Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

[bengalg3]

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.

Why would a bunch of tribals fight Rome's war???

[PROMETHEUS ts]

What's that another of those pity nationalistic pride of some guys that lived 3000 years ago and have no relation to modern day Germany ?
For not counting that Germans didn't defeat romans at all , they hjust won one ambush and lost all other main batttles and war as well .
Half of modern day Germany was part of the empire and the only reason why Rome didn't settle in the other half is just because had no economical value and wasn't worth the effort , while still consolidating the other just conquered regions that started the process of romanization ...

[PROMETHEUS ts]

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.

Unfortunately this is another of your little attempts to force to not aknowledged people or few ancientgermanofans a false retrovision of historical facts.
All academic qorld concord on the reason why Germania was not occipied by Romans ( btw half of modern day was Roman Empire anyway ) . the discussion is so deep that is not even worth explaining in detail here on a small forum , but despite peope have been repeately told you to not post false statements you insist in that bringing up insignificant little sources as a prove of Germania magna worth for conquest.
unfortunately for your ideas things are very very different .
At the time there was no known resource worth for conquest in germany . Agriculture was local and family based , there were no large and vaste fields of cultivated areas , also because the climate and region didn't support it beeing mostly forested , there were no known Ore sources, germans did not possess any kind of treasures or valuable loot to be worth an invasion as well , and apart from some pelts and blond slaves there was nothing else worth ... On countrary of the Britain ore that was instead the main reason why Romans did invade The modern Day England .

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

Another Fake and biased statement based only on some personal prides that get intermixed with your personal desire to twist historical facts .
Remember that history is not made by volubile historians but is made by facts , proves and heritage . to post one or two findings to back up a basically wrong theory and forcing your ideas throught those is not only wrong but it is harmful to the many people that do not know history and things because you pretend to post your ideas in the form of offical proves but are totally wrong and untrue .
The Germans cumulated only one massive victory over 3 legions because of an ambush that we could even define One lucky shot that happens once ... is hot that for sure that stopped the romans infact Germanicus lead very successfull campaigns later on , recovered the eagles and defeated Arminius on battlefield all the subsequent times, despite he tried several times to create new ambush settings he always failed when facing expert roman generals that where not trusty as Varus was of him .
the Germania Magna was abandoned because of the Emperor command ... the reason was political and economical , the costs for the campaigns were not backed by usefull gains and treasures , so it was like spending millions of modernday dollars in a war for nothing ... plus the Empire got a rapid expansion under Augustus and several provinces were still not romanized and yet were subject to possible revolts so it was more wise to stop and consolidate the actual positions rather than expand more in an hostile territory without any gain.
So German tribes lost their chance to get civilized earlier remaining intheir more primitive status .

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

Unfortunately using or quoting the wiki is as valuable as quoting something like " my friend said " ... it's so unreliable that everyone even you could just go there and change what's written in ... and this is something that happens so many times in wiki that makes it totally worthless information especially when is about historical facts on wich peoplle would like to apply their personal revisionims ideas ....

And just as last note on the attempt to make pass Germania as a needed land rise crops well is not like that , Romans with the many conquest they just had in few years really did not need any further land , and actually the legions were already stretched all over the known world to wast further resources int oa land that was with bad climate most of the year , swampy , fully covered of forests and with scattered hostile tribes with not even a worthffull loot ... really a waste of time and resource even a kid woudl understand it .


APART THAT ....

MOderators Should MOVE this thread to Vestigia Vetustatis , here has no meaning of exhistance ...

[Radzeer]

Moved to VV.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Obviously credit should go to the Germanics and the Parthians, the Picts as well, for successfully resisting Roman conquest when so many other nations were subjugated. But portraying Rome's inability to conquer them as them defeating Rome is outright retarded and fueled by nationalism. If the Parthians and the Germanics were the 'winners' because Rome failed to conquer them, why wasn't Rome the winner because the Germanics and the Parthians also failed to conquer her?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Obviously credit should go to the Germanics and the Parthians, the Picts as well, for successfully resisting Roman conquest when so many other nations were subjugated. But portraying Rome's inability to conquer them as them defeating Rome is outright retarded and fueled by nationalism. If the Parthians and the Germanics were the 'winners' because Rome failed to conquer them, why wasn't Rome the winner because the Germanics and the Parthians also failed to conquer her?

