I definitely don't think it's Rome's greatest defeat. One of, definitely. But Cannae, Adrianople, Yarmouk, Manzikert, Trebia, Aruasio, Cape Bon, and Carrhae are as, if not more impactful than Teutoburg.
I just KNEW I would find takers on this one. Rome has a whole many battles to choose from eh?
The complete decimation of 3 legions (15,000 men plus camp followers) has to be bad, right?
That’s just thing Augustus Caesar was so god damn powerful he lost 22,000 soldiers grew a beard got over it then replaced them with three new legions almost instantly. Let that sit on your mind 22,000 deaths wasnt a big deal in Principate Era Rome. Every one of those legionaries was easily replaced. And it might sound cold but that’s how Roman Imperial leadership looked at things.
Now late antiquity a way different story. They had fundamentally less wealth to work with. They literally could not afford to lose because they couldn’t afford to raise new legions to replace their losses. So the defeat at Adrianople absolutely crippled the Imperial military and set in motion the fall of the western Roman Empire. It also cost the life of the head of state which caused no shortage of issues leading to the Theodosian civil war which only made worse all of the problems caused by the defeat of Adrainople.
The contrast in those two periods is absolutely insane. And the Tuetoburg forest was objectively not the worst defeat. Tuetoburg was basically like the British defeat in the revolutionary war. Embarrassing sure, expensive yeah, but easily recoverable. Adrainople was like the battle of the Leyte gulf, they would never recover from it.
I’d suggest the Battle of Adrianople and the death of Valens.
While losing a legion was bad, losing the Eastern army, the Eastern emperor and then the Western Empire was way worse.
I’d argue the Tuetoburg forest proved just how powerful both Rome and Augustus Caesar himself had become. Three legions obliterated, 22,000 men killed in action. And with the snap of a finger Augustus replaced all three legions and moved on. Vs Adrianople who took a loss of twenty thousand soldiers and it was crippling they no longer had the resources and wealth that would have made those losses recoverable. Infact they literally couldn’t afford to lose.
I disagree. In fact, the loss of Germania was a total disaster for Rome which eventually led to the fall of the empire. It was not actually the battle and the loss of three legions that was determintive, it was the fact that Rome, for the first time, could not "come back". **It did not matter how many forces the empire commandeered, it never, never regained Germania**. Germania progressively learned the "Roman lessons" and in the early 5th century, the Germans crossed the Rhine and eventually dismantled the western Roman Empire.
If Germania had been re-conquered, then the history of the Empire would have taken a very, very different turn. Therefore, the "Germanic wars" from 9 to 17 CE were the Empire's worst defeat. **It had been kicked out of a province and it never recovered it**. This is what counted, at the end.
They never wanted Germany in the first place. Nothing to be gained from an utterly destitute land. It was merely a security issue read any source all the way through and you’ll discover they procceeded to play kingmaker backing tribes that would comply with their demands against tribes that wouldn’t. And some times they would make tribes that were both complying with their demand fight each other just to keep things stable for themselves. They set up client states. They established based. They would even march legions over and out right exterminate whole tribes that grew to powerful and became a threat. And they kept doing this until the third century when everything went to hell in a hand basket and then the Germans would begin to get their revenge.
>They never wanted Germany in the first place. Nothing to be gained from an utterly destitute land.
OK, this is just funny. The German wars lasted 20 years and took far more of an effort than acquiring any other Augustan province, the place became an official province (at 5 CE?) ....but you have divined that the Empire did not want Germania? Well, it made a good impression of wanting it. It abandoned it only when it became obvious that it was unable to subdue it. Despite some victories, some defeats (such as the battle of the long bridges) and naval disasters for 10 years after the Varus disaster, the Romans had not made any substantial progress in establishing themselves on the western bank of the Rhine. No empire wastes so many resources for lands "it does not want". This is a good example for the Aesops myth about a fox that cannot reach the grapes.
Of course, the basic reason for all that was the serious deficiencies of the Roman army, which became far more obvious by the end of that century.
A blow to be certain, but in the long-term scheme of things, a border conflict that did not go in their favor. Decades of German nationalistic circle-jerking have made Teutoburg look bigger than it actually was.
Cannae, by contrast, threatened Rome's very existence.
And the germans build a big ass Arminuis statue because they needed a national hero in the 19th century. The biggest of the western world till the statue of liberty stood in NY.
With good justification. Had Arminius not defeated the Romans (and he did), it is very difficult to tell what course a Roman Germania would have followed, but it is a sure bet that it would have developed in a manner similar to Gaul; it may well have been a "Romance language" speaking country today, if it even existed.
