Arausio, 105 BC: Rome's Worst Military Defeat (Documentary)

[@HoH]

📜 This video is not sponsored. If you enjoy my videos and want early access to my content, consider supporting House of History at www.patreon.com/HouseofHistory!

[@ChrisDyn1]

Your accent went a bit haywire in this episode. 6:40 onwards, you started using an American accent for some reason, for about 30 seconds. 8:43, you did it again ("commANders"), also the word "Roman" is Americanised too. 11:38 Another long stretch of Americanese. What's going on here, bud? Shenanigans afoot.

[@eagleofceaser6140]

Rome's ability to come back from disaster was truly impressive.

[@erikeliasson4739]

They kind of didnt. They won the war in the end thanks to Gaius Marius but their force then only constituted 40 thousand men, much mess than half their first force.

[@LauftFafa]

we wont see something like it in history till Russia in ww2 and i say Russia considering all its Soviet satellites joined the Axis willingly by 41

[@xadrez001]

your point just proves whats he said@@erikeliasson4739

[@dudsulugulugan7639]

They still had the demographics at this point. At Cannae, a week after the disaster, Rome was already recruiting fresh armies from the city of Rome alone. Slavery long term is the real cause of Rome's decline as the population drastically shrunked due to generational duration of low wages.

[@petersclafani4370]

No army in history has ever recovered from such loses.

[@podcastler]

I think this is Rome's worst defeat. In ancient times, losing 120,000 men in one day must have been catastrophic.

[@mbryson2899]

Good point. Given overall populations of the era it must have been unfathomable.

[@Ghostrex101]

I doubt those numbers are true

[@mbryson2899]

@@Ghostrex101 Why?

[@Ghostrex101]

@@mbryson2899 Because army logistics wasn't as advanced at that time.

[@mbryson2899]

@@Ghostrex101 So...they couldn't have gotten that many troops there?

[@nigelmansfield3011]

Marius' reformation of the Roman army was impressive. The reforms did lead to the civil wars of the 1st century BC but the armies were now professionally recruited and led.

[@robbabcock_]

It's a testament to the power and resilience of Rome that she was able to absorb several crushing defeats and come back stronger.

[@bestestindaworld]

In the end all the good strong Romans were dead and the dregs were left to be overrun and sacked.

[@kdrhn9601]

Wouldnt survive if it werent ancient times

[@earldriskill3505]

True, they were very resilient. They never gave up.

[@adamesd3699]

I find it interesting how classical armies in Europe and the Near/Middle East were significantly larger than anything they later put into the field for more than a thousand years.

[@calebspain4828]

Due to less centralized powers it was easier for those that were to conquer large sways of decentralized territory. Once established an opposing force would often only require a handful of military victories to inherit a large empire e.g Alexander the Great with Persia, Rome defeating Macedon, Rashid caliphate vs Sassinids etc

[@SteveClark-ob1kj]

Armies of this size were possible (but not frequent) up until the Black Death killed 30-50% of the population. Army sizes in Europe did not recover until the Napoleonic wars. I suspect the numbers in this battle were, however, inflated in the fragmentary ancient sources, such as they are. Certainly, on a strategic level both Cannae and Adrianople were more devastating to Rome. Significantly Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of Adrianople “The annals record no such massacre of a battle except one, at Cannae." - no mention of Arausio.

[@adamesd3699]

⁠@@SteveClark-ob1kjThat’s a very interesting quote from Marcillenus. Yeah, Cannae and Adrianople were much more famous, as well as Actium and a few others. But throughout the Middle Ages, even before the Black Death, there were no armies anywhere close to this size in Europe. The closest was probably Yarmuk between the Byzantines and the Rashidun Caliphate, and that wasn’t even in Europe. Chinese armies during that period were often much larger.

[@PalleRasmussen]

According to Chinese sources that is. ​@@adamesd3699Most non-Chinese analysts believe the numbers are... somewhat inflated as it is really hard for a pre-modern infrastructure to keep more than a certain number of men and horses in the field.

