Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

[Keyser]

All of this for the most part happened long before the final dissolution of the Empire. In fact, I'd argue the only thing that held the Roman empire together the last two centuries of its reign were Germanic merceneries.

Helding it mostly against other germanics though...

Anyway, the germanics raiding and entering the empire in large number wasn't the only problem, but it was the problem that made all the others problems worse. It wasn't the only factor that led to the fall of the Empire and to the avent of the dark ages though. I agree with that. Christianism played its part, plagues, economical recession and civil wars too. But all of those may not have lead to such a radical change in the roman way of life and to the social organisation if the germans didn't became the new masters.

Not to say the germans are bad... There are no real good and bad guys in this story. Germans may even have been the good guys on some occasions. What matter is the result.

[Concillius]

Saying that Germania was a nation is stupid because the modern concept of a nation didn't exist in 9 AD.
I agree that Arminius was a BAMF though.

[CuClosChan]

"It was the Byzantine Empire which destroyed Italy in the end."lolIt' like saying that the British destroeyd France and not the Germans, at WW2!Guernica!

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Problem is, Phyrrus defeats also cost him greatly.

And Hannibal fought a Roman Republic that had yet to even unify Italy and didn't had post-marian Legionaries.

Which is rather irrelevant. We are talking about a defeat hundreds of miles away from Rome, which neither threatened Rome in any way, nor did it affect Rome's ability to wage offensive war as the glorious expeditions of Trajan against Dacia and the Parthians shows.

[Der Phönix]

Saying that Germania was a nation is stupid because the modern concept of a nation didn't exist in 9 AD.
I agree that Arminius was a BAMF though.

Yes it did, but it was not coined "nation". Instead one spoke of race or people.

[Maleventum]

The "Barbarians" aim was not to destroy the Empire , they would live in the territories of the Empire, to enjoi the "advanteges" of the civilization, but as freemen ,as peer (I don't know if the term is correct ,I mean the latin word "pares" ) not like subjects.........Odoacer (after removing the last Emperor) wanted and got the title of "Patricius.......in Italy we havent' got an equlivalent term for "Dark Age" ; we simply refer to the period after the fall of the WRE as the "Roman-Barbaric Kingdoms age "...............

[Sherm]

Arminius won a battle, and after that was backstabbed by the other tribes.

[Bethencourt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

Still in a time, when the romans had a levy army and barly control over more than Latium.

[Bethencourt]

Let's say anything.

[Emperor Domitianus]

Germany a nation? Defeated Rome? I don't think so. German people seems to be too proud of ancestors without hanor and valor, people that were able to fight only through ambush and subterfuges. They have even made a statue to a trecherous man, a man that attacked the hand that has given his a bit of civilization. This video like the one released about Teotoburg demonstrate this. Every time the Germans fought in open fields against Romans they have been always beaten. The only victory has been a victory without honor. Shame on them.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Germany a nation? Defeated Rome? I don't think so. German people seems to be too proud of ancestors without hanor and valor, people that were able to fight only through ambush and subterfuges. They have even made a statue to a trecherous man, a man that attacked the hand that has given his a bit of civilization. This video like the one released about Teotoburg demonstrate this. Every time the Germans fought in open fields against Romans they have been always beaten. The only victory has been a victory without honor. Shame on them.

Sarcasm?

[Emperor Domitianus]

No. It's the truth.

[Sharpe]

Just to clear something up - there were NO nations before the 18th Century - there were Empires, Fiefdoms, Duchies, Confederations, kingdoms and the like but the concept of the nation and and a united nationalist state did not exist until the 18th century.

The Germanians had patriots as did Rome - but neither were nations.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Germany a nation? Defeated Rome? I don't think so. German people seems to be too proud of ancestors without hanor and valor, people that were able to fight only through ambush and subterfuges. They have even made a statue to a trecherous man, a man that attacked the hand that has given his a bit of civilization. This video like the one released about Teotoburg demonstrate this. Every time the Germans fought in open fields against Romans they have been always beaten. The only victory has been a victory without honor. Shame on them.

No. It's the truth.

