Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Invicta"
channel.
-
956
-
433
-
277
-
213
-
About the utility of chariots as "battle taxi" there is a revealing passage in the Iliad where Aenea questions the renowed archer Pandarus (an ally of the Trojans) why he wasn't targeting Diomedes that was salughtering the Trojan first line. Pandarus answered that he hit Diomedes from afar, with no effect, and complained that, having left his chariots and horses home when he departed for Troy, fearing for them to starve in a siege, he couldn't get close to fight him, and so he felt to be useless.
In a warfare based on personal duels between heavily armoured and perfectly armed heroes (while infantrymen just had a shield and a one-anded spear, or a mace), not having a chariot was a huge disadvantage. You had to run, in a heavy armor, to reach your target, only to see him carried somewere else, and without possibility to escape if things got bad. An hero with a chariot instead could dictate the time of the battle, since he could decide to fight when, and where, he thought to have an advantage.
197
-
132
-
93
-
87
-
71
-
67
-
62
-
53
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
IE Vegetius "It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city" "Let them be exercised in the use of the bow, in throwing missile weapons and stones, both with the hand and sling, and with the wooden sword at the post; let all this be continually repeated and let them be often kept under arms till they are tired." In several ancient battles the use of slings by the Romans had been reported to be decisive (IE at Magnesia) and in ancient Roman encampments and battle sites sling bolts are often found.
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Ugly_German_Truths Four times, and there are even divine interventions.
In the Chanson de Roland, Roland tries to break his sword hitting a rock with it, but he breaks the rock instead. That's not how a high medieval sword worked.
To say that in Homer there is a realistic depiction of how chariots were used, IT DOESN'T NEED THE ENTIRE POEM TO BE REALISTIC.
It's pretty likely that the truth of the bronze age warfare had been mantained in the depiction of a normal moment in a normal battle, while, in the depiction of the final duel, there is much more of poetic licence.
It had been long estabilished that in Homer real elements of bronze age armors, weapons and tactics are mixed with the ones contemporary to the writing of the poem. Exactly because the chariots are not contemporary to the poet, it's likely that the accounts on how they have been used are realistic, because they had not been contaminated with what the writer personally knew about them.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 Your is a 20th-21th century point of view. "Arminius, savior of the Germanics" 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 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.
"Justification" and Excuse" are words you used now. I've not to justify or excusing anything, and the Romans hadn't to. Those that decided to destroy three legions made their bet, bringing to the table their life and those of all their fellow tribesmen.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 It seems you are convincing yourself. You need an "instigator". A villain and a victim that successfully fights back. That's Hollywood, not history.
Many of the Germanics didn't see any invasion, oppression or forcing to change cultural practices. 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. Him leading an anti-Roman coalition that treacherously exterminated three legions was obviously going to cause an harsh retaliation. Those that decided to destroy those legions made their bet, bringing to the table their life and those of all their fellow tribesmen.
Unfortunately the arguments stands now like they stood the first time. You like it or not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
There is a revealing passage in the Iliad where Aenea questions the renowed archer Pandarus (an ally of the Trojans) why he wasn't targeting Diomedes that was salughtering the Trojan first line. Pandarus answered that he hit Diomedes from afar, with no effect, and complained that, having left his chariots and horses home when he departed for Troy, fearing for them to starve in a siege, he couldn't get close to fight him, and so he felt to be useless.
In a warfare based on personal duels between heavily armoured and perfectly armed heroes (while infantrymen just had a shield and a one-anded spear, or a mace), not having a chariot was a huge disadvantage. You had to run, in a heavy armor, to reach your target, only to see him carried somewere else, and without possibility to escape if things got bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ciarandolan7695 That's a 21st century point of view.
In the first four centuries there wasn't any generational war going on. There weren't the "Germanics". That was an umbrella term that the Romans invented for those that lived east of the Rhine, but it didn't exist a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. There were the Alemanni, there were the Bructeri, there were the Alani, there were the Marcomanni and so on. Many of them were allied of the Romans, even ruled by client kings.
Once every twenty or thirty years, one of those tribes raided some territory into the limes (often because they had been expelled out of their own territory by another tribe). Four or five legions were sent, and the invaders were destroyed or repulsed beyond the limes (where they often starved to death, because they no more had a territory east of the Rhine). The situation on the eastern border seemed MUCH more serious, because there were organised enemies there, and four or five legions may not be sufficient to solve the situation.
Western Empire fell due to internal problems, not due to hordes of invincible invaders. Still Emperor Majorian, in three years from 458 to 461, defeated the Burgundians, the Visigoths and the Suevi, reconquering most of Gallia and Hispania, and practically bringing back the Empire to the borders it had under Augustus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Arminius saviour of the Germanics is '30s narrative. A first century Germanic didn't think like that.
