Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Invicta" channel.

  1. 956
  2. 433
  3. 277
  4. 213
  5. 197
  6. 132
  7. 93
  8. 87
  9. 71
  10. 67
  11. 62
  12. 53
  13. 31
  14. 30
  15. 29
  16. 22
  17. 22
  18. 20
  19. 19
  20. 18
  21. 16
  22. 16
  23. 15
  24. 14
  25. 13
  26. 12
  27. 12
  28. 12
  29. 11
  30. 11
  31. 11
  32. 10
  33. 9
  34. 9
  35. 9
  36. 9
  37. 9
  38. 9
  39. 9
  40. 9
  41. 9
  42. 8
  43. 8
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189.  @Shadowhunterbg  "The video said"? You know trhat the video is made by amateurs, right? One thing is a video on youtube, another thing are actual sources. So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else. Sorry. The meant was NOT to "make them Romans", even if to expose them to Roman culture was a bonus. "Roman citizen" is a definite thing and a difficult to obtain one. Not all the hostages became Roman citizens. Most of them simply returned to their tribe, or kingdom, when grown up. Arminius could have done the same, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. He did all those things because he wanted to. Sorry, any soldier of any army is bound to serve it. Even more if he's an officer. To purposedly lead the man you are in charge of to be slaughtered in a trap you prepared is worse than the treason of a simple private. Legions were mostly deployed in the provinces. Arminius was in Germania because he was a soldier and there were three legions there (and he knew the territory and the language, obviously). His brother was in Illyria at the same time. Arminius was in charge of the scouting cavalry because he was a Roman citizen. Roman officers were in charge of the auxiliares. You spoke about his family. I'm sorry if reality offend you. Pro-Roman is a political stance. It means that he considered to be ally of the Romans more useful than to be against them. What he loved is inconsequential. Arminius was so loved that his own tribesmen killed him. Arminius had never been kidnapped, and none forced him to became a Roman citizen, an Equites, and to join the army. He chose to do all of those things. Sorry, mental fictions don't count. Treason is defined by actions.
    1
  190.  @Shadowhunterbg  It seems there are countless wrong things you are sure of. So, you are GUESSING. The authors of the video, and some actual historian, did that too. The difference is that actual historians when they are guessing, SAY that they are guessing. They guessed that Arminius and Flavus had been hostages (that, at that time meant an "honored guest) because that was a common practice at the time, not only among Romans. But, while for many historical characters (Pyrrhus, Aetius...) there are sources stating they had been hostages at some point, there is none for Arminius and Flavus. So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else. Judging by your emotional comments on ancient societies, I don't think you had studied any history. Actually to have high-class foreigners to study in Rome was pretty common, and we still have some bi-lingual textbook (obviously those were for students that already knew to read in their own language) used to teach them to read Latin. Culture was more priced than you think but, hear hear WE DON'T KNOW IF ARMINIUS HAD EVER BEEN IN ROME. There is not a single piece of historical evidence that Arminius ever in his life visited Rome. Let alone that he was taken there as a hostage and grew up in the capital of the Roman empire. These are just legends. Had he been an hostage or not in his childhood, that surely ended WAY BEFORE Teutoburg. At that time, instead of simply returning to his tribe. Arminius CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. None of those things had been forced on him. He did all those things because he wanted to. Arminius was a Roman citizen and that meant that, for the Romans, he was one of their own. As trustworthy as if he was born into the city. What he was doing in the army was actually the first step of the "cursus honorum", as expected by a young equites. Mind, again, that his own brother didn't suffer any consequence for Arminius' treason. Flavus was a Roman citizen, and so he was trustworthy, it didn't matter what his brother had done. Actually Caesar normally used Gaulish cavalry in his Gaulish wars 8and those were not even Roman citizens). That was common practice at the time, not only among the Romans. Gauls, like Germans, normally fought among them and allied with foreigners to do so. Again, your emotions are inconsequential here. Treason is defined by actions, not by your emotions, (that, again, were not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci and not even by Arminius' own family). Any person doing the same things, now or in any historical period, would be considered a traitor.
