Rome's Biggest Military Disaster

[mquish]

I think I know why you are saying that Cato, though I would like to hear your thoughts on it and your reasoning...

 

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful?

 

I think we are steering away from the real question at hand, What was romes greatest military defeat not which defeat had the worst reprocussions for the empire. So for me the worst military disaster would have to be cannae; in terms of soldiers killed. I hope whovever reads this understands where i am coming from

[Neos Dionysos]

I think I know why you are saying that Cato, though I would like to hear your thoughts on it and your reasoning...

 

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful?

 

I think we are steering away from the real question at hand, What was romes greatest military defeat not which defeat had the worst reprocussions for the empire. So for me the worst military disaster would have to be cannae; in terms of soldiers killed. I hope whovever reads this understands where i am coming from

 

 

No I understand... it was the worst in terms of manpower and troops lost... though I think some read into the "Worst Roman Defeat" differently. Some see it as simply a numbers game and think of the battle where Rome took the heaviest losses... and others think in terms of reprecussions and consequences...

[Ovidius]

My bet would be Adrianople. From that time on, The Western Empire would slowly be overrun by barbarians, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Eastern Empire survived, but by only its ability to produce a well led army with heavy cavalry as its main warrior

[Neos Dionysos]

My bet would be Adrianople. From that time on, The Western Empire would slowly be overrun by barbarians, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Eastern Empire survived, but by only its ability to produce a well led army with heavy cavalry as its main warrior

 

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I would have to say Adrianople. Though it wasn't as cataclysmic as some ancient writers make it out to be, it was a big event that signalled the end of Roman dominance. As well as the obvious manpower losses and the loss of an emperor, it forced Theodosius to recognize the Goths as almost equal to the Romans on the Romans' home territor. Though they technically had to serve the emperor, they could serve in their own units under their own leaders. It was a humiliating compromise that just led to things going even further downhill. For the other battles mentioned, the empire recovered (unless you take Cato's excellent point, that the Romans' loss of freedom because of Pharsalus was greater than any military calamity), but militarily, the empire as a whole did not recover from Adrianople, and the East could do little as the West became little more than a playground for ambitious Germanic officers pulling the strings of a puppet emperor.

[Ovidius]

My bet would be Adrianople. From that time on, The Western Empire would slowly be overrun by barbarians, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Eastern Empire survived, but by only its ability to produce a well led army with heavy cavalry as its main warrior

 

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force.

 

 

Wait, how did thw West supposedly grow in force of arms when in fact it crumbled to nothing?

[Neos Dionysos]

My bet would be Adrianople. From that time on, The Western Empire would slowly be overrun by barbarians, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Eastern Empire survived, but by only its ability to produce a well led army with heavy cavalry as its main warrior

 

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force.

 

 

Wait, how did thw West supposedly grow in force of arms when in fact it crumbled to nothing?

 

After Theodosius, the Western Army was the strongest force in the Roman world, this was due to much easier recruting as the West could recruit several units to each Eastern one raised and after Theodosius' death, Stilicho in the West had most of what remained of the Eastern Army under his command. until Stilicho's death the East was in threat of attack from the West by Stilicho so he could re-unite the Empire and claim his guardianship over Arcadius besides just Honorius. There were trade embargo's on the East from the West, and the East routinely would fail to inform the West of a problem until it spilled over into Western Lands, besides the fact that Rufinus, (who was Guardian over Arcadius initially), made a deal with Alaric just before Stilicho destroyed him, thus forcing Stlicho to make pease as well and threatening Stilicho that if he did not depart Eastern Land there would be conflict...

[Rameses the Great]

In my opinion it was the battle of the Teutonberg Forest. This stopped the Roman advance against the Rhine, and whiped out three Roman cohorts. Or as Augustus Caeser would say in the middle of his sleep, "Varus, Varus give me back my legions!"