Well that they never fought a real field battle is the fault of both sides. Both sides allways wanted to be sure of the victory. Teutoburg is clear. At the pontes longi, the Romans decides to hide behind their camp walls and finally escaped. Than their is Idistaviso which was after Tacitus an field battle where the Romans seems to have the Germans sorrounded with 8 Legions, + Auxillary, + Preatorian Guard. After Tacitus it was an decisive Victory, but directly after that Germanicus had to face Arminius and his Warriors at the Angrivarierwall. Strange is that at this Point Germanicus had only 6 Legions left and as i mentioned before, after that Germanicus marched directly back to the Rhine. If he was so succesfull, why he wasn't even trying to get Arminius in his Hands? The situation is so questionable that some historians even doubt that Idistaviso ever happend, because of the many things which made no sense.
Also ask yourself why Germanicus had to gain his Triumph over Germania? In the end everything he achieved was to lost the manpower of several legions to gain nothing.

It should also be not forgotten that the Romans were allways outnumbering the Germans of Arminius. The most optimistic estimation is that Arminius had 10000 man at Teutoburg, propably less and never more after that. After Germanicus had 6 and 8 Legions + Auxillary it is not that unhonorably in my eyes to not face them in field if possible

[fritsje5]

No. It's the truth.

It's not, you know. At least, when we follow the premise of this thread (Germanics/Germania vs. Rome) there have been several huge victories on the German side in earlier times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noreia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Burdigala
And most famously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio
(Wikipedia, granted, but these are famous battles so it shouldn't matter much)

Even when disregarding these, many people on this forum and I assume historians as well disagree on the nature of the outcomes of some of the battles between Germanicus and Arminius in later times.

[Birk]

Arminius won a battle, and after that was backstabbed by the other tribes.

He was poisoned. In the documentary i posted in first post, they said it was probably his own family that poisoned him.

[Emperor Domitianus]

Well that they never fought a real field battle is the fault of both sides. Both sides allways wanted to be sure of the victory. Teutoburg is clear. At the pontes longi, the Romans decides to hide behind their camp walls and finally escaped. Than their is Idistaviso which was after Tacitus an field battle where the Romans seems to have the Germans sorrounded with 8 Legions, + Auxillary, + Preatorian Guard. After Tacitus it was an decisive Victory, but directly after that Germanicus had to face Arminius and his Warriors at the Angrivarierwall. Strange is that at this Point Germanicus had only 6 Legions left and as i mentioned before, after that Germanicus marched directly back to the Rhine. If he was so succesfull, why he wasn't even trying to get Arminius in his Hands? The situation is so questionable that some historians even doubt that Idistaviso ever happend, because of the many things which made no sense.
Also ask yourself why Germanicus had to gain his Triumph over Germania? In the end everything he achieved was to lost the manpower of several legions to gain nothing.

It should also be not forgotten that the Romans were allways outnumbering the Germans of Arminius. The most optimistic estimation is that Arminius had 10000 man at Teutoburg, propably less and never more after that. After Germanicus had 6 and 8 Legions + Auxillary it is not that unhonorably in my eyes to not face them in field if possible

It's not a matter of outnumbering. It's a matter of chaching people unprepared, in an unknown territory and by surprise. Let's think about the Vietman. The Americans had the best weapons and the best military machine but the viets were able to get them by surprise many times with ambushes and never in open fields. Also The Romans did not give up because they could not conquer germania but only because it was a worthless land and scarce in resources usable in that time. Remember that the Romans never gave up when they were sure on what they were doing. Unfortunately sometimes historians are not able to understand many facts just because they can't understand the sources and follow only one path.

It's not, you know. At least, when we follow the premise of this thread (Germanics/Germania vs. Rome) there have been several huge victories on the German side in earlier times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noreia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Burdigala
And most famously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio
(Wikipedia, granted, but these are famous battles so it shouldn't matter much)

Even when disregarding these, many people on this forum and I assume historians as well disagree on the nature of the outcomes of some of the battles between Germanicus and Arminius in later times.

You should try to use less Wikipedia and more the books. Books and your own sources were you can decide freely. The battles fought during the late republic and won by Marius were fought before the conquest of large territories in Gaul. Sometimes war efforts were made more difficult in Rome because of other internal affairs. The one won by Marius had alot of set backs in Rome. Let's try to mix with other facts and avoid using only Wikipedia because people who write there don't knwo what they are talking about.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It's not a matter of outnumbering. It's a matter of chaching people unprepared, in an unknown territory and by surprise. Let's think about the Vietman. The Americans had the best weapons and the best military machine but the viets were able to get them by surprise many times with ambushes and never in open fields. Also The Romans did not give up because they could not conquer germania but only because it was a worthless land and scarce in resources usable in that time. Remember that the Romans never gave up when they were sure on what they were doing. Unfortunately sometimes historians are not able to understand many facts just because they can't understand the sources and follow only one path.

