Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 152 of 152

Thread: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

  1. #141
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    The 3rd Century Crisis is really not much different than what happened in 4th Century be honest, with usurpers continued pop up like rabbits and German tribes continued threatening Roman Empire. It seems in the end only the massive built-up of fortification reduced the pressure of frontier.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; March 15, 2013 at 01:37 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  2. #142
    Holger Danske's Avatar GTDC!!
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,974

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Rome defeated itself better than any outsider could possibly have done. All the "barbarians" did was mopping up.

  3. #143
    SorelusImperion's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Veldarin Empire
    Posts
    2,648

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    The role of the Sassanids was not so much that of overruning Roman territory but draining it of military resources which could have used elsewhere. The continued presence of this strong and agressive Empire right at the doorstep of Romes richest provinces made it far more difficult handle threats that Rome would otherwise have been perfectly capable of dealing with.
    Frederick II of Prussia: "All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
    Norge: "Give me a break. Nothing would make you happier than to see the eagle replaced with a crescent."

    Ummon:"enforcing international law will require that the enforcers do not respect it"
    Olmstead v USA:"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."








    Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who can't defend themselfs.
    When you stand before god you can not say "I was told by others to do this" or that virtue was not convenient at the time

  4. #144
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    I would like to say you know better then this, but I'm not so sure anymore. You didn't make any hard points, but I will address them very soon.

    So this is the long winded version of "no there isn't a single historian/archaeologists who think that the Goths=Getae, or that the Dacians made up the majority of the Goths".
    That would have been the quickest and most accurate way to answer. Sure you could say that some of their information supports what you want it to say, but it is not at all what the historians/archaeologists are saying, nor is it implied. If that would have been the case, there would have been a straight out statement from Kulikowski and others to say that the Goths were of Dacian or mostly Dacian origin which not one single historian/archaeologist has done.

    I'll pose yet another question to you, can you find just one historian/archaeologist/linguist post 1950 that supports the theory of the classical authors that identify the Goths with the Getae? Just one?
    They dont say that directly, but sure they do that indirectly. First of all, they all reject the Scandza migration story of Jordanes.
    Then they point out the fact that material culture is in majority of local origin (Dacian mostly) and Palade as you said afirm that the Getae-Dacians played the leading role in the formation of that culture.

    Now let me show you another interesting writing, of a guy named Leo Wiener, quite a qualified linguist

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ap6F...gothic&f=false

    What you will see there is a demonstration of how Ulfila writings are fabricated and are written actually many centuries after his supposed life, and his "credo" or so is borrowed from someone called Maximinus and atribute then to him. Ulfila himself as is usually know today didnt existed, his name is just a misreading of the name of Unila (pag 62 in the book), the real bishop of "Goths", who is mentioned by contemporary bishop of Constantinopole, John Crysostom

    Not forget about Gaina, another "Goth" who was an important person in Eastern Roman Empire about the same period.

    Both Gaina (meaning "chicken") and Unila are names still present in today Romanian (and are not Germanic names), and Unila seem to be a full Dacian name and apear as Uniila in folklore and legends about a "solomonari", the remains of a Dacian priest cast that survived trhough medieval ages

    So if we tie all knots together we see that the people know sometime as "Goths" had a material culture where Dacians playied the leading role. They supposed migration from Scandza is baseless, and their later history is in big part fabricated in medieval era, many centuries after they entered in Roman empire.

    You can draw your own conclusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Holger Danske View Post
    Rome defeated itself better than any outsider could possibly have done. All the "barbarians" did was mopping up.
    This seem to be the most common sense affirmation about why Rome was defeated
    Last edited by Erebus Pasha; March 15, 2013 at 08:58 AM. Reason: double post

  5. #145
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by SorelusImperion View Post
    The role of the Sassanids was not so much that of overruning Roman territory but draining it of military resources which could have used elsewhere. The continued presence of this strong and agressive Empire right at the doorstep of Romes richest provinces made it far more difficult handle threats that Rome would otherwise have been perfectly capable of dealing with.
    Similarly we can argue that Rome was a drain of Sassanid military resource where itself could focus better front such as Central Asia or India.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  6. #146
    SorelusImperion's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Veldarin Empire
    Posts
    2,648

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Similarly we can argue that Rome was a drain of Sassanid military resource where itself could focus better front such as Central Asia or India
    Yes we can.

    They fought each other to exhaustion without making any permanent gains to show for. The Sassanids collapsed earlier and the Romans got off lucky due to Constantinople beeing one of the best places to defend and come back from.
    Last edited by SorelusImperion; March 15, 2013 at 03:56 AM.
    Frederick II of Prussia: "All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
    Norge: "Give me a break. Nothing would make you happier than to see the eagle replaced with a crescent."

