Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 4th, 2013, 01:48 AM   #11
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: Melbourne
Posts: 466

I'll agree with everyone else and go with Punic power; it was a far greater threat than any tribal migration.
hypernova is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 4th, 2013, 02:31 AM   #12

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,434

Florus describes the Cannae as the "fourth and almost fatal wound", which indicates that he considerd Carthage as the worst. However, a later view says...

Roman soldiers prefer to suffer any fate than look a Persian in the face
Libianus ZXIII pp.205-11
caldrail is offline  
Old December 4th, 2013, 07:29 AM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: USA
Posts: 1,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
Florus describes the Cannae as the "fourth and almost fatal wound", which indicates that he considerd Carthage as the worst. However, a later view says...

Roman soldiers prefer to suffer any fate than look a Persian in the face
Libianus ZXIII pp.205-11
You judge by words rather than actions?

Carthage an actually pierce Roman territory(while Rome is at full strength with little internal conflict).
Mrbsct is online now  
Old December 5th, 2013, 04:04 AM   #14

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,434

I go by what the Romans tell us. Biased, sometimes incorrect, but still ancient testimony.
caldrail is offline  
Old December 5th, 2013, 08:21 AM   #15
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: U.S.
Posts: 24

Fair points, all. I would concede that the Carthaginians, historically, are greater adversaries. But, as has been mentioned before, consider that the Cimbri and Teutons never actually wanted conflict with Rome. Their real purpose was to find a new home outside of Jutland. That, I believe, is why they did not press their attack on Rome after Arausio. They didn't want to conquer, they wanted to settle.

That being said, even though Carthage is historically the greater enemy, I think I would still take a Cimbri foot soldier over a Carthaginian one, hehe. How many more barbarian tribes can claim to have inflicted more casualties on the Romans than they received? What were the Carthaginians' casualty rate against the Romans?
Euroblood is offline  
Old December 5th, 2013, 09:58 AM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: USA
Posts: 1,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euroblood View Post

That being said, even though Carthage is historically the greater enemy, I think I would still take a Cimbri foot soldier over a Carthaginian one, hehe.
I wouldn't, Hannibal is known to put his Gauls in the front row as human shields.
There is no such thing as a "Cimbri Foot soldier". Warriors were often farmers that are backed up by a warrior creed, and the most powerful were the Barbarian nobles, ones that could afford armour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euroblood View Post
How many more barbarian tribes can claim to have inflicted more casualties on the Romans than they received? What were the Carthaginians' casualty rate against the Romans?
Not the Cimbri and Teutones-their entire tribe got massacred. Possibly 400,000 dead including civilians but there is not a clear definition of civlian and soldier.

Probably the Huns, as they massacred so many small garrisons, but these were not decisive battles at all and Hunnic army had a huge contingent of Germans.

These estimates are not accurate because raiding and skirmshing was common and based off decisive engagments and numbers rounded.
Rome lost:
90,000 at Sagantum
2,000 at Ticinus
30,000 at Trebia
unknown at Cissa but they probally steamrolled Carthage
15,000 at Lake Trasmaine
1,000 at Ager Falernus
75,000 at Cannae
little loses at Derotosa
2,000 at Syracuse
13,000 at Tarentum
3,000 at 2nd Beneventum
15,000 at Siler River
16,000 at Herdonia
22,000 at Upper Baetis
13,000 at 2nd Herdonia
6,000 at casalinum
2,000 at Tarentum
2,000 at New Carthage
2,000 at Baercula
2,000 at Metaurus
7,000 at Illipa
3,000 at Po Valley
3,000 at Zama
Roman total loss estimate: 325,000

Carthage lost:
9,000 at Sagantum
2,000 at Lilybeam
about 40,000 acrossing the Alps(debated)
5,000 at Trebia
6,000 at Cissa
2,000 at Lake Trasamine
a couple hundred at Ebro River(judging by naval warfare ship capacity)
7,000 at Cannae
2,000 at Nola?
Huge losses at Derotosa, possibly 10,000
Huge loses at Cornus, possibly 5,000
16,000 at Beneventum
10,000 at Syracuse
6,000 at second Beneventum
a couple thousand a Siler river,
8,000 at Casllinum
2,300 at Tarentum
2,000 at New Carthage
16,000 at Baercula
20,000 at Metaurus
45,000 at Illipa
6,000 at Guadalquvir
possibly 20,000 at Great Plains
5,000 at Po Valley
40,000 at Zama
Total Cartaginian loss estimate=about 280,000
Mrbsct is online now  
Old December 5th, 2013, 12:47 PM   #17
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: U.S.
Posts: 24

^ But then to that you would have to add the losses of the Third Punic War, in which almost the entire city of Carthage took up arms against the Romans and was almost entirely slaughtered.

That would then put the Carthaginian losses above the Romans by at least a couple hundred thousand.
Euroblood is offline  
Old December 5th, 2013, 01:03 PM   #18

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 5,803
Blog Entries: 5

Hmm, I though I already replied to this thread. In terms of tribal enemies, I view the Celt-iberians and Lusitanians as far far tougher enemies.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old December 6th, 2013, 02:17 PM   #19

Prince of Orange's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Hmm, I though I already replied to this thread. In terms of tribal enemies, I view the Celt-iberians and Lusitanians as far far tougher enemies.
Especially under Viriathus IMO.

But in response to the OP, I don't think they were the toughest enemy. They never invaded Italy itself, which the Carthaginians did. Also, though they were very successful early on, they were beaten very decisively by Marius twice.
Prince of Orange is offline  
Old December 8th, 2013, 11:06 AM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: U.S.
Posts: 24

So are my calculations for battle death figures for both sides incorrect?
Euroblood is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
cimbri, enemy, rome, teutons, toughest


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Toughest Enemy the USA has faced Mrbsct War and Military History 89 December 18th, 2013 04:16 PM
Hannibal, Enemy of Rome FinMckinney Ancient History 87 August 24th, 2013 02:20 PM
Rome's toughest enemies Mrbsct Ancient History 45 August 8th, 2013 04:34 AM
Greatest enemy of Rome. CelticBard Ancient History 306 April 25th, 2013 04:29 AM
Greatest Enemy Of Rome M.E.T.H.O.D. Ancient History 40 October 27th, 2011 10:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.