[@tearypit6082]

I knows it’s nuts to think that hundreds of thousands of people used to get together and stab each other for hours on end

[@Miamcoline]

Excellent coverage. Better context than any other vid ive seen on this topic. Loved the accurate visuals, context and the fact that you made clear that we didn't know how the division of the army impacted the battle exactly instead of just inventing how. Sometimes its better not to guess. Good one!

[@charlesvanderhoog7056]

Until Augustus's victory in 31 B.C., Rome's principal weakness was having itself controlled by competing families. You know how horrid competition within families can be, look at the current English one, but between families, it is war, e.g. the War of the Roses. It is always trouble.

[@dingbum8618]

But the Republic thrived under the competition of those families. Senators and Officials had to actually accomplish stuff for the State in oder to gain their families influence. They didn't just inherit their assets. Consuls competed fiercly for a chance at military glory. The wast majority of provinces was captured by the aristoctats hailing from the ancient nobility.

[@Avinkwep]

@@dingbum8618 it was a double edged sword. The need to do something did make them achieve, but it also led to brash military decisions like the one during this very battle

[@tiringsarcasm]

@@dingbum8618aye, especially considering how consuls had only 1 year per term. This often meant that the leaders were gloryhungry and very aggressive.

[@HDreamer]

I would disagree about not just inheriting assets, Caepio for example was from an old aristocratic family. Caepios had been consul before and the family was damn rich. @@dingbum8618

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

YAY! Your videos on rome are ALWAYS my favorites! thanks for all your hardwork and dedication!

[@DaHuuudge]

How does one evaluate the magnitude of a defeat? Is it the number of casualties, or the subsequent impact? Rome was able to absorb this and other similar defeats, yet continue its expansion. Later, smaller defeats would have greater impact on the geopolitical situation.

[@jjkoij]

Well said!

[@Avinkwep]

I feel from a tactical standpoint the comparative size of both armies is important to factor in. I personally think losing to a smaller army is worse than loosing to a larger one

[@John-un3lj]

In terms of numbers. Worth pointing out that it took them several years in order to field an army that would eventually defeat the Cimbri & Teutones. During that time, the Cimbri & Teutones went around marauding in Gaul. If they instead had decided to march on Rome & opted (unlike the Gauls) to stay, there probably would never have been a Roman Empire.

[@canemcave]

@@John-un3lj very very unlikely, the Romans had already endured several other protracted wars and invasions like the Samnite, Pyrrhic and the Punic wars, and still managed to come out ahead and expand the empire. At that time, Rome had a significant population and fertility advantage over their enemies and could absorb these losses. Contrary to what happened later when Rome had a population and fertility disadvantage and that's why even much less significant defeats had much greater impact

[@prs_81]

@@canemcave What do you mean by "fertility"? lol. That's not quite the reason Rome would have trouble recovering from far smaller defeats in the late empire, even though that empire was much more gigantic and populated and resource rich than their late republican territory. It's a matter of systems and economy.

[@dupplinmuir113]

It seems unlikely that the tribes had 300,000 men because it would be impossible to feed such a force given the difficulty of transporting food at the time. Probably the two forces were more-or-less equal, with perhaps a small advantage to the Kimbri _et al_ .

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

also worth noting that the barbarian warriors more often than not brought their families, which would boht inflate their numbers in the eyes of the romans but also explain the logistics (as their wives and children foraged and brought animals).

[@DefeaterPT]

This would have been the death of any empire, the fact they lasted as the eastern roman empire up until the XV is impressive

[@brokenbridge6316]

Overconfidence and Disunity can potentially defeat any mighty military force. Great video. This is a battle no one seems to know about.

[@anarchistatheist1917]

This battle occured exactly 2,128 years ago to the day. Though it might be off by 13 days as we currently use the gregorian calendar which is currently ahead of the julian calendar by 13 days.

[@Gorboduc]

One thing left out of the video is that Caepio refused to cooperate with Mallius because the latter was from plebeian stock, and Caepio was too much of a snob to sully himself lol. This battle reminds me of Adrianople almost five centuries later, where Valens doesn't want to wait for Gratian to arrive and decides to do it all by himself. That one didn't work out very well either. Lesson for today: be nice to your co-workers, and hopefully they'll be nice to you. 😎👍

[@HoH]

For some reason I hadn't come across the class issue between Caepio and Mallius, thanks for pointing it out. If you're interested, I also created a video about the battle of Adrianople a while back!