    Ummon:"enforcing international law will require that the enforcers do not respect it"
    Olmstead v USA:"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."








    Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who can't defend themselfs.
    When you stand before god you can not say "I was told by others to do this" or that virtue was not convenient at the time

  7. #147
    Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    They dont say that directly, but sure they do that indirectly. First of all, they all reject the Scandza migration story of Jordanes.
    Then they point out the fact that material culture is in majority of local origin (Dacian mostly) and Palade as you said afirm that the Getae-Dacians played the leading role in the formation of that culture.
    They don't even say it indirectly, this is what your off base interpretation is. If you asked them they would not say "yes the Goths are the same as Dacians" nor would they say "yes the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians". They would say no such thing, it is wishful thinking on your part. Furthermore on the culture which your leaning so heavily on:
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kulikowski-“Rome’s Gothic Wars”
    We know that Goths first appear in contemporary literary sources in the early decades of the third century and that, in the company of various other named groups, they posed a threat to the peace of the empire from bases in the region to the north and west of the Black Sea. As we shall see in the next chapter, by the earlier fourth century the Goths had unquestionably become the most powerful group in that region. In that same region - roughly between Volhynia in the north, the Carpathians in the west, the Danube and Black Sea to the south and the Donets to the east - a single archaeological culture is visible from the late third until the early fifth century. This archaeological culture is known as the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture and is reasonably well dated on archaeological grounds. This means that we can use the socio-historical evidence of that material culture to help describe fourth-century Gothic social structures and economic relations - as we will in the next chapter. Pg.63
    The Dacians according to Palade played a leading role in the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture, but he does not say nor infer that the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths were Getae. As you can see from the above quote, the Goths existed prior to the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture, which extinguishes your argument of the culture itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    Now let me show you another interesting writing, of a guy named Leo Wiener, quite a qualified linguist

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ap6F...gothic&f=false

    What you will see there is a demonstration of how Ulfila writings are fabricated and are written actually many centuries after his supposed life, and his "credo" or so is borrowed from someone called Maximinus and atribute then to him. Ulfila himself as is usually know today didnt existed, his name is just a misreading of the name of Unila (pag 62 in the book), the real bishop of "Goths", who is mentioned by contemporary bishop of Constantinopole, John Crysostom

    Not forget about Gaina, another "Goth" who was an important person in Eastern Roman Empire about the same period.

    Both Gaina (meaning "chicken") and Unila are names still present in today Romanian (and are not Germanic names), and Unila seem to be a full Dacian name and apear as Uniila in folklore and legends about a "solomonari", the remains of a Dacian priest cast that survived trhough medieval ages
    That is interesting. It is also interesting that according to Wiener that the Germans received their culture from the Arabians, which you can read in this same book. I beleive he also claims the book was written in the 8th century when it has been carbon tested in to the 6th century.
    Here is something also interesting:
    http://archive.org/stream/englishhis...e/252/mode/2up
    Read pages 252-255 and see what Bradley has to say.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    So if we tie all knots together we see that the people know sometime as "Goths" had a material culture where Dacians playied the leading role. They supposed migration from Scandza is baseless, and their later history is in big part fabricated in medieval era, many centuries after they entered in Roman empire.
    Here is where you run into big problems. There are many historians/archaeologists from Poland, Slovakia, Russian, U.S., Great Britain, Germany and many other countries who do buy into the Scandinavian theory. I know I have posted at least 11-20 names that support this theory. You on the other hand cannot find just one that supports yours, let alone the belief of the 4th century authors supporting Goths=Getae.

    Sot the answer to may questions, who supports your view:
    diegis= 0 historians/archaeologists support his view.
    For the Scandinavian view considerably more then diegis.
    On a side note, you seem to think that I support the Scandinavian view. The answer is I'm still uncertain, though there are many reasons to support it. I will delve more into the fabrication you mention later.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    Not a surprise, this is a tactic too, avoiding the hard points
    The reason for skipping these as I had posted earlier was so you could focus on the question without a long drawn out battle in which the question would be avoided. Now that it has been settled (you have not produced a single name to support your view) I will proceed with "the hard points".
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    Let me remind you that I show you a while ago Christensen was wrong and the "Goths=Getae" didnt started with Jerome, as before him was Ausonius and so on.
    First let me remind you, that it wasn't you who did the research. You got the names from Pritchard, and I did the research. What you put down:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post10360686
    And then What I did:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post10437760
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    Ausonius is the only one of these names that help you. I did check into this a little and saw some of the things Pritchard wrote. I was not impressed with the "Getic Mars", as he mentioned Thracians and other peoples. That being said one thing I have a hard time overcoming is his poem "A solemn prayer of Ausonius as counsul designate, when he assumed the Insignia of office of the eve of the Kalends of Jauar"(or something along those lines). In this poem he mentions the Huns with the Sarmations(he used old spelling),Getae and Alans, and I believe there was another pairing. This was written in 379, which was before Jerome's writing on the subject.
    The little I did check on I found that J.Drinkwater was not sure of the date, but I couldn't find anymore of what he had to say. I also find it very difficult to believe that Wolfram,Christensen, Kurt(?) and the others would have missed this. Ausonius's writings deal with the Alemanni and Gratian but also with the Goths.

