Ancient Armies

ok, Rome, U think I am fighting here????

Oh men, u are deadly wrong

I can list u Heraclius 2 times bigger scedule that rOme lost

I did not said that Filip the Arab was killed by persians, but he lost the battle against them

Ok, if there is so many loses, why u decided that Rome army was great????Grrek never was imperialist, but it had the most strongest army of its time, when even there was not Celts or Germans

But Roman guys were not stronger or better that Persian, German, Celt, Numidian or Huns, and especially Chinese

Are u crazy?????

Man, I meant greeks during Persian and Peloponnes war

And also, It was no Greek at all, It was Macedonians

I think u know that

 ok

Scipio Aelianus-lost 60 000 men against Numantians-137 b.c.

149b.c. Numidian king Jugurta defeated Romans and captured 40 000 men and then sold them back to rome

The Battle of Arausio-105 b.c.-Teuton Germans defeated more than 80 000 legioners with same tactics in Cannae

Gordian-244 a.d.

Dura Europus-255a.d.

Valerian-260a.d.-Both 3 were defeated and destroyed with their army only by Shapur

The battle of Celtiberians-137 b.c.

Romans were defated by Numantians-II battle

All Great LEADERS-Virathus, Lusitania, Arminius, defeated together more than 5 Roman armies and were killed by their own men becouse Romans paid them

Vercingetorix-Defeated Ceasar-Undefeatable Ceasar (Well, I know, then Ceasar defeated him, but whatever)

149b.c.-Thracians defeated romans, killed all of them and cut the head of their commander and sent to senate as a Present of result of Grat and Powerfull Roman Legions

Originally posted by Janissary  ok Scipio Aelianus-lost 60 000 men against Numantians-137 b.c. 149b.c. Numidian king Jugurta defeated Romans and captured 40 000 men and then sold them back to rome The Battle of Arausio-105 b.c.-Teuton Germans defeated more than 80 000 legioners with same tactics in Cannae Gordian-244 a.d. Dura Europus-255a.d. Valerian-260a.d.-Both 3 were defeated and destroyed with their army only by Shapur The battle of Celtiberians-137 b.c. Romans were defated by Numantians-II battle All Great LEADERS-Virathus, Lusitania, Arminius, defeated together more than 5 Roman armies and were killed by their own men becouse Romans paid them Vercingetorix-Defeated Ceasar-Undefeatable Ceasar (Well, I know, then Ceasar defeated him, but whatever) 149b.c.-Thracians defeated romans, killed all of them and cut the head of their commander and sent to senate as a Present of result of Grat and Powerfull Roman Legions

 You said Goths and Persians  now your mentioning gauls, celt-iberians and numantians etc?

 Besides you said generals who were killed in battle against goths and persians  these other battles have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Besides Spain was conquered as was Gaul and Numidia and Thrace the Germans were crushed afterwards in battles I earlier showed you.

 I'm getting bored of reminding you of your own point, generals KILLED in battle against the GOTHS and/or PERSIANS, thats what you said.

 Gordian, Phillip the Arab, Valentinian etc were not killed in battle against either of them, so your info is either faulty or you just plain lied.

 Then that book is wrong, Gordian I commited suicide after his son Gordian II was killed in battle in North Africa during a civil war in 238.

 Gordian III is claimed by the Persians to have died in battle, however it is far more likely that after Gordian III was defeated a mutiny within the Roman army was stirred up by Phillip the Arab and Gordian III was executed, although some sources claim it was illness. At the very least the cause of his detah is widely open to debate and will probably never be known.

 Phillip the Arab was killed in battle against Decius in another civil war in 249.

 Valentinian I died from almost certainly a heart attack or something very similar when he was angered by a German delegation.

 Valentinian II either commited suicide or was murdered by Arbogast and Valentinian III was murdered by loyal supporters of the general Aetius.

 Suffice to say most if not all of those men did not even die in Persian territory, nevermind at the hands of the Persians and certainly not all in Shapurs time.

 The Huns being greater than Rome is pure fantasy anyway, the Romans contributed infinitely more to the world and land they inhabited than the barbarian Huns ever did. The Huns couldnt even destroy the Roman empire when practically bankrupt, without an effective army of its own and led by incompetants or raving lunatics. The Romen empire lasted over 1400 years in various shapes forms and names you could even include the holy roman empire in that and say 1800 years, the empire of Attila lasted a tiny fraction of that and in that time contributed barely a thing in comparison.

 If the army of Attila the Hun was so amazing, then surely it would have smashed the Roman-Germanic alliance at Chalons and overrun the western empire with ease.

 Very good post Eagle , shame Janissary was incapable of posting something of similar quality on the Huns or infact anything.

 I'll consider my reply and post it later.

 I have to agree with Constantine there, its pure fantasy to believe that Attila the Hun would pay a blind bit of attention to the pope, why on earth would a pagan be deterred from his prize purely because of a leading figure in a church that was totally foreign to him.

 Attilas army was suffering from its own success, ravaging the land made it impossible to live off it for any length of time, disease was setting in and I believe the eastern empire (unsure of the details) had launched an expedition into Hunnic territory along the Danube. With his territory now under serious threat it would of been foolish to remain in Italy with all these factors added together.