    1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225.  @Nortrix87  That's modern day "patriotic" narrative. It has nothing to do with 1th century mentality. "Germanic land" is a modern concept. It has nothing to do with how a 1st century Germanic tribesman reasoned. His world was his family, his clan, his tribe. Where that tribe was located, was pretty much indifferent. The "goal" was a struggle of power between Germanic factions. Arminius managed to gain power by leading the anti-Roman faction (represented by some tribe, but there were divisions internal to the same tribes, IE among the same Cherusci) and was briefly able to form the coalition. Following Tiberius and Germanicus campaigns, the anti-Roman faction had been crushed. The pro-Roman faction prevailed among the same Cherusci. Arminius was killed and the Cherusci asked to the Romans to send them Italicus, son of Flavus (Arminius' brother, that remained loyal ro Rome) as king. The son of Italicus was still king of the Cherusci and allied to the Romans in the last recorded appearance of the Cherusci in the annals. The anti-Roman faction gained something from the attack? Hard to say. Some of the tribes that participated to the attack had been erased form the map (and no, their goal was not "we'll all gladly die for the freedom of the Germanics!". The Marsi didn't give a damn for the freedom of the Langobardi. Had they knew the consequences, they would have not participated). Other had been enslaved by other Germanic tribes and faded long before the fall of the Empire. Rome governed Germania (included the same Cherusci) for centuries through client kings.
    1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230.  @ygnihteci00  You are evidently too ignorant to even be a troll, or know what a book is, but you are probably already under psychiatric treatment, if not, you should be, given your evident issues. "Wrong, most of them continued to exist and the others simply integrated into or where absorbed by other Germanic Tribes in the area." No, and "being absorbed" is part of being gone, especially when, that's what happened much of the times, the "absorption" was in a condition of subordination. "For like the third time, i never claimed they did, please learn to read properly" Again, you should check the theme of the clip and reading the posts you are answering before listening to the voices in your head. "I never said that the Lombards where the only ones responsible" My statements were "Ironically the Germanics that gained more form the revolt were not directly menaced by the Romans at all. Those east of the Elbe river, that gained power, lands and Germanic slaves, due to the weakening of the western Germanics." and "The Goths, that "conquered Rome and its territories" more than four centuries later, were still north of the Black Sea in first century. They had nothing to do with Teutoburg." At that point you listened to the voices in your head and talked about the Lombards as a rebuttal of the statements, but the Lombards didn't participate in Teutoburg, nor conquered the Empire. They conquered a land that had been conquered by the Goths a century before. The Lombards never seriously clashed with the Empire. I understand your serious mental issues, but you should learn what a book is and read some of them before listening to the voices in your head. "You are again trying to say all of them where wiped out during the scenarios following Teutobourg" No. I'm saying that "The Germanics that fought at Teutoburg and had been whiped out in the subsequent retaliation didn't care at all about the Goths or what DNA they had". You don't need to invent what I'm saying. You talked about genetic tests and German DNA as something relevant in first century, not me. I understand your serious mental issues, but you should read the posts you are answering before listening to the voices in your head.
    1
  231. 1
  232.  @Nortrix87  Yeah. At Tacitus time, that's end of first century, beginning of the second, the Romans still had clashes with some Germanic tribe, and they will have well after Tacitus (mind that the "Germans took advantage of our dissensions and civil wars to storm the quarters of the legions and make a bid for possession of Gaul. This attempt ended in another defeat for them..." was actually the revolt of a Roman general, Lucius Antoninus Saturninus, that had been scarcely aided in his revolt by the Chatti, that Domitian had defeated some year before, with the help of the Cherusci, longtime clients of the empire).Problem is that they were not the same Germanics of Teutoburg, nor the same of the Cimbrian war for that matter (it's actually debated if the Cimbrians were Germanics at all. At best they were a confederation of Germanics and Celts). Contrary to the Empire, the "Germanics" were not a single entity with a single goal. The Goths, that will end the Western Empire, were still north of the Black Sea in first century. They had nothing to do with Teutoburg. Those that had something to do with Teutoburg, generally didn't gain anything from it. Some of the tribes that participated to the attack had been erased form the map (and no, their goal was not "we'll all gladly die for the freedom of the Germanics!". The Marsi didn't give a damn for the freedom of the Langobardi. Had they knew the consequences, they would have not participated). Other had been enslaved by other Germanic tribes and faded long before the fall of the Empire. Rome governed Germania (included the same Cherusci) for centuries through client kings. The Germanics never named themself as a group. There's not a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. It had been the Romans that classified them as such.