    With the above being said and lacking the time to delve into this more, I will go with Ausonius having written this prior to Jerome. It still doesn't give Jerome that much leverage considering how many learned men called them Gog and Magog and Scythians, but it does show(potentially) that there was at least one who did call the Goths "Getae". This of course is strictly my opinion until I find out more or someone else can.
    This being said there are some questions involving Ausonius and his writings. The prayer is modeled after Juvenal and is very much poetic, and where he uses Getic Mars,Thracians Mars and Getae, later in his non-poetic writings he uses Goths. So the problem for me is still there. I do still hold firm to what I said in the above quote, that until I do get a chance to dive into Ausonius I will go that he pre-dates Jerome. With that being said, he is still the only one, there is no "so on". The authors prior to Jerome(Ausonius) used Scythian for Goths and those like Eusubius and Julian made a distinction between the Goths and Getae. Furthermore on the Scandinavian issue at least Jordanes names 2 prior people who said the Goths came from Scandinavia, Jerome names no one. Even at that his statement that all learned men before called the Goths - Getae is still false.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    I dont remember you explaining anything about what Drinkwater say, but I can show you an article from Halsall who say pretty much the same thing about "the Germanic threat".
    You brought up Drinkwater on the RAT forums, and I wrote that Drinkwater was saying that the Germanic tribes didn't warrant the kind of reaction the received from Rome. He was stating that the threat by these incidents was minor comparatively speaking. He was not saying that the German tribes were not a threat, but that the reaction of Rome was overstated. Please put a link to the article from Halsall, you have mentioned it many times and I have asked you before to post it.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    About cherry picking, lets see. Remember those Buri, that you say "look, that ancient author said they are Germanic", despite their name is Dacian and coresponding with a Dacian tribe called Buri, with their capital at Buridava (Dacian for "city of Buri") and even with the name of Getae king Burebista.
    Yes and if you look at Trajans column you will see that the Buri depicted there have the Suebic hair style, not to mention the Buri in the written sources are nowhere near Buridava but are placed behind the Quadi and Marcomanni. This is what was said before:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?315629-Trajan-and-Decebalus-numbers-of-troops&p=7632711&viewfull=1#post7632711

    Every historian I have read say the Buri are Germanic, and Buri is not a Dacian word:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buri
    There seems to be a similar name- Burs that is Dacian but they were not where the Germanic Buri were.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    Now when is about Goths, that are named as Getae by same ancient authors (and never as Germanic) the reaction is "hmm, those ancient authors have no idea what they talking about". Riight
    Not to mention that a tribe like Bastarnae, kinda contemporary and living in the same area as Goths was clearly named as either Germanic either Celtic (but more like Germanic).
    To say that ancient authors was able to see whats the origin of Bastarnae, a rather minor tribe as importance for Rome, but unable to see whats about with Goths, a more important entity, its hilarious and even absurd.
    What is absurd is that your only taking a small portion of history's writings and ignoring the ones prior and after. Prior to Jerome(perhaps Ausonius) they were called Scythians, but before that they were called Germans. And guess what, later on classical authors such as Paul the Deacon called the Goths Germans:
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul the Deacon-"HISTORY OF THE LANGOBARDS"
    The Goths indeed, and the Wandals, the Rugii, Heroli, and Turcilingi, and also other fierce and barbarous nations have come from Germany. In like manner also the race of Winnili, ' that is, of Langobards, which afterwards ruled prosperously in Italy, deducing its origin from the German peoples, came from the island which is called" Scadinavia, 'although other causes of their emigration are also alleged. Ch1
    So as I said, you are taking a small portion of history and proclaiming it as truth, while dismissing the other larger parts of history. This is especially absurd when you can trace the Goths=Getae to Jerome(perhaps borrowed from Ausonius) and it didn't last near as long as the Goths=German phase.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    Even more, we have evidences from both archeology and ancient authors about Dacians presence toward Baltic Sea (I assume you remember Schutte and Parvan talking about Ptolemy map).
    Then there is Agrippa, a better source compared with Jordanes.
    Really, Schutte again, after I had already showed you what he said. Setidava is not in the Pryzeworsk area and it is a small trading outpost generally given to the Celto-Dacian Costoboci. The items found north of this area(again surrounded by Germanic peoples) is negligible.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis
    When Dacian artefacts was found in Poland (and even up to Jutlanda) it was said "hmm, this is from trade or cultural exchange". The only base for such interpretations was Jordanes fairytale
    The Scordiscii cauldron was also found in the Jutland area, that doesn't mean they were there. You have to remember there was also Isis worship going on in some of the Germanic tribes, does that mean Egyptians were there also?
    I would appreciate if you would link the article of the Dacian presence in Poland again, not the Schutte one but the other with the temple in Jutland.
    Last edited by Erebus Pasha; March 15, 2013 at 08:59 AM. Reason: double post

