Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

[Roma_Victrix]

Outliving is not defeating or destroying. And plundering a city is not defeating or destroying either. How many Germanic settlements did the Romans plunder for five centuries, how many tribes did they enslave and wipe off the map completely? Of all the Germanic tribes who later occupied lands of the western empire only the Franks lived to tell the tale. And the Franks did not beat any Roman armies or plunder Rome to do that, they moved in a power vacuum that distingeration of the imperial authority in Gaul created and defeated other rival factions, Burgundians, Visigoths, Romanised Gauls. Those who did defeat Roman armies and plunder Rome itself, the Visigoths and the Vandals, were eradicated, by the Arabs and the eastern half of the empire respectively (which also annihilated the Ostrogoths and the Alans).

Ah. Genocide. The good ole days, eh? It would be truly astounding to tally up all the defeated peoples in history who were utterly annihilated as a result. Or if they truly did not suffer total annihilation (down to every man, woman, child, etc.), then forced assimilation by the conquerers that ended their spoken language and culture forever. That happened quite a bit. And not just in the West. All those southern hill tribes and northern steppe peoples in the old Chinese empire comes to mind.

[diegis]

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.

Goths was a mixed population, but they was mostly Getae/Dacians with added Sarmatian and then Germanic and even Roman people added in time.
They was considered Getae or Scythian, but Scythian just on base of the teritory they lived as Scythians as people was long gone at that time.

They was never considered Germanic however, unlike Bastarnae for example, a tribe that lived in the same area.

More on topic now, Germans scored few good victories over Romans (as others too), but we can't say they defeated Rome. It was a combination of politics and economy that made Rome to not transform all Germania in a full Roman province.
It was cheaper to control it by appointed local client kings and by military expeditions and raids when was necessary, as the teritories far from Rhine was neither strategic for Rome neither have enough potential to produce some gains (gold mines, rich agriculture etc) so transforming them in a clasic province would actually require more money spent then obtained.

Some modern historians consider that actually "Germanic threat" was at least partially a product of Roman imperial propaganda intended to serve the interests of emperors and their bureucratic system.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-06-24.html#t1

<<Returning to somewhat more familiar ground, D asserts that the Alamannic menace was thus predominantly a creation of the Roman authorities (for all that the effects of cross-border raiding could be most unpleasant on a local level), a carefully-maintained fiction designed to serve the interests of those in power.1 Sustained low-intensity conflict along the Rhine frontier allowed Roman emperors to establish or polish a reputation for martial valor, kept large armies trained and occupied, and indeed 'justified the maintenance of the whole imperial system in the west' (p. 361): massive troop concentrations had to be supported by regular tax collection and administered by a ramified bureaucratic apparatus, both of which served to enrich and employ members of the governing classes, while also strengthening their hold on the remainder of the provincial population. The Alamanni, meanwhile, were generally content to comply with the Roman fiction. For all that they were more often the oppressed than the aggressors -- there is a whiff of postcolonial theory in all of this -- the victims more than the instigators of armed conflict, they were on the whole as invested in maintaining a symbiotic status quo as were those on the imperial side>>

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Goths was a mixed population, but they was mostly Getae/Dacians with added Sarmatian and then Germanic and even Roman people added in time.

No, they were a conglomeration of Germanic tribes that assimilated other elements in their path, which explains their Germanic language and nomenclature of their notables. They were indeed a mixed population, but with the Germanic component being the driving force behind the incorporation of others.

They was considered Getae or Scythian, but Scythian just on base of the teritory they lived as Scythians as people was long gone at that time.

There weren't any Getae at the time of the Goths either. They had just once lived in lands that Goths now lived, like the Scythians had. It's the anachronistic use of ethnonyms in tune with the archaising trend of Greco-Roman historiography at play in both cases.

Some modern historians consider that actually "Germanic threat" was at least partially a product of Roman imperial propaganda intended to serve the interests of emperors and their bureucratic system.

