Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Great men who challenged ancient Rome

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Who caused the most fear to ancient Rome?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
36 [53.73%]
7 [10.45%]
10 [14.93%]
6 [8.96%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [4.48%]
0 [0.00%]
5 [7.46%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Great men who challenged ancient Rome
    Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 19:48
Where is Vercingetorix on the poll?
 
I voted for Attila, as stated before, he was the most dangerous man who made the farthest advance, in both East and West.


Edited by Kapikulu - 18-Oct-2006 at 19:49
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 00:14
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Sparten

If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.
 
Really it was during the anarchy and the crisis of the third century ...
 
 
 
Which was caused in no small part to the Persian threat.
 
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 00:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Where is Vercingetorix on the poll?

I voted for Attila, as stated before, he was the most dangerous man who made the farthest advance, in both East and West.

    Vercingetorix is "other". Saves my fingers from typing the long ass name!~
Back to Top
kilroy View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 482
  Quote kilroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:15
Well, i put my vote in for Hannibal.  But i think Attila is also on the same playing field that Hannibal is.  These two men really did threaten Rome's existence as a whole. 
 
Hannibal had free reign throughout Italy for 17 years and went where he pleased.  He defeated numerious armies, killing thousands of Romes best men, killed many high ranking officals and he had a true hatred of anything and everything Roman and he had the tatical genius and an army to implement his rage.  And if his brother did make it through the battle of Mataurus, he may have had the siege weapons and troops to make an attempt on Rome or other important cities in the region.  But of course he didn't. 
 
Attila went to the walls of Constantinople and even extorted tribute from the Eastern Empire (2000 pounds of gold).  And in his second invasion of the Western half, he very nearly went through Italy, only epidemic and long supply lines stopped him (or Pope Leo if you believe that).  And destoryed many towns along the way.  These two really did bring Rome to the brink. 
 
As for Shapur I, i do believe he is well up there with one of Romes greatest enemies, but he never came as close as the previous two came.  He was a real grave threat to the Eastern provinces and thats about it.
 
Alaric I should be up there simply because he sacked Rome and caused chaos (although Stilicho had a tight hold on him til he was assassinated).  The sack of Rome is huge, even though Roman power was transfered to Revanna, Rome is a symbol. 
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned Fritigern!  He was the overall commander of the Gothic forces at Adrianople.  The Eastern part of the empire lost 20,000 of its best troops, as well as many high ranking officers and an Emperor to boot.  Not only that but he sacked many key factories and the such in the area as well and crippled Roman control in the area for a time.
 
Arminius did defeat three legions.  But his confederation of tribes soon fell apart quickly after.  And Germanicus did show them whats what eight years later at the battle of the Weser River in 16 CE.  But defeating three legions of Romes best troops is nothing to snuff at, these were Roman troops at their best. 
 
Mithridates VI was also one of those great challengers of Rome.  After all, he expelled all of the Romans out of the East (including Greece), used Romes own sources of propoganda aganist them (the books of the Sibyl).  And caused problems in not just one war but three (from 88-63 BCE).   But Roman forces handled him quite well once they got themselves together. 
 
As for Tigranes the Great.. Lucius Lucullus really handled him quite well.  No great threat.
 
But really, these are just external threats.  The real people that threatened Rome were the many emperors that vied for power (especially during the crisis of the 3rd century).  They really ruined Romes economey, internal trade and drained its military the most. 
 
Forgive me if some of this was already mentioned, i only had time to scan the thread.
 
 
Kilroy was here.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 09:08
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Sparten

If I had to chose one, I would say Shapur, he challenged and bested Rome at her peak.
 
Really it was during the anarchy and the crisis of the third century ...
 
 
 
Which was caused in no small part to the Persian threat.
 