  8. #148
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post

    What you will see there is a demonstration of how Ulfila writings are fabricated and are written actually many centuries after his supposed life, and his "credo" or so is borrowed from someone called Maximinus and atribute then to him. Ulfila himself as is usually know today didnt existed, his name is just a misreading of the name of Unila (pag 62 in the book), the real bishop of "Goths", who is mentioned by contemporary bishop of Constantinopole, John Crysostom
    First of all, while controversial, Ulfila wasn't ethnically a pure Goth, maybe not even remotely. He was supposedly born in Cappadocia, lived a significant part of his life in Eastern Roman Empire.
    Similarly, I have yet to see proofs that Unila (who was in activity half a century after Ulfila, and bishop in Crimea) was ethnically a Goth, and that it was his real name.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Not forget about Gaina, another "Goth" who was an important person in Eastern Roman Empire about the same period.
    And you refer to Gaina, I guess you allude to the similarity of his name to Anglo-Saxon tribe of Gaini or Ganni.



    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Both Gaina (meaning "chicken") and Unila are names still present in today Romanian (and are not Germanic names), .
    You are correct, Gaina is used as a Romanian family name and is not of Germanic origin, but its origin is quite easy to reconstruct.
    Romanian word “găina” (chicken) is derived from what language?
    Similarly, unila, a rather rare Romanian name can be reconstructed from the base word un + the suffix –ila/ilă. Now, the base word „un” is derived from what language?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    and Unila seem to be a full Dacian name and apear as Uniila in folklore and legends about a "solomonari", the remains of a Dacian priest cast that survived trhough medieval ages.
    In Romanian folklore, Uniila is termed as archdemon of solomonari. Now, please tell us to what influences the use of names such as solomon-ari alludes to???

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    About cherry picking, lets see. Remember those Buri, that you say "look, that ancient author said they are Germanic", despite their name is Dacian and coresponding with a Dacian tribe called Buri, with their capital at Buridava (Dacian for "city of Buri") and even with the name of Getae king Burebista.
    Could you be so kind to show us the origin of the Dutch term “boer”?
    Tip:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boer

  9. #149
    Claudius Gothicus's Avatar Petit Burgués
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    8,263

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    The 3rd Century Crisis is really not much different than what happened in 4th Century be honest, with usurpers continued pop up like rabbits and German tribes continued threatening Roman Empire. It seems in the end only the massive built-up of fortification reduced the pressure of frontier.
    Usurpers were not as common and harmful to the territorial and administrative integrity on the empire during the IV century as they had been during those critical 50 years that plagued Rome in the third, as an extreme example Syagrius Domain directly recognized Ravenna's authority even in the direst of situations when comparing it with the total an parallel autonomy of the Gallic Empire. Many Germans tribes where effectively integrated to the Empire's army ranks as foederati or rapidly assimilated in the depopulated areas of Gaul (this demographic transition was moderately successful until all hell broke loose when Theodosius died). Given the rapidly changing situation east of the Limes the Roman army had been reformed into a more adequate organization and consequentially dealt with treats faster than in the third century or even the Marcommanic Wars.

    Other greatly important factors that added to the stability was the monetary reform, the organizational changes, the development of a cuasi-feudal system established in the rural areas and the modification of the Emperor's role. The "terminal crisis" in the West seems to have started during the the V century while the fourth was relatively "calm" when compared to the Third.

    Reducing the empire's stronger performance to the simple stacking of forts around the Agri Decumates, the lower Danube and the rest of the limes would be an oversimplification of Diocletian's reforms which, while unsuccessful in their goals of establishing an ordered succession, did help curve the influence of aristocrats and turned the empire into the bureaucratically authoritarian and autocratic regime that kept on going during at least another 120 years.
    Last edited by Claudius Gothicus; March 15, 2013 at 08:59 AM.
    "...to promote the general welfare and ensure the benefits of liberty for us, for our posterity and for every man in the world who wishes to inhabit Argentine soil."



