, the Roman Senate declared King Mithridates Eupator VI of Pontus (on the Black Sea) as its greatest enemy. Rome had turned Pontus into a satellite state when Mithridates' mother ruled. When he became the monarch, his country was totally reliant on Rome. Instead of bowing like his mom, he launches campaigns often brutal to throw Rome out of his country and the rest of Asia Minor."

 

[Arbitrary Crusader]

"In first century BC, the Roman Senate declared King Mithridates Eupator VI of Pontus (on the Black Sea) as its greatest enemy

They say the same thing with Hannibal.

 

[hellheaven1987]

A Sassanid cataphract :

A cataphract has no stirup, you know.

Either way, it is more close to a medium cavalry, since Roman medium cavalries also wore mail armor.

 

[Gestalt]

Gestalt: I'd place Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals ahead of Huns when considering the threat they posed to the Western Roman Empire. Huns hardly even entered the Italian Peninsula, let alone held any threat to the Western Roman Capitals. It were the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals that truly fought against the Roman legions in Italia(and sacked Rome).

The Huns as mentioned by Ludicus and others in this thread as well as in the book by Peter Heather I am reading caused even more harm,damage indirectly by pushing many of those Germans across the frontier in Roman provinces.The Hunnic empire incorporated subjugated and incorporated many Germans into their empire,and this process is what drove the Goths and is suspected the Vandals into Roman territory.Ravenna was the capital of the Roman Empire during Alarics sack,and Honorius the Roman emperor was actually more afraid at the time of Constantine III a usrper coming from Gaul,and couldn't fight both Alaric and ConstantineI III at the same time.Maximus the usurper who murdered Velentininan fled before the Vandals without even fighting them when they landed in Italy and was killed by a Roman mob for his cowardice.

It is written that Pope Leo I stopped Attila from taking Rome by paying him off,but some people are skeptical of that.It is also possible that famine or disease encouraged him to leave Italy.Interesting that Venice was founded because of his destruction though.

"Attila returned in 452 to claim his marriage to Honoria anew, invading and ravaging Italy along the way. The city of Venice was founded as a result of these attacks when the residents fled to small islands in the Venetian Lagoon. His army sacked numerous cities and razed Aquileia completely, leaving no trace of it behind. Legend has it he built a castle on top of a hill north of Aquileia to watch the city burn, thus founding the town of Udine, where the castle can still be found. Aëtius, who lacked the strength to offer battle, managed to harass and slow Attila's advance with only a shadow force. Attila finally halted at the River Po. By this point disease and starvation may have broken out in Attila's camp, thus helping to stop his invasion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun

 

[diegis]

you already know why i disagree with you on this diegis. I think we agreed to disagree on that.

yes, i think we agreed on that

 

[teh.frickin.pope]

The 4th Crusade? Destroyed Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire with it; even though the Nicaeans recaptured the city, the empire was done.

 

[diegis]

So lets get this straight. An enemy being crushed makes them the strongest? The troop numbers are all nice and lovely, but if you actually get destroyed by your adversary, how on earth does that make you the strongest? All it means is that you were steamrollered by superior numbers.

OK, so according with your logic, Hannibal wasnt either at all the strongest enemy of republican Rome, because finnaly he was defeated and Carthage was crushed and razed from the face of the Earth.

 

[diegis]

To make a comparation, Rome was during Caesar to Traian era like Cassius Clay/Muhamad Ali in his road to the world title, and during his dominance as world champion. When Huns arrived, or Goths in late times (not at first when they appear), or Germanics (again, in late times and after they was pretty much romanized from military point of view), or Sassanids at the very end (late VI and VII century) or Arabs etc., is like Muhamad Ali at age of 60 years and with Parkinson being attacked by Manny Paquaio and Floyd Maywheater who obviously will be able to beat him then claim they was the strongest enemies because they manage to defeat him.

 

[Last Roman]

OK, so according with your logic, Hannibal wasnt either at all the strongest enemy of republican Rome, because finnaly he was defeated and Carthage was crushed and razed from the face of the Earth.

Yes, but over the course of over a century, while Dacia was conquered in the matter of a year. Nor did Dacians go around Italy practically unchecked.

 

[diegis]

Yes, but over the course of over a century, while Dacia was conquered in the matter of a year. Nor did Dacians go around Italy practically unchecked.

Hmm, Carthage was conquered even quicker then a year. And are you aware when the first battle betwen Dacians and Romans was, and when the last ones? Dont confuse the Dacians as peoples with just kingdom of Decebalus. And even like that, first battle of Decebalus with Romans occur in 87 AD, when he invaded Moesia, and last one in 106 AD. And during Hannibal times Rome didnt even controled all italian peninsula, where some parts was loyal to Hannibal, but durring Traian comprised some 30% of all world population back then.

Beside that, what i wanted to point out was that Rome strongest opponents can be too ones who romans defeat them

 

[Lysimachus]

OK, so according with your logic, Hannibal wasnt either at all the strongest enemy of republican Rome, because finnaly he was defeated and Carthage was crushed and razed from the face of the Earth.

I'm on about Imperial Rome, not the Republic.

Beside that, what i wanted to point out was that Rome strongest opponents can be too ones who romans defeat them

Uhm, no they can't. If their strongest opponents got defeated then their remaining opposition must have been pretty pathetic, which it wasn't.

 

[Aetius]

Itself.

 

[Babur]

A cataphract has no stirup, you know.

Either way, it is more close to a medium cavalry, since Roman medium cavalries also wore mail armor.

well my bad it is a Sassanid savaran and also the Sassanids may have used stirrups by the 7th Century AD due to their contacts with nomadic peoples during the previous centiuries.