The same modern historians, the consensus among whom is contradicts your earlier assertion that the Goths were 'mostly Getae/Dacians', so why do appeal to their expertise now? Cherry picking.
Besides, the Germanic threat with the same levels of intensity was there before Rome had emperors, and it was also there after Rome obtained emperors but long before the ill-structured centralisation of the state and the creation of an gigantic and entrenched bureaucratic apparatus in the late 3rd and early 4rth centuries AD. Cimbrian and Teutonic invasion, Batavian revolt, Marcomannic wars. Surely, it was not a matter of life and death, as long as the empire was internally strong that is, but then again it was the closest any people outside Rome's borders came to being a real threat during the phases of the late republic and early empire. They were only outclassed by the emergence of the Sassanids. Also, as the empire grew weaker, it is fairly easy to point out how acutely the Germanic threat realised its potential whenever imperial military presence lapsed in the frontier, due to troops being withdrawn to fight the civil wars. The story of Gaul between the 3rd and the 5th centuries first and foremost, but of Italy and the Balkans as well, is a testimony to this.

[diegis]

No, they were a conglomeration of Germanic tribes that assimilated other elements in their path, which explains their Germanic language and nomenclature of their notables. They were indeed a mixed population, but with the Germanic component being the driving force behind the incorporation of others.

Hmm, thats very debatable and actually not supported by hard facts. First of all the story of Scandza migration is just that, a story with no proves, there are many modern historians who reject it (in fact most of modern historians I think reject it).
Then the culture attributed to Goths, Santana/Ceneahov is in mostly of Dacian, Daco-Roman origin, with Sarmatian elements and just few Germanic ones
Then and most important no one connected Goths with Germanics back then, but with Getae (or Scythians, this because of geography and not of ethnicity, as Scythians was long gone by then). This despite the fact that about Bastarnae, a less important tribe there, was clearly mentioned that they are of Germanic stock or so, have a Germanic language (I think an author related them with Celts however, thus a possible Germano-Celtic mix). I think if Goths was really Germanic they would be named as such during their history, but only ethnic ties named back then was Getae or Scythian

Goths language is known just from Codex Argenteus, a very debatable writing dated (dont know on which basis) in VI century AD (so couple centuries after Goths leaved Dacia). However, there is no evidence that that was Ulfila bible which is lost, nobody saw it, is just a presumption, it might be a Lombard writing for example. More then that, it was found somewhere in German teritories soon after Luther split from Vatican, a convenient find to show that Germanic people was not under Rome church at the begining of Christian era, so a suport for his cause.

There weren't any Getae at the time of the Goths either. They had just once lived in lands that Goths now lived, like the Scythians had. It's the anachronistic use of ethnonyms in tune with the archaising trend of Greco-Roman historiography at play in both cases.

Gosh, what the heck are you talking about? Of course there was, Dacians or Getae is the same thing. Dacians was a part of Getae, same for Carpi or Costoboci. Like Athenians, Spartans and Thebans was Greeks, or Suebi, Marcomani, Cherusci, Franks and Alammani was Germanic.

Got/Gotes probably replace Get/Getos by a switch of letters, after Caracalla imposed a "damnatio memoriae" on his brother, Geta (singular for Getae, meaning the Getian). "Goths" appear right after Caracalla, sometimes called Getae sometimes called Goths.

The same modern historians, the consensus among whom is contradicts your earlier assertion that the Goths were 'mostly Getae/Dacians', so why do appeal to their expertise now? Cherry picking.
Besides, the Germanic threat with the same levels of intensity was there before Rome had emperors, and it was also there after Rome obtained emperors but long before the ill-structured centralisation of the state and the creation of an gigantic and entrenched bureaucratic apparatus in the late 3rd and early 4rth centuries AD. Cimbrian and Teutonic invasion, Batavian revolt, Marcomannic wars. Surely, it was not a matter of life and death, as long as the empire was internally strong that is, but then again it was the closest any people outside Rome's borders came to being a real threat during the phases of the late republic and early empire. They were only outclassed by the emergence of the Sassanids. Also, as the empire grew weaker, it is fairly easy to point out how acutely the Germanic threat realised its potential whenever imperial military presence lapsed in the frontier, due to troops being withdrawn to fight the civil wars. The story of Gaul between the 3rd and the 5th centuries first and foremost, but of Italy and the Balkans as well, is a testimony to this.

