Historically when did the Romans become beatable?

[Straha]

Historically when did military technology/capability recapture what was once lost and become able to fight on parity or beat the Roman legions of old?

[FaxModem1]

This belongs in Other Scifi?

[Straha]

This belongs in Other Scifi?

historical fiction, besides this is where all other historical fiction has gone before...

[Montcalm]

The Roman empire became beatable when they converted to christianity.

[Super-Gagme]

Basicly when Constantine I took over and converted to Christianity. Then it was followed by too many years of constant arguing over religious truth and shit. That and the romans never were defeated by technological superiors it was always numerical sadly. The big dummies with too many men use to always win

[Captain Cyran]

Once again my theory that everything can be blamed on the Catholic Church holds true.

[Straha]

Your missing the question, what I meant was when did they become defeatable by later armies, like Charlemange, barbarossa, or Napolean, etc.

[Knife]

By 500ad or so, when the empire started to collapse in on itself. Many former protectorets like Britania were built up by the Romans and had the locals in the army and in many a civilian job for the empire.

When they left, they left civilizations on a technology par with them but lacking proper economic infrastructure to continue. So it could be said that the Britians in the 5th centuary had the same equipment that the Romans had since it was Roman equipment.

They just lacked the continent spanning economy to sustain the infrastructure and eventually it fell to disuse and bad maitence.

[HemlockGrey]

The Romans were always beatable; and anyone who claims that Christianity was responsible for the Fall is talking out of their ass.

[Patrick Degan]

After about C.E. 350, the Empire became progressively unable to sustain the financial burden of maintaining military control over such a far-flung dominion. The problem with the Roman Empire was that it absolutely depended upon finding new sources of wealth to sustain expansion —to find new sources of wealth. It was a system which could not last once the Empire's expansion ceased, not in the long-run.

The Empire was doomed the day the money started running out.

[Sriad]

At a guess, when China assembled the first million man army in history, ~200 BC.

[HemlockGrey]

That and the romans never were defeated by technological superiors it was always numerical sadly

You've clearly never heard of the stirrup.

[Andrew J.]

You're all missing the point of the question. You're supposed to say when you think the first time a European army would be stronger than a Roman army would be. Any date before the collapse actually happened is a nonsensical answer.

[HemlockGrey]

Oh. Um, off the top of my head, I'd say the ones that actually beat the Romans, i.e. the barbarian horsemen with stirrups.

[Pablo Sanchez]

At a guess, when China assembled the first million man army in history, ~200 BC.

That figure is probably just as much BS as any from the European classical era.

On the main topic, I would say that Rome was always beatable. At times they were soundly thrashed by Carthaginians, Germans, and Parthians. But the Empire was resilient and able to recover. The turning point was when they lost that resilience. I agree with Patrick Degan on the cause and the approximate time period.

[Pablo Sanchez]

You're all missing the point of the question. You're supposed to say when you think the first time a European army would be stronger than a Roman army would be. Any date before the collapse actually happened is a nonsensical answer.

In that case...

If you take 476 as the date of the Roman fall, then the Byzantine army from 500-700 AD could do it without too much difficulty.

[Darth Wong]

Didn't the shape of the Empire also play a role? Not to sound infantile, but if you look at the Roman Empire on a map, it's not laid out very well. Because of the way it curls around, it has a very long border relative to its land area.

[Sea Skimmer]

Didn't the shape of the Empire also play a role? Not to sound infantile, but if you look at the Roman Empire on a map, it's not laid out very well. Because of the way it curls around, it has a very long border relative to its land area.

On the other hand it also allows for very rapid communication, by sea, to almost all parts. That was very valuable.

[StarshipTitanic]

Didn't the shape of the Empire also play a role? Not to sound infantile, but if you look at the Roman Empire on a map, it's not laid out very well. Because of the way it curls around, it has a very long border relative to its land area.

On the other hand it also allows for very rapid communication, by sea, to almost all parts. That was very valuable.

Unless a boat shows up and says "Need troops. NOW!"

If you cleave off Gaul, Iberia, Africa, and the Levant, you have the perfect defensive empire...oh look, that's what happened to the Byzantines.

The Romans were always beatable; and anyone who claims that Christianity was responsible for the Fall is talking out of their ass.

The constant quest for orthodoxy was quite a contribution. If the Emperor picks something popular in the inner regions, he loses the periphery to Arab invaders promising fair treatment for all Christian denominations under Islam. If he sides with the periphery, he's assassinated by the nobility.

[Alyeska]

Thread moved to proper forum

[The Duchess of Zeon]

After about C.E. 350, the Empire became progressively unable to sustain the financial burden of maintaining military control over such a far-flung dominion. The problem with the Roman Empire was that it absolutely depended upon finding new sources of wealth to sustain expansion —to find new sources of wealth. It was a system which could not last once the Empire's expansion ceased, not in the long-run.

The Empire was doomed the day the money started running out.

Respectfully, that was a lot sooner than the mid-4th century. The Crisis of the Third Century nearly annihilated the Empire, and one can make a good argument that the reforms of Diocletian were nearly on the scale of any that were enacted by a new Chinese Dynasty coming to power. From 218 on the Empire was on the ropes; until Diocletian began a process of reform that was completed by Constantine.

It had much less to do with Christianity (Diocletian was, after all, a great persecutor, and Constantine the one who brought Christianity to power)--but rather with the institution of a system of institutionalized squeezing, if you will, of gearing the state towards farming every drop of wealth they could out of it. One can witness the various proclaimations of the era fixing individuals into their professions and proscribing punishments for leaving them as just a minor symptomatic evidence of the need, and the considerable effort, expended upon trying to forcibly keep up the Imperial economy to sustain a military sufficient to repel the barbarian tribes and the Persians.

