Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Lost in Translation - How Rome's Multi-Ethnic Army Communicated" video.

  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.  @RagingDong  The Roman "ideal" battle deployment in republican times was with half of the army provided by Rome and Roman colonies and half by the Italic allies. That's why the social war had been a hard struggle for Rome. They were fighting vs. the same tactics and equipment.
    2
  3. Republican Rome was an oligarchy and the empire was basically a south American dictatorship.
    2
  4. Actually all we know of Arminius is that he spoke latin, served in the Roman army, and was made Roman citizen and Equites. We know absolutely nothing of how or where he had been raised. He can very well have joyned the legion as an auxiliary only as a young adult.
    1
  5.  @christopherg2347  So it's a guess. Maybe he had been taken hostage, maybe not. He can very well have joyned the legion as an auxiliary only as a young adult.
    1
  6.  @christopherg2347  I'm using the only sources available. All we know of Arminius is that he spoke latin, served in the Roman army, and was made Roman citizen and Equites. That's what the sources state. Arminius being "taken and educated roman" is a fanfiction.
    1
  7.  @christopherg2347  There is no evidence that Arminius had ever been an hostage. It's only a wild guess.
    1
  8.  @christopherg2347  "we know" who? There is not a single source stating Arminius had been an hostage in any moment of his life. I'm the kind of people capable to read sources.
    1
  9. Roman citizen, Equites, and commander of the Roman Army, led his fellow citizens and comrades to be slaughtered in a trap he prepared. Anyone doing the same in any time would have been called a traitor.
    1
  10.  @xedaslopes3975  He chose to be a Roman citizen, an Equites and a commander in a Roman army. None of those things had been forced upon him. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen, an Equites and a commander of a Roman Army, he led his fellow citizens and comrades to be slaughtered in a trap he prepared. Anyone doing the same in any time would have been called a traitor.
    1
  11.  @xedaslopes3975  There is not a single source stating Arminius had ever been kidnapped, taken as a hostage, indoctrinated or has left Germania in any moment of his life. All we know of his life before Teutoburg is that he fought for the Romans, learned Latin and gained Roman citizenship and Equites dignitate. He can very well have joined the legion, as a young adult, as an auxiliary. They were not the same the Germanics. the Germanics that saked Rome destroyed the Germanics that fought atTeutoburg (the ones remained after the Roman reprisal) well before saking Rome.
    1
  12.  @xedaslopes3975  No. Rome wanted to make a province of the territory between the Rhine and the Elbe river. All the tribes that became of a certain importance during the migration age were east of th Elbe at that time. The Goths were still north of the Black Sea. The rebellion marked the end of the indipendence for the Cherusci (that first became a pawn of the power struggle between Svebian factions, then returned to be tributaries of the Empire, asking the Romans for a client king). In general all the tribes that lived in that area had been crushed, and disappeared from history, well before the end of the western Empire. Arminius was so much an hero for his people that they killed him and asked the Romans to have Flavus's son, Italicus, as their king. Arminius was a Roman citizen, Equites, and commander of the Roman Army, led his fellow citizens and comrades to be slaughtered in a trap he prepared. Anyone doing the same in any time would have been called a traitor.
    1
  13.  @xedaslopes3975  The origin of the Franks is disputed, but all seems to indicate that their main group was composed of Germanics that already lived into the Empire (IE the Batavi).
    1
  14.  @xedaslopes3975  Or be enslaved by other tribes and disappear from the records.
    1
  15.  @xedaslopes3975  Because Germanics didn't practice it? They did.
    1
  16.  @xedaslopes3975  Scale is only given by the relative dimensions. A single Roman was no more likely to own a slave than a single Germanic. Slaves produce the surplus, don't need the surplus. They are not pets that have to be fed, nor priests or warriiros, that are not employed in productive activities. Slavery in Rome had nothing to do with etnicity. Regain Freedom in Roman world was pretty easy, and that's reflected by the dozen of ways it could be done (IE, if a pater familias let a slave to eat with him, he freed him) and by the huge number of liberti. A liberto could acquire full citizenship, and citizens "de jure" were their sons. IE the poet Horace was the son of a former slave that subsequently became very rich.
    1
  17.  @xedaslopes3975  Yeah. There were dangerous jobs. Being a slave sucked. But it was not that it sucked less anywere else.
    1
  18. The translation of the Bible into latin was from the original Greek, and made it far more accessible for western folk than the previous version.
    1
  19. That's what the ones we call Byzantines did for centuries. They were the Romans, westerners were the Latins.
    1