I am not sure what they contradict?
The Germanic threat can be considered during Cimbri and Teutoni invasion, correct. Even then it was the stupidity of Senat and some high noble Roman in charge of Roman troops, as they didnt want to let people of lesser social status to deal with this or to have the command.
Soon after this was cleared and Marius (not a patrician) take the command the danger was quickly eliminated.
Batavian revolt, what is with it? A revolt occured during a civil war in the empire, and another revolt in Judeea. Soon after the internal struggle was over and the new emperor take his throne the revolts was resolved with no big problems.
Marcomanic wars- actually pretty much every "barbarians" north of Danube participated to those wars, not just Marcomani, and those wars take place after the epidemic bring by Roman troops returned from Orient after a victorious war against Parthia (I think they occupied again the Parthian capital).
Roman army was decimated and I think 1/4 of population in the empire died or was affected.

As we can see, the real threat was when Romans had big internal problems and even then wasnt a mortal threat or something that can't be resolved.

And dont tell me about Goths, as they was a Daco-Sarmato-Germano-Roman conglomerate (in that order), not a single Germanic people

[Garbarsardar]

The thread should be renamed "The...that...", since all other words in the title are wrong.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

@ Diegis is it not a bit unlogical to see the Parthian Campaign as a victory, after they gained nothing and Parthia itself was in civil war, but to see Germanic Victories as less valuable because the Romans had civil war at this time?

To really count who was defeated and who not you have to research the war goals. Parthia never attempt to conquer rome and just and even that is not clear once they started the war. In that case their war goal was never to conquer rome. Romes war goal was to conquer Parthia, which they failed. So they were defeated. It is quite the same Scenario in the Germanic Wars. Germanic Tribes never wanted to conquer Rome.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Hmm, thats very debatable and actually not supported by hard facts. First of all the story of Scandza migration is just that, a story with no proves, there are many modern historians who reject it (in fact most of modern historians I think reject it).

What they reject is the 19th century interpretation of the Voelkerwanderung of distinct ethnic groups in coherently organised political structures setting off from Scandinavia and following pointy arrows on the map.
Migratory waves from Scandinavia to east Pomerania and from there to Ukraine and the Black sea hypotethised on the basis of archaeologically identifiable replacement of the Oskywie culture by the Wilebalk culture first and the formation of the Chernyakov culture later on appear to be in line with Jordanes' narrative and fit well with the linguistic analysis of the Gothic language, and are therefore the most solid theory for the origin of the Goths.

Then the culture attributed to Goths, Santana/Ceneahov is in mostly of Dacian, Daco-Roman origin, with Sarmatian elements and just few Germanic ones

No, this is a lie. There are no more elements of Dacian culture in Chernyakov culture than they are of Wielbalk and it is the later that differentiate it. Furthermore, its formation coincides with a decrease in the number of settlements in the heartlands of Wielbalk, suggesting a significant population movement and the newcomers playing the major role in its creation.

Then and most important no one connected Goths with Germanics back then, but with Getae (or Scythians, this because of geography and not of ethnicity, as Scythians was long gone by then). This despite the fact that about Bastarnae, a less important tribe there, was clearly mentioned that they are of Germanic stock or so, have a Germanic language (I think an author related them with Celts however, thus a possible Germano-Celtic mix). I think if Goths was really Germanic they would be named as such during their history, but only ethnic ties named back then was Getae or Scythian

This argument could have some merit if Greco-Roman authors showed any consistency in the veracity of their ethnological descriptions instead of seeing historiography as an opportunity of flaunting their erudition through the use of archaising ethnonyms and antiquarian words. And, besides, who described any of the Germanic tribes of featuring inthe days of the later empire as Germanic? Show me a reference whereby, say, the Burgundians are described as Germanic.

