Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Avenging Varus - Campaigns of Tiberius (10-14 AD) DOCUMENTARY" video.

Sometimes Caesar got lucky. Scipio was a genius that played with the minds of allies and enemies. Marius an hardcore soldier that knew exactly what his men could do. But Tiberius campaings had the inevitability of continental drift. For the enemies, he was perhaps the scariest of them all. He gave them time to comtemplate the futility of fighting back.
71
@Nortrix87 Hard to say. Some of the tribes that participated to the attack had been erased form the map, and Rome governed Germania (included the same Cherusci) for centuries through client kings.
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
@Nortrix87 It was unpopular for someone, popular for someone else. It was a struggle for power between factions. The anti-Roman faction wanted to gain something form the attack. Something else than simply defeat some Roman legion and then gloriously die with all of their relatives in the retaliation. They wanted to gain preeminence. Some of them gained to be erased form existence, some to be governed by Roman client kings, some to be enslaved by other tribes. 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.
1
@ygnihteci00 Contrary to the Empire, the "Germanics" were not a single entity with a single goal. The Goths, that "conquer 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.
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
@ygnihteci00 Some took part and the vast majority didn't. Most of the tribes that took part were long gone before the end of the Western Roman Empire. it doesn't Seem that participating gave any advantage to the participants. it surely advantaged those that didn't participate. Have you seen the theme of the clip before posting? The 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." Those statements are completely true. Your attempt at denegating them is baseless and quite childish. The Lombards didn't conquer the Empire. They conquered a land that had been conquered by the Goths a century before. Your attempt to state them conquering the Empire is baseless, quite childish, and plainly a lie. Modern DNA testing were not available in 1st century and none cared about them or about DNA. 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. Are you really that idiot? (yes, you are)
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
@Nortrix87 And so?
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
@Nortrix87 Actually the conglomeration hypotesys is by far the most accepted by the scientific community. Bye
1