For him, his world was his family, then his clan, then his tribe, and that's all. There's no a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. It had been the Romans that classified them as such.
The Cherusci were a pro-Roman tribe (one of many) where there was a strong anti-Roman faction. Arminius valued there was enough discontent in the Cherusci and in the nearby tribes to lead the anti-Roman faction and take power, if he could serve them a victory and, being in charge of the Roman scouting cavalry at Teutoburg, so effectively leading the army he wanted to destroy, he could obtain it.
In the end, the pro-Roman faction took power back among the Cherusci, killed Arminius, and asked the Romans for a client king.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only full citizens could fight in the army, and to be a full citizen you must have a certain income.
The Spartan laws on inheritage were bound to reduce the full citizens (Spartiates), and so the army since:
1) Spartans could only own land, not commerce.
2) inheritance had to be equally divided among sons.
3) Spartiates had to sit in a Syssitia, and each member was required to contribute monthly with 77 litres of barley, 39 litres of wine, three kilograms of cheese, 1.5 kilograms of figs, and ten Aegina obols, so you had to be pretty rich to sit in one.
This way, families with many sons (that could have contributed to the army) became too poor to be full citizens, while the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer families with few sons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was more of his fault to proceed with the usual Roman show of strenght of marching in German territory having only three legions left of eleven that were usually stationed in the area. He should have played it more defensively that year.
About the faith, mind that Arminius was a Roman citizen, and, for the Roman mindset, that condition was absolute. He was as trustworthy as a direct descendant of Romulus would have been. The story of Arminius' brother, Flavus, is revealing. He too was a Roman citizen, serving in the Legion as a legatus, and, after Arminius' revolt, he continued to do so under Tiberius and Germanuicus. He was even granted a private talking with his brother Arminius just before the Battle of the Weser river (the two had to be separated by the legionaries after Arminius made fun of the awards Flavus earned in exchange of his service). None ever tought of him as an untrustworthy person only because his brother was leading the German revolt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor.
Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
1
-
@Shadowhunterbg No.
Arminius was the son of a pro-Roman chieftain. MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an equites and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAD BEEN FORCED ON HIM. At the time of Teutoburg, he was a Roman that led other Romans.
HE DIDN'T RENOUNCE TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. While he was a Roman citizen, an Equites and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
Any man doing the same thing now, or in any time, would have been considered a traitor.
Arminius' position was not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci AND NOT EVEN BY HIS FAMILY. (Arminius' family was pro-Roman, and pro-Roman was his father-in-law Segeste). Later the Cherusci asked to the Romans to send them Flavus' son, Italicus, to make him their king. Italicus' son was still the pro-Roman king of the Cherusci in their last appearance in the annals.
The rest (luxury? In a military camp in Pannonia?) is a fairy tale you chose to believe.
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@ygnihteci00 There were three times that many tribes only near enough to the border to be in direct contact to the Romans, and more unknown to them that didn't knew anything related to Teutoburg.
The Lombards infact were not part of the confederation of Arminius, and were part of those that gained from not having been part of it. They subsequently became subject to the Saxons, a tribe from east of the Elbe and that, being est of the Elbe, gained more from the weakening of the western Germanics tribes subsequent to Teutoburg. Then the Lombards migrated east of the Elbe, had been defeated by the Huns, probably become their subject for some time, then, with the fading of the Huns, turned south, contended Pannonia to teh Gepids (another Gothic tribe), in mid 6th century, and entred Italy, at the end of 6th century.
Goths did it a century before.
There is really not that much that the Lombards did to the Roman Empire.
Genetic tests were not available in 1st century, and none cared about them.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
@Nortrix87 There was a "Cimbrian" tribe in Jutland, it had been discovered by the Romans at the time of Augustus, and remained in good terms with the Romans, with route trade estabilished, for centuries, but many doubt even they were the same Cimbrians (like there still is a totally unrelated "Cimbrian" 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.
Field speech of military commanders are not exactly treaties on ethnology. As said, the Germanics never referred to themself as a separated group. It had been the Romans that classified them. There's not a Germanic word to describe Germanics.
1
-
@Nortrix87 Also the Gauls were described as tall and blond. Nothing new here.
On the contrary. The fact that Strabo's account told of several clashes with the Boii makes more probable that the formation that finally invaded Noricum in 113 AC was composed by many Boii, and supports the fact that a "king of the Boii" was among the main "Cimbrian" commanders, if not the most prominent at all. Romans knew the celtic language, and the only reason to transliterate a name in something with a definite meaning was if that name had that meaning.