[@HDreamer]

and IIRC, Caepio as a Pro-Consul would have been expected to grant overall command to the Consul of the year Mallius, so he disobeyed long standing pratice as well.

[@jonshive5482]

This presentation, despite its admitted lack of trustworthy sources, provides insight into a largely neglected catastrophic battle in Roman history. It's also a timely reminder of how personal pride leads to overconfidence and split command. Thank you House of History!

[@PhilMcCrackin-f3n]

Yes, its unusual to have two commanders like that. Usually one consul commanded the army, and the other stayed behind to keep charge domestically.

[@jonshive5482]

@@PhilMcCrackin-f3nMy understanding was that they sometimes took turns commanding on alternate days. IIRC that's what happened at Cannae. OTOH there apparently wasn't any specific law concerning it.

[@PhilMcCrackin-f3n]

@@jonshive5482 Ok, good information. ; ]

[@michaelrredford]

Thanks!

[@HoH]

Thank you Michael!

[@cjthebeesknees]

You have the most intellectually stimulating energy and content about battles and warfare etc etc on this subpar media platform, appreciate your work.

[@julio5prado]

More battles have been won thanks to the enemy’s incompetence than to general’s talent

[@davidhughes8357]

Ive been awaiting this video since the late 1950s. Seriously i know this predates the internet altogether . My interest is sort of a long term obsession. But anyhow it was certainly worth the wait. Thank you friends!!!

[@DesertAres]

Glad you labelled this 'the worst military defeat". Most people don't even know about it and think it was Cannae or even Teutoburg Forest.

[@ronaldwinfield307]

I have always been fascinated with this particular battle. I just had to watch this video.

[@karlarden6260]

I remember reading about this in Colleen McCullough’s First Man in Rome. Wonderful stuff!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The more important part of this defeat - was what it did to Rome structurally. It should be noted that the Romans had had a number of battles where in they suffered tremendous loses - especially during the wars with Carthage. So these losses over the decades had a cumulative effect. Rome's Army had been made up of Farmers who were required to purchase their own arms and equipment. Each Land Owner was required to furnish a certain number of men to the Army - frequently including the owner himself (if they were small enough to only have to furnish one soldier and his attendants). I would not term these men - amateurs - most City States had such armies and they could be very well trained - as were the Romans. There were required training sessions that the members had to attend and other campaigns they had been on. So - these armies did not lose because they were ill trained. The loss at Arausio was entirely due to being out numbered and the two Generals not cooperating. One other contributing factor - was that the Cimbri Alliance had been roaming about nomadically for some time - and during this migration - had (as mentioned) fought a number of battles against other tribes as well as Roman Troops themselves. So - these were not untrained Barbarian Mobs - but Veterans of previous actions. When all these Farm Owners got killed - there was an impact on their farms. The Losses Rome had suffered had gradually depleted the Man Power of these farms and left the women and their children trying to manage them. Here - they had scrapped the bottom of the barrel and run out of self equipped farmers to fill their army with. What happened then - was that moneyed people began buying up these Farms which (I believe) were combined and turned into large _Latifundia which were worked by Slave Labor. The women and children of these dead farmers - would take the money they got for their farms - and move to the cities - increasing the city populations. Part of the Marian Reforms en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms had to do with the way troops were raised. There were plenty of poor people in the cities - they just couldn't afford to equip themselves as the Farmers had. Marius - was a very rich man - and he equipped the troops he raised - *_HIMSELF_* . This set a pattern for later armies that were raised and equipped by their Generals. This led to leaders with the funding to pay for these armies and armies that were loyal not to Rome - but to the Generals who had raised their Legions. One aspect of the later Roman Armies - was that the Legionnaires did not have a career to fall back on - and tended to stay in the Army for decades. Here - their Retirement - was achieved by their General acquiring Land Grants for his Legions - which led to communities of retired Legionnaires creating Roman Enclaves in captured territory. There had to be Captured Territory though or some other method of finding land for these retiring troops. This was a factor (among others) in Roman Expansion. Hannibal had killed a lot of Roman Soldiers but he had not yet depleted the Farmers the Roman Legions were made up from. So - the Romans persisted and eventually Carthage was Destroyed. Here - Arauiso - was the ten ton load that broke the Camels Back - in putting an end to how the Romans had raised their Armies and played a large part in a change in Roman Society from being a Culture of Farmers and Nobles to Rich People and Poor People. The Roman Senate was a collection of Patrician Oligarchs ruling over a city of Plebeian workers and poor people. The Oligarchs dominated Rome - until - people like Marius and Caesar - mobilized the poor against them. Marius lost his war against Sulla who restored the Senate to what it had been - but - Caesar's mobs supported Octavian when Caesar was killed and he became Rome's First Emperor as Augustus. One curious bit - was that Sulla was going to kill Caesar - but - was talked out of it. Sulla's last words on the subject were something like _"I'll spare him but - You'll be Sorry."_ .