Well the Romans put much in it to conquer Germania and after all it was not worthless. Germania had strongly needed agricultural lands and the romans used it as much as possible. One Archaeological side which is an relict of efforts to colonize Germania is the side of Waldgirmes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldgirmes_Forum . Their was a extensive programm in Germania Magna and it is a common but wrong assumtion to think that the romans didn't saw Germania Magna worthy to conquer. I can understand that the roman propaganda adapt this idea after the failed campaigns, but archaeological evidence show the opposite.

Also Romans failed for example to Conquer Parthia. Everything they archieved was a bit pillaging. In both failed Causes, Germania and Parthia, the Roman Generals still celebrated Triumphs and called themself Parthicus and Germanicus for this Campaigns. This should show us to be carfull to see every Victory as true and decisive as the ancient historians claimend. It is the result of the end which give us a better understanding of the situation in the war. To stay by your Vietnam example. The Americans had some good Victories, but in the end they retreated out of Vietnam and the War saw North Vietnam as the Victor. Wouldn't it be so strange to call the Germanic Tribes as Victors in the End? Since the Germanians had no Propaganda the Romans had the final word, but today we wouldn't beleave the Americans if they would say that Vietnam wasn't worth it. We lost over 50thousend man and much money spend on South Vietnamese Infastructure, but it isn't worth it

I think not.

Edit: I use Wiki here because it is the best way to show people some background to thinks i mention, because not everybody has access to JStor or and Account on academia.edu. Also it usefull to show stuff in english, because many of my sources are written in my own language. I think this can be said for many people here. Wiki is offcourse a source of limited quality, but this is not a mainly scientific section, so people should accept it It is not that the people which quote wiki here, read no books

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Well Tacitus described the pontes longi similar as Teutoburg and that the Romans were only saved because the choose direct combat in the final phase. The only difference to Teutoburg, was that the rest contingent of the attacked Romans arrived the Rhine instead beeing anhilated. It is a bit diffcult to interpred because Tacitus might wanted to show how a better Commander than Varus would have solved the situation, but the looses were still heavy.

Tacitus draws a comparison between the conditions of fighting, not the losses, at Teutoburg and at the pontes longi, or more precisely that's what he has Ariminius assert in his narrative. He highlights the difficulties that the terrain posed for the Romans, but other than that he does not state or suggests that the Roman losses were heavy, yet he does state that the German 'rabble was slaughtered till passion and the daylight waned'.

At the Angrivarierwall Tacitus mention a Roman Victory, but still heavy looses on both sides and in the Seminar about the Germanicus Campaigns my Prof interpreted the Situation more as a Draw because the Germans could retreat and Germanicus did the same directly to the Rhine. Also we should know that Tiberius was not a favourite of Tacitus and that he had an agenda to overhigh Germanicus.

Wow, a defeated army managed to retreat, that hasn't happened in like every single battle in history except for Cannae. Surely it must have been a draw.
And what was the other bs claim, Tacitus mentions heavy losses on both sides? What a shame for German academia that they allow people whose mindset is shaped by butthurt nationalism as members. Maybe you should read Tacitus yourself, in which case you will note that this is how he describes the various phases of the battle:

"It was a brilliant, and to us not a bloody, victory. The enemy were slaughtered from the fifth hour of daylight to nightfall, and for ten miles the ground was littered with corpses and weapons. Among the spoils were found the chains which, without a doubt of the result, they had brought in readiness for the Romans...In hardihood the Germans held their own; but they were handicapped by the nature of the struggle and the weapons. Their extraordinary numbers — unable in the restricted space to extend or recover their tremendous lances, or to make use of their rushing tactics and nimbleness of body — were compelled to a standing fight; while our own men, shields tight to the breast and hand on hilt, kept thrusting at the barbarians' great limbs and bare heads and opening a bloody passage through their antagonists...At last, in the decline of the day, he withdrew one legion from the front to begin work on the camp; while the others satiated themselves with the enemies' blood till night. The cavalry engagement was indecisive." (Annals, II-18-20)

Once again, nowhere does he mention that the Roman losses were heavy, that's wishful thinking, plain and simple. But he does mention the little detail the Angrivarii surrendered after the battle, in fact he goes as far as to paint a picture of them coming "to their knees" to surrender, which they would have absolutely no reason to do had this battle been a draw.

Do you mean the younger Bryan Ward Perkins? I beleave so. I read his book and i disagree in many parts.

As if anybody cares. You have no credentials and your opinion is worthless. Come back to me when you get published by Oxford University Press.