Another hint are the names "Lugius" and "Claodicus". Lugius can have a German origin, but, in this case, those two names, like the modern "Louis" and "Clovis" (Luigi and Clodoveo in modern Italian) have the same root (hlōd-wīg, famous warrior). In a single German language, those would have been the same name. If they had been transliterated differently, is because there were at least two different German languages involved, with completely different pronunciations.
Plutarch wrote more than two centuries after the facts.
The fact that a tribe joined the Cimbri doesn't make less probable that others did exactly the same thing, but more probable. Fact is that the Romans knew the Helveti much better than the other tribes of the "Cimbrian" confederation, so they didn't add them to the pile.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared.
A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor.
Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The battle had been fought on a flat terrain. The camels carrying water and arrows for the Parthians were not out of view, unless they were so distant to not be of any use.
None said that it would have been easy, but it could have been done with some chance of success. Instead the chances of being annihilated remaining still were 100%.
The Roman/Gallic cavalry charged an enemy superior in numbers without a clear aim and on a flat terrain, so giving it the choice of when and where counterattack, and all the time in the world to do it, while the infantry did nothing during the engagement. With those premises, the outcome was decided from the start.
The supplies instead were a clear objective, and so the parthians would have not had all the advantages. They should have beaten the Roman cavalry first that it reached the supplies. But the heavily armored Cataphracts were slow, while the mounted archers were agile, but required time to disrupt an enemy formation. Likely the Roman cavalry would have had heavy losses, but it would have inflicted substantial damages too.
Light cavaly (and the Roman/Gauls were light cavaly in respect to the cataphracts) revived in early modern age exactly using those kind of tacticts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrelove9634 What emerged 2 million years ago was the Homo Abilis. We are Homo Sapiens, that emerged 300.000 years ago, so there is 1.7 million years evolution between monkeys and mdern humans, more than enough to change skin colour, provided you are right about the colour of the monkeys' skin. But you are wrong, there is some sample with dark skin, but Chimpanzee (our closest relative) skin colour, if not tanned by the sun, is generally light. Researchers generally think that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light. If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet radiation.” (evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania).
Hope this helps you realize you had studied nothing and need start doing that before speaking about this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source, but you are still dismissing it, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING BETTER OBVIOUSLY (are you a little closer to understand the terms of the question now?), because that's the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
Also stating the others being "fanboys" is another way ignoramus like you use to pretend to be able to dismiss the others' statements without having to do any effort to really learn something. The matter is not Tacitus being good or bad, but you mocking who made you a favour while, at the same time, you wouldn't be able to provide a better source to save your life.
Since you then even pretended to indicate logical fallacies without being able to understand them (because, in your fantasy, to casually name a logical fallacy makes you seem intelligent), nor had contributed to the discussion with anything other than the smug that, in your fantasy, made you seem oh so much intelligent, any statement of you being aware of something is not believable, sorry.
Had you not been an ignoramus, maybe you would have recognised the surce of my nickname being a novel (I changed it a little).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 So, with how you treat who makes you the courtesy to answer you, you think you deserve even more than one, and whine if it doesn't arrive? For someone uncapable to find a source to save his life and unable to discern sources from religious books. You really have an high opinion of yourself and your needs.
The matter obviously is not Tacitus being good or bad, but you mocking who made you a favour while, at the same time, you wouldn't be able to provide a better source to save your life.
You asked for a source and, despite you not knowing the meaning of the term "source" (infact you mistake them for religious books), Tacitus, Annales, Book 2-18 is a source.
You could have thanked. It had been a courtesy to answer you. None was obliged. Or you could have simply kept your mouth shut. It would have been a good idea to at least not show to know nothing about anything.
Instead you chose to mock the source, despite you wouldn't be able to find a better one to save your life.
Because you think that mocking the things the others provide you out of courtesy is a way, for someone that knows nothing, to seem knowledgeable.
You can't expect an ignoramus like you to behave rationally, cleverly, or even politely I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Spartan laws on inheritage were bound to reduce the full citizens (Spartiates), and so the army since:
1) Spartans could only own land, not commerce.
2) inheritance had to be equally divided among sons.
3) Spartiates had to sit in a Syssitia, and each member was required to contribute monthly with 77 litres of barley, 39 litres of wine, three kilograms of cheese, 1.5 kilograms of figs, and ten Aegina obols, so you had to be pretty rich to sit in one.
This way, families with many sons (that could have contributed to the army) became too poor to be full citizens, while the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer families with few sons.
1
-
1