 
 
Really they were mainly internal causes
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 05:39
Well, in accordance to the poll question, 'Who caused the most fear to Ancient Rome', I would have to say that Hannibal fits this criteria most suitingly. Hannibal evoked a fear previously unknown to the Romans. He had annihilated over 120,000 Romans at Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae and Silarus alone, and then went on to freely roam the valley of Campania, and a lot of Southern Italy. Rome was at his complete and utter mercy, and consequently mobilised over 100,000 extra soldiers just to STOP Hannibal from ravaging the countryside of his own accord.
The fear Hannibal created in Ancient Rome is blatently evident through the psychological  influence he had. For example the use of brutul tales of Hannibal in order to scare misbehaving children (Modern Day Boogeyman equivilant), as well as [the fear he caused] evolving into a common latin exclamation of anxiety: 'Hannibal ad portas'.

However, Hannibal was definately not the sole reaper of all fear in Ancient Rome! Many other brilliant generals and figures of history summoned deathly fear upon Rome, such as Attila. Attila especially is a viable option because of the influence he had on Rome, and the fear that Rome felt as a result of him.Cool




Edited by Knights - 24-Oct-2006 at 06:17
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 14:18
As you asked  who caused the greatest threat to Rome i would answerm commenting your candidates:
 
1. Hannibal caused great threat
 
2.Spartacus also but there was no chance that he can win,
 
3.Atilla was as great threat than Hannibal, the both were able to destroy Rome, but were defeated,
 
4. Mithridates wasnt really a threat, all what he could have done and did was murdering Romans and Italians in Asia,
 
5.Boudica and Shapur were like Mithridates, too far to cause any fear in Rome,
 
6. Sertorius is an interesting candidate. For sure there were many who were afraid of him. Not to mention that if any kind of rebellion arised in Rome he could have come back and take bloody revange on the senate and big part of the first class. But was he dangerous for Rome? Imho only for its ruling class.
 
I would add that Italians were one of the greatest threats for Rome. When they rebelled and started social war, it was really possible that in case of Italian victory there will be no Rome at all. The already declared Italy to be a new state and renamed one city for its new capital "Italia". In fact Rome first had to divide them and next was finally able to defeat them. On the begining of war Italian forces were quite succesful. Not to mention that Rome in this war was very lucky having 2 great commanders Marius and Sulla while Italians didnt have any military genius in their service.
 
Other great threat that Rome faced during late Republic were the tribes of Cimbrii and Tutonii who managed to kill 100000 Romans and Italians before got defeated, massacred and enslaved.
 


Edited by Mosquito - 24-Oct-2006 at 14:23
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 19:33
great posts. just keeping in mind Ancient Rome, I voted to Hannibal just because he preceded Sertorius. Hannibal changed warfare completely. It wasn't anymore two armies just running at each other. he introduced a new level of tactical strategy.

but if Hannibal was restricted to Carthage, and when he went East, despite his previous success, he wasn't able to accomplish much besides advise another side losing to the Romans.

on the other hand, Sertorius was a volcano. he went beyond Hannibal and anyone else of that time in tactics, and moreover, peoples fighting against the Romans and others would invite him to take command of their armies. what he did in Africa he repeated in Iberia, and after that, being in contact with Mithridates, there is no doubt he could have undone any Roman conquest where a liberation movement existed.

you talk about fighting trained Romans and the best Roman generals. Sertorius fought with pea shooters. guerrilla warfare, hit and run, war of attrition. he destroyed all Roman control over Iberia, to the point Rome had to mass a huge army (bee hive) that Sertorius could only nip at, but not defeat, initially. And Sertorius humiliated Pompey. Pompey would never be known as Great, had Sertorius not been assassinated.

Moreover, Sertorius was setting up an Iberian government on the lines of the Roman Republic. Influential Romans who disliked Sulla or the harsh military regime there were flocking to Spain, where Sertorius honored them according to their station and appointed them to his administration. It was a group of blue-bloods like these led bor Porpenna who, jealous of his success and glory, thought they could do just as well as him. So they murdered him. And Pompey, once he heard of it, marched back in and crushed them.

Anyways, after Hannibal, I don't think there is any one man more than Sertorius who could have had such drastic effect on ancient history. imagine a mediterranean where not one, but several classical empires, with the strength of Roman laws and government, dominated. would have skipped the Dark Ages entirely.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 18:26
I vote for Hannible. He was truly among the greatest general the Ancient World has ever seen. It could be said that he was the the greatest general, alpha and omega, of the Phoenicia.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Lannes View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
  Quote Lannes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 13:40
On technicality, I'd say the early 4th C. (BC) Brennus of the Senones, who would be the only one to sack Rome when the city proper was the actual imperial powerbase.

