Rome's Top 3 worst defeats

[History_Buff]

Guys, just let it die.

Frequently these decade-old threads are filled with tons of popular misinformation that are annoying to read, and can mislead newcomers to this board. Plus the original posters are long gone and don't really care what you have to contribute.

Quite. I was about to attack the OP before noticing the whole 2004 thing and realizing the chance of him seeing it was zero.

 

[Flying Pig]

Although it is interesting to note the comment complaining that all of the threads in WH are Roman history...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That was what tipped me off to the date. Not the surprise to see Adler et al posting again...

 

[Squonk]

Mantzikert as well.

 

[Antilogic]

Without seeing the date, I was about to object to Teutoburger Wald--it's not really decisive in a military sense, it's just that the Romans did not make a concerted effort to follow it up with further attacks and so it became an artificial point of demarcation. It used to be on my lists way back because of a book I read then (100 Decisive Battles or something like that, I can look it up if anyone is interested).

that really wasn't a clever response at all, nor does it address the reason why necroing is against the rules.

Frequently these decade-old threads are filled with tons of popular misinformation that are annoying to read, and can mislead newcomers to this board. Plus the original posters are long gone and don't really care what you have to contribute.

I'm split on the necroing policy. I definitely see the points you outlined as a reasonable cause to prohibit bumps like this, but if you have a new contribution to ideas that were explored in an old thread, linking to or posting in the old thread can be a way to show the evolution of the board's thinking on the subject (or just be an easy way to organize the information, since tags are poorly utilized at all and many old threads don't have them).

So long as we don't start quoting the inactives directly and expect responses, that obviously won't work.

 

[History_Buff]

Mantzikert as well.

This is 2004 WH. Byzantium does not count.

 

[ArguCa]

This is 2004 WH. Byzantium does not count.

why not? Byzantine was never used during the Empire's lifetime. These people called themselves Romaioi (Romans in Greek)

 

[Antilogic]

why not? Byzantine was never used during the Empire's lifetime. These people called themselves Romaioi (Romans in Greek)

He is referring to the level of historical knowledge of the 2004 world history forum, which would definitely count the Byzantines as a separate and totally awesome civilization from the Romans.

 

[schlaufuchs]

why not? Byzantine was never used during the Empire's lifetime. These people called themselves Romaioi (Romans in Greek)

He's not talking about the Byzantines; he's talking about the state of the WH subforum in 2004.

 

[History_Buff]

why not? Byzantine was never used during the Empire's lifetime. These people called themselves Romaioi (Romans in Greek)

Because I was being facetious, and deriding the quality of old timey WH posting (of which I am no doubt guilty myself).

 

[ArguCa]

sorry then

 

[Dachs]

Without seeing the date, I was about to object to Teutoburger Wald--it's not really decisive in a military sense, it's just that the Romans did not make a concerted effort to follow it up with further attacks and so it became an artificial point of demarcation. It used to be on my lists way back because of a book I read then (100 Decisive Battles or something like that, I can look it up if anyone is interested).

Doesn't that make it a "decisive battle", though? Before the engagement, Rome was on the way to turning Germania Magna into a province along the same lines as the Gauls; after it, the Romans lacked the interest to follow up and retake control. Sure, the battle wasn't a clash of civilizations in which the Aryan race courageously threw out the invader by sheer strength and force of will or some similar garbage, but it doesn't have to have been.

 

[Antilogic]

Doesn't that make it a "decisive battle", though? Before the engagement, Rome was on the way to turning Germania Magna into a province along the same lines as the Gauls; after it, the Romans lacked the interest to follow up and retake control. Sure, the battle wasn't a clash of civilizations in which the Aryan race courageously threw out the invader by sheer strength and force of will or some similar garbage, but it doesn't have to have been.

Funny enough, I thought you were the guy who originally convinced me it wasn't. From the current perspective, I'd think it would be important to distinguish between decisive battles that were resource-intensive and led to shifts in momentum, as opposed to shifts in momentum caused simply because of a lack of interest. I'm certain there is a better way to phrase this, but it's late and I am out of caffeine.

(The book is named 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present by Paul Davis, if anyone was interested.)

 

[Domen]

Some painful defeats happened to Romans during their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula (which lasted for ca. 200 years, compared to swift conquest of Gaul).

A single city of Numantia, for example, resisted Roman conquest for 20 years - inflicting several defeats (for example in 137 BC 20,000 strong Roman army got surrounded and then surrendered to Celtiberians there). Even the final siege of Numantia lasted for many months.

Then come Celtiberian leaders such as Punicus or Viriathus, who smashed a good number of Roman legions in a series of battles and ambushes.

