Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


View Poll Results: Who was Rome's greatest enemy?
Brennus (Gaul) 8 3.02%
Hannibal (Carthage) 154 58.11%
Sertorius (Roman Rebel) 2 0.75%
Mithridates (Pontus) 9 3.40%
Spartacus (Thrace) 8 3.02%
Vercingetorix (Arvernii) 3 1.13%
Arminius (Cheruscii) 8 3.02%
Calgacus (Caledonii) 1 0.38%
Alaric (Goth) 26 9.81%
Attila (Hun) 46 17.36%
Voters: 265. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 5th, 2006, 06:31 AM   #1

CelticBard's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: Roving
Posts: 758
Greatest enemy of Rome.


Who was Rome's greatest enemy?
CelticBard is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 5th, 2006, 10:20 AM   #2
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 185

I think that Rome defeated all of those enemies except for one. Attila the Hun. Had it not been for the Pope and some other people persuading him not to attack Rome, probably be fear of God, then he would've done it. He had the intentions of continuing to ransack Constantinople, but he died before he could do that. So, I think that Attila the Hun was Rome's greatest enemy.
MafiaMaster is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 01:30 PM   #3

Commander's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,348

I voted for Hannibal and Carthage. I think they posed the biggest threat to destroying the Roman Empire. Hannibal was in Italy ready to take them for years and years.
Commander is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 01:42 PM   #4

Belisarius's Avatar
Dominus Historiae
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: U.K.
Posts: 9,406

I'd agree with Hannibal. He came the closest to destroying Rome.
Belisarius is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 02:05 PM   #5
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 185

I disagree about Hannibal. He was an amazing General and he did pose a huge threat to Rome. But keep in mind one thing. The Gauls once attacked Rome and conquered Rome, but the Romans were able to recover. If Hannibal were to conquer Rome, there would have been riots like crazy, mobs like crazy that Hannibal's forces would be unable to control it. He'd need to send his army around Italy to 'control' everything and he'd be unable to keep garrisons large enough, especially in a city as large as Rome. I just don't think the Roman Empire would've fallen even if Hannibal conquered Rome. It'd just be stopped for a bit.
MafiaMaster is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 02:11 PM   #6

CelticBard's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: Roving
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by MafiaMaster
I think that Rome defeated all of those enemies except for one. Attila the Hun. Had it not been for the Pope and some other people persuading him not to attack Rome, probably be fear of God, then he would've done it. He had the intentions of continuing to ransack Constantinople, but he died before he could do that. So, I think that Attila the Hun was Rome's greatest enemy.
Attila was beaten back by the garrison of Constantinople far before his Gallic and Italian campaigns. His army had to withdraw, even though Constantinople's walls were in a state of decay, due to an epedemic of plague in his ranks.

The Pope, Leo the Great, was only able to persuade him because his army was one again infected by plague and the move allowed Attila to sack a few more cities on his way out. He destroyed Aquileia completely, ravaged the countryside, which was already suffering from a famine.

But that Italian campaign was after he was decisively beaten by the Romans and Goths at Chalons. So Rome beat Attila, and the Gepids and Lombards destroyed the Huns as an empire.
CelticBard is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 02:20 PM   #7

CelticBard's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: Roving
Posts: 758

I voted Calgacus and the Caledonii because they never fell under the yoke of empire. The Caledonii, or Picts, and their highland home were never kept under Roman authority and the inhabitants never ceased attacking Rome. Rome had to keep a huge garrison in Britain just to man the forts, while the Caledonii ambushed literally hundreds of patrol groups.

They are all good choices, it's just a matter of opinion. Hannibal was clearly the best general, 40,000 weary misfits of Hannibals army killed over 85,000.

Attila was able to extort much of Rome's revenue and subject hundreds of tribes. He controlled an empire that stretched from Rhine to Volga, a truly massive feat, but Hunnic succession is what truly destroyed the Hun empire, they were hurled back to the Ukraine and broken up into smaller units.
CelticBard is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 02:31 PM   #8
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticBard
Quote:
Originally Posted by MafiaMaster
I think that Rome defeated all of those enemies except for one. Attila the Hun. Had it not been for the Pope and some other people persuading him not to attack Rome, probably be fear of God, then he would've done it. He had the intentions of continuing to ransack Constantinople, but he died before he could do that. So, I think that Attila the Hun was Rome's greatest enemy.
Attila was beaten back by the garrison of Constantinople far before his Gallic and Italian campaigns. His army had to withdraw, even though Constantinople's walls were in a state of decay, due to an epedemic of plague in his ranks.

The Pope, Leo the Great, was only able to persuade him because his army was one again infected by plague and the move allowed Attila to sack a few more cities on his way out. He destroyed Aquileia completely, ravaged the countryside, which was already suffering from a famine.

But that Italian campaign was after he was decisively beaten by the Romans and Goths at Chalons. So Rome beat Attila, and the Gepids and Lombards destroyed the Huns as an empire.
I heard somewhere that Pope Leo the Great was also able to persuade Attila to go back because of some part of God not approving of it or something along those lines. It doesn't quite make sense to me, but either or, Rome was soon to be obliterated and it was an orator that was able to save the Empire, not an army. Sure, Aetius defeated Attila at Chalon, but Attila still had a large army, Aetius did not. He lost too many men and was unable to replenish his forces. Rome didn't beat Attila as a whole. Aetius beat Attila in one battle by means of deception and Attila would've surely defeated Rome had he been given one more year. But that's another one of those "what ifs"
MafiaMaster is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 07:10 PM   #9

CelticBard's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: Roving
Posts: 758

Attila had all the wooden saddles in camp put into a pile and covered with oil during Chalons because he was going to throw himself into the flames, he knew it was a defeat.

Attila only raided Northern Italy. The story of Pope Leo I persuading him to leave Italy is propaganda cooked up by the early Catholic church to instill more fear in god by the flock, who'd become quite decadent.

They didn't call him the Scourge of God for nothing, he was the perfect tool for the church to get followers afraid, just as Bush uses terrorism.
CelticBard is offline  
Old August 5th, 2006, 07:53 PM   #10

UberCryxic's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Virginia, United States
Posts: 309

In terms of historical remembrance and opinion, the Romans always (read: always) regarded Hannibal as the greatest enemy they had ever faced. Probably justified too.......
UberCryxic is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
enemy, rome


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.