3 ms·

A battle that catastrophic could be seen as an early precursor to the crisis of the third century, slight dents appearing in Rome's facade and armour. A stretch

A battle that catastrophic could be seen as an early precursor to the crisis of the third century, slight dents appearing in Rome's facade and armour. A stretch maybe but worth discussing.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
This was before there was a concept of Rome's invincibility, their peace with Parthia was not built on Roman success. This was just a lost battle, most noteworthy for setting up Germanicus' retrieval of the lost standards. Not comparable to the hell that was the crisis of the third century.
- megaman22 9y ago
  The idea of Roman invincibility is sort of bizarre concept, looking at the history. Roman armies were routinely defeated and destroyed. Rome's great advantage through the Republic and early Empire was that they could absorb such losses, which would be catastrophic for most states, and keep churning out new armies.
  - jack6e 9y ago
    This is absolutely correct and I think the same thing whenever I read suggestions that Roman defeats are/were significant to its decline. Rome's major strength from the beginning was an indefatigable political will. Hannibal did not just cross the Alps, he decimated multiple Roman armies in Italy and then rampaged around the peninsula for over a decade. There is an anecdote that when Hannibal's armies approached Rome, inside the city Roman traders sold land rights to the spot on which his army camped. Much like the Russians and Americans have found in Afghanistan, it is hard to defeat an enemy that shares a common fundamental belief in its own persistence and refusal to acquiesce. Even in this story, as the article notes, after having lost three legions in an utterly decisive battle in the wilds of Germania, Emperor Tiberius' son Germanicus decided he would go back and wage more war to recover the standards. That is not the sort of political will we are used to.

A battle that catastrophic could be seen as an early precursor to the crisis of the third century, slight dents appearing in Rome's facade and armour. A stretch maybe but worth discussing.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

This was before there was a concept of Rome's invincibility, their peace with Parthia was not built on Roman success. This was just a lost battle, most noteworthy for setting up Germanicus' retrieval of the lost standards. Not comparable to the hell that was the crisis of the third century.

megaman22 9y ago
The idea of Roman invincibility is sort of bizarre concept, looking at the history. Roman armies were routinely defeated and destroyed. Rome's great advantage through the Republic and early Empire was that they could absorb such losses, which would be catastrophic for most states, and keep churning out new armies.
- jack6e 9y ago
  This is absolutely correct and I think the same thing whenever I read suggestions that Roman defeats are/were significant to its decline. Rome's major strength from the beginning was an indefatigable political will. Hannibal did not just cross the Alps, he decimated multiple Roman armies in Italy and then rampaged around the peninsula for over a decade. There is an anecdote that when Hannibal's armies approached Rome, inside the city Roman traders sold land rights to the spot on which his army camped. Much like the Russians and Americans have found in Afghanistan, it is hard to defeat an enemy that shares a common fundamental belief in its own persistence and refusal to acquiesce. Even in this story, as the article notes, after having lost three legions in an utterly decisive battle in the wilds of Germania, Emperor Tiberius' son Germanicus decided he would go back and wage more war to recover the standards. That is not the sort of political will we are used to.