Because Parthia never tried to conquer the Roman Empire? In all the Romano-Parthian Wars, the Parthians were maybe once the attacker and even that is not clear. They never wanted more than Syria and even that was not really important for them. You also have no Germanic attempts to conquering the Roman Empire. Cimbri, Suebi ect. all wanted just settleland and their maingoal was never Rome. The attempt to conquer Rome was never a goal and even if they finally did it, it was no campaign, it was more a decicion made to answer failed Promises of Roman Emperors.

Unfortunately this is another of your little attempts to force to not aknowledged people or few ancientgermanofans a false retrovision of historical facts.
All academic qorld concord on the reason why Germania was not occipied by Romans ( btw half of modern day was Roman Empire anyway ) . the discussion is so deep that is not even worth explaining in detail here on a small forum , but despite peope have been repeately told you to not post false statements you insist in that bringing up insignificant little sources as a prove of Germania magna worth for conquest.
unfortunately for your ideas things are very very different .
At the time there was no known resource worth for conquest in germany . Agriculture was local and family based , there were no large and vaste fields of cultivated areas , also because the climate and region didn't support it beeing mostly forested , there were no known Ore sources, germans did not possess any kind of treasures or valuable loot to be worth an invasion as well , and apart from some pelts and blond slaves there was nothing else worth ... On countrary of the Britain ore that was instead the main reason why Romans did invade The modern Day England .

Your thesis that the Romans weren't interested in conquering Germania Magna is in direct confrontation to the actuall archaeological founds. One example is the Waldgirmes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldgirmes_Forum which is a direct prove for a civil town and build with great efforts. It was left in direct context of the Germanic Wars. Another example is the Villa Urbana of Heitersheim.

Also that the clima was that worse and diffrent is wrong as i showed allready in your "larger bodies" thread. To quote myself:

Actually Olive trees even grow far more north like in the area around cologne. In in the most warm regions in SW Germany you have the most years no frozen soil and for one or two days a smart farmer will find ways to save his trees.



Attachment 267775Attachment 267776

I didn't get it bigger but i think you can see that the curve is not that diffrent, specially in the Winter where they are quite similar. The only difference is the amount of rain, but it is not that it is allways raining in germany. It is just if it's eventually is raining that the amount of rain is more.

Just to show how less diffrent the clima between the Toskana and Southern Germany is. In times were Italy had no free agricultural lands, the area of Germany was very valuable.

Another Fake and biased statement based only on some personal prides that get intermixed with your personal desire to twist historical facts .
Remember that history is not made by volubile historians but is made by facts , proves and heritage . to post one or two findings to back up a basically wrong theory and forcing your ideas throught those is not only wrong but it is harmful to the many people that do not know history and things because you pretend to post your ideas in the form of offical proves but are totally wrong and untrue .
The Germans cumulated only one massive victory over 3 legions because of an ambush that we could even define One lucky shot that happens once ... is hot that for sure that stopped the romans infact Germanicus lead very successfull campaigns later on , recovered the eagles and defeated Arminius on battlefield all the subsequent times, despite he tried several times to create new ambush settings he always failed when facing expert roman generals that where not trusty as Varus was of him .
the Germania Magna was abandoned because of the Emperor command ... the reason was political and economical , the costs for the campaigns were not backed by usefull gains and treasures , so it was like spending millions of modernday dollars in a war for nothing ... plus the Empire got a rapid expansion under Augustus and several provinces were still not romanized and yet were subject to possible revolts so it was more wise to stop and consolidate the actual positions rather than expand more in an hostile territory without any gain.
So German tribes lost their chance to get civilized earlier remaining intheir more primitive status .

I allready explained earlier, that even Tacitus which you allways quote with any questions and sourcecritique describe the terrible situation in Germanicus Campaigns. For example the Situation in context of the Pontes Longi, where a Roman Army was in the same situation than Varus, but survived because they were hidden behind the walls of their camp. Good source critiques mention that a lot of the describing was a stylistic way to show how a general could made it better than Varus, but still the Roman Thinking is shown well. The troops were everything than confident and paniced. Aggrippa even destroyed the Bridges over the Rhine in an act of panic. It is just one example but you find this describing all over the Germanic Campaigns.

