Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Avenging Varus - Battle of Idistaviso (16 AD) DOCUMENTARY" video.

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
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
@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
In ancient times guerilla worked only up to a certain point, because you couldn't hide your crops and, once they had been burned, your people could only starve through winter. That's why many times you see the allied commanders pressing for a battle when they should have known better. Not only. Arminius coalition was in good terms with some tribe in the east that didn't participate to the battle, but could have helped the collegates during winter, but obviously they would have been a lot less willing to feed someone that didn't fight.
2
That later became the king of the Cherusci, when the pro-Roman faction got rid of Arminius.
2
The losses for the Romans were very light. In ancient battles losses happened mainly after the formation broke, during the subsequent chasing of the fugitives, and the Roman formation had not even be close to be broken in any phase of the battle. From what happened in other similar battles we can say, the Romans didn't lose 1000 men at Idistaviso. It had been an one-sided slaughter.
2
@marcquestenberg8385 And what a battle fought more than a century later has to do with Idistaviso? (probably) in 167, a force of 20.000 Romans had been defeated in the Battle of Carnuntum. So they experienced heavy casualties. At Idistaviso the Romans won the battle, so the losses for the Romans were very light. In ancient battles losses happened mainly after the formation broke, during the subsequent chasing of the fugitives, and the Roman formation had not even be close to be broken in any phase of the battle. From what happened in other similar battles we can say, the Romans didn't lose 1000 men at Idistaviso. It had been an one-sided slaughter. Sorry, pretended and fantasy battles doesn't count as real history, nor what you think should have happened to fit your taste.
2
@marcquestenberg8385 Pretended sources and fantasies doesn't count. Had you know a real source reporting 20-30.000 legionaries lost, you would have already quoted it. You didn't because you know it's bullshit.
2
@marcquestenberg8385 I've not to search for other people's delusions. Is who claim that has the burden of the proof. Pretended historians and fantasies doesn't count. Had you know a real historian reporting 20-30.000 legionaries lost at Idistaviso, you would have already quoted him. You didn't because you know it's bullshit.
2
@marcquestenberg8385 "search the net for" stand for "Marc Questenberg can't justify the load of bullshit he just said. He can't provide any source or any name for his childish delusions. So he's trying to make me lose time searching for something that doesn't exist out of his head". I've not to search for your fantasies. Is who claim that has the burden of the proof. Had you known ANYTHING talking 20-30.000 legionaries lost at Idistaviso, you would have long quoted it. You didn't because you know that anything you said is bullshit. In case your limited mind had not yet understood it. You didn't provide any source for your bullshit. You didnt'provide any historian backing your bullshit. You had not been able to quote any historical work backing your bullshit. So all you said is bullshit.
2
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 Tacitus, Annales, Book 2-18 Magna ea victoria neque cruenta nobis fuit. quinta ab hora diei ad noctem caesi hostes decem milia passuum cadaveribus atque armis opplevere, repertis inter spolia eorum catenis quas in Romanos ut non dubio eventu portaverant. miles in loco proelii Tiberium imperatorem salutavit struxitque aggerem et in modum tropaeorum arma subscriptis victarum gentium nominibus imposuit. It was a great victory and without bloodshed to us. From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies, while there were found amid the plunder the chains which the Germans had brought with them for the Romans, as though the issue were certain. The soldiers on the battle field hailed Tiberius as Imperator, and raised a mound on which arms were piled in the style of a trophy, with the names of the conquered tribes inscribed beneath them.
2
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 Apart from the fact that, having I done you the favor of answering to your question, you could even have thanked. Have you some better source? Or are you here just to write some bullshit like Marc above?
2
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 That's evidently not all you are doing since, after I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source, you asked me "Nothing from the Bible?" So I'm now asking you. Have you something better? Or are you here just to write bullshit like Marc above?
2
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 I never said I tried hard or made any effort. I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source. Then you asked me "Nothing from the Bible?" Because dismissing the others' sources without being able to provide anything better is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
2
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 I'm not mad. I only recognised you are an ignoramus pretending to know something.
2
The Battle of Frigidus had been the last one in the west where the Romans fought using mainly professional legionaries. Later western Roman armies were formed mainly by mercenaries recruited for just one campaign.
1
There's not a Germanic word that means "Germanic". The Romans identified them. To the Germanics, the tribes were foreign each-other no less than the Romans were. There were pro-Roman and anti-Roman tribes, and pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions among the tribes.
1
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 Oh, yeah. To pretend to seem intelligent ignoramus like you say to know anything, AFTER. Dismissing the OTHERS' (plural) SOURCES (plural) without being able to provide anything better is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent. Someone that's not an ignoramus like you would have noticed I was referring to what ignoramus like you usually do. And that demonstrates you know nothing abot logic too (how could it have been otherwise?). YOU are the ignoramus that asked for a source. YOU are the ignoramus that dismissed it without being able to provide ANYTHING better (so who would have appealed to authority?). You did it because that's what ignoramus like you do to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something, and you appealed to logical fallacies whthout being able to understand them because that's what ignoramus like you do to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
1
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 I recognised you as an ignoramus pretending to know something because dismissing the others' sources, without being able to provide anything better, is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something. You pretending to indicate logical fallacies without being able to understand them is a further confirmation. Also stating the others being "mad" 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.
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
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 So you first asked for a source, and then whined because it was copied and pasted. You thought a "source" had to be an original work written on the spot. You are even more an ignoramus than I previously thought. You don't even know the meaning of the term "source". Like for the logical fallacies, you randomly use the term because you think it makes you seem intelligent.
1
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 Stating the others being "mad" 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 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.
1
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 None cares about your impressions. You asked for a source and, despite you not knowing the meaning of the term "source", Tacitus is one. 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
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 You asked for a source and, despite you not knowing the meaning of the term "source", Tacitus, Annales, Book 2-18 is a source. Quoting it instead of sending you to search it was another courtesy. 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
@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
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 "delusional" is another word you throw around without knowing the meaning of, pretending to seem intelligent, otherwise you would have known that delusional is somene that, like you, throws around words he doesn't know the meaning of, pretending to seem intelligent. You don't make yourself a favour by describing yourself. You can't expect an ignoramus like you to behave rationally, cleverly, or even politely I guess.
1
@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 "Sufficient" for what? You asked for a source, not for something your ignorance considers "sufficient". You asked for a source and, despite you not knowing the meaning of the term "source" (infact you mistake them for something you consider "sufficient"), 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.
1