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 smashing win marked the arrival of the Goths in western Europe and altered warfare from infantry to cavalry dominance for the next millenia or so.

[QUOTE=BOTP]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, Cannae

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

3. In A.D. 378, the Goths led by Fritigern, destroyed the 60,000 force of foot and horse under Valens, near Adrianople



4. carrhae 53bc , marcus crassus loses 7 legions plus cavalry

i can't disagree there

I think there should be a seperate forum for Roman history. Half the questions are here about Rome, I'm so sick of it. Overkill. First there was darkness, then Trajan came and the world was colorful and then history ended.

As Roman defeats go, the battle of Arausio (105BC) was far worse than the Teutoburger Wald, the Romans losing anywhere between 60,000 to 80,000 men at the hands of the Cimbri.

as far as battles go, Tuetoburge wald i dont think counts; the Romans are reputed as to have been unable to fight back in the first place after all; and no matter what, it wasnt a battle in any Roman (or most other military) sense

otherwise i cant disagree; it was the bloody defeats that pointed out the weaknesses of the Roman army, and forced the Roman nation to reform its armies, to make the perfect army, or a tleast as close to it as it could, as the situation ecomomically an dpolitically in the late empire hardley lent itself to the Roman state being able to reform to anything properlly (though, obviouslly, the investment in cataphracts paid off well, considering Roman infantry had been going down the tubes since round about the latter portion fo the 3rd century)

that said, even i thinkt he Roman threads are getting damn annoying; leave the imperial armies be, and ask your questions of culutre or politics; you have about beat the interest of the peoples interest in military history in the ancient and middle ages to death. There is more to history then blood and gore, and while as all will suspect, and most will acknowledge, that i will be first and foremost to harald the supremecy of Roman arms on as many occasions as possible; its been over done, and its either time to give it a rest, or find a new group fo forums to continue your over beat, over worked, always repetive thread topics on.

as far as battles go, Tuetoburge wald i dont think counts; the Romans are reputed as to have been unable to fight back in the first place after all; and no matter what, it wasnt a battle in any Roman (or most other military) sense

Why does it not count? In reality, it was the perfect example of the use of advantageous terrain and ambush tactics.

that said, even i thinkt he Roman threads are getting damn annoying; leave the imperial armies be, and ask your questions of culutre or politics; you have about beat the interest of the peoples interest in military history in the ancient and middle ages to death. There is more to history then blood and gore, and while as all will suspect, and most will acknowledge, that i will be first and foremost to harald the supremecy of Roman arms on as many occasions as possible; its been over done, and its either time to give it a rest, or find a new group fo forums to continue your over beat, over worked, always repetive thread topics on.

Amen. I am sick of the Roman army threads, its pretty much established who thinks they had a truly unstoppable military machine, and who thinks it was a load of luck.

if you guys are sick of Roman threads then why reply to them?

if you guys are sick of Roman threads then why reply to them?

Not only that, why read them at all :confused: :dubious:

it's here, we're here, so we all might as well read and reply.

All these threadjackings will stop now.

As Roman defeats go, the battle of Arausio (105BC) was far worse than the Teutoburger Wald, the Romans losing anywhere between 60,000 to 80,000 men at the hands of the Cimbri.

:eek: :cringe: :wow: Can you imagine what the battlefield looked like
afterwards---- what CARNAGE!

Look at Verdun. Even today the battle traces are visable. Nevertheless Teutoburg was far more important as it was the battle that drove the Romans out of Germany.

Adler