Honestly, Victors look diffrent...

"

63.1 Germanicus, however, followed Arminius as he fell back on the wilds, and at the earliest opportunity ordered the cavalry to ride out and clear the p351level ground in the occupation of the enemy. Arminius, who had directed his men to close up and retire on the woods, suddenly wheeled them round; then gave the signal for his ambush in the glades to break cover. The change of tactics threw our horse into confusion. Reserve cohorts were sent up; but, broken by the impact of the fugitive columns, they had only increased the panic, and the whole mass was being pushed towards swampy ground, familiar to the conquerors but fatal to strangers, when the Caesar came forward with the legions and drew them up in line of battle. This demonstration overawed the enemy and emboldened the troops, and they parted with the balance even.

Shortly afterwards, the prince led his army back to the Ems, and withdrew the legions as he had brought them, on shipboard: 19 a section of the cavalry was ordered to make for the Rhine along the coast of the Northern Ocean. Caecina, who led his own force, was returning by a well-known route, but was none the less warned to cross the Long Bridges as rapidly as possible.20 These were simply a narrow causeway, running through a wilderness of marshes and thrown up, years before, by Lucius Domitius;21 the rest was a slough — foul, clinging mud intersected by a maze of rivulets. Round about, the woods sloped gently from the plain; but now they were occupied by Arminius, whose forced march along the shorter roads had been too quick for the Roman soldier, weighted with his baggage and accoutrements. Caecina, none too certain how to relay the old, broken-down bridges and at the same time hold off the enemy, decided to p353mark out a camp where he stood, so that part of the men could begin work while the others accepted battle.
64.1 Skirmishing, enveloping, charging, the barbarians struggled to break the line of outposts and force their way to the working parties. Labourers and combatants mingled their cries. Everything alike was to the disadvantage of the Romans — the ground, deep in slime and ooze, too unstable for standing fast and too slippery for advancing — the weight of armour on their backs — their inability amid the water to balance the pilum for a throw. The Cherusci, on the other hand, were habituated to marsh-fighting, long of limb, and armed with huge lances to wound from a distance. In fact, the legions were already wavering when night at last released them from the unequal struggle.

Success had made the Germans indefatigable. Even now they took no rest, but proceeded to divert all streams, springing from the surrounding hills, into the plain below, flooding the ground, submerging the little work accomplished, and doubling the task of the soldiery. Still, it was Caecina's fortieth year of active service as commander or commanded, and he knew success and danger too well to be easily perturbed. On balancing the possibilities, he could see no other course than to hold the enemy to the woods until his wounded and the more heavily laden part of the column passed on: for extended between mountain and morass was a level patch which would just allow an attenuated line of battle. The fifth legion was selected for the right flank, the twenty-first for the left; the first was to lead the van, the twentieth to stem the inevitable pursuit.
65.1 It was a night of unrest, though in contrasted fashions. The barbarians, in high carousal, filled the low-lying valleys and echoing woods with chants of triumph or fierce vociferations: among the Romans were languid fires, broken challenges, and groups of men stretched beside the parapet or staying amid the tents, unasleep but something less than awake. The general's night was disturbed by a sinister and alarming dream: for he imagined that he saw Quintilius Varus risen, blood-bedraggled, from the marsh, and heard him calling, though he refused to obey and pushed him back when he extended his hand. Day broke, and the legions sent to the wings, either through fear or wilfulness, abandoned their post, hurriedly occupying a level piece of ground beyond the morass. Arminius, however, though the way was clear the attack, did not immediately deliver his onslaught. But when he saw the baggage-train caught in the mire and trenches; the troops around it in confusion; the order of the standards broken, and (as may be expected in a crisis) every man quick to obey his impulse and slow to hear the word of command, he ordered the Germans to break in. "Varus and the legions," he cried, "enchained once more in the old doom!" And, with the word, he cut through the column at the head of a picked band, their blows being directed primarily at the horses. Slipping in their own blood and the marsh-slime, the beasts threw their riders, scattered all they met, and trampled the fallen underfoot. The eagles caused the greatest difficulty of all, as it was impossible either to advance them against the storm of spears or to plant them in the water-logged soil. Caecina, while attempting to keep the front intact, fell with his horse stabbed under him, and was being rapidly surrounded when the first legion interposed. A point in our favour was the rapacity of the enemy, who left the carnage to pursue the spoils; and towards evening the legions struggled out on to open and solid ground. Nor was this the end of their miseries. A rampart had to be raised and material sought for the earthwork; and most of the tools for excavating soil or cutting turf had been lost. There were no tents for the companies, no dressings for the wounded, and as they divided their rations, foul with dirt or blood, they bewailed the deathlike gloom and that for so many thousands of men but a single day now remained.
66.1 As chance would have it, a stray horse which had broken its tethering and taken fright at the shouting, threw into confusion a number of men who ran to stop it. So great was the consequent panic (men believed the Germans had broken in) that there was a general rush to the gates, the principal objective being the decuman, which faced away from the enemy and opened the better prospects of escape. Caecina, who had satisfied himself that the fear was groundless, but found command, entreaty, and even physical force, alike powerless to arrest or detain the men, threw himself flat in the gateway; and pity in the last resort barred a road which led over the general's body. At the same time, the tribunes and centurions explained that it was a false alarm.

