Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Rome's Loopiest Enemies
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 8th August 2007
You've got to admit that Rome, when it came to picking its deadliest enemies en route to empire, certainly chose some weird ones. My own favourite is Mithridates VI of Pontus - he who murdered his brothers, married his sister, took poison every day to make himself immune, massacred the entire Roman population of Anatolia and then sent a letter asking the senate if he could be friends, and finally committed suicide (after stupidly trying to poison himself, then failing to run himself through with his sword, and finally either getting a henchman to do it for him or being set upon by disgruntled sons and son-in-laws depending on which version you prefer).
Anyone got any others? -
Message 2
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Wednesday, 8th August 2007
My own favourite is Mithridates VI of Pontus - he who murdered his brothers, married his sister...Β
You forgot to mention that he imprisoned his mother. -
Message 3
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 8th August 2007
Hi Nordmann,
Off the top of my head I'd have to mention that most dastardly enemy within - Catiline.
Parts of Cicero's orations against him are still some of the funniest character assassinations I've ever read. Cicero makes him sound as though he dressed as a panto villain (complete with twirly moustache black cape and stove-pipe hat), and spent his time eating babies and defiling pretty much anything animal, vegetable or mineral.
I also bet he had a great laugh - my money is on the good old egotistical "MWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!".
Cheers,
RF -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 8th August 2007
I bet he'd have tied young women to railway lines if they'd had them back then as well! -
Message 5
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
Hi Nordmann,
ummm... What about Monotheists? Those Christians - burning down Rome, smashing up temples, tying up bureaucracy by queuing up to try to get martyred. Eating flesh and drinking blood, and wearing hairshirts whilst standing on top of poles for long periods of time - well it's just not Roman is it?
Then you've got the Jews. They get crushed in a rebellion so what do they do? They start another rebellion 30 - or so years later. That one gets crushed so what do they do? Yup, you guessed it, they start another rebellion a decade or so later. You wouldn't mind but the Romans were only there in the first place to stop them fighting amongst themselves. Oh, and their crack suicide battalion in Massada has to be the most ineffective in history...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
The problem with the Christians was that by the time the true nature of the enemy was understood by the Romans the damage had been done and they'd wormed their way into the upper levels of the empire's bureaucracy, the empirical royal family and (probably most importantly) the treasury. Rome was never great at fighting insidious foes like that (their 700 year battle against rat-infestation in the city is a parallel). But give them a larger than life despot or psychotic general with athing for elephants and catapulting severed heads to counter - now THAT was something they could rise to!
-
Message 7
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
How about the Cimbric Tribes. Ravage and rampage your way south through Gaul and Provence. Anhilate and humiliate Rome, the roads are open all the way to Rome, no army or General of note is available to call.
What is a Barbarian Tribal Leader to do?
Go to the Costa's for some well deserved R&R. I mean I know that Germans have a reputation for sunbeds, but this is even before they realised they were Germans!
That has to count as one of the more loopy of Romes enemies -
Message 8
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
Although as enemies, you can't seriously call them a threat to Rome, I'd say that the Ancient Greeks were completely fruit-loopy to let the Romans get involved in their politics. "We're having our usual childish inter-citystate squabbles and need someone independant to get involved in our politics who won't take over our country and redevelop Corinth - who should we call?".
Considering that the Ancient Greeks prided themselves on producing some of the greatest thinkers ever known, inviting the Romans to get involved in their politics really wasn't one of their smartest ideas - I certainly wouldn't put it up there with calculating the circumference of the Earth or Democracy. I bet there were some seriously red faces down the Academy a few days later - they'd have been less embarassed if they'd have sorted out their petty little feuds on "The Jerry Springer Show" or "Trisha"...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 9
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
The Dacians.
The falx - crazy weapon; crazy guys..... -
Message 10
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Saturday, 11th August 2007
The water in the (English) Channel.
When Roman Emperor Caligula did an invasion of Britain in AD 40.
Didn't he do it, by ordering the Roman troops to draw up on the Gallic beach. Then wade out and attack the water mercilessly with their swords.
Then he ordered the soldiers to come back to the beach, and gather up all the sea-shells lying on it.
He said these shells were the spoils of war, which proved that the attack on the water in the Channel, had been successful.
And only the water in the Channel, had stood in the way of conquering Britain.
So now that the soldiers had conquered the water, they had in effect, conquered Britain.
A land campaign against Britannia would therefore be a mere formality, and was no longer necessary.
So Caligula and the troops marched back to Rome in triumph, bearing the sea-shells as proof of the success of their military operation. -
Message 11
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Hi Malacradan,
I've heard one theory that the sea-shells may have referred to the tents that the soldiers used - something to do with a possible mistranslation/misunderstanding by Suetonius of the original latin source he used. Perhaps Caligula was being sarcastic towards soldiers who were too cowardly to cross a choppy 20 miles of water?
I don't think that he was mad - just very misunderstood...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 12
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 13th August 2007
something to do with a possible mistranslation/misunderstanding by Suetonius of the original latin source he usedΒ
Interesting... but the Latin term for a military tent is "papillo", butterfly. An ordinary tent is "tabernaculum" and a seashell is "concha". It would be interesting to know where the confusion supposedly came in - "shell" is another nickname for tent?