Edited by Lannes - 18-Dec-2006 at 13:41
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 18:48
just a question, was Spartacus all that bright? between reaching the brink of freedom before returning to the tip of Italy and being surrounded, plus dealing with Cilician pirates whose commerce was based off an Italy ruled by patricians with huge plantations populated by slaves like him. What motive would the pirates have in assisting Spartacus? do you think the Romans sent the pirates to negoatiate in order to stall Spartacus?

i don't know, it just doesn't make sense that the pirates would want to help a slave uprising, or that Spartacus would trust, essentially, slave-traders. any help?
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313
  Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 03:29
SmileAll Turks will vote for attila, but I believe Hannibal was the closest. Of course, Alarix too, but his times, like Attilas Rome was too weak. Hannibal almost 13 years spent in Rome and destroyed more than 20 small armies and 3-4 big armies of Rome. I apploud Rome, becouse they never bowed before him!
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
kilroy View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 482
  Quote kilroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

just a question, was Spartacus all that bright? between reaching the brink of freedom before returning to the tip of Italy and being surrounded, plus dealing with Cilician pirates whose commerce was based off an Italy ruled by patricians with huge plantations populated by slaves like him. What motive would the pirates have in assisting Spartacus? do you think the Romans sent the pirates to negoatiate in order to stall Spartacus?

i don't know, it just doesn't make sense that the pirates would want to help a slave uprising, or that Spartacus would trust, essentially, slave-traders. any help?


I don't believe Spartacus was an idiot, though he wasn't blessed with a oversight either.  I think he was over confident and so were his followers.  You gotta remember, he defeated the Romans on nearly six different occasions (although against incompetently led and at some occasions raw recruits).  That can do something to a mans ego, and to those of this followers. 

His supposed plan was to head over to Sicily, which had a history of slave rebellion, perhaps he wanted to fulfill his plan of in sighting a full on uprising (which is what some suspect).  Sicily was a good target, from there he could command the grain supply coming from Egypt and starve Rome (which almost worked when Sextus Pompeius took control of the army later on).  It was either that, or head over to Spain where rebellion was going on, cept Pompey was over there.  Spartacus probably thought Italy was dried up of troops, since most were on campaign and the garrisons posed no problem to him so far, which was his gravest error.  Most historians still can't quite fully explain why he turned around, but people are hardly logical. 

As for the pirates, they wanted money.  Simple as that, and Spartacus had it from robbing all the patrician houses along Italy and they knew it.  If they could make a tidy profit, and not have to rely on attacking the shipping lanes, than they would take it.  Thats what Spartacus bet on, except he didn't factor in Rome's fear factor.  The pirates got what they wanted, they took Spartacus' gifts and the advance on money and took off.  Thus, they got both money, and dodged the wrath of Rome at the same time.  I do not think the Romans sent the pirates to negotiate, the Romans never had a history with negotiating with pirates unless it was terms of surrender (see Pompey). 

This is just my view.  Hope this helps.

And another reason why the pirates might have wanted to hurt Roman interests is the fact that they were an ally (and funded) by the Roman enemy Mithridates, whom was currently at war with Rome. 

-Kilroy.


Edited by kilroy - 30-Jan-2007 at 19:32
Kilroy was here.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 21:33
My vote goes to Hannibal. Even after he died, he became the boogie-man of the Romans, sort of like telling their kids they better get to bed or Hannibal will get you.

Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 30-Jan-2007 at 21:37
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:28
thanks Kilroy, that was helpful.
Back to Top
kilroy View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 482
  Quote kilroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:54
No problem Smile
Kilroy was here.
Back to Top
Maat-Seshat View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Maat-Seshat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2017 at 15:29
I missed some great warriors in the poll that is why I have voted for "others".

Missing in my opinion is: Vercingetorix, Arminius, the Ostrogoths: Theodoric the Great, Witichis, Totila, Teja
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.076 seconds.