67.1 He now collected the troops in front of his quarters, and, first ordering them to listen in silence, warned them of the crisis and its urgency:— "Their one safety lay in the sword; but their resort to it should be tempered with discretion, and they must remain within the rampart till the enemy approached in the hope of carrying it by assault. Then, a sally from all sides — and so to the Rhine! If they fled, they might expect more forests, deeper swamps, and a savage enemy: win the day, and glory and honour were assured." He reminded them of all they loved at home, all the honour they had gained in camp: of disaster, not a word. Then, with complete impartiality, he distributed the horses of the commanding officers and tribunes — he had begun with his own — to men of conspicuous gallantry; the recipients to charge first, while the infantry followed.
68.1 Hope, cupidity, and the divided counsels of the chieftains kept the Germans in equal agitation. Arminius proposed to allow the Romans to march out, and, when they had done so, to entrap them once more in wet and broken country; Inguiomarus advocated the more drastic measures dear to the barbarian:— "Let them encircle the rampart in arms. Storming would be easy, captives more plentiful, the booty intact!" So, at break of day, they began demolishing the fosses, threw in hurdles, and struggled to grasp the top of the rampart; on which were ranged a handful of soldiers apparently petrified with terror. But as they swarmed up the fortifications, the signal sounded to the cohorts, and cornets and trumpets sang to arms. Then, with a shout and a rush, the Romans poured down on the German rear. "Here were no trees," they jeered, "no swamps, but a fair field and an impartial Heaven." Upon the enemy, whose thoughts were of a quick despatch and a few half-armed p361defenders, the blare of trumpets and the flash of weapons burst with an effect proportioned to the surprise, and they fell — as improvident in failure as they had been headstrong in success. Arminius and Inguiomerus abandoned the fray, the former unhurt, the latter after a serious wound; the rabble was slaughtered till passion and the daylight waned. It was dusk when the legions returned, weary enough — for wounds were in greater plenty than ever, and provisions in equal scarcity — but finding in victory strength, health, supplies, everything.

69.1 In the meantime a rumour had spread that the army had been trapped and the German columns were on the march for Gaul; and had not Agrippina prevented the demolition of the Rhine bridge, 22 there were those who in their panic would have braved that infamy. But it was a great-hearted woman who assumed the duties of a general throughout those days; who, if a soldier was in need, clothed him, and, if he was wounded, gave him dressings. Pliny, the historian of the German Wars,23 asserts that she stood at the head of the bridge, offering her praises and her thanks to the returning legions. The action sank deep into the soul of Tiberius. "There was something behind this officiousness; nor was it the foreigner against whom her courtship of the army was directed. Commanding officers had a sinecure nowadays, when a woman visited the maniples, approached the standards and took in hand to bestow largesses — as though it were not enough to curry favour by parading the general's son in the habit of a common soldier, with the request that he should be called Caesar Caligula! 24 Already Agrippina counted for more with the armies than any general or generalissimo, and a woman had suppressed a mutiny which the imperial name had failed to check." Sejanus inflamed and exacerbated his jealousies; and, with his expert knowledge of the character of Tiberius, kept sowing the seed of future hatreds — grievances for the emperor to store away and produce some day with increase. "

Tac. Annales 1.63-69.