Goths language is known just from Codex Argenteus, a very debatable writing dated (dont know on which basis) in VI century AD (so couple centuries after Goths leaved Dacia)

No, this is also lie. Gothic language is known from several documents, Codex Argentus being the most sizeable but only one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language
There is also a list of Gothic names preserved in Greco-Roman literature, all of which are Germanic. The fact that the Gothic language is a Germanic language is not debatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IndoEuropeanTree.svg

Gosh, what the heck are you talking about? Of course there was, Dacians or Getae is the same thing. Dacians was a part of Getae, same for Carpi or Costoboci. Like Athenians, Spartans and Thebans was Greeks, or Suebi, Marcomani, Cherusci, Franks and Alammani was Germanic.

I am talking about the fact that there were no more Getae around at the time the Goths appear than there were Scythians. The Dacians had been conquered by the Romans and the Costoboci had been conquered by the Hasding Vandals and their identity had disappeared. The Carpi still existed (like from the Skythian tribes Iazyges still existed) but they are menioned alonsgide the Goths, not amongst them.

Got/Gotes probably replace Get/Getos by a switch of letters, after Caracalla imposed a "damnatio memoriae" on his brother, Geta (singular for Getae, meaning the Getian). "Goths" appear right after Caracalla, sometimes called Getae sometimes called Goths.

Well, it is not often that one encounters an argument that is logically ridiculous, self-defeating and based on factually incorrect premises at the same time, but this one does manage to combine all of these.

Concerning the stupidity of that comment: the damnatio memoriae of Geta was by default completely ineffective, as not only was the name of Geta preserved in history, but it is due to one of the very authors who recorded the name and deeds of Geta that we know of Caracalla damning his brothers memory, and this author was a contemporary for crying out loud. That author is Cassius Dio by the way.

Conerning the self-defeating capacity of that comment: The name of Getae was not erased from history either, as you yourself acknoweldge, and it features in many subsequent accounts, so the point that you are trying to make that the term Goths arose as an alternative ethnonym for the Getae, because the name Getae was prohibited from being uttered due to Geta's damnatio memoriae falls flat on its arse, since the word Getae, like Geta, was freely used througout the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, 6th centuries.

Concerning the terrible inaccuracy of your premises: The occurence of the term Goth in Latin is on an inscription from Arabia dating to the reign of Septimius Severus (in 208 to be precise), the father of Geta and Caracalla, so long before Geta was murdered and condemned posthumously. The text in question mentions a unit of auxiliaries that are part of the garisson and on even on its own puts the nail in the coffin of this laughable argument.
For the shake of complecity, however, it should be noted that in Greek historiography, the term Goths does not appear right after Caracalla, but probably 50 years after Caracalla's death in the account of Dexippus, if it's there that Zosimus picks it up (if not then it appears at an even later date). In fact, Dexippus uses the terms Scythians to describe's Rome's enemies and even titles his work "Skythika", but Zosimus, believed to be follwoing Dexippus' account, identifies four constituent elements of the "Skythai" that invade the empire in 253-259: Borani, Goths, Carpi and Ourougoundioi (Greek for Burgundians). Note how the Carpi are refered to as a distinct group.

I am not sure what they contradict?

Your assertion that the Goths were 'mostly Dacian/Getae'.

As we can see, the real threat was when Romans had big internal problems and even then wasnt a mortal threat or something that can't be resolved.

Indeed, but they were more of a threat and a challenge than any other tribe, nation or kingdom ever was to the Romans between the Punic wars and the rise of the Sassanids.

And dont tell me about Goths, as they was a Daco-Sarmato-Germano-Roman conglomerate (in that order), not a single Germanic people

I know you would love that to be true, but you have posted this bs in a million different theads and you have been proven wrong every time.

@ Diegis is it not a bit unlogical to see the Parthian Campaign as a victory, after they gained nothing and Parthia itself was in civil war, but to see Germanic Victories as less valuable because the Romans had civil war at this time?

To really count who was defeated and who not you have to research the war goals. Parthia never attempt to conquer rome and just and even that is not clear once they started the war. In that case their war goal was never to conquer rome. Romes war goal was to conquer Parthia, which they failed. So they were defeated. It is quite the same Scenario in the Germanic Wars. Germanic Tribes never wanted to conquer Rome.

