Greatest Roman victory and greatest Roman defeat (753 BC - 1453)

#31
Greatest Roman defeat was the one that put an end to any political idea of "Roman" in the West. Capr Bon in 468 AD. It was huge and costly. No more Rome. Move onto the next chapter in the history of Europe.

As bad as all other Roman defeats, Rome kept on going. Recouping and carrying on. 468 AD was the end of the line.
It certainly was one hell of a defeat. It proved to be the last instance of an eastern expedition assisting the western emperors, and it paved the way for the so-called Eternal Peace between Gaiseric and the eastern court.
 
Likes: Talbot Vilna

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,085
Sydney
#32
Arausio losses were horrendous ,
it was the bankruptcy of the old republican system and discredited the ruling aristocracy as military incompetent ,
it exposed the Army as inefficient and in need of renewal on new basis of structure , command and recruiting
the Marian reforms gave the power to the plebs by their possession of the ultimate argument , force of arms
the only thing missing to transform it into the Empire was a leader
Sulla was deeply reactionary but could only hold the situation by his own auctoritas ,
in itself that was the proof of the new rule by strong men
the biggest casualty of the battle was republican Rome
 
Sep 2013
607
Ontario, Canada
#33
Adrianople has a distinction of being the location of both the Roman Empire's greatest victory and worst defeat.

In 324 CE Constantine fought his rival Emperor Licinius in a winner-take-all battle, one which may have involved as many as 300,000 men on both sides. His victory ensured the total collapse of the Tetrarchy, leaving him sole Emperor of a reunified Roman Empire centralized at his own city of Constantinople.

The worst battle is of course in 378 CE, when Valens was destroyed with two thirds of his entire army by Gothic rebels. This defeat really put the Roman Empire on its knees, as all that expertise and experience and tradition simply evaporated leaving a vast gaping hole in the Roman Army and administration. To rebuild his eventual successor Theodosius had to made some concessions allowing enrollment of Goths in the rank and file as well as high ranking positions, which some Germanic chiefs would use to their own advantage to seize power.
 
Mar 2016
878
Australia
#35
The greatest defeat, in my opinion, is easily Manzikert. The long-term consequences were truly awful - the reduction of the empire's heartland of Anatolia by half or more (and later its entirety), the permanent large-scale settlement of (mostly) hostile Turkish tribes right on the border close enough to threaten the capital, and later the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Seljuks that led to the rise of the Ottomans. Manzikert is all the more devastating when you realise how optimistic the aspirations of the empire in the aftermath of Basil II's series of great reconquests and strengthening of the borders. The 11th century could have seen the gradual and continual expansion and re-assertion of Roman authority over the Near East and the Levant, but instead it marked the beginning of the long, drawn out decline of the empire. Battles like Cannae and Teutoburg were, while shocking and humiliating at the time, quickly reversed and the empire was secured and even strengthened afterwards and went on to great heights, but no such thing happened after Manzikert (despite the generally good and wise rule of Alexius). Manzikert is quite definitively the closing of one chapter of Roman history - the 10th and 11th century resurgence - and the beginning of another - the long decline.
 
Feb 2018
164
EU-Germany
#36
greatest defeat 112bc noreia (incl >marian reforms>>>end of republic)
greatest victory any victory that concluded a war/conquest in favor of rome but without 207bc metaurus things would not have developed as they did, infact might have ended(or beginning of the end) altogether with a defeat
 
#38
Adrianople has a distinction of being the location of both the Roman Empire's greatest victory and worst defeat.

In 324 CE Constantine fought his rival Emperor Licinius in a winner-take-all battle, one which may have involved as many as 300,000 men on both sides. His victory ensured the total collapse of the Tetrarchy, leaving him sole Emperor of a reunified Roman Empire centralized at his own city of Constantinople.

The worst battle is of course in 378 CE, when Valens was destroyed with two thirds of his entire army by Gothic rebels. This defeat really put the Roman Empire on its knees, as all that expertise and experience and tradition simply evaporated leaving a vast gaping hole in the Roman Army and administration. To rebuild his eventual successor Theodosius had to made some concessions allowing enrollment of Goths in the rank and file as well as high ranking positions, which some Germanic chiefs would use to their own advantage to seize power.
Adrianople 324 is an unusual choice. Can you please elaborate why you chose Constantine's victory over Licinius?
 
Feb 2018
164
EU-Germany
#39
arausio def has the numbers over noreia but my take was that battle that started the marian reforms with ult consequence fall of the republic and i remember reading that the marian reform concerning land grants(to veterans) was issued already in 107bc meaning pre arausio, if i got that wrong then its def arasuio over noreia but due to the effect not the numbers
 
#40
arausio def has the numbers over noreia but my take was that battle that started the marian reforms with ult consequence fall of the republic and i remember reading that the marian reform concerning land grants(to veterans) was issued already in 107bc meaning pre arausio, if i got that wrong then its def arasuio over noreia but due to the effect not the numbers
The Republic isn't my main area of interest, but if it's 107 BC and it's Marius, one wonders whether the Jugurthine War had more to do with the reform.
 

Similar History Discussions