Unfortunately using or quoting the wiki is as valuable as quoting something like " my friend said " ... it's so unreliable that everyone even you could just go there and change what's written in ... and this is something that happens so many times in wiki that makes it totally worthless information especially when is about historical facts on wich peoplle would like to apply their personal revisionims ideas ....

And just as last note on the attempt to make pass Germania as a needed land rise crops well is not like that , Romans with the many conquest they just had in few years really did not need any further land , and actually the legions were already stretched all over the known world to wast further resources int oa land that was with bad climate most of the year , swampy , fully covered of forests and with scattered hostile tribes with not even a worthffull loot ... really a waste of time and resource even a kid woudl understand it .

I agree that Roman Manpower was not enough to Conquer Germania. The mistake they made was the assumption to do it with that less troops. The economical expanses were very high and sides like Waldgirmes show how serious they were with taking over Germania Magna. That you be wrong with the clima i showed upstairs, that i explained why wiki is usefull in here to. In the wiki quote of Waldgirmes i gave you the chance to read something that you propably wouldn't know because the scienetific sources are all in German. So it is not stupid. The article is still backed with the original sources. In the end the comparision of another poster here with Vietnam is really good. Both Powers thought that they really could gain something, but in the end they had to give up, after looses many manpower and a lot of money.

[Der Phönix]

What's that another of those pity nationalistic pride of some guys that lived 3000 years ago and have no relation to modern day Germany ?
For not counting that Germans didn't defeat romans at all , they hjust won one ambush and lost all other main batttles and war as well .
Half of modern day Germany was part of the empire and the only reason why Rome didn't settle in the other half is just because had no economical value and wasn't worth the effort , while still consolidating the other just conquered regions that started the process of romanization ...

Your constant complains about nationalism on this forum makes me think you are one yourself. Honestly Prometheus, it looks like you have some kind of inferiority complex.

[Akrotatos]

@ Markus Lepidus


The clima has changed since then. Because now you can grow olvie groves in south Germany doesn't mean you could always do so. Also, Germany has good farmland now that all the forests have been cleared and the bogs drained...back then? Not so much. The Romans would have to clear thousands of trees and actually import slaves to start latifundia and have a production worrthy of the campaign cost.

A similar example would be US trying to invade and occupy all central Africa. They would easily win 90% of all battles but the guerillas would bleed them and for what? No infrastructure, no resources worthy of spending trillions when you can simply bribe the locals to give to your own companies. The Romans did the same, they siply bribed chieftains and installed client kings.

[Manco]

Except that following your analogy, the US actually did invade and conquer half of Africa before being pushed back and realizing it was all too costly.
It's a rather different thing to simply not bothering with it.

Anyway, what's the point of this discussion?
There were no "Germans" beyond a vague theudiska as opposed to other non-Germanics (though even that stems from later I think). One commander inflicted a serious defeat upon another, it's wrong to see it as some sort of context-less event with no repercussions whatsoever (as Romans had tried to conquer the area and this battle was a factor in dissuading their future attempts), nor is it the defining battle that shaped history for ages to come (as Rome's ties to the Germanic tribes were not somehow set in stone, rather they would go on to ally some and antagonize others).

As for the nationalistic dickwaving, it's a bit silly. As if either of them had the moral high ground. One's a state forcefully incorporating loads of peoples often extremely bloody, which is, you know, a bad thing despite all their much vaunted popularity. And part of the other would go on to do the very same thing, only a few hundred years later.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

@ Markus Lepidus
The clima has changed since then. Because now you can grow olvie groves in south Germany doesn't mean you could always do so. Also, Germany has good farmland now that all the forests have been cleared and the bogs drained...back then? Not so much. The Romans would have to clear thousands of trees and actually import slaves to start latifundia and have a production worrthy of the campaign cost.
.