 Eagle. I understand what you mean about Rome bringing along a culture that many of the conquered may well have had no interest in, but evidently the conquered did enjoy and like what the Roman brought with them on the whole.

 The baths were always full, the arenas packed with spectators, they will have enjoyed the security Rome offered, the freedom from marauding bands looting settlements and land at will. This was in the good old days of course, the days of the pax romana when the Roman empire existed in as long a period of peace as much of europe probably ever has.

 There were rebellions every now and then of course, but the Roman army was at its peak and the empire was overall a safe and secure place to live and prosper.

 Surely more preferable than the way for example the Gauls used to exist, tribes that were almost as often fighting each other as any external enemy, squabbling and waging war. I doubt many who grew up in Gaul under the Roman empire will have envied the life style of their forefathers over the one they had now.

 As a westerner, being brought up in a society where art, literature, architecture are highly valued, i'm bound to frown at the way the Huns used to live and treat these things. No respect whatsoever for anybody they encountered, conquering it would seem purely for the sake of conquest, to feed their lust for loot or land before moving on to the next unfortunate target. If you were lucky enough to survive the latest Hunnic raid, then you found your city was probably gutted and everything you and your people have built has been wiped out in an orgy of looting and destruction.

 I thoroughly believe that the Huns deserve to be called barbarians, I don't see or maybe understand how Attila was seeking peace how can somebody sack as you say 70 Thracian cities and then be a man seeking peace and harmony? You can say something similar about Rome, but even Rome didnt go around conquering purely for the sake of it, they had to think of the cost in funds and manpower, the politics, what effect this would have on the empire, the conquered, how they would rule/control the newly conquered lands etc. The Huns didnt have to consider barely any of this, as they rarely stuck around long enough to get overly involved.

 The Romans were obviously far from saints, but atleast they offered something after they had taken whatever it was they wanted, the Huns seem to have brought nothing but chaos in their wake, that left no lasting legacy or major contribution.

 Had the Huns conquered the west I dare say if there is an argument over whether or not there was a *dark age* there wouldnt be, had the Huns stuck around, since the Huns had no interest in Roman culture or civilisation as we know it I see no real reason why western europe wouldnt have become a cultural desert. As the Huns swept aside the tottering Roman empire and crushed the Germanics who by now lived within it and were atleast partly romanised.

 I think the Roman culture did little else but benefit the people in the empire, I don't see how western europe for example would of progressed had it been under the rule of nomads and the *uncivilised*.

 I dont profess to be an expert on the Huns, I admit that being a westerner i'm certain to see things in a somewhat biased manner, I don't hate the Huns and I don't think the Romans were perfect superhumans who did no wrong. I just know who i'd rather be ruled by and whos culture i'd rather have existed in and which benefited the people most, I believe the people of the day felt very much the same as me.

 The fighting ability of the Huns I dont doubt, but still I find it odd how the Huns could conquer many a Germanic tribe etc then come against a coalition of bitter enemies no stronger than anybody they had conquered before and yet failed. Attila apparently this great leader and commander failed to push aside this army which probably had barely a true Roman in it.

 I have far more respect for Aetius who for many years had worked constantly to keep the empire on its feet, he had the help of the Huns but he was clearly a thoroughly good commander who tried everything to keep Rome up. The fact he was later assassinated by a total incompetant like Valentinian III is both tragic and infuriating in its stupidity. Just my opinion anyway.

 You seem to know far more than me on the Huns, so please let me know if i've made any glaring mistakes so i can avoid doing the same in the future and so learn more about the Huns.

 Again thank you Eagle for your kind compliments.

 I'm often unsure how to look at Chalons I have seen so many different versions of the battle so many numbers of casualties etc that it is incredibly difficult to paint a clear picture, its just one of those battles that is open to interpretation.

 As a battle is was a draw, it seems both sides suffered huge casualties, fought incredibly hard even though the sources are exaggerated there is no doubt that the ferocity of the combat was extreme. However if we are to believe the general account of the battle, Aetius did have the chance to finish the Huns off, but decided the Huns were useful as a counter-weight. To remove the one thing that was uniting the fractured western empire in a common cause would be suicidal for an empire that otherwise would be attacked from all sides.

 Assuming this is true, then I think Aetius made the right decision and had he lived longer perhaps he could of kept the empire afloat, anyway thats not important.

 Yes I believe plague played a major role in Attilas retreat from Italy, however i've watched a couple of programs on the history channel lately, referring to this. Is it not possible, that the heavy casualties Attila suffered at Chalons made it impossible to both campaign in Italy and defend his base in Hungary?

  Had Attilas army not been threatened by plague and famine, but his base was under attack I think he may have abandoned the campaign anyway to defend his territory which was under attack from the eastern empire, ill search for a source to back this up. Anyway I am sure that the eastern Emperor Marcian had eventually sent troops to Italy to help the west making the capture of Rome even more hazardous for Attila, so there were many things to take into consideration.

 I certainly will agree with what Aetius is often called "the last of the Romans", so I very much respect Aetius as much as I do any other Roman/Byzantine general.

 Well if you want to use me as a source of knowledge of the Romans then i'd be happy to offer you anything I can help with, i'm far from an expert obviously but my knowledge is growing everyday so I cant be half bad .

 The same to you on the Huns, I oughta know more about eastern cultures and empires etc than I do, so I hope to learn more about them in the future.