 

[Herakleios]

well my bad it is a Sassanid savaran and also the Sassanids may have used stirrups by the 7th Century AD due to their contacts with nomadic peoples during the previous centiuries.

Either way, I do think that Savaran would look more realistic with a lamellar coat over his chainmail, plus "sleeves" of overlapping laminated metal rings for the limbs, and some horse armor, the Sassanians embraced a doctrine of combining different types of armour so as to simultaneously maximkize flexibility and protection. This is how it should really look like, more or less:

Spoiler

Or perhaps like this:

Spoiler

The conical spangenhelm on the second one makes the rider look distinctively Sassanian. Shields and half-armour for the horse seem to have become popular in the late Sassanian period, and stirrups may possibly have been introduced around this time, but there's no conclusive evidence of this to my knowledge, they did seem to adopt the two-sword suspension system from the Turkic peoples, which allowed the knights to draw their sword faster. Throughout their history, the weapons of the Savaran also varied, and they usually carried a mace, sword, and bow along with their lance. But we also hear of darts, daggers and whips at times.

 

[Babur]

Either way, I do think that Savaran would look more realistic with a lamellar coat over his chainmail, plus "sleeves" of overlapping laminated metal rings for the limbs, and some horse armor, this is how it should really look like, more or less:

Spoiler

Or perhaps like this:

Spoiler

The conical spangenhelm on the second one makes the rider look distinctively Sassanian. Shields and half-armour for the horse seem to have become popular in the late Sassanian period, and stirrups may possibly have been introduced around this time, but there's no conclusive evidence of this, to my knowledge. The weapons of the Savaran also varied, and they usually carried a bow, mace or a sword, and darts along with their lance.

Here is another pic of one:

 

[Tiberios]

Hmm, Carthage was conquered even quicker then a year.

Lol what? Are you saying that the three punic wars that brought down Carthage lasted a year?

The second pounic war alone lasted 17 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars

And are you aware when the first battle betwen Dacians and Romans was, and when the last ones? Dont confuse the Dacians as peoples with just kingdom of Decebalus. And even like that, first battle of Decebalus with Romans occur in 87 AD, when he invaded Moesia, and last one in 106 AD. And during Hannibal times Rome didnt even controled all italian peninsula, where some parts was loyal to Hannibal, but durring Traian comprised some 30% of all world population back then.

I'd say the Roman victory over Carthage was far more impressive than that over Dacia. At the time of the Punic Wars the Romans faced an empire of near equal strength and still managed to defeat them in the end. Dacia never rivalled Rome.

Beside that, what i wanted to point out was that Rome strongest opponents can be too ones who romans defeat them

Yes but not one who was so easily quashed by the Romans as the Dacians were. Trajan completely destroyed Dacia between 101 and 106 A.D. Carthage lasted nearly 120 years.

Let's leave the nationalism out of the thread.

 

[Last Roman]

Hmm, Carthage was conquered even quicker then a year.

The final siege of Carthage was from 149-146 BC. Unless Im really bad at math, that's 3 years.

...when he invaded Moesia, and last one in 106 AD.

I meant the actual invasion by Trajan, which began in 105 AD and ended in 106.

 

[diegis]

Lol what? Are you saying that the three punic wars that brought down Carthage lasted a year?

The second pounic war alone lasted 17 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars




I'd say the Roman victory over Carthage was far more impressive than that over Dacia. At the time of the Punic Wars the Romans faced an empire of near equal strength and still managed to defeat them in the end. Dacia never rivalled Rome.



Yes but not one who was so easily quashed by the Romans as the Dacians were. Trajan completely destroyed Dacia between 101 and 106 A.D. Carthage lasted nearly 120 years.

Let's leave the nationalism out of the thread.

Yes, sorry, the final battle betwen Rome and Carthage was during 3 years, and the final battle betwen Romans of Traian and Dacians of Decebal was 2 years.

However, look at the map of Roman empire/republic during the wars with Cartagina

And during the war with Dacians of Decebalus

Did you see the diference, and with who fighted dacians? Not to mention that romans had back then around 1/3 of world population. And bringing an army of 150,000-200,000, in two wars, 101-102 and 105-106 you think was something for fun? Just make a comparation with any other army Romans felt necessary to deploy, in their good times, not when was in decline and agony, and see again the diference. Its quite huge

As well, first dacian fight with romans was in 62 BC if i remember correct, and Constantin the Great still fight with them and took the title Dacicus Maximus. And yes, Dacians wasnt ofcourse at the level of Rome, but at that moment nobody was at that level. But in time s of punic wars Rome was still just a regional power in Italian peninsula (during Hannibal invasion they didnt control in fact not even all the peninsula, parts of that was on Hannibal side).

Anyway, acording with Lysimachus Carthage wasnt either a strong oponent because they was defeated

 

[Last Roman]

you must be from Romania, huh?

 

[Manco]

Look, there's a reason people from all over the world will argue in favour of the Parthians, Sassanids, Huns, Germans, Carthaginians,... yet only Romanians ever mention the Dacians. It's called nationalism.

 

[Getwulf]

OK, so according with your logic, Hannibal wasnt either at all the strongest enemy of republican Rome, because finnaly he was defeated and Carthage was crushed and razed from the face of the Earth.

Diegis, no need to argue with some ignorant people on TWC. The Romans know who their most dangerous enemy was. Just look at their literature and at their monuments.

For you other people out there.... Sure it was the Sassanids... No doubt about it...

That's why Galerius the Dacian who was ruling over the Romans... Ahhh... forget it... Nevermind!