    Under the Patronage of Maximinus Thrax

  10. #150
    Erebus Pasha's Avatar vezir-i âzam
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    9,422

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by SorelusImperion View Post
    The role of the Sassanids was not so much that of overruning Roman territory but draining it of military resources which could have used elsewhere. The continued presence of this strong and agressive Empire right at the doorstep of Romes richest provinces made it far more difficult handle threats that Rome would otherwise have been perfectly capable of dealing with.
    I would dispute this too. The campaigns of Alexander Severus and Gordian saw two emperors fully able to concentrate their efforts in the east without serious problems on other frontiers. The problems the Sassanids caused were only magnified when Rome had other problems to deal with and this only applies to the events of the early 250's where, as I stated in my previous post, we have problems on the Danube frontier, internal conflict and an outbreak of plague. By the mid 250's though we have an Emperor who again, due to delegating responsibilities in the west to his son Gallienus, was able to direct his efforts towards the Sassanid threat. Despite Valerian's defeat, the Sassanids didn't prove that much of a drain on Roman military manpower; the Macriani and Odenathus were still able to marshal enough resources to push back Shapur in the early 260's with the former also feeling sufficiently able to march to the west to make a play for the purple at this time.

    www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/
    Under the patronage of the Noble Savage.

  11. #151
    SorelusImperion's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Veldarin Empire
    Posts
    2,648

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    I would dispute this too. The campaigns of Alexander Severus and Gordian saw two emperors fully able to concentrate their efforts in the east without serious problems on other frontiers
    In hiw war against the Sassanid Alexander suffered several humiliating defeats. That he choose to to negotiate with the Germanics to keep continuing the war on the Sassanid front (and was murdered subsequently for that reason) is telling. And what about Gordian ? He was killed or captured by the Sassanids. I would call that very serious problems. Killing or capturing the Emperor himself is no mean feat and something that no Germanic tribe could claim untill the troubled years of the 5th century.

    The fact that the Emperors often choose to deal with the Sassanids personally is good indication of how big of a problem the Sassanids were in comparison to the germanics.
    Frederick II of Prussia: "All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
    Norge: "Give me a break. Nothing would make you happier than to see the eagle replaced with a crescent."

    Ummon:"enforcing international law will require that the enforcers do not respect it"
    Olmstead v USA:"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."








    Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who can't defend themselfs.
    When you stand before god you can not say "I was told by others to do this" or that virtue was not convenient at the time

  12. #152
    Erebus Pasha's Avatar vezir-i âzam
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    9,422

    Default Re: Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by SorelusImperion View Post
    In hiw war against the Sassanid Alexander suffered several humiliating defeats. That he choose to to negotiate with the Germanics to keep continuing the war on the Sassanid front (and was murdered subsequently for that reason) is telling.
    The war overall is considered to have ended in stalemate with both sides suffering heavy losses. Negotiations with the German tribes didn't have anything to do with the continuation with the war on the Sassanid front (the conflict ended with the emperor returning to Rome in 233), but more to do with Severus' preference for negotiation over engaging the enemy (he tried something similar with Ardashir before launching his campaign in the east). To modern day historians this seemed a sensible policy but at the time didn't go down well with the troops whoes families had suffered from the impact of German raiding on the frontiers.


    Quote Originally Posted by SorelusImperion View Post
    And what about Gordian ? He was killed or captured by the Sassanids. I would call that very serious problems. Killing or capturing the Emperor himself is no mean feat and something that no Germanic tribe could claim untill the troubled years of the 5th century.
    Nobody knows for sure how Gordian died but the common consensus amongst Roman writers was that his successor Philip (who was his Praetorian Prefect at the time) played a hand in his demise. Philip was criticised for signing a humiliating peace treaty with the Sassanids, but in reality it only meant paying an indemnity and signing away some of Rome's authority over Armenia. In reality Philip had little choice, he had to extract a demoralised army and needed to travel to Rome to secure the purple.


    Oh and to answer your other claim, Decius was killed by the Goths in 251.


    Quote Originally Posted by SorelusImperion View Post
    The fact that the Emperors often choose to deal with the Sassanids personally is good indication of how big of a problem the Sassanids were in comparison to the germanics.
    I haven't stated that the Sassanids weren't a problem but merely said that they were't as big a problem as you made them out to be in the third century.

    www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/
    Under the patronage of the Noble Savage.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •