Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Avenging Varus - Campaigns of Germanicus (14-15 AD) DOCUMENTARY" video.

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
@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
@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
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
@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
@Woodsie_Lord So you don't konw what an argument is. Being "Arminius, savior of the Germanics" '30s narrative, is an argument. The Germanics not identyfing themself as such, is an argument. Teutoburg being the apex of a struggle between Pro-Roman and Anti-Roman factions between western Germanics (that went on well past Teutoburg), is an argument. You are talking about "genocide", not me. I don't have to defend anything.
2
@stirpenova97 Rome conquered and lost many territories. Several, simply leaving them, because they weren't worth the effort.
1
@stirpenova97 A winner is someone that obtains what he's seeking. Not someone that is considered great 2000 years later for having achieved a thing that seems important for them, but it's pointless for him and he wasn't looking for, not for himself and neither for his tribe.
1
@stirpenova97 So Charles the Bold is a winner. He caused his own death and the end of his own dukedom.
1
@stirpenova97 Again. 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. Arminius seeked personal power among his tribe, and the neighbour ones, by leading the anti-Roman faction. He obtained his personal demise and that his own tribe became a client of the Romans until its end.
1
@stirpenova97 Because Germanics didn't think about themself as "Germanics". There's no a Germanic word to indicate the Germanics. Their definitions about themself end with the tribe. In the Svebian confederation there were Celts as well as Germanics. They didn't give a damn about being Germanic instead of Celts or italics. And Infact, among the western Germanics, before and after Teutoburg there were Pro-Roman tribes, (that, IE, helped the Romans vs. other Germanic tribes, like the Cherusci did after the death of Arminius), and Pro-Roman factions.
1
@Woodsie_Lord That's your "argument"? LOL!
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