Rome's Greatest Enemy

#81
siege engines? this just gets better. why can't these useless ******* have learned to write??!!

I guess fleeing the Huns is indeed their next appearance. I'd never considered that before, but their lack of recorded appearance between those two events does seem pretty strange

I'm really no expert, so they could well appear and I'm just unaware of it. but these maritime raiders spreading terror across the black sea and Aegean somehow became (a century later) landlocked refugees fleeing from the huns, from the little i know. given what they were doing in the 3rdC I'm slightly surprised their escape from the huns wasn't made by sea, with an attempt to relocate (maybe in Anatolia, even?)
Haha as long as you can pile bloated corpses to support your siege ramps, what other skills do you need?

I imagine their fleets were not sufficient for mass migration, and perhaps cultural and ethnic similarities made travelling towards the Goths north of the Danube more appealing than Anatolia anyway. But as far as I can tell, their maritime raids ceased to be a thing after the 270s.
 
Nov 2014
1,645
Birmingham, UK
#82
Haha as long as you can pile bloated corpses to support your siege ramps, what other skills do you need?

I imagine their fleets were not sufficient for mass migration, and perhaps cultural and ethnic similarities made travelling towards the Goths north of the Danube more appealing than Anatolia anyway. But as far as I can tell, their maritime raids ceased to be a thing after the 270s.
even that is somewhat confusing, though. why stop? did defences of their targetted areas get better? i guess I'd have to assume that for some reason raiding that was once relatively easy/profitable, became less so.
 
#83
even that is somewhat confusing, though. why stop? did defences of their targetted areas get better? i guess I'd have to assume that for some reason raiding that was once relatively easy/profitable, became less so.
I suspect that political stability within the empire made it less profitable. Once emperors could mount an effective response, the potential gains did not outweigh the costs.
 
Sep 2017
738
United States
#84
Brennus and Hannibal didn't stop the rise of Rome. Arminius stopped Roman expansion into Germany for good. Alaric, Gaiseric, and Odoacre took Rome down and ruled in their place. Attilla was eventually defeated by a coalition but his earlier advances forced German tribes to invade Roman territory.
They both almost did. Brennus almost curbed Rome's ascension before it began in earnest. Hannibal almost toppled the Republic at one of its peaks of strength. Hannibal especially left a deep psychological impact on Rome for centuries after. He rampaged through the Italian countryside, and dealt horrendous blows to Rome's manpower, including wasting its upper class.

Sure, Teutoberg was a large setback and a shock to Rome for sure, but in the long term it did not have a massive impact. It may have curbed ambitions to do to Germania what was done to Gaul, but it didn't stop the Romans from crushing the Germans multiple times later. It did not cause a huge manpower shortage that affected the entire empire greatly, nor did it threaten any large or significant population center, much less Rome itself. No large-scale civil strife or economic collapse followed.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,443
Las Vegas, NV USA
#85
Sure, Teutoberg was a large setback and a shock to Rome for sure, but in the long term it did not have a massive impact. It may have curbed ambitions to do to Germania what was done to Gaul, but it didn't stop the Romans from crushing the Germans multiple times later. It did not cause a huge manpower shortage that affected the entire empire greatly, nor did it threaten any large or significant population center, much less Rome itself. No large-scale civil strife or economic collapse followed.
I've wondered why Rome invaded Germany (east of the Rhine) in the first place. Did they have prescient ideas about the advantages of a border on the Vistula? In post 75 I discussed an alternative history if Rome had conquered Germania Magna and were able to rely on the Germans to help fight the Huns, Alans etc on the Vistula frontier. The Empire might have survived much longer. There would have been no Germans fleeing the Huns and invading Roman territory. Attila was later defeated by a Roman-German coalition.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#87
They both almost did. Brennus almost curbed Rome's ascension before it began in earnest. Hannibal almost toppled the Republic at one of its peaks of strength. Hannibal especially left a deep psychological impact on Rome for centuries after. He rampaged through the Italian countryside, and dealt horrendous blows to Rome's manpower, including wasting its upper class.

Sure, Teutoberg was a large setback and a shock to Rome for sure, but in the long term it did not have a massive impact. It may have curbed ambitions to do to Germania what was done to Gaul, but it didn't stop the Romans from crushing the Germans multiple times later. It did not cause a huge manpower shortage that affected the entire empire greatly, nor did it threaten any large or significant population center, much less Rome itself. No large-scale civil strife or economic collapse followed.

I agree. Hannibal was remembered throughout the centuries (and even today) as THE great enemy of Rome.

Sometimes a person comes along who is the embodiment of everything you fear or feel threatened by. Hannibal was one such person.
 
Sep 2017
738
United States
#88
I've wondered why Rome invaded Germany (east of the Rhine) in the first place. Did they have prescient ideas about the advantages of a border on the Vistula? In post 75 I discussed an alternative history if Rome had conquered Germania Magna and were able to rely on the Germans to help fight the Huns, Alans etc on the Vistula frontier. The Empire might have survived much longer. There would have been no Germans fleeing the Huns and invading Roman territory. Attila was later defeated by a Roman-German coalition.
Well, IIRC, Varus went over on false information. Rome liked to play politics across the Rhine to keep the tribes from getting too powerful. I think some tribes feigned that they were being attacked by other tribes and appealed to him for help. He went in, not realizing it was an ambush.

Who knows what would've happened if Germania was fully conquered, as it is too big of a change to the timeline to say. I would say that Romanization and Roman culture would be a lot more prevalent in what ever societies followed though, as Germanic culture was another big influencer on the West and if it was more suppressed then it wouldn't be as prevalent.
 

Similar History Discussions