12-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Rome's greatest enemy in political terms had beem Carthage - the only city that could amass such big overall armies as Rome could in the Mediterranean of the 3rd BC century. In military terms, the kingdom of Macedonia was the most difficult opponent Rome ever faced: they had won alredy the overwall war even before 200 BC when the 95% of Greek navies were one way or another already allied to them, including Minor Asian Greeks of Pergamos, Rhodes, Athens, then even neighbouring Thessalians while others including Epirots were so convienently neutral, all that all while facing the break-out of core-Macedonian tribes such as the Orestes (tribe of Parmenion...) who became Roman allies. On top of that, Rome alone could mobilise from Italy on the overall more than 250,000 men while the Macedonian kingdom could hardly amass 45,000 troops on the overall... including the traitor Companions...
What else would Romans need to win the tactical military side of war? How many years? 1,2,3 years? 10 years? Mercy!!!
... in reality it took Rome 6 to 7 decades (and generals suffering nervous breakdowns years after...) to really apply full rule over the overall of north Greece, numerous forgotten lost battles, managing eventually to win over 2 major battles only thanks to a combination of use of allied local Aetolian light hoplites as well as being based on the pre-prepared treason among the aristocrats of the Macedonian cavalry.
... evidently because Roman legions, despite their numbers and supposed valor were not up to the task themselves, facing a superior enemy, albeit in tactical military only terms (cos if we talk about diplomacy the picture is inversed...).
Just to put the time/ressources comparison:
In comparison, Cyrus the Great would had conquered all of Eurasia in the same time of 6-7 decades with less than the overall Roman army. Alexander the Great would had conquered Eurasia, Africa and America in that time and with less than half the overall Roman army!
Apart from the Macedonian kingdom, it had been the Partho-Persians the ones who proved the worst nightmare for Romans. By far the most difficult though Romans eventually learnt how to fight them (by abolishing the legion system and establishing more Persian-like military structures). The northern tribes such as Goths and Vandals became a problem only when more Goths and Vandals were manning the Roman army than those on the raiders' side. It is like the fact that you can't expect to fight sunni muslims with sunni muslims as a majority in your armies, can you? You must at least get those shia ones. Romans did not. Goths and Vandals cannot be measured under that light. Goths and Vandals seemed like minor annoyance gone big due to inner Roman ongoing politics. If, for example, compared to the later mighty Bulgarians who moved concentrated forces on average 3 to 4 times bigger and who were almost as well-armed as the Eastern Roman army, Goths and Vandals look like a bunch of villagers - who can forget that after Alarich's unexpected success in raiding Greece (due to Roman complacent politics), Alarich's demand was to... arm his army with weapons (i.e. what they had done so far then they had done it half-naked - more of a moving circus than a proper army).
Rome in the 3rd c. AD had it easy for too long to be able to resist even to such minor annoyances. Inner politics is always the reason behind but then the Empire never really fell. It just got rid of its half, that constituted however only the 15% of its economy back then. The Empire finally fell some 10 centuries later to its worst enemies: its own banking oligarchies finding their way to the fiscal paradise of Venice.
What else would Romans need to win the tactical military side of war? How many years? 1,2,3 years? 10 years? Mercy!!!
... in reality it took Rome 6 to 7 decades (and generals suffering nervous breakdowns years after...) to really apply full rule over the overall of north Greece, numerous forgotten lost battles, managing eventually to win over 2 major battles only thanks to a combination of use of allied local Aetolian light hoplites as well as being based on the pre-prepared treason among the aristocrats of the Macedonian cavalry.
... evidently because Roman legions, despite their numbers and supposed valor were not up to the task themselves, facing a superior enemy, albeit in tactical military only terms (cos if we talk about diplomacy the picture is inversed...).
Just to put the time/ressources comparison:
In comparison, Cyrus the Great would had conquered all of Eurasia in the same time of 6-7 decades with less than the overall Roman army. Alexander the Great would had conquered Eurasia, Africa and America in that time and with less than half the overall Roman army!
Apart from the Macedonian kingdom, it had been the Partho-Persians the ones who proved the worst nightmare for Romans. By far the most difficult though Romans eventually learnt how to fight them (by abolishing the legion system and establishing more Persian-like military structures). The northern tribes such as Goths and Vandals became a problem only when more Goths and Vandals were manning the Roman army than those on the raiders' side. It is like the fact that you can't expect to fight sunni muslims with sunni muslims as a majority in your armies, can you? You must at least get those shia ones. Romans did not. Goths and Vandals cannot be measured under that light. Goths and Vandals seemed like minor annoyance gone big due to inner Roman ongoing politics. If, for example, compared to the later mighty Bulgarians who moved concentrated forces on average 3 to 4 times bigger and who were almost as well-armed as the Eastern Roman army, Goths and Vandals look like a bunch of villagers - who can forget that after Alarich's unexpected success in raiding Greece (due to Roman complacent politics), Alarich's demand was to... arm his army with weapons (i.e. what they had done so far then they had done it half-naked - more of a moving circus than a proper army).
Rome in the 3rd c. AD had it easy for too long to be able to resist even to such minor annoyances. Inner politics is always the reason behind but then the Empire never really fell. It just got rid of its half, that constituted however only the 15% of its economy back then. The Empire finally fell some 10 centuries later to its worst enemies: its own banking oligarchies finding their way to the fiscal paradise of Venice.
