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

  1. What counted for the Romans was if you were citizen or not. A Roman citizen was worth of faith for that alone, regardless where he was born. See for example Arminius' brother, Flavus. Being he a Roman citizen, there was no reason to doubt of his loyalty, regardless what his brother had done.
    5
  2. It had never been proven wrong, and it becomes more likely at any new discovery actually.
    5
  3. 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.
    5
  4.  @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. Parthian composite bows had not a particularly high draw weight. Their charateristic was to be small enough to be used on horseback while still having a good draw weight. They weren't able to pierce through shields or armors. The struggle went on for so long exactly because they weren't able to pierce through shileds. Roman losses infact had been limited until the attempt to retreat.
    5
  6. With genocide. He would have simply starved the rebel tribes to death, one after the other, if they didn't bow. Estabilishing forts in their territory and burning the crops.
    5
  7.  @revinaque1342  According to the tradition, when the envoys of the Senate reached Cincinnatus, to tell him he had been elected Dictator, he was plowing his field, so obviously he was dressed ligtly. As the first thing the envoys (and Cincinnatus' own son was among them) told him to wear the toga, since they had to give him an official message.
    5
  8.  Nom Anor  You can check the video "Huns: The Origin" of Kings and Generals. The Huns that invaded the Roman Empire (and had been defeated by an already dying Empire in the end) had little in common with the ones that attacked Han China.
    5
  9. At that time every legionary had a slingshot (it was cheap and light to carry). They had been very effective vs cavalry and chariots other times, and they could have been very effective this time too, but probably they had not trained enough.
    5
  10. Not really. Romans often had inferior cavalry in respect to the enemy, but it wasn't really expected from them to win the cavalry clash, it was enough for them to keep the enemy cavalry occupied, so that it couldn't regroup and launch a coordinated attack on the back of the Roman infantry. Roman cavalry often is given little credit, but almost always succeded to perform this duty even having inferior numbers.
    4
  11.  @karatejoe6332  Actually they had commercial outposts in southern India and very likely traveled to Indochina quite regularly.
    4
  12. A legionary: "that was the idea infact"
    4
  13. Yeah. In the events of the first decade of the millennium the Great Illirian Revolt is the main course, Teutoburg is the side dish. Here they treated them like the revolt was just a test for Teutoburg. Severus, at Cibalae, thus leading the minor one of the two Roman armies involved, had more men, and more eperienced, than Varus at Teutoburg.
    4
  14. At the beginning of the Republic, plebeians were not even full citizens. They didn't fought wars, and they didn't vote. The story of the Republican institutions, is the story of how the poors managed to be more and more represented over time. With the opening of the comitia to plebeians, and with the institutions of the Tribunum Plebis and the Plebiscitum.
    4
  15. The Romans were more like: "I hope you like your gods, because you are about to know them!"
    4
  16. They had "four horned" saddles, that gave them more stability than a modern day saddle without stirrups, but less than real stirrups.
    4
  17. Simply the guide guide translated as that. At the time it was common to accomunate gods with similar charateristics. It was not like they had a creed to recite, or a liturgy to follow.
    4
  18.  @ciarandolan7695  Minor niusances infact. Territories not worth to conquer. The barbarians inhabiting them caused some problems at decades distance, and were beaten when they did.
    3
  19. They were a form of diplomacy. Mind that those practices were developed when Rome was one of the city-states of Latium. To resort to the priest embassy was the way to say to the neighbour "we are serious on that matter. We involved gods. If nothing changes, it will be war in 33 days".
    3
  20. "panis ac perna", ham sandwich. There were several recipies. IE the bread was flavored with must, and the ham cooked in dried fig water.
    3
  21.  @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
  22. So they made it wrong. It happens. There are historical accounts of scutii hit by over a hundred arrows, and still functioning.
    3
  23.  @cm275  Aemilianus didn't laugh. While burning the city, he commented that could be the fate of Rome.
    3
  24. What's usually forgotten is that those stories had been handed down by the Roman writers exactly because they were considered extreme, not the norm.
    3
  25. Mark Antony did what had been offered to Crassus, but it didn't go that well either. The later Roman successful invasions of Mesopotamia simply descended the course of Euphrates.
    3
  26. Schooling rates were extremely high among Romans, and we know this from the very high number of street inscriptions they left, often obscene jokes, or advertisements. It's evident that it was not considered a thing of the elite, and everyone was expected to be capable to read.
    3
  27.  @albinpacolli5192  It was a joke. "Who is the best illyrian general?" "Bato."
    3
  28.  @odesstern199  Hannibal used 2000 oxen with flaming bundles tied to the horns to escape the trap Fabius put him at the Ager Falernus.