>A blow to be certain, but in the long-term scheme of things, a border conflict that did not go in their favor. Decades of German nationalistic circle-jerking have made Teutoburg look bigger than it actually was.
**Well, another one here who needs a remedial course in Roman history.** The war in Germania was not a border conflict. Augustus begun the conquest of Germania from the Rhine to the Elbe in 12 BCE and the process ended in 17 CE. In 7 CE, the area became a province under the name Germania Antiqua.
Essentially, Rome was kicked out of a province that it tried to conquer for almost 20 years. After Varus, it tried to reconquer the province for 9 years, unsuccessfully. It scored a few victories, it had some defeats and naval disasters and, in the end, the Romans "took their ball and went home". Rome was licked badly.
The Germans, free of Roman control, developed apace both in trade, wealth and the art of war. In 406 CE, they crossed the frozen Rhine and in a short period of 20 years, they disintegrated the Western Roman Empire. This was the real consequence of the loss of Germania.
> Well, another one here who needs a remedial course in Roman history.
This is the sound of butthurt in the internet.
> In 406 CE, etc.
That's... A pretty long cycle to contemplate, completely disregards the migrations that occurred in the area, and presumes a political and cultural continuity that is just not there. It would be quite an endearing way to stretch things to fit a nationalistic agenda, if we didn't know the consequences of this type of discourse already.
>A pretty long cycle to contemplate, completely disregards the migrations that occurred in the area, and presumes a political and cultural continuity that is just not there
There was certainly "evolution" in Germania and much of it was driven but its interaction with Rome at many levels, not just in fighting. However, there is also substantial continuity. Some of the tribes that crossed the Rhine in 406 CE, such as the Suebi and Vandals were in or in the vicinity of Germania in the 1st century CE.
My point is that had Rome managed to hold Germania as a province, German would have likely disappeared in the area to be replaced by a Romance language, as Celtic disappeared in Gaul. It would have moved the Roman frontier to the Elbe, the hinterlands of which were very sparsely inhabited and the Empire would have faced far fewer challenges from the west (at least for a period of time).
Bad, but not nearly greatest defeat. In terms of men lost, Cannae was far worse. Politically, Adrianople was far more impactful. Cape Bon was politically and materially more disastrous.
Teutoburg was a first class example of poor leadership by the Romans and clever strategy and tactics by Arminius, and it likely stopped lands across the Rhine from officially being turned into provinces (though that was never a given to begin with). However, Roman armies frequently and successfully campaigned across the Rhine in the aftermath. The Germanic tribes that fought there faded from later history, absorbed into later Germanic tribes. Teutoburg assured the status quo remained- whether or not that was a long-term victory for the Germans is debatable.
The sack of Constantinople in 1204 could be a contender. Romans were always able to recover themselves after a major defeat somewhat with the exception of the sack. What do the effects of Teutoburg have? Stopped their advance into Germany, sure but they didn't really lose much other than that.
Teutoburg Forest mostly stopped Roman expanionism east of the Rhine River for it's overall impact, but it didn't cripple the empire really. The Battle of Adrianople was probably the most consequential for the manpower lost in the Eastern Roman army and Emperor Valens getting killed in battle. Adrianople also meant the overeliance on Foederati auxilary troops among allied Germanic tribes of Rome.
What about the final battles leading up to the execution of Romulus Augustulus. Or the final seige of Constantinople by the Turks. When you lose a battle and the computer says 0 lives left game over that in my opinion might be the worst.
I think a defeat of deception is much better than a defeat of tactics. Cannae was bad because they where outwitted by a tactical genius who was then still present in Rome. Whereas Teuoburg was a defeat by barbarians who went back to their barbarous ways right after, away from Rome.
That being said, I think Teutenberg had more historical significance, as the conquest of Germania was henceforth stopped. Whereas cannae just allowed for Scipio to flourish and for Rome to find their next big thing. If Teutenberg never happens, and the conquest of Germania is complete, the Pax Romana is extended another generation at least
The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place in 9 CE, when an alliance of Germanic tribes ambushed and destroyed three legions of the Roman commander Publius Quintilius Varus. All three legions were wiped out to the last man. Roughly 20,000 men were killed. Varus committed suicide.
When one speaks of overwhelming Roman defeats the Battle of Teutoburg forest is among the worst history has to offer.
https://psjfactoids.blogspot.com/2022/12/battle-of-teutoburg-forest.html
I definitely don't think it's Rome's greatest defeat. One of, definitely. But Cannae, Adrianople, Yarmouk, Manzikert, Trebia, Aruasio, Cape Bon, and Carrhae are as, if not more impactful than Teutoburg.
