"Did the Romans Ever Lose?" Topic

Anonymous asks:

did the romans ever lose their battles?

:)

Nope. Not one. Ever.

The Romans eventually win everyting.

Even in their civil wars they had it worked out so that they won.

Kind of like England.

England turns back a foreign naval invasion by a massive fleet in 1588, result: Huge English Victory.

England fails to turn back a foreign naval invasion by a massive fleet in 1688, result: Huge English Victory.

We're kind of like Orks that way.

Only when they had become prideful and corrupt.

He should ask his local propraetor or lictor.

None that I can think of…

link

link

link

link

link

No that's why we all speak latin to this day.

link

link

link

etc., etc.

See also: Civil Wars. usually only one side won.

Allen

Is today "Field questions for those who can't be bothered to crack a book or even look on wikipedia" Day?

Did I miss the memo?

Will I end up in the DH for this post?

Know what… I take that back.

The only stupid questions are those that go unasked. I guess it is better to ask a "dumb" question and get a good answer and become informed than not ask, and remain ignorant.

Bob know I've asked my fair share of stupid questions.

I prefer to mislead those too lazy to crack a book.

So….

Trinidad and Tobago really didn't supply PZ IIIs to the american effort during the 7 years war?

YOU LIED TO ME, JOHN!

OK! OK! It was Aruba and Curacao!

They may loose a cube here and there but eventually they assimilated everyone except the Picts.

"may have lost". Switched tenses in mid sentence. Hate that.

There's a rumour the Romans lost once…..but that particular historian had all his works destroyed by Nero's fiddling – he was all burned up about it.

But even after being burned down he could still find Rome, so it wasn't lost after all.

He was the salt of the earth that guy……delenda est……

We're still talking about them so I guess they won the most important battle of all.
Deep, eh?

Lose what? I am sure there were a few absent-minded Romans who lost their toga at the baths, forgot where they parked the chariot…..that kind of thing!

Notice that some games actually allow Romans a chance to lose a battle – horribly unhistorical if you ask me! I think that all serious games should have some sort of "Romans win again" special rule to represent the total invincibility ofthe Romans.

Griefbringer

In a civil war if only one side loses and one side wins does it cancel each other out, isn't that sort of like a draw for the Romans?

They've only lost four times in Serie A this season.

Notice that some games actually allow Romans a chance to lose a battle

I've heard about those rules, but never ran across any. Could you name them please, so we can all avoid them?
It's almost as bad as a Napoleonics game that does not have an automatic "+2 for being French" rule!

"Not on my watch" – Quinctilius Varus

I presume we're talking about the "true" early-mid romans here and not the later Germanic-Iranian foederati army that tore the empire apart from within, allowing "barbarian" forces from beyond to travel almost unhindered through imperial lands?

Did the Romans lose battles? All the time. During the Republican period peoples such as the Spanish, Gauls and Carthaginians gave them frequent bloody defeats. But Rome's army was a true citizen army back then so they'd just raise another legion,and another and another and another until they eventually won by just grinding the enemy down, through sheer overwhelming numbers at incredible cost.

Against Hannibal, having lost almost every time, the Romans learnt to simply avoid direct confrontation altogether, defeating him strategically when they couldn't tactically.

The Gauls sacked Rome itself and induced in the Romans a paranoid fear of the Gauls that later Julius Caesar was able to play on to invade their lands. Even then the Gauls weren't pushovers. Caesar was jolly lucky to pull off his invasion. It so nearly went very very wrong many times.

In later Republican and then Imperial times, the Parthians and Sassanid Persians enjoyed Imperial strengths that could rival that of Rome's and there honours were generally even. Some of Rome's most infamous defeats were at the hands of Parthians and Persians. They even managed to capture a Roman Emperor at one point, famously using him for a footstool! Rome did make some small gains from time to time but could never hold onto them. Such advances over stretched the Roman Empire. No matter how well they did the Legions always had to pull out and on more than one occasion the withdrawal was more costly than the advance. In Parthia/Persia even a "victory" all too rapidly became a defeat.