    3
  29. Tyrian purple, made with sea snails, was incredibly expensive, but it was not like Romans didn't know how to mix red and blue to make a substitute. It was only less bright. The toga praetexta was universally used. It was a symbol and a protection, since a child wearing it was considered inviolable.
    3
  30. Embarassing? The Colosseum had been built, hadn't it?
    3
  31. Carthageneans were Phoenicians, so middle easterns.
    3
  32.  @kodor1146  Already Augustus gave up with the idea of conquering Germania, he only cared about the limes being safe, and Tiberius didn't conquer anything in his 20 years of reign. According to the contemporaries, thus having been one of the most efficient generals Rome ever had, as an Emperor he didn't seek conquests at all and preferred diplomacy. Had he wanted to conquer Germania, he would have done it himself, using the same tactics he used in Pannonia and had started to use in Germania before being recalled. His conquests were as inevitable as the continental drift. But he treated Germania as Germanicus' private playground, where the young general was even using legions he payed himself.
    3
  33.  @saeedvazirian  Sorry, but historically Septimius Odenatus recaptured all the provinces, the royal harem of Shapur I, pursued him I until Ctesiphon (do you prefer to call it a "strategic rethreat after having lost the Royal harem"?), sieged the city and sacked the nearby territory.
    3
  34. Roman legonaries needed space to manuver the gladium. For that reason their formation was less tight than that of the Hoplites. From the accounts, the Romans were so packed that it became almost impossible to breathe. Also mind that half of the trapped men were not Romans. Most of the allies used the same formation, but others didn't, and that made even more difficult to regroup and try to fight coordinately.
    2
  35. The Chartagenean betrayed Massinissa, that was fighting for them and earned them several victories, by siding with his enemy Syphax. They lost their numidian cavalry because, in the end, Syphax was not Massinissa, and had it annihilated, first with the burning of his camp at Utica, and then in the battle of the Great Plains.
    2
  36. 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
  37. The battle had been fought around a day of march south east of Carrhae (modern day Harran). That area seems pretty desert actually.
    2
  38. Copy the legions historically didn't went well. Only the Italic allies in the social war managed to fight the Romans effectively using the same formations, because that had also been their military organization for generations. It needs the right mindset for a man to function as a legionary.
    2
  39.  @caesaraugustus5558  First of all, sorry for the tone, we know NOTHING of the live of Arminius until Teutoburg. We only know he was a Roman citizen and an equites. That he had been an hostage is '30s propaganda. He can very well had NEVER seen Rome in his entire life. Of Flavus, we at least know he participated to Tiberius' campaign in Pannonia. Of Arminius, not even that. Second, yes, he surely knew how the Roman Army worked, but it's not enough to say to tribesmen how a legion worked to turn them into legionaries. Those were warriors anyway. They knew THEIR OWN style of fight and were fine with that. Even had he wanted, Arminius had no way to force them.
    2
  40. Germanicus was leading a campaing for personal promotion. He wanted victories. Nothing else. It's difficult to grasp it now, since we know how it ended, but for the Romans, Until near the end of the western empire, Germania was a minor affair. Still Julian, after having beaten the Alamanni at Strasbourg, in 357, focused on the conquest of Mesopotamia. Until Adrianople (378), the Germanics were people annoying at times, but that could be dealed with without much effort.
    2
  41.  @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
  42.  @ciarandolan7695  Simply a warband or a desperate tribe trying to enter the limes every 20 or 30 years, that could be dealed with four or five legions, was not considered a threat.
    2
  43. It was debated even at their time. For most of their history they had been nothing special. The Thermopilae had been a great propaganda coup for them, and they mostly built their warrior mith from there, bur their allies complained that, in the end, they always chose the easiest side of the formation, leaving to them the elite enemy units.
    2
  44. 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
  45.  @stirpenova97  Every single action changes something. You defined Arminius "a winner" for that action. But a winner is someone who achieves something he was seeking for. Not someone that obtains some random changes, that's pointless for him, or even contrary to what he was trying to obtain. None is a winner because he obtains some result he doesn't care about.
    2
  46. Add that anyone could see the ingredients and the way you prepared them. There were no secrets.
    2
  47. They had, especially for the dinner (Rome could be dangerous after sunset). However it was no apt to make anything elaborate, just to heat the food, or roast some fish.
    2
  48. No "Roman civil right" was granted to Illyria. It remained a province like any other. Tribes were split to prevent further rebellions and tribesmen sold as slaves.
    2
  49. "panis ac perna", ham sandwich. There were several recipies. IE the bread was flavored with must, and the ham cooked in dried fig water.
    2
  50.  @Alex.HFA1  Panis ac perna was made like that. Bread, toppings, bread.
    2