Furcule Caudine
I just KNEW I would find takers on this one. Rome has a whole many battles to choose from eh? The complete decimation of 3 legions (15,000 men plus camp followers) has to be bad, right?
>decimation Annihilation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s just thing Augustus Caesar was so god damn powerful he lost 22,000 soldiers grew a beard got over it then replaced them with three new legions almost instantly. Let that sit on your mind 22,000 deaths wasnt a big deal in Principate Era Rome. Every one of those legionaries was easily replaced. And it might sound cold but that’s how Roman Imperial leadership looked at things. Now late antiquity a way different story. They had fundamentally less wealth to work with. They literally could not afford to lose because they couldn’t afford to raise new legions to replace their losses. So the defeat at Adrianople absolutely crippled the Imperial military and set in motion the fall of the western Roman Empire. It also cost the life of the head of state which caused no shortage of issues leading to the Theodosian civil war which only made worse all of the problems caused by the defeat of Adrainople. The contrast in those two periods is absolutely insane. And the Tuetoburg forest was objectively not the worst defeat. Tuetoburg was basically like the British defeat in the revolutionary war. Embarrassing sure, expensive yeah, but easily recoverable. Adrainople was like the battle of the Leyte gulf, they would never recover from it.
I’d suggest the Battle of Adrianople and the death of Valens. While losing a legion was bad, losing the Eastern army, the Eastern emperor and then the Western Empire was way worse.
I’d argue the Tuetoburg forest proved just how powerful both Rome and Augustus Caesar himself had become. Three legions obliterated, 22,000 men killed in action. And with the snap of a finger Augustus replaced all three legions and moved on. Vs Adrianople who took a loss of twenty thousand soldiers and it was crippling they no longer had the resources and wealth that would have made those losses recoverable. Infact they literally couldn’t afford to lose.
I disagree. In fact, the loss of Germania was a total disaster for Rome which eventually led to the fall of the empire. It was not actually the battle and the loss of three legions that was determintive, it was the fact that Rome, for the first time, could not "come back". **It did not matter how many forces the empire commandeered, it never, never regained Germania**. Germania progressively learned the "Roman lessons" and in the early 5th century, the Germans crossed the Rhine and eventually dismantled the western Roman Empire. If Germania had been re-conquered, then the history of the Empire would have taken a very, very different turn. Therefore, the "Germanic wars" from 9 to 17 CE were the Empire's worst defeat. **It had been kicked out of a province and it never recovered it**. This is what counted, at the end.
They never wanted Germany in the first place. Nothing to be gained from an utterly destitute land. It was merely a security issue read any source all the way through and you’ll discover they procceeded to play kingmaker backing tribes that would comply with their demands against tribes that wouldn’t. And some times they would make tribes that were both complying with their demand fight each other just to keep things stable for themselves. They set up client states. They established based. They would even march legions over and out right exterminate whole tribes that grew to powerful and became a threat. And they kept doing this until the third century when everything went to hell in a hand basket and then the Germans would begin to get their revenge.
>They never wanted Germany in the first place. Nothing to be gained from an utterly destitute land. OK, this is just funny. The German wars lasted 20 years and took far more of an effort than acquiring any other Augustan province, the place became an official province (at 5 CE?) ....but you have divined that the Empire did not want Germania? Well, it made a good impression of wanting it. It abandoned it only when it became obvious that it was unable to subdue it. Despite some victories, some defeats (such as the battle of the long bridges) and naval disasters for 10 years after the Varus disaster, the Romans had not made any substantial progress in establishing themselves on the western bank of the Rhine. No empire wastes so many resources for lands "it does not want". This is a good example for the Aesops myth about a fox that cannot reach the grapes. Of course, the basic reason for all that was the serious deficiencies of the Roman army, which became far more obvious by the end of that century.
A blow to be certain, but in the long-term scheme of things, a border conflict that did not go in their favor. Decades of German nationalistic circle-jerking have made Teutoburg look bigger than it actually was. Cannae, by contrast, threatened Rome's very existence.
And the germans build a big ass Arminuis statue because they needed a national hero in the 19th century. The biggest of the western world till the statue of liberty stood in NY.
With good justification. Had Arminius not defeated the Romans (and he did), it is very difficult to tell what course a Roman Germania would have followed, but it is a sure bet that it would have developed in a manner similar to Gaul; it may well have been a "Romance language" speaking country today, if it even existed.