Regarding the conquest of Gaul - a rather unknown episode during it (and the biggest Roman defeat during their entire swift conquest of Gaul - even greater than failed assault of Gergovia) was the destruction of 2 Roman legions near Fort Aduatuca in 54 BC by Gauls under Ambiorix.

In that battle of Fort Aduatuca Romans lost 15 entire cohorts along with 2 commanders - Cotta and Sabinus.

=========================================

Several examples of relatively many Roman defeats during their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula:

190 BC - battle of Lyco - Celtiberians defeat Romans, ca. 6000 Roman deaths
185 BC - 2nd battle of Toletum - Iberians defeat Romans, ca. 5000 Roman deaths
23 August 153 BC - battle near Numantia - ca. 6000 Roman deaths (after this defeat superstitious Romans never again waged battles on 23 August)
147 BC - Lusitanians under Viriathus defeat 10,000 Romans at Tribola (4,000 Roman deaths).
146 BC - Viriathus again defeats Romans under Gaius Plautus (10,000 inf and 1300 cav) at the river Tagus - almost all Romans perished
143 BC - Viriathus defeats another Roman army under Claudius Unimanus, "almost completely exterminating it" (quote from Lucius Florus)

After that, Viriathus annihilated also Roman forces under Gaius Negidus.

141 BC - battle of Termantia - Celtiberians under Megaravicus defeat Romans

And the humiliation near Numantia in 137 BC (20,000 strong army surrendered to much less numerous Celtiberian forces).

====================================

Some sources:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Florus/Epitome/1I*.html#XXXIII

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_spain_00.html

http://www.ccancients.net/index.php...a&catid=10&func=view&id=457&lang=en&Itemid=91

 

[Dachs]

Funny enough, I thought you were the guy who originally convinced me it wasn't. From the current perspective, I'd think it would be important to distinguish between decisive battles that were resource-intensive and led to shifts in momentum, as opposed to shifts in momentum caused simply because of a lack of interest. I'm certain there is a better way to phrase this, but it's late and I am out of caffeine.

(The book is named 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present by Paul Davis, if anyone was interested.)

But that's the thing: it wasn't caused by a lack of interest. Everything has a level of maximum tolerance. Maybe the Romans were willing to give up ten legions for possession of Germania Magna; maybe they were willing to give up one. In this case, it was three legions and change before they decided to write it off as a loss. (Which is still quite a sizable amount.) Either way, the battle probably ended up deciding who would run Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe for the next few centuries. If those Romans don't lose those troops, or if the revolt of Arminius doesn't happen at all, then what's stopping the Romans from keeping the place for the foreseeable future?

 

[Flying Pig]

To put that into perspective, it's the equivalent of a modern nation losing three divisions: that is, if Operation MARKET GARDEN had ended in the total annihilation of all of the airborne forces involved. That's quite a mess.

 

[r16]

america seems to be doing allright with 10 divisions in the Army and some 3 equivalents in the Marines , as far as the numbers went last time ı looked into , but ı would say a legion must be worth more . Considering the Roman Emperor went nuts of sorts , according to the one book ı read on the battle .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Stay kinda on topic and the thread can live.

 

[r16]

if this is meant for me , ı am on topic . Rome had a max of 25 legions , didn't it ? Considering the means of communications and command at the time ı would say each legion must be something like an army of the WW2 .

 

[Flying Pig]

Except that the armies of the Second World War existed at a time when the majority of the population was mobilised. There are two possible translations, depending on what you want to convey: I personally favour regiment, because a legion had a single aquila - equivalent to the colours or guidon of a modern regiment, both in function and symbolism - an identifying epithet such as Victrix (the 12th of the late Republic), and a division which mirrors that of the modern regiment - it divided into cohortes of about 360 men which formed the smallest unit generally sent on task, and so can be described as our companies, which further subdivided into centuria of about 80: these were commanded by the most junior of officers (I actually favour the translation sergeant for centurio, because a lieutenant is commissioned directly while a sergeant rises from the ranks; lieutenant would perhaps be more appropriate for tribunus militum augusticlavus, of which six were appointed to each legion) and so can be equated with our modern platoons.

The big problem with this is that while it carries through the spirit of each word - when a Roman said he was with the 10th Legion, he would have thought of his legion in the same way as a modern soldier thinks of his regiment - it doesn't take into account the fact that a modern regiment is about 900 strong while a Roman legion numbered around 5,000, with about as many auxilia again. This puts the total fighting strength of a formed Roman legion at 10,000, which is the approximate size of a modern division. Similarly, Polybius tells us that the Battle of Cannae was fought by a Roman army of unprecedented size; that Army numbered about 40,000 men in eight legions, and eight divisions; this the same as the US Army commitment across two Corps to Operation DESERT STORM. As such, Robert Graves suggests that legio should be translated as division when formed up ready for battle, and brigade when only the Roman regular troops are present.