[@phoenix51472]

Wonderful,great history lesson.

[@DistantLights]

Incredible comment, thanks for the background info

[@schurlbirkenbach1995]

Resilience is the key. Arausio did not stop Rome. 500 years later, the Romans suffered a much smaller defeat (Battle of Adrianopel) and the whole Danube frontier collapsed. It was the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire.

[@edmundcowan9131]

I wonder if the brutal chaos of the Cumbri helped paved the way for Caesar to conquer Gaul about 50 years later.

[@notthefbi7932]

Rome knew how to win big and lose big 😬 Another great video

[@rogerparkhurst5796]

More detail with follow-up of gaius marius’s impact on Rome’s defeat of the kimbri and the rise of Sulla.

[@chaseroberts3111]

I find it hard to believe these numbers. The logistics to keep these troops in the field would be staggering and well beyond the capacity of a barbarian tribe.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

It wasnt an army from a tribe, in the case of the Cimbri, at least - it was the entire tribe. To the best of my knowledge, it's thought that some natural catastrophe made their homeland untenable (possibly inclement weather causing large amounts of flooding, and wiping out their crops) thus forcing them to move out of their territory to seek new territory, as if they'd stayed where they were, they would have starved en masse. Hence their wandering around Europe, and ending up fighting a lot of other tribes, as they had little option but to steal food from others in order to survive themselves.

[@prestonchrisman7382]

@@esmenhamaire6398I think you are correct. And after reading several of Adrian Goldsworthy’s books, he feels that when the ancient sources say migrating tribes brought ~300,000 against a Roman army, they probably were counting the entire migrating tribe and not just the soldiers. So if you take out the females, young, disabled, and elderly, might be closer to 100-125k actual fighting men. Or something along those lines.

[@adamesd3699]

@@prestonchrisman7382Still, how the heck can 300,000 people survive on the move for years? They would strip everything edible wherever they went. Unless they settled down for a while and practiced agriculture at least part of the time.

[@prestonchrisman7382]

@@adamesd3699 yep, probably why they just kept moving. Couldn’t take the time to settle and start farming because they’d starve by the time the crops were ready for harvest. So just a giant blob of roving hunter-gatherers I guess (and also attacking tribes in their path to take what they have, and accepting tribute in the form of food from other tribes to agree to leave them alone)

[@marnixbrugmans4181]

Also, don't think of it as an organised single group, but more as multiple bands roaming across a wide territory (wide here can easily be a few 100 km across). When threatened or there is a battle brewing, they'd pull together again in 1 location (at least the warriors)

[@clarkstartrek]

YOU did not cite the reason why the 2 Romans Had Separate Camps.......One was Patrician and the other was a Plebeian.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

Aye, and Caepio was a huge snob about such things.

[@ReisSack]

Live in China now. Could not watch your videos for 3 months. happy i am able to again watch your videos.

[@KHK001]

Great video as always!

[@stayhungry1503]

its fascinating that so many of the famous and most successful germanic tribes seem to have originated in scandinavia. im guessing they had very fertile crop fields in denmark and southern sweden that could support large populations?

[@raulpetrascu2696]

Like the Eurasian steppe It's a Womb of Nations, nobody knows why. Probably it's not so much the population but the fact that they often migrated away from there, and also picked up people on the way for plundering. Often large coalitions

[@panzrok8701]

Not only the most successful but all Germanic tribes originated out of Scandinavia. Central Europe was still mostly Celtic at this point.