That's because nor the Germanics neither Parthia could not hope to conquer the Roman empire. The latter learned the hard way that they couldn't even dream of occupying Syria and some tribes of the former tried to settle in Gaul a couple of times and each time were either ejected or annihilated. Rome withdraw from Germania and Parthia, because they re-evaluated their objectives, not because they failed or would have failed in achieving them. They would have been defeated if they had been forcefully pushed back, which did not happen. What happened is that they decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and turned back, and that's not being defeated. Their armies remained intact and their geopolitical position dominant. And even if we accept that they lost these particular wars, they still had the capability raid their opponents lands, sack their settlements and be heavily involved in their politics, whereas their opponents did not, so how does that make who were subject to these humiliations winners?

[The Great Consul]

That was a good video, thanks OP. Too bad the thread turns into stupid argumentative ******** like always. OMG who defeated Rome the biggest!? Greeks were cooler! Germania was a nation but not really a nation!

[Cyclops]

Lol Germans defeated Rome like a hyena defeats a carcass.

Fascinating idea that the Goths were Getae, have not heard that.

AFAIK the Gothic language is a Germanic language and in no way related to the Thrakian language groups, aside from the most general level (PIE-descended). Perhaps the ruling elite were Germanic (Gothic did become a written language and a vehicle for christianity) so it was definitely the language of the Gothic elite. and forced the language on the ruled masses?

In Russia the ruling elite adopted the local language, ditto England. Why would Thrakians forsake their long established culture and language? They must've been severely smashed to surrender their identity so unanimously (like the Britons who vanish from view in Britain).

Also not sure if Thakians and Dacians are identical? Adjacent yes, but so are Poles and Russians so thats no argument. Not sure but IIRC theres a number of distinct material cultures in the Balkans right through the Iron Age?

[diegis]

What they reject is the 19th century interpretation of the Voelkerwanderung of distinct ethnic groups in coherently organised political structures setting off from Scandinavia and following pointy arrows on the map.
Migratory waves from Scandinavia to east Pomerania and from there to Ukraine and the Black sea hypotethised on the basis of archaeologically identifiable replacement of the Oskywie culture by the Wilebalk culture first and the formation of the Chernyakov culture later on appear to be in line with Jordanes' narrative and fit well with the linguistic analysis of the Gothic language, and are therefore the most solid theory for the origin of the Goths.

What you say its exactly the 19th century interpretation with few XX century adings. I am talking about more modern (meaning XXI century) interpretations.
Like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernya...re#Ethogenesis

<<Today, scholars recognize the Chernyakov zone as representing a cultural interaction of a diversity of peoples, but predominantly those who already existed in the region,^[13] whether it be the Sarmatians,^[14] or the Getae-Dacians (some authors espouse the view that the Getae-Dacians played the leading role in the creation of the Culture).^[15] >>

<<However, Guy Halsall challenges some of Heather's conclusions. He sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap...........................Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (i.e., the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Allemani or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier".^[20]>>

Look here too

http://books.google.ro/books?id=dM3k...page&q&f=false

No, this is a lie. There are no more elements of Dacian culture in Chernyakov culture than they are of Wielbalk and it is the later that differentiate it. Furthermore, its formation coincides with a decrease in the number of settlements in the heartlands of Wielbalk, suggesting a significant population movement and the newcomers playing the major role in its creation.

