Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Great Illyrian Revolt - Rome's Forgotten War DOCUMENTARY" video.

  1.  @2cents-w3m  You seem pretty upset. Something not going your way?
    93
  2. The first Illyrian emperor came to power only in 268 AD, more than 250 years after the end of the revolt.
    87
  3. 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
  4.  @albinpacolli5192  It was a joke. "Who is the best illyrian general?" "Bato."
    3
  5. 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
  6. Practically what the tribes did to each other.
    2
  7. So there is a nation called "Illyria" somewere? Or, to you, there are no people whose ancestors were Romans?
    2
  8. Illiria was a province that revolted. It had to be conquered back at any cost. Germania was not a province and was not worth such an effort to create one.
    2
  9. Who is the best illyrian general?
    2
  10.  @Dayrahl  41.9028° N, 12.4964° E The "Franks" speak a Romance language. Christianity is a Roman religion. There are not many worshippers of Wothan around, are they?
    2
  11. In reality the battle of Teutoburg is more similar to the loss of almost two legions led by Cotta and Sabinus at the hands of Ambiorix in 53BC. What had been decisive in both the battles is that Both Ambiorix and Arminius had the luxury of leading the Romans into the trap they prepared. Ambiorix because Cotta and Sabinus foolishly trusted him, Arminius because, since he was the leader of the Roman scouting cavalry, he was effectively in command of the Roman column he wanted to destroy.
    2
  12. The gear was personal property. Legionaries paid for it (the cost of their gear was detracted from their salary), but probably, at the end of the service, they could choose to keep it or sell it back to the legion.
    2
  13. His brother Flavus too. He was still fighting in Illiria at the time of Arminius' rebellion, and then fought for Rome against it.
    1
  14. It's not even certain Arminius served in Illyria actually. His brother, Flavus, surely did (and he remained pro-Roman).
    1
  15. The first Illyrian emperor came to power only in 268 AD, more than 250 years after the end of the revolt. Simply the Romans would have laughed at your precious concepts of nationality and etnicity. They ad no meaning for them. All that counted was if you were a Roman citizen or not.
    1
  16. Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared. A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor. Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
    1
  17.  @Shadowhunterbg  No. Arminius was the son of a pro-Roman chieftain. MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an equites and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAD BEEN FORCED ON HIM. At the time of Teutoburg, he was a Roman that led other Romans. HE DIDN'T RENOUNCE TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. While he was a Roman citizen, an Equites and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared. Any man doing the same thing now, or in any time, would have been considered a traitor. Arminius' position was not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci AND NOT EVEN BY HIS FAMILY. (Arminius' family was pro-Roman, and pro-Roman was his father-in-law Segeste). Later the Cherusci asked to the Romans to send them Flavus' son, Italicus, to make him their king. Italicus' son was still the pro-Roman king of the Cherusci in their last appearance in the annals. The rest (luxury? In a military camp in Pannonia?) is a fairy tale you chose to believe.
    1
  18.  @Shadowhunterbg  "The video said"? You know trhat the video is made by amateurs, right? One thing is a video on youtube, another thing are actual sources. So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else. Sorry. The meant was NOT to "make them Romans", even if to expose them to Roman culture was a bonus. "Roman citizen" is a definite thing and a difficult to obtain one. Not all the hostages became Roman citizens. Most of them simply returned to their tribe, or kingdom, when grown up. Arminius could have done the same, but he CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. He did all those things because he wanted to. Sorry, any soldier of any army is bound to serve it. Even more if he's an officer. To purposedly lead the man you are in charge of to be slaughtered in a trap you prepared is worse than the treason of a simple private. Legions were mostly deployed in the provinces. Arminius was in Germania because he was a soldier and there were three legions there (and he knew the territory and the language, obviously). His brother was in Illyria at the same time. Arminius was in charge of the scouting cavalry because he was a Roman citizen. Roman officers were in charge of the auxiliares. You spoke about his family. I'm sorry if reality offend you. Pro-Roman is a political stance. It means that he considered to be ally of the Romans more useful than to be against them. What he loved is inconsequential. Arminius was so loved that his own tribesmen killed him. Arminius had never been kidnapped, and none forced him to became a Roman citizen, an Equites, and to join the army. He chose to do all of those things. Sorry, mental fictions don't count. Treason is defined by actions.