[@stayhungry1503]

germany was certainly not celtic in 105 bc@@panzrok8701

[@seeker-br8lf]

The thing about this is that these were all free citizens of Rome, not professional soldiers, and this brought about the professional army under Marius. Then the soldiers became allied with the general instead of Rome bringing about the end of the Republic. BTW; Sulla captured Jugurtha not Marius, but he took credit for it.

[@herrerasyvovololeksandr2841]

Godó point

[@herrerasyvovololeksandr2841]

Army were loyal to whoever pay them as more plebs joon army

[@joeirungu5288]

I think the Battle of Arausio maybe the bloodiest single day battle in history if one considers 120,000 dead in one day

[@panzrok8701]

12:47 The Cimbri were Germanic and not Gauls/Celtic.

[@Shad0wack]

Nobody knows where they came from, its all speculation

[@sjb3460]

Thanks for the video and history lesson. I did not know of this one.

[@ichemaru]

Great video!!!

[@anarchistatheist1917]

The battle would have occurred in the roman year AUC 648. Or Ab Urbe Condita 648 or 648 years after rome is believed traditionally to be founded.

[@Raphael-pt7rx]

your videos are always a pleasure

[@kennyantonsen3905]

As a dane and jute from Jutland... this always impress me, that the Cimbri from were i live, went down and collided with the might of Rome.

[@DSS-jj2cw]

I amazed tat he numbers involved in the battle with the population densities during that time

[@marcus3cfc]

It would be interesting to know what happened in the upcoming Kimbriam wars under Consul Marius

[@themosticonicscenesinmovie8737]

These Rome 2 battle animations still looking good. I wish that someday a clever modder will add them to Rome Remastered

[@CALZOLA]

But Marius got revenge at the battle near Aqua Sextiae (Aix en Provence) crushing 100 000 Cimbers and Teutons

[@BOSIE321]

Strange battle. Germanic forces always strike me as being a little more disciplined than the Celts of that time but the Roman tactics against 'Barbarians' usually prevailed and you'd back a well organised Roman defensive line even of 'just' 40,000 or half the army to hold against just about anything (Jugurtha found this out).

[@zurgesmiecal]

roman "historians" always exaggerate the enemy numbers. I thought that would be common knowledge

[@antoniorossi490]

@@zurgesmiecal Just think of the incredible figures written by Caesar in De Bello Gallico.

[@TheWildManEnkidu]

It's funny you mention it as even today people are divided on whether the Cimbri were Celtic or Germanic in the first place.

[@jasip1000]

@@TheWildManEnkidunorthern Jutland wasn’t Celtic land.

[@knowledgedesk1653]

Celts were more advanced than germanics

[@DrKarmo]

Great video as always! Did you guys decide to ditch the squares + rectangles approach? It did make your vids stand out but this also looks great. Cheers!

[@flaviusstilicho397]

Can you please do a video on the battle of the Lycus since it’s the battle that finally settled the third mithridatic wars and since it’s never talked about or done a video on

[@raulpetrascu2696]

Will you cover Marius' subsequent campaign?

[@Mortyr45]

Hi there. Can you talk about the battle of Viriato again the Roman army in Hispanic ( Portugal and Spain) ?

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was an informative and great historical coverage video about Cambrian tribe's attacking Roman empire armies in 105 BC .. They defeated two Roman armies.. Thank you 🙏 ( house of history channel for sharing

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Another amazing rome video! Thanks! Suggestion: Constantine the Great biggest triumph, the battle of milvian bridge😊😊😊❤❤❤

[@justintyme720]

Wow you do good work you will go far in this tubeworld

[@janlindtner305]

Excellent lecture👍👍👍

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

Excellent video. Finally the myth of Cannae as Rome's worst defeat is debunked.

[@pederschultz3283]

Is there any explanation for the fact, that armies were so large in Antiquity compared with the Middle Ages ( at least in Europe ) ?

[@BillHimmel]

Wow! Never thought Cannae could be topped!

[@mundowc9170]

A full account of the battles described here along with the political repercussions is discussed at length in the book The First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough

[@samdumaquis2033]

Very, very interesting, great !