    1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235.  @Nortrix87  Polyaenus wrote more than 260 years after the facts, and he was not writing a treaty on ethnology, but on the stratagems of war. Actually the account is higly unlikely, since the Teutones, for one, never penetrated into Italy, they had been defeated by Marius at Aquae Sextiae, in modern day Provence, before he turned on the Cimbri. The previous accounts on Marius tactics were pretty different, and much more credible. Having to lead an army of newbies vs. hardened veterans, he first fought a defensive battle, only defending his camp. Then, when the Teutones gave up trying to overrun the camp, he searched for an easy victory over the isolated Ambrones, then, once his men were veterans of two battles, he faced the Teutones in pitched battle and a one-sided slaughter ensued. After Aquae Sextiae the legionaries were on the roll, and the result of the battle of Vercellae vs. the Cimbri had never really been in doubt. Augustus mentioned the homeland of the Cimbri in Denmark because at that time the Romans found in Denmark a tribe that named themself "Cimbri", and remained in good terms with the Romans, with route trade estabilished, for centuries, but many doubt even they were the same Cimbri (like there still is a totally unrelated "Cimbri" ethnic minority in Italy). The etimology of "Cimbri" can lead to many very common words. If they had been the original nucleus of the migration, it's most likely that many other tribes added to it in a snowball effect, until the most renown "Cimbrian" leader has a name that not only sounds Celtic, but literally means "King of the Boii" (a Celtic tribe). In 2nd century BC, western and central Germania was far from a ethnically uniform land. Both Celtic and Germanic people inhabitated it, and they still did in 1st century AD, at the time of Teutoburg (when the Celtic Senones still inhabitated Germania). The Celts started to dwindle because, with the Roman conquest of Gallia, they lost deepness of field. It was Ercolaneum, not Pompeii, and they were a not really statistically significative group, since it was restricted geographicallly, and much of that group was composed of slaves. The average height of Italian males in Roman period had been estimated between 164.2 and 165.4 cm by several studies on skeletons, and legionaries were not "average Italian males", there was a minumum height to be a legionary, so the average legionary war higher. There was an obvious difference with Gauls and Germanics, and infact the Roman historians reported it, but nothing to write home about. Mind that, at that time, height was higly dependent on feeding. Riches and nobles were normally higher than commoners, because they eat better, and riches and nobles composed the first lines among Celts and Germanics, so the impression was for them to be higher than they were in reality on average. Both the Teutones and the Cimbrians had been slaughtered en mass. There had been very few survivors, and much of them didn't survive for long since there were many families that expected a revenge for Arausium. 100 AC Romans were not interested of the precise name of the several tribes they piled up calling them "Cimbri".
    1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247.  @Woodsie_Lord  Then you have also problems in comprehending simple texts. The thread was about supposedly invading a foreign people, opressing them taking their wealth while forcing them to change their cultural practices, and when they fight back, successfully, seeking vengeance. Actually there were many pro-Roman tribes in Germania. The Cherusci were one of them, until Arminius took power (and still there were a strong pro-Roman faction in the tribe, that will prevail in the end, killing Arminius and asking the Romans for a client king). Arminius was a Roman citizen, an Equites, and a commander of the Roman army, in charge of the scouting cavalry at Teutoburg, so a traitor, even for modern standards. His own brother Flavus remained loyal to the Empire, and fought in the legions of Germanicus against him. "Arminius, savior of the Germanics" from the invaders that were oppressing and forcing is '30s narrative. A 1st century Germanic didn't reason like that. For him there was his family, then his clan, then his tribe and that was all. There was not a Germanic word to indicate Germanic people. It had been the Romans that classified them like that. For the Western Germanics, at that time, it was a question of who they had to become tributaries to. The Romans or the Svebian confederation, east of the Elbe. That's why there were pro-Roman and anti-Roman (that were pro-Svebian) factions among them. As already said, among the Same Cherusci the pro-Roman faction will prevail in the end, and they'll end up aiding the Romans, and being aided by them, vs. other Germanic tribes. They dind't prefer the Svebi to the Romans because the Svebi were Germanics. That distinction had no sense for them. In the same Svebian confederation there were the Semnones, that were Celts.
    1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1