    1
  19.  @Shadowhunterbg  It seems there are countless wrong things you are sure of. So, you are GUESSING. The authors of the video, and some actual historian, did that too. The difference is that actual historians when they are guessing, SAY that they are guessing. They guessed that Arminius and Flavus had been hostages (that, at that time meant an "honored guest) because that was a common practice at the time, not only among Romans. But, while for many historical characters (Pyrrhus, Aetius...) there are sources stating they had been hostages at some point, there is none for Arminius and Flavus. So, again, MAYBE (the thing is absolutely not clear) that Arminius had been a hostage (that, at that time, meant "honored guest") as a child, and nothing else. Judging by your emotional comments on ancient societies, I don't think you had studied any history. Actually to have high-class foreigners to study in Rome was pretty common, and we still have some bi-lingual textbook (obviously those were for students that already knew to read in their own language) used to teach them to read Latin. Culture was more priced than you think but, hear hear WE DON'T KNOW IF ARMINIUS HAD EVER BEEN IN ROME. There is not a single piece of historical evidence that Arminius ever in his life visited Rome. Let alone that he was taken there as a hostage and grew up in the capital of the Roman empire. These are just legends. Had he been an hostage or not in his childhood, that surely ended WAY BEFORE Teutoburg. At that time, instead of simply returning to his tribe. Arminius CHOSE to be a Roman citizen, CHOSE to be an Equites (the highest class of not Patrician born. As an Equites he belonged to the Roman Senatorial rank) and he CHOSE to be a commander of the Roman army. None of those things had been forced on him. He did all those things because he wanted to. Arminius was a Roman citizen and that meant that, for the Romans, he was one of their own. As trustworthy as if he was born into the city. What he was doing in the army was actually the first step of the "cursus honorum", as expected by a young equites. Mind, again, that his own brother didn't suffer any consequence for Arminius' treason. Flavus was a Roman citizen, and so he was trustworthy, it didn't matter what his brother had done. Actually Caesar normally used Gaulish cavalry in his Gaulish wars 8and those were not even Roman citizens). That was common practice at the time, not only among the Romans. Gauls, like Germans, normally fought among them and allied with foreigners to do so. Again, your emotions are inconsequential here. Treason is defined by actions, not by your emotions, (that, again, were not shared by all the Germanics, nor by all the Cherusci and not even by Arminius' own family). Any person doing the same things, now or in any historical period, would be considered a traitor.
    1
  20. Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared. A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things, now or in any period of history, would be considered a traitor.
    1
  21. Illyrians left no written documents.
    1
  22.  Adelo Adelo  According to some theory Messapic is loosely tied to Illyrian. Is like saying that Italian and French are the same language. Etruscan is not "easily read" in any modern language. It's not even indo-european.
    1
  23.  Adelo Adelo  Nico Stillo is not a scientist. He has no scientific credibility.
    1
  24.  Adelo Adelo  And so? It doesn't mean that the Albanians know etruscan. Greeks have an history even without infering they understand Japanese.
    1
  25.  Adelo Adelo  See "example". Most of the populations have an history without infering they know an unrelated language.
    1
  26.  Adelo Adelo  It doesn't matter if I know it or not. I've not to know how to build the Hubble telescope to know what it did. 1) Illyrians left no written documents. 2) According to some theory Messapic is loosely tied to Illyrian. they were not the same language. It's like saying that Italian and French are the same language. It's actually very difficult to say, because THE ILLYRIANS LEFT NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. 3) No serious scientist adfirm Albanians can read Etruscan. I've not to demonstrate that those languages were not linked, like I've not to demonstrate that the ancient Albanians didn't have three heads and four penises. THE BURDEN OF THE PROOF IS ON THE ONE THAT ADFIRM, NOT ON THE ONE THAT DENIES. So YOU have to provide actual proofs.
    1
  27.  Adelo Adelo  So you have not real arguments. Folks like you just choose to believe in fairy tales.
    1
  28.  Adelo Adelo  No proofs = no argument, sorry. You are only telling tales you like.
    1
  29.  Adelo Adelo  So still no argument. Just fairy tales.
    1
  30.  Adelo Adelo  You already said that. In what way that means that Albanians knew Etruscan? That's a delusion, not an argument. Why not Swahili at that point?
    1
  31.  Adelo Adelo  Niko Stilo is not a scientist and has not scientific credibility. Aristeidis Kollias is a lawyer and has not scientific credibility.
    1
  32. Arminius was a Roman citizen, an equites and a commander in the Roman army. He chose to be all of those things. None forced the Roman citizenship nor the equites dignitate on him, nor forced him to lead Roman soldiers. He didn't renounce to any of those things and, while being a Roman citizen and a commander of the Roman army, he led his comrades, men and fellow citizens in a trap he prepared. A traitor by any means. Any person doing the same things now would be considered a traitor. Arminius' own brother, Flavus, was also a Roman citizen and a legionary in the Illyrian revolt. He then fought alongside Germanicus against Arminius. The respect the Romans had for Roman citizenship was so that, before the battle of Idistaviso, Germanicus granted a private chat between Arminius and Flavus (the two had to be separated by the legionaries, after Arminius mocked the decorations Flavus gained in Illyria).
    1
  33. The Great Illirian Revolt is a topic by itself. To treat it as a test for Teutoburg (that, in respect, was a rather minor affair) seems way biased.
    1
  34.  @ennui9745  Yeah. How a reply on when the Illyrian emperors came to power is relevant to a post on illyrian emperors? Let's see...
    1
  35. The first Illyrian emperor came to power only in 268 AD, more than 250 years after the end of the revolt. Simply the Romans would have laughed at your precious concepts of nationality and etnicity. They ad no meaning for them. All that counted was if you were a Roman citizen or not.
    1
  36. Rome's weaknes was that eight legions had been transferred from Germania to Illyria to sedate the revolt. Severus, at Cibalae, thus leading the minor one of the two Roman armies involved, had more men, and more experienced, than Varus at Teutoburg.
    1