[@giod6266]

More about Kimbrian wars plz!

[@fedda9999]

5:11 lmao no wonder, would be better if they didn’t attack everyone they meet xD Cimbri: **looks for Nice place to settle** Also cimbri: **attacks every Tribe they meet** Cimbri: why cant i find a Nice and peaceful place to settle?

[@flaviusstilicho397]

Can you please continue on the series with the Roman victories at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae please

[@jjkoij]

I would have loved to have seen an attempt to recreate the 3 battles between the Legions and the Cimbri before Arausio, as well

[@vectorstrike]

Looks like people from Jutland have always been rowdy

[@martinkupka3575]

Around 100 BC neither the Chatti nor the Markomanni lived even near to the places, at which they are shown on your map.

[@IraklisGk]

Would be great if you covered the Peloponnesian War

[@christians6633]

Nice video. So that is the Marius who invented the Marian reforms for roman legions. In the end, rome won this war. Rome learned from this defeat while the Cimbri and Teutons didn't. Later Cimbri and Teutons seperated from each other and were defeated one after the other.

[@cliffordjensen8725]

Tactically, the reforms changed the Legions from consisting of 30 maniples( 120 men each) of heavy infantry, fighting in three lines, each line three men deep. To 10 cohorts of heavy infantry(500 men ) fighting in blocks 8 men deep. It was felt that these larger deeper Cohorts could stand up better against massed Barbarian assaults. Not really sure if these reforms were in effect for the Battle of Arausio.

[@linming5610]

Marian reform is a myth. The changes started in 2nd punic war after rome mobilized as many men as they can to cope with battle losses up to other campaigns prior to Cimbrian war. The senate personally armed freemen and some wealthy romans freed slaves and armed them with hastati level equipment. There's also Scipio being denied by the senate to levy some legions for his African campaign and was forced to ask for volunteers from cannae and other battles survivors in sicily and financed their armamanent aandd training with wealth he gained from Spain. Other practices linked to marian reforms also have roots decades prior from other generals changes made to cope with their situation.

[@AK-sq9nn]

Song starting at 5:16? plz

[@Zakariya3603]

Could you do the Battle of Cape Bon (468)?

[@johnsongibbs6567]

I believe his legate, Lucius Cornelius Sulla captured Jugurtha with a ruse. Am I mistaken?

[@chasechristophermurraydola9314]

I can’t wait to see The battles of Aqua Sextiae, and Vercellae that’s if you are going to do those battles and I can’t wait to see them because Gaius Marius would defeat the Cimbri and the Teutones however the battle of Vercellae is interesting since some of the children of the surviving captives may have been among the rebelling gladiators in the third servile war aka the war of Spartacus.

[@PalleRasmussen]

Finally some who gets that it is not Cannae nor Carrhae or Adrianopolis. I have been commenting this for years under such creators as Lindybeige.

[@rowlandmak]

A lack of unity in the Carthaginian senate, failing to support Hannibal with reinforcements at the critical moment of opportunity, ultimately led to their defeat.

[@thecrusaderhistorian9820]

Excellent video. I never heard of this battle before this video. But I heard Cannae, Carrae, and Tuteberg Forest would be Roma's worst military disasters. Why do you say this battle was Roma's worst defeat?

[@Roman_History_fan]

We start with Cannae: Rome (86,4k) vs Carthage (50k) Casualties, Rome: Livy (ancient author) tells us 48,2k killed, 19,3k captured, 14k+ escaped, while Polybius says 70k killed, 10k captured, 3k escaped Carthage, casualties: according to Livy 8k killed, while Polybius 5,7k killed Carrhae: Rome ( 36k-43k) vs Parthia (10k) Casualties, Rome: 20k killed, 10k captured, 5-10k escaped Casualties Parthia: unknown but not much Teutoburg forest: Rome ( 14k-22,752k) vs Germanic tribes (18-30k) Rome casualties: 16-20k, nearly the entire army Germania casualties: unknown but less Battle of Arausio: Rome (120k) vs Cimbri + Teutons (200k) Casualties Rome: 120k possible Casualties Cimbri + Teutons: 15k So you see that Rome lost here in this battle the most soldiers, so it was Rome’s biggest defeat

[@thecrusaderhistorian9820]

Ok thanks@@Roman_History_fan

[@tomasamari1234]

Witch program are you using to do this videos? Thank you!

[@Avinkwep]

Could you cover the Siege of Jericho?

[@OIoi-zw6gc]

Daily Dose of the Roman Empire Complete

[@thomashazlewood4658]

It is possible that only such disasters could temporarily bridge the divide between the classes of Rome. Bleak survival surely chrystallized their purpose, though it never did eradicate their class distinctions. The Social Wars would, once again, force Romans to recognize that they, alone, could not rule so many. Caepio was an ass, but, he was an ass of great privilege and unwilling to recognize Maximus as his equal, despite their kindred status as Consuls. Rome bore the disastrous cost of its deep divisions for a millennium.

[@christopherkawecki8544]

Judging such numbers of warriors i find it dificult not to believe that many of this warriors were slavic.slavs had many tribes full of fierce warriors

[@donaldduck9504]

Thanks for the effort, but the depiction of the battle is not without serious mistakes and the map does not reflect the local terrain at all. First, the town of Arausio (Orange) did not exist then; in fact, Caerpio's camp was on Saint Eutrope's hill positioned in the center of today's Orange. Maximus' camp was on a cliff called Lampourdier about 6 km southwest (largely destroyed by a modern quarry). The Cimbri were positioned around a hill near modern Piolenc, being separated from the Romans by a small river called L' Aigue.

[@istvansipos9940]

after disease, glory seeking is the greatest killer in military history

[@barbados3592]

"reassert roman authority over rebelious allies". and that gentlemen, says it all.

[@notcrazy6288]

Interesting how the Veneti started out in Northwest France and ended up in Northeast Italy. Those were the people who founded Venice after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

[@jpavlvs]

Marcus Livius Drusus survived the battle as did his friend Quintus Poppaedius Silo who led the allied legion of the Marsi. These two between were key in the coming Social War. As for Servillus Capeo he too survived unfortunately. Probably by fleeing. Maximus was killed honorably.

[@Jason-fm4my]

Your playlist says chronological, but they are out of order!?

[@HoH]

Let me fix that right away!

[@Jason-fm4my]

@HoH Thank you so much. I love watching these kind of videos in order while occupied, and I loved your Fredrick the Great video.

[@derek6579]

What about Cannae and Lake Trasimene, as described in the Roman records (Livy etc). It’s pronounced simbrian not kimbrian

[@jamesguitar7384]

What about the Battle of Cannae ? Many say that was Rome's greatest defeat .

[@amiirezashojaee5291]

Hi, Can you please cover wars of Nadirshah Afshar with Ottomans and Mughal empire?

[@Centrum99Optional]

Arausio did not exist at that time. Caepio positioned his army on a hill, where this city was later founded.

[@tomfox9083]

I find it rather unlikely simply because 80,000 men is truly massive for a single Roman army (Caepio and Mallius Maximus were undoubtedly intended to be a single army). Crassus marched into Carrhae with far fewer, and it would be far more men than Caesar had at Alesia, or Marius at Vercellae or Aquae Sextiae. Until the Principate I don't think there were ever that many Romans on a single field except at Cannae, but don't quote me on that. this rather brings up a different issue: to a Roman reader, seeing eighty thousand soldiers slaughtered brings up the specter of Hannibal, and could thus be considered a literary device. The dubiousness of the number of Romans on the field only compounds the issue of how many were lost. It certainly was quite a few. It was so bad that it allowed Marius to be elected consul five times simultaneously, despite him having been consul only three years before. It is also possible that it led in some way to the increased internal tensions that later exploded in the Social War. It caused the trial of both Roman generals present, and even Varro, the general at Cannae, was not tried after his defeat. The reputation of the battle was such that Plutarch said the fields in the area produced excellent harvests afterwards due to the fertilization by the dead bodies. the details is certainly an ironic invention, but the perception behind it is telling. If we don't want to discard Livy's figures entirely, we could perhaps say that there were 80,000 Romans present--that is, Caepio had 40,000 beforehand and Mallius Maximus reinforced him with an equal number. But even with that getting even a basic guess at a casualty figure is difficult, because there are no good analogues. generally speaking, the Romans did not lose to pure numbers, and the circumstances of the battle were pretty bizarre. But the stories around it show that it was no ordinary defeat, even taking Marian propaganda into account.