It worked for a while, of course, but by the time immediately prior to Theodosius "the Great" we again see the Empire on the ropes--and with his sons and the subsequent splitting of the Empire in their rule, I think personally that was a tacit acknowledgement that the Empire was not really capable of surviving as a unified whole any longer. From that point onwards both sides went in their own directions:

The West co-opted various tribes and played an, a times, relatively canny diplomatic game to keep the barbarians from totally overcoming it. But of course the invaders would get wise after a while, and they did, and the conquests began to get permanent. After the Vandal sack Rome was mostly doomed in the West, but never really died. Even the deposition of Romulus Augustulus was simply a transfer of power to a King, instead of an Emperor, who maintained all the functions of Roman government. Ironically the rather vicious fighting that occured during Justinian's attempt to put Italia under the control of the Eastern Empire was what probably did in the devolved Roman authority in Italy for good.

The East, of course, had the wealth of a very highly developed area with many walled and populous cities and the immense grain producing regions of Egypt to fall back upon, along with the very productive Anatolia (which, for that matter, was the region where currency was invented; a long history of civilization which shows in the built-up nature of the whole countryside especially then). The Balkans were overrun and the barbarians often at the gates of Constantinople, but never took it, and with Anatolia and Egypt secure and the Persians not yet able to make severe inroads, the Eastern Empire was able to begin a series of government reforms and military reforms which weren't really drastic but would lead, of course, to the Byzantine Empire--and to its ability to ride out even losing Syria and Egypt, and to regain territory on numerous occasions.

So really I think it is a matter of economics that can be clearly traced. The Roman military system never lost its effectiveness. At Chalons a mix of German tribes, remnant Roman forces, and various other barbarians and mercenaries, still managed to halt the "feared" Attila the Hun. And in the East, of course, the rested strength of the Empire under Justinian served with his generals Belisarius and Narses to reconquer North Africa and briefly parts of Spain and all of Italy; then by the time the Thematic reforms were completed, Anatolia was able to resist conquest by the rising tide of Islam and the whole military tradition, centuries of both victories on the offensive and defensive, and lessons from defeats the same, served in brilliant tactical manuals, to provide the studies that would allow the likes of the Macedonian dynasty to create the resurgence of the 10th century.

What it really was, then, was a matter of the economics of it. Rome prospered on the conquests around the Mediterranean basin, and after the reign of Augustus ended, these also effectively ended--territory added after the reign of Augustus was almost entirely of a tribal nature and worthless in terms of adding much profit to the Empire, perhaps some but not enough in the long run and certainly not enough to stave off the inevitable. So by the time the start of the 3rd century had rolled around, there was an economic crisis, there was chaos, and the entire 3rd century was a massive civil war and series of barbarian exploits which really resembles more what we think the 5th century resembles, I'd almost dare to say.

However, the Empire still had the inherent strength of the natural productions of its territory, and these could be ruthlessly squeezed of every ounce of value that they had in them. Diocletian proved to be the man willing to do this, and Constantine was willing to complete the job he had begun, and provide a new ideology for the reformed Empire to rally around at that. Between them they created enough strength in the Empire--even while they were burning that strength--for it to struggle on, looking deceptively whole.

It ran out, of course, and then there was the simple reality that the whole of the Empire could not be sustained. The East was a wealthy and productive region, far more than the west ever had been and ever would be--quite possibly western Europe did not surpass the Roman East until the 17th century or even later. So the two halves went their ways, and the West struggled on by cunning until it was overwhelmed by its own methods--and then those traditions survived until a very-much alive Roman East hacked them to bits in the crossfire with the new German overlords. And of course all the remnants survive in Western Europe that we know well.

As to when Rome was overcome militarily? Not, I would say, until the Byzantine Empire had also been so reduced militarily as to also be forced to rely on mercenaries--Turkish Mercenaries! Once they were invited across the Hellespont, it was all over, really.

P.S. I would agree with Sea Skimmer; for all that the Empire's borders were disadvantageous in length to be defended, the internal lines of communication provided by the Mediterranean more than make up for it, especially in an era when the only really large-scale transport possible is by sea. This is hugely important for a pre-industrial Empire. If you want wealth to move around a nation in bulk in that period, it must be done via water transport--and the Roman Empire had that available in spades.

[Symmetry]

At a guess, when China assembled the first million man army in history, ~200 BC.

That figure is probably just as much BS as any from the European classical era.

On the main topic, I would say that Rome was always beatable. At times they were soundly thrashed by Carthaginians, Germans, and Parthians. But the Empire was resilient and able to recover. The turning point was when they lost that resilience. I agree with Patrick Degan on the cause and the approximate time period.

I'm hardly an expert on this, but it seems to me that the Romans started losing momentum about the time they transformed from a republic to a dictatorship. Can someone back me up, or am I just smoking it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At a guess, when China assembled the first million man army in history, ~200 BC.

I just want to say that this army would obviously be defeated by the eighty-thousand man force of heavy-armoured cavalry Knights that served as the rearguard of Emperor Karl's army when he retired from campaigning in Spain, and was commanded by Count Roland and his faithful lieutenants, Olivier and the Archbishop Turpin! *cackles*

[Crown]

Could you argue that Hannible was the first to show that the Roman's were 'beatable'? (Yes I know that Cathrage ultimately lost, but that was due to a poor strategy, for the most part Hannible ate up the legions on the field)

Or are we talking about when the Empire proper was finally destroyed?

[Typhonis 1]

hmm when the Empire slpit and the Western Roman Empire started loosing its Tax base to barbarians since unlike Constantinople Romes Tax base was mostly in front of it as it were.