Anyway, for now I'll rely on Suetonius's interpretation (always keeping in mind that the whole story may be scurrilous gossip!) -
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Hi Anglo Norman,
I like the new moniker - the lightbulb makes you even brighter than the old Anglo Norman!
It was something I heard in class when I wasn't particularly listening carefully so I could be (in fact I probably am) mistaken about the latin translation thing. I definitely recall the lecturer saying that the seashells could have referred to the tents tho'. Or maybe it was boats - damn my memory...
Do you think the story is just gossip or excessively exaggerated? The invasion, to me at least, seems pretty well planned and building a lighthouse makes it look like he took it serious enough. All that planning certainly helped Claudius in 43 as well.
I think that Caligula gets a lot of unfair bad press. OK, he was a bit of a party animal, but can any of us honestly say that we've never had a few late nights out that we're not too proud of?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 14
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Could well be gossip - Suetonius is not always reliable, especially when being reliable could be bad for the health! There are some claims that his attempt to make Incitatus, his horse, a consul was a way of ridiculing the Senate rather than a sign of madness.
Further research suggests the seashells may indeed have been boats, or female genitalia (suggesting that the soldiers had spent a lot of time in brothels). Another theory is that he really did make the troops collect seashells, but that it was because they refused to go to Britain and the seashells were a sarcastic 'reward' from the Emperor, a parody of the spoils of war they could have recieved. Yet another theory suggests that the incident never happened at all, and that the 'invasion' was never intended to be anything more than a training exercise.
A lot of the stories about Caligula seem to be of dubious validity, and although he was power hungry and ruthless towards the Senate and Patrician and Equestrian classes, he seems to have been a reasonably competant Emperor overall. -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 13th August 2007
The term 'musculi' applied to both military tents and mussels.
But even if that is the source of all the subsequent confusion the account still doesn't make sense. Why would he command his troops to pick up their tents and bring them back? Army training might have been slipping in standard around Caligula's time but I didn't think to the extent that there was a danger the soldiers would leave their kit behind them without being told to take it.
Soemone else has said that it was indeed the shells he wanted brought back, not to embarrass the troops but because Britain and the German Sea had a reputation for producing good pearls. His great shell-picking manouevre might simply have been a stab at boosting his treasury, and possibly even a method of rustling up a 'bonus' for the troops themselves.
Whatever about the shells, if the other bit about accepting Adminius's surrender is correct, then Caligula's presence near Britannia was well justified - especially if he harboured the notion that Adminius could be instrumental as a pretext to invade and could help him out in that respect. None of his contemporaries (or later detractor-cum-biographers) bothered to report what actually happened during these negotiations, but if it panned out that the Adminius great white hope had proved ephemeral then an attempt at cutting losses by harvesting pearls seems totally plausible. Why waste the manpower? -
Message 16
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Cheers to you both!
Do you think Caligula put the infrastructure in place to get to the coast, e.g. roads, that Claudius used in his invasion?
RF -
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Hi Nordmann,
Musculi - that's the word the lecturer mentioned!
Cheers,
RF -
Message 18
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Monday, 13th August 2007
His great shell-picking manouevre might simply have been a stab at boosting his treasury, and possibly even a method of rustling up a 'bonus' for the troops themselves.
Whatever about the shells, if the other bit about accepting Adminius's surrender is correct, then Caligula's presence near Britannia was well justified - especially if he harboured the notion that Adminius could be instrumental as a pretext to invade and could help him out in that respect.Β
Why can't you just accept that Caligula was bonkers, nordmann, and stop trying to make out he was rational? -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Not much extra infrastructure was needed to mount the invasion since there was no great pressure timewise in its initial execution. 40,000 troops were assembled in Gaul and the bulk of them were used in the first of a three-pronged attack on Richmond in Kent. The reported trepidation of the troops seems to have centred on the craft used to purvey them rather than fear of the Britons (as British historians have liked to advance as a theory) since in its initial phase the 'invasion' was simply an extension of their long-held policy in Gaul - entering the territory of 'friendly' tribes while the opportunity existed and giving them the Roman version of the 'offer that couldn't be refused' - stability for the price of Roman protection and a 'sharing' of resources.
Caligula seems to have been pursuing a similar strategy using the disaffected son of a British chieftain as 'the primary contact'. We don't know for sure how many troops he was going to commit but the project seems to have been envisaged on a smaller scale than Claudius's, who saw a chance at gaining control over the entire lowlands district of southern Britain. Perhaps, given his name, he hoped to emulate another famous Gaius in Gaul and build Roman hegemony piecemeal, tribe by tribe, at least in the beginning.
One thing I am pretty sure of however is that Caligula's personality, insecure and demented as it seems to have been, did not extend to his military career as emperor. He is credited with having 'botched' his German campaign, but in truth there is no evidence that he suffered any setback other than ill fortune might have dealt any commander (and frequently did). His short tenure subsequently in overall command gave him no opportunity to reverse this, and his fate to be succeeded by able men (one of whom he himself had raised through the army ranks), coupled with the delight at which his enemies tore his reputation to shreds after they had assassinated him, put paid to us ever being really sure just what he might have been capable of with regard to empirical administration and expansion. The evidence says 'not much', but the untainted evidence is very thin on the ground.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.