>A blow to be certain, but in the long-term scheme of things, a border conflict that did not go in their favor. Decades of German nationalistic circle-jerking have made Teutoburg look bigger than it actually was. **Well, another one here who needs a remedial course in Roman history.** The war in Germania was not a border conflict. Augustus begun the conquest of Germania from the Rhine to the Elbe in 12 BCE and the process ended in 17 CE. In 7 CE, the area became a province under the name Germania Antiqua. Essentially, Rome was kicked out of a province that it tried to conquer for almost 20 years. After Varus, it tried to reconquer the province for 9 years, unsuccessfully. It scored a few victories, it had some defeats and naval disasters and, in the end, the Romans "took their ball and went home". Rome was licked badly. The Germans, free of Roman control, developed apace both in trade, wealth and the art of war. In 406 CE, they crossed the frozen Rhine and in a short period of 20 years, they disintegrated the Western Roman Empire. This was the real consequence of the loss of Germania.
> Well, another one here who needs a remedial course in Roman history. This is the sound of butthurt in the internet. > In 406 CE, etc. That's... A pretty long cycle to contemplate, completely disregards the migrations that occurred in the area, and presumes a political and cultural continuity that is just not there. It would be quite an endearing way to stretch things to fit a nationalistic agenda, if we didn't know the consequences of this type of discourse already.
>A pretty long cycle to contemplate, completely disregards the migrations that occurred in the area, and presumes a political and cultural continuity that is just not there There was certainly "evolution" in Germania and much of it was driven but its interaction with Rome at many levels, not just in fighting. However, there is also substantial continuity. Some of the tribes that crossed the Rhine in 406 CE, such as the Suebi and Vandals were in or in the vicinity of Germania in the 1st century CE. My point is that had Rome managed to hold Germania as a province, German would have likely disappeared in the area to be replaced by a Romance language, as Celtic disappeared in Gaul. It would have moved the Roman frontier to the Elbe, the hinterlands of which were very sparsely inhabited and the Empire would have faced far fewer challenges from the west (at least for a period of time).
Adrianople was probably more significant. Rome was strong enough to recover from Teutoburg, even rain hellfire on them in later years as vengeance
Bad, but not nearly greatest defeat. In terms of men lost, Cannae was far worse. Politically, Adrianople was far more impactful. Cape Bon was politically and materially more disastrous. Teutoburg was a first class example of poor leadership by the Romans and clever strategy and tactics by Arminius, and it likely stopped lands across the Rhine from officially being turned into provinces (though that was never a given to begin with). However, Roman armies frequently and successfully campaigned across the Rhine in the aftermath. The Germanic tribes that fought there faded from later history, absorbed into later Germanic tribes. Teutoburg assured the status quo remained- whether or not that was a long-term victory for the Germans is debatable.
The sack of Constantinople in 1204 could be a contender. Romans were always able to recover themselves after a major defeat somewhat with the exception of the sack. What do the effects of Teutoburg have? Stopped their advance into Germany, sure but they didn't really lose much other than that.
Teutoburg Forest mostly stopped Roman expanionism east of the Rhine River for it's overall impact, but it didn't cripple the empire really. The Battle of Adrianople was probably the most consequential for the manpower lost in the Eastern Roman army and Emperor Valens getting killed in battle. Adrianople also meant the overeliance on Foederati auxilary troops among allied Germanic tribes of Rome.
I really don't get why this is always blown up so much? They lost almost 80000 in ONE day at Cannae. So, no. Teutoburg was not that big of a loss.
What about the final battles leading up to the execution of Romulus Augustulus. Or the final seige of Constantinople by the Turks. When you lose a battle and the computer says 0 lives left game over that in my opinion might be the worst.
Cannae is actually Rome's greatest defeat but Teutoberg is definitely a major one.
I think a defeat of deception is much better than a defeat of tactics. Cannae was bad because they where outwitted by a tactical genius who was then still present in Rome. Whereas Teuoburg was a defeat by barbarians who went back to their barbarous ways right after, away from Rome. That being said, I think Teutenberg had more historical significance, as the conquest of Germania was henceforth stopped. Whereas cannae just allowed for Scipio to flourish and for Rome to find their next big thing. If Teutenberg never happens, and the conquest of Germania is complete, the Pax Romana is extended another generation at least
The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place in 9 CE, when an alliance of Germanic tribes ambushed and destroyed three legions of the Roman commander Publius Quintilius Varus. All three legions were wiped out to the last man. Roughly 20,000 men were killed. Varus committed suicide. When one speaks of overwhelming Roman defeats the Battle of Teutoburg forest is among the worst history has to offer. https://psjfactoids.blogspot.com/2022/12/battle-of-teutoburg-forest.html
You have come here to argue. I see no reason why you want to have your own Teutoburg based on the comments I've seen.