Yes the clima has changed but everywhere. It is not that Italy had in ancient times 30 degree and German 10 degree. If it was getting warmer, than the situation changed for italy and germany equally in numbers. That Germania was only wood and swamps is entirely wrong. The germanic inhabitants had stubbed enough wood for their own villages and farms and specially the Romans did it everywhere. The typ of Villa Rustica was very common in Domitians reign when the Romans expanded around 40 Kilometers in to Germania Magna again, and with Heitersheim we have even a Villa Urbana. Specially in Heitersheim we have prove for a large cultivation of Wine, Olives ect. They also had huge use of slaves on an area of 5,5 ha.

http://www.freiburg-entdecken.de/vil...m-heitersheim/

this is why i prefer wiki links, because the most sources which quote found of the last 20 years are mainly in german because german archaeologists made them.

[Akrotatos]

I think it's one thing to have cleared some forest around villages and towns and another to have the organised agriculture that existed in Italy. Romans expanded in regions where they could find:

a)natural resources
b)plunder
c)taxable assets

The Gauls had many oppida and a richer civilisation hence expansion there was profitable.

Germania had low possiblities of loot, perhaps unknown mines (I have no clue there) and the establishment of a conquered society that could work under Roman control and offer profits was much more difficult to achieve. Considering that Germania was also a huge territory and practically unmapped, it doesn't take much imagination to see why the Romans abandoned the project.

[Caesar Germanico]

When Aleric was conquering Rome it was because the Western Emperor refused to pay him for his Services. Before the conquering they had negotiations over months. Also Rome had less than 50 thousend inhabitans at this time and he even forbitt his people to pillage the Churches. After all his man were more civilized when they conquered Rome, as the Romans did when they Conquered Carthage, Corinth, Samizgetuza ect.

As i said before. Under Eastern Goth rule, Italy was better reignd than under late Roman rule.

Rome had less than 50 000 inhabitants during Alaric?You might want to check your sources.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Rome had less than 50 000 inhabitants during Alaric?You might want to check your sources.

It really depends which source you use. You will find endless of numbers. I admit 50000 is one of the smaller numbers and their are also optimistic guessings between 400.000 and 100.000 at this time, but the city had clearly much less inhabitants than in the high times. Still 50000 is not wrong if you take for example "Rome in the Dark Ages" P. Llewellyn.

In the end the real number is not that important than the intention i had with it. The Intention does also work with 100000 inhabitants.
"

[Caesar Germanico]

No, Rome had few hundred thousands of people yet.We have to wait a couple of centuries for a population so low.

[Diocle]

My answer to the OP is a clear: Yes, but.....

Yes......at Adrianople in 378 AD!
There at Adrianople, a Germanic Confederation called Goths, formed by Visigoths and Ostrogoths and led by a great Warlord called Fritigern, defeated on Roman land a Palatine Roman Army Praesentalis, as to say (on the paper) the best of the best professional troops that the Empire could muster; the Goths won, killing a Roman Emperor on the battlefield, the poor Valens, whom corpse was never found in the great carnage. The Goths won and they changed the History of Europe once forever.

But...sometime later in 451 AD, at Chalons or Campi Catalaunici the Magister Militum Flavius Aetius, Ultimus romanorum or the 'last of the Romans' led to victory against the Huns, an army composed by two third of Germanic warriors, Franks, Burgundian and Visigoths (the same of Adrianople!!!). Also Aetius changed the History of Europe once forever at Chalons, Atilla was pushed back, and never returned, Europe was forever Christian and Romano-Germanic and not Turk-Mongolic.

In my opinion between those two dates 378AD and 451 AD, there is the true meaning of the History of the Germanic role in the end of the Roman Empire and in the birth of the Romano-Germanic Europe, as to say in the process of birth of the European Nations.

Too long and boring (for the readers) would be talking here about what happened between those two dates, but let me write only this opinion: The Germanic tribes at Chalons fought against other Germanic tribes The Ostrogoths of Theodimir and the other germanic hunnic federates led by Adaric. So at Chalons we can see Romanized Germans or Germanized Romans, against Germans from outside the Limes under Hunnic rule, those who were not part of the Empire, the 'other' Germans, those form 'outside' the Civilized World......and reading the episode of the tragic death, on the battlefield of Chalons, of Theodoric the king of the Visigoths, killed by the Ostrogoths in a tremendous and furious melee, in which the Gothic Nations fought the most terrible fratricide fight, you can imagine how many things had happened and changed from the time of Adrianople.

This is the reason of my 'yes, but...', the Germanic tribes defeated the Romans, but they fought also to defend the Roman Empire against the Huns, what I want to say is that the Germanic role in this history is not only that of the antagonist of Rome, the Ancient Germans played not only a distructive role, but they were able to save what remained of the Roman Civilization in Western Europe. The meeting between the Germanic tribes and the Greek Roman Civilization is one of the most important, complex and fascinating chapters of the bloody history of the European Continent.


Side Note: If I was German and I'm not (being Italian), I would prefer a good and quite big statue dedicated to Fritigern rather than a statue to Arminius.
Arminius was a complex and twisted character, he was Roman Citizen of Equestrian status, he was in the Roman Army, then he changed again his mind and he became the leader of a League who won a great ambush but then he was killed by the same Germanic tibes who had followed him, not a simple man for sure.

While Fritigern was a true hero, who was able to give dignity and honor to a great nation defeated and humiliated by the Huns, after their arrival on the Roman bank of the Danube, the Romans were selling to the poor Goths grain in exchange for children!!!
Fritigern was able to become General, Politician and Leader of a Nation without land, he maintained united his people and led them to one of the most astonishing victories of the Ancient History!! Not an ambush but a true battle, face to face with the most powerful army that Rome could deploy, and he won!!!!
Fritigern wasn't a complex character, Fritigern was a great Leader and a 'man' in the true meaning of the word.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

b)plunder

Especially that. In the short term, the conquest of Macedonia for example, brought enormous amounts of riches to Rome. The tribute paid by the Seleucids after the Treaty of Apamea was so big that the Romans didn't even bother to move further in Asia. Conquering or defeating economically powerful neighbors was much easier than trying to establish a sufficient level of infrastructure in lands like Germania.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Man, I'm not trying to be derogative or anywhere but... the premises under which this debate has been carried on are wrong, or at least leading nowhere.

Rome was not defeated by Germania as a nation because Nation States are a XVIII and XIX century creation. For a duration of 5 centuries the political entity known as "The Roman Empire" maintained several, isolated or systematic, campaigns of defensive or offensive nature against different Kingdoms, Confederations and Tribes that came from the geographical area known as "Germania". Many of these tribes, kingdoms and confederations shared genetic, cultural and social characteristics but they were in no way an unified entity.
Many of the tribes which finally came to rule and settle large pieces of what once known as Gallia, Hispania, Africa, Raetia, Noricum etc. were in not the same as the ones with whom Rome had contested the Danube or Rhine frontiers during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. This can be easily understood if we manage to grasp that during the second century there was a major population and ethnic shift in Northern Germania and the Ukraine, migrations and conquest brought new tribes(Goths, Lombards and Franks for example) to the doors of Rome that in turn subjugated or absorbed the old ones (like the Chattii or the Marcomanii).

There's quite a lot of factors in there too, the weakened institutional framework of the Empire(with all of what that means, including economic stagnation, financial unstability and military fragmentation) collided with tribes who had been pursued or "pushed" by the Central Steppe dwellers as well.

This is basic Ancient History for ****s sake

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

At least for the Eastern Goths exist good doubts that they were more of scytish than germanic. They spend generations in the eastern european plains and the black sea and had clearly scytish influence.

[Diocle]

This can be said for all the Eastern Germanic tribes: Goths, Gepids, Langobards, Burgundians all could be considered a mix of different ethnic identities, but talking of 'scytish influence' in the IV and V century is an historical nonsense. It would be like saying that the Prussians are Huns (as did Winston Churchill!....)

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

This can be said for all the Eastern Germanic tribes: Goths, Gepids, Langobards, Burgundians all could be considered a mix of different ethnic identities, but talking of 'scytish influence' in the IV and V century is an historical nonsense. It would be like saying that the Prussians are Huns (as did Winston Churchill!....)

Yes it would be. You might have missunderstand me or i wasn't clear enough. IV and V Century would be stupid because they weren't any longer in that area, but the hundrets of years they lived in scythish lands between their arriving and their leaving, clearly have influenced their culture and ethnicity.

To believe that they didn't mixed up with the local population would be in that case really nationalistic bias, something that some people claim for more harmless things i wrote in the past

I wrote this specially for the Goths because they were deeper and longer in the scythian terretories than the other Groups, but this can be offcourse also said for them.