Big words from someone who seem to know little about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernya...re#Settlements

<<Pottery was predominantly of local production, being both wheel and hand-made. Wheel made pottery predominated, and was made of finer clay>>

Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 (2007) (I found this quotes somewhere)

<<Halsall 2007, pp. 132-3: The Černjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. >>

<<Halsall 2006, p. 279: In his excellent Goths and Romans, Peter Heather demolished the idea that the Getica's picture of Gothic history could be projected further back than about 376 for the late Visigoths, or beyond the break-up of the Hunnic Empire for the Ostrogoths. However, Heather seems to have retreated slightly from his earlier position. Partly this is because he wishes to show that archaeology might indeed prove that Jordanes was right to trace Gothic origins to the Baltic. [...] His analyses irreparably damaged the Geticas value for Gothic 'prehistory' yet, to reinstate the Gothic migration from the Baltic, he has to accept the value of at least a kernel of Jordanes' account; he accepts this on the basis of a reading of archaeological data which is itself driven by the uncritical 'pre-Heatherian' interpretation of Jordanes. The problem, as with many readings of late antique Origines Gentium is the 'pick and mix' approach. The Getica contains all sorts of nonsense about Amazones, Goths at Troy, borrowings and manipulations of classical sources about the earlier Getae and so on. It is illogical to weed out these episodes for rejection, while accepting other clearly mythical elements, many similarly deriving from classical ethnography, as Heather acknowlegdes.>>

<<Halsall 2006, p. 281: The movement of artefacts is interpreted in line with apriori notions drawn from Jordanes (for which see above). Thus the spread of artefacts up the Vistula (i.e. in the 'right' direction) is used as proof of migration, the movement of Černjachov artefacts from the Ukraine to the Baltic (i.e. in the 'wrong' direction) is presented as evidence of trade or exchange. [...] Rightly, Heather queries previous attempts to make 'precise ethnic attributions on the basis of individual artefacts'. Yet that is exactly his own approach. Grave 36 at Leţcani is 'presumably Gothic' because of a pot with a runic inscription in spite of the presence of other artefacts of quite different, Danubian origin. Why one pot with runes outweighs four Danubian wheel-turned pots is unclear. This is, though, an example of precise ethnic ascription being made on the basis of an individual artefact.>>

Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the history of the Goths: studies in a migration myth (2002)

<<Christensen 2002, p. 349: When confronting a text such as the Getica, and when we are able to conclude that it is not what it purports to be - namely a history of the Goths - we naturally find our options reduced to a single logical course of action: we must reject the text as a source of Gothic history. [...] Today we are able to conclude that this narrative is fictitious, a fabrication in which the omnipotent author himself has created both the framework and the context of the story.>>

This argument could have some merit if Greco-Roman authors showed any consistency in the veracity of their ethnological descriptions instead of seeing historiography as an opportunity of flaunting their erudition through the use of archaising ethnonyms and antiquarian words. And, besides, who described any of the Germanic tribes of featuring inthe days of the later empire as Germanic? Show me a reference whereby, say, the Burgundians are described as Germanic.

Ah, cherry picking at its best haha. Are you realize that you do the same thing (in worse ways) as you accused me?
So now all ancient authors are idiots and a tribe from Germania need to be named as Germanic ?

No, this is also lie. Gothic language is known from several documents, Codex Argentus being the most sizeable but only one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language
There is also a list of Gothic names preserved in Greco-Roman literature, all of which are Germanic. The fact that the Gothic language is a Germanic language is not debatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IndoEuropeanTree.svg

Yes, is the oldest and most sizeable, and the existance of the others (which have few pages with an even more unclear period to date and some overwrited with other texts on them) doesnt change much of what I say, there is no solid evidence that any of those texts have a relation with Ulfila bible, or that they didnt belong to some Germanic people like Longobards or such. Especially as in 6-7th century AD Goths was pretty much Romanized and used Latin

I am talking about the fact that there were no more Getae around at the time the Goths appear than there were Scythians. The Dacians had been conquered by the Romans and the Costoboci had been conquered by the Hasding Vandals and their identity had disappeared. The Carpi still existed (like from the Skythian tribes Iazyges still existed) but they are menioned alonsgide the Goths, not amongst them.