The Dacians too were another people who were a match for the Romans. Just as the Germans had destroyed three legions at Teutoberger Wald the Dacians destroyed a legion of their own and gave the Romans a bloody reverse. So intimidated were the Romans that they field adapted their kit to cope with the Dacian's fearsome weapons and brought in incredibly over the top overwhelming numbers to ensure victory.

In the second century AD, Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmatians (amongst others) poured over the frontier and even travelled at will in Italy. Rome was threatened and the Roman armies were struggling so badly that veterans, Gladiators and even slaves were recruited into the army in emergency measures. These are the (in)famous Marcomanni Wars that Hollywood so likes to portray. ("Fall of the Roman Empire" and "Gladiator"). However, Hollywood lies. Those "barbarians" never were conquered. Yes, after much running about and considerable effort they were pushed back to the borders, and yes, they were JUST barely fought to a standstill. But that was it. More through Marcus Aurelius's diplomacy than anything else the pre hostility status quo was re-established (and many a Sarmatian agreed to fight for the Romans). But none of them were ever conquered. They remained free and continued to raid and ravage the empire until it's devolution. Rome had proved to be over extended in these wars, barely able to cope, and from that time on the "barbarians" became increasingly bold and ever harder to handle.

To reiterate, even in the "Hollywood" heyday, Germans, Dacians, Sarmatians, Jews, Parthians and Sassanians all gave the Romans bloody noses and even destroyed legions, even during Rome's prime. Many a foe were a match for the Romans and the Romans often won only by bringing overwhelming superiority of force onto the local theatre.

So yes the Romans were often beaten, and were intimidated by many an opponent. If the Romans dropped their guard even for a moment "barbarians" were quite capable of ransacking the empire and even marching on Rome. Often the only thing that spared Rome was that their Gaulish, German and Iranian foes weren't interested in such a march to the capital. They wanted to share the Empire's wealth and prosperity, not destroy it.

So the Romans weren't invincible. What the Romans did do however is generally persevere until they had won the war – or at least dragged the situation back to a bloody stalemate re-establishing the pre hostility status quo. As previously mentioned, they generally did this by massing as much force as they could spare on the trouble spot. For all their much hyped skill they still often needed overwhelming numbers to pull off the win. When they didn't have it, they sometimes struggled, especially in the initial confrontations of a conflict.

Despite what an Empire that lasted centuries might suggest Rome never had it easy. While the citizens in the provinces were enjoying their "Pax Romana" no such peace really ever existed on the frontiers. There was more than likely many a minor reverse and upset that we'll never know about. Countless Romans died in victory -and defeat- to ensure the Empire lasted as long as it did.

Who's the guy being helpful? Who invited him in?

Hey Scutatus- terrific post! Thanks very much for the informative and balanced summary of events and key points.

My pleasure. :)

(Sorry John. :p)

The Romans never, ever lost because their equipment and training was so much better than EVERYBODY else's, much like the Germans in WW II. 8)=

Rest assured, Scutatus, that your post will be handed in at some High School with some lazy ass kid's name on it within the next few days!

Excellent post Scutatus. Nice to see someone take the high road and share.

It will be instantly recognized as plajarisum because most of the words are speled corectlie.

Don't forget the Han Chinese. The only people I'm aware of that won every battle they fought against Rome (i.e. the only battle).

Nice post Scutatus, that's the kind of answer I always wish I could supply but rarely do. Back to crack some more books.

Scutatus,

Stop confusing us with the facts!

Respectfully,

John

Thanks guys. I badly over used the word "even" so even I would lose marks on said High school assignment. Darn, I did it again! hehe.

I could also have presented my offering a little more concisely too. It is a little over written in places.

Still, if it gives just one high school kid some proper balanced information to counter the hyped up fantastical myths that still persist, then I am satisfied.

My job here is done, to the batcave!

Wait until the Roman fanboys march in and start stoning Scutatus for being "unpatriotic Rome-hating barbarian-loving defeatists that should be fed to the lions at Colosseum".

Griefbringer

Nah – just for listi9ng tribes as having travelled at will in Italy that did no such thing and perpetuating the myth that het border was always breached whenever het barbarians wanted to cross it.

There were, of course, long periods of complete peace along every border – that's why many of hte border units weer useless – lack of practice at actually having to fight!! :)

Who are the Romans?

Attila

They manage to loose when I'm rolling the dice for them! But I still write it up as a great victory…..

As noted, they lost quite frequently. What made them remarkable, at least for as long as they could manage it, was their ability to get the crap kicked out of them, go home, raise another army, and come back again next season. Repeat as needed until victory.

Doug

You might want to research King Pyrrhus of Pyrrhic victory fame who remarked after getting well mauled during the defeat of a Republican Roman army "another such victory and I am undone."

Rome, the great seat of power for their Empire, was never sacked by barbarians (or any other barians), not ever, not even, not once, not even close.

Yup, they always won!

That's true.

It was only ever sacked before it was an Empire, and after the seat of power shifted to Ravenna and Constantinople :)

I unerstand that they beat Macedon not because of minor edge of legion over phalanx, but because they could draw on huge resources of manpower and the Macedonians couldn't…

Very true guys. :D But to be fair, the fact that Rome the capital was never attacked was as much due to luck and circumstances than skill and victory. Many a victorious Chatti or Marcomanni or Sarmatian could have attacked the city had they wanted to. Once past the frontier defences there was little to hinder a march on Rome, the way was essentially wide open for them. There's a reason why Augustus screamed for the return of his three legions. There's a reason why "emergency measures" were taken to recruit slaves and Gladiators. Rome wsa open and vulnerable. But the enemy just wasn't interested in taking that road.

It was Luck. Just luck. But for the disinterest of it's victorious foes Rome could have been sacked long before it was, even while it was still the capital.

Much much later even Alaric the Goth didn't actually want to sack Rome. It was no longer the capital (hadn't been for centuries) but Rome was still considered the heart of the Empire and held a special place as the Founding City. It was also the religious centre of the Christian Empire, a holy city, as it is for catholics today.

Alaric was both a commander of Foederati and Christian. All Alaric wanted was the land and rights his Gothic people had been promised when they had asked to join the Empire. Instead the Goths had been short changed and abused, expected to live in an apalling degrading quality of life. When a people become the main strength of your military forces it's a bad idea to them off. Yet the Imperial administration did just that. None of the Goth's protests and appeals were heard so they went on the march to get what was rightfully theirs, the old fashioned way. The one person who had been a match for them, a vandal warlord named Stilicho, was stupidly assasinated by a jealous and paranoid Emperor.

Ironically the Goths were effectively loyal. All they wanted was what was rightfully theirs. Had they been given it they would probably have resumed their duties. The Empire had saved them from destruction by the Huns. It wasn't in Gothic interests to then turn on their saviours.

Rome was only beseiged because the Empire wasn't taking the Goth's requiremnets seriously enough and Alaric needed leverage. Even then he delayed, civilly and bloodlessly forcing the city to pay tribute and then eventually moving on. He patiently waiting for the government to see sense. It didn't happen. Only betrayal and an impotent military attack was forthcoming. So the Goths returned to Rome and ransacked it. However the Churches and Holy buildings were left untouched, and all who took refuge within them were spared.

Alaric's actions were a sign of the times but it was an event that needn't have happened at all even in AD 410. By then however, the luck that had spared the city for so long had forsaken the Romans. When the Vandals came in AD 455 there was no such restraint.

Nicely put Scutatus. It just boils down to the Romans being the "comeback Kids" of history. Rome in reality destroyed itself with its own success and lack of effective, uncorrupted,civil service more than any millitary defeat. A lesson modern goverments should take notice of. KK

"What made them remarkable, at least for as long as they could manage it, was their ability to get the crap kicked out of them, go home, raise another army, and come back again next season. Repeat as needed until victory"

…like an ancient "Rocky". ;-)

Simon

Save for Crassus who apharently did't have a clue.