The Battle that Stopped Rome

True the Roman state lasted about 2000 years if you count the Eastern Roman Empire, they are the longest lasting nation in history. But it is still the same concept, you have some really good leaders, and then a whole bunch of inept or bad leaders.

See her'es the problem with those. Save for Adrianople, and the sack of Rome, Rome prevailed and moved forward after all those battles. After the loss at Teutoburg, the Romans stopped their expansion into Germany completely, 100%. Before Teutoburg, the border was the Elbe. After Teutoburg it was the Rhine. Once again, many of the German tribes that would later invade Roman territory, lived in this area.

No. Three fucking legions were slaughtered in a matter of a day. The Romans feared (and rightfully so) that the Germans would invade Gaul, which they very well could have. Augustus, if I am not mistaken, forbade future emperors from expanding across the Rhine. Germanicus only crossed the Rhine to get the standards back. You guys really don't understand what the impact of getting not just three legions, but the three best legions in the whole empire, slaughtered in a matter of a day.

I'm saying that if they had the willpower to, then they could have gone into German territory once again. It scared them, but its not like that could have stopped them. They stopped themselves. As you said sly, they suffered worse and more humiliating defeats then this one, and they still picked themselves up, brushed themselves off, and kept going.

-_-

I am not saying that they could not have. The reason this battle was so decisive was because it convinced them that they could not pacify Germania. They never tried again, because they were afraid of the same, and possibly a worse fate if they tried again.

My point is, if they won, or avoided this battle, they would have pacified the area between the Rhine and the Elbe. The fact that after they lost this battle, they never tried to take over the land again, proves that this was far more decisive than Cannae or Carrhae, or even Adrianople (they were still doing pretty good until the sack of Rome).

And what I'm saying is that the battle itself wasn't decisive, the politics surrounding it were.

This was not the most decisve battle in Roman history. At the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the Romans lost around 16k men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

And at Cannae they lost somewhere near 60-80k men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

The Battle of Teutoburg Forest did not stop Rome. The Romans stopped themselves.

This was adressed on the first page about 4 times. Amount of deaths does not equal most decisive.

It kind of does. So by that logic....let's say a battle had 10 deaths that was the last battle of some empire right after they had a battle where they lost 100k men. By your logic the one with 10 deaths was the most decisive.

What? No my point is that just because a battle is large does not mean it is important(adressed this very point on the first page, guess you did not read it). Let's take your example the Battle of Cannae about 80,000 men lost, yet Rome still defeated Carthage even though they faced numerious defeats, many of them larger then Teutoburg.

Teutoburg however stopped Rome from expanding into Germania. Had it not happened Germania would have become a Roman province, if that happened the course of history would have been drastically different. The fact that the Romans lost so many battles in the Punic Wars, and yet still despite the massive losses they suffered,were able to defeat carthage means those battles were not that decisive. Had Rome won those battles, the course of history would not have changed much except the Romans might have defeated Carthage sooner.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Hannibal had the capabilities to take Rome after Cannae but didn't do so. Southern Italy sided with Rome right after Cannae. No they are very decisive, Teutoburg Forest was not as decisive as Cannae. Look at the losses. Rome was at its worst position other than the Fall of Rome itself to be destroyed.

Read my post above you, the Romans lost these battles taking massive losses and yet still defeated Carthage. Had they won they would have still defeated Carthage, the fact that both outcomes are the same means that these battles were not decisive.

Hannibal could have easily taken Rome after Cannae.

No he could not have, he was not prepared for a seige, due to the losses he sustained, he did not have the manpower to lay seige to Rome as well as secure the surrounding country side. Plus, the Romans still had plenty of manpower to raise more armies, in fact they conscripted their entire male population and formed new legions following this battle. Even if you ignore these points and insist he could have taken the city, the fact that hannibal did not attack Rome means his decision was decisive not the actuall battle.

You're ignoring what GoC and me really said. Teutoburg didn't stop the Romans, Romans stopped the Romans.

And you are a ignoring what Sly and Me are saying, Had this battle not happened or had the Romans won, Germania would be a roman province.

Had Hannibal won the Second Punic War, then Cannae would have been decisive. However, in the grand scheme of things, Cannae was not that important. Hannibal didn't have the capabilities for a long drawn out siege, first of all, because he did not have enough men. 30,000 men are not enough to take Rome by siege. Also, he had no proper siege equipment. This is not Rome Total War, where you wait a turn and you magically have siege equipment. Hannibal was defeated, and Rome moved on, and Cannae was not all that important to any future event after the Punic Wars.

Also, if Cannae had made the Romans believe they couldn't win, and politics played a role and the Romans capitulated to Hannibal afterward, then would Cannae still be as decisive as you say it was? Because apparently, by the logic of you and mosh, it wouldn't be that decisive then.


The Teutoburg forest saw Rome's three best legions slaughtered by someone who was considered a friend of Rome, and I believe even had Roman citizenship. For a battle to be decisive, it doesn't have to necessarily force the losing side to capitulate, but scare them to the point where they think they have to give up. And that's exactly what the Germans did.


Also, stop talking about politics playing a role. Augustus could do anything he wanted, without fear of any repercussions. He was an emperor. He strictly forbade the Romans from every trying to colonize anything north of the Rhine again. And since every Roman emperor since then practically worshiped Augustus, no future emperor would try and break this order.

....

I'm not saying they would have colonized more than they already had. Up until this battle, almost everything north of the rhine and south of the elbe, was controlled by the Romans. That is fact, not speculation.