[@adamesd3699]

This reminds of the Battle of Adrianople in 378, where the Goths destroyed a Roman army and killed the emperor. Strange to see an entire disciplined Roman army wiped out by “barbarians”, but that’s what hubris and a bad twist of fate can beget.

[@Neat_profile]

IDK if it's rome's biggest disaster. I mean most likely the overall number of roman soldiers killed surpassed the battle of cannae but in termas of actual legionarries who were rome's first class troups, there were 10-12 legions present as the majority of the army were relatively inexperienced reserves and auxiliaries. Cannae was overall more catastrophic because it sacrificed an even larger proportion among rome's elite both in troups and in senators.

[@fulminatus6241]

Cimbrian war series?

[@JaimeArias270293]

AWESOME!

[@jkelsey555]

Shouldn't North Africa (modern Tunisia) have some red on this map? Roman conquest of Carthage in 146 BC

[@linming5610]

I always think there's only 40,000 true romans that died in this battle. The others are 40,000 allied troops and 40,000 foreign slaves. The impact is spread out.

[@gar6446]

Personally, i doubt the numbers. Rome probably had 10 legions, most likely understrenth and hastily patched up after previous defeats. Even 50,000 would be an impressive number. The tribes moved en mas so the numbers would be high but actual warriors ? My guess around 60-70,000 is a generous guess. It wasn't Romes' greatest defeat because it wasn't even on Roman territory. The Romans always bigged up the enemy numbers either to exaggerate the victory, or excuse a defeat.

[@linming5610]

Add up to 40,000 slaves and servants attached. 30-40,000 romans, 30-40,000 allied auxiliaries, and another 30-40,000 servants and slaves.

[@Centrum99Optional]

The site of the battle is well known, as well as the position of the three armies. Dr. Alain Deyber and his team investigated it. I don't know why you don't display a more realistic map.

[@CptSlow89]

No way they have logistics for these numbers... inflated army numbers.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

Bear in mind, that at this time, the people were the nation. When the Cimbri moved out of their homeland, possibly due to natural disaster wrecking their crops, the entire tribe left those lands, and they were seeking a new homeland to settle in. Hence their clashes with other peoples along the way - how else were they to obtain food to keep themselves alive? Some tribes may have been willing to make some temporary arrangement to help the Cimbri a while without things coming to blows, but uktimately the Cimbri had to find new lands to settle - or face the death of the entire tribe. So everything they had was right there, no logistics involved.

[@jeffmiller8197]

Can you imagine how bad the smell must have been with 100k dead bloated rotting bodies in the sun after a few days? 🤮

[@vincentdegennaro3375]

I think the battle of canae was at least as devastating…..

[@craigkdillon]

Julius Caesar is usually considered Rome's greatest general. However, I put Scipio Africanus and Marius as being better.

[@geordiejones5618]

Aurelian, Probus, Lucullus, Corbulo, Agrippa and Count Theodosius are all better than your two

[@bigmadafaca1020]

Caesar accomplished more in the battlefield than both of them combined. Brilliant generals all of them but there's a reason Caesar is Caesar

[@craigkdillon]

@@bigmadafaca1020 More than Scipio? I don't think so. Scipio beat Hannibal. Caesar never faced a legendary opponent. An elderly Pompey was his best. l B H Liddell Hart, the great military historian called Scipio the best general in history.

[@bigmadafaca1020]

@@craigkdillon the battle vs Hannibal was heavily in favor of Scipio. The genius was drawing him out of the mountains into an open field, the battle itself was decided before it began. Caesar fought mostly on uneven terms, to the point that when the enemy's numbers matched his it was considered light work. No other general faced unfavorable odds and came up on top as consistently as Caesar.

[@craigkdillon]

@@bigmadafaca1020 I suggest you read "Scipio Africanus - Greater than Napoleon" by B H Liddell-Hart. He was a great military historian. You might find his book interesting.