Gosh, thats just idiotic, no offence. Getae are the same people as Dacians, those names are interchangeable. And obviously Dacians was around at that time when suddenly and out of nowhere the people and name "Goth" pop up. But there was few tribes or politic entities belonging to Getae/Dacians (as I said, similar with Suebii, Franks and Alammani, or Thebans, Spartans and Athenians etc).
Not all Dacians was conquered by Romans, just half of Decebalus kingdom, which even didnt comprised all Dacians. We have Dacians mentioned up toward Baltic Sea by Agrippa and Ptolemy and we have even archeological findings confirming their presence there (I posted an article of some Polish historians somewhere here, but we have some Danish and Romanian historians too, as Parvan and Schutte)

Well, it is not often that one encounters an argument that is logically ridiculous, self-defeating and based on factually incorrect premises at the same time, but this one does manage to combine all of these.

Concerning the stupidity of that comment: the damnatio memoriae of Geta was by default completely ineffective, as not only was the name of Geta preserved in history, but it is due to one of the very authors who recorded the name and deeds of Geta that we know of Caracalla damning his brothers memory, and this author was a contemporary for crying out loud. That author is Cassius Dio by the way.

Conerning the self-defeating capacity of that comment: The name of Getae was not erased from history either, as you yourself acknoweldge, and it features in many subsequent accounts, so the point that you are trying to make that the term Goths arose as an alternative ethnonym for the Getae, because the name Getae was prohibited from being uttered due to Geta's damnatio memoriae falls flat on its arse, since the word Getae, like Geta, was freely used througout the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, 6th centuries.

Concerning the terrible inaccuracy of your premises: The occurence of the term Goth in Latin is on an inscription from Arabia dating to the reign of Septimius Severus (in 208 to be precise), the father of Geta and Caracalla, so long before Geta was murdered and condemned posthumously. The text in question mentions a unit of auxiliaries that are part of the garisson and on even on its own puts the nail in the coffin of this laughable argument.
For the shake of complecity, however, it should be noted that in Greek historiography, the term Goths does not appear right after Caracalla, but probably 50 years after Caracalla's death in the account of Dexippus, if it's there that Zosimus picks it up (if not then it appears at an even later date). In fact, Dexippus uses the terms Scythians to describe's Rome's enemies and even titles his work "Skythika", but Zosimus, believed to be follwoing Dexippus' account, identifies four constituent elements of the "Skythai" that invade the empire in 253-259: Borani, Goths, Carpi and Ourougoundioi (Greek for Burgundians). Note how the Carpi are refered to as a distinct group.

Lots of irritated blabla from you. The "damnation memoriae" obviously didnt worked 100% but is not impossible to work partially and produce that change in names. Then those names was used interchangeable in time

Your assertion that the Goths were 'mostly Dacian/Getae'.

Well, at least I came with evidences for that

Indeed, but they were more of a threat and a challenge than any other tribe, nation or kingdom ever was to the Romans between the Punic wars and the rise of the Sassanids.

sure buddy, if it makes you sleep better at night

I know you would love that to be true, but you have posted this bs in a million different theads and you have been proven wrong every time.

I dont think so, but well, see above

[diegis]

@ Diegis is it not a bit unlogical to see the Parthian Campaign as a victory, after they gained nothing and Parthia itself was in civil war, but to see Germanic Victories as less valuable because the Romans had civil war at this time?

To really count who was defeated and who not you have to research the war goals. Parthia never attempt to conquer rome and just and even that is not clear once they started the war. In that case their war goal was never to conquer rome. Romes war goal was to conquer Parthia, which they failed. So they were defeated. It is quite the same Scenario in the Germanic Wars. Germanic Tribes never wanted to conquer Rome.

Well, there wasnt just one Parthian campaign, and among those we can say that just Trajan really intended to conquer all Parthia, in imperial era. You can add Crassus, but that was more like a personal campaign that a Roman state effort.
Caesar wanted too, probably after Dacia, but he was killed right before to start those campaigns

Usually Romans just wanted to make clear who's the boss in Orient, and sometime do it for glory and sacking the wealth of Parthians/Sassanids

About Germanic victories, I dont want to deny them, such as one from Arausio (I dont know why is less discussed then Teutoborg) was quite a spectacular one (well, then was still Republican Rome and Roman army and its comand wasnt the best at that moment).
I just said that such victories was exceptions and was rare (and usually take profit of Roman internal problems) and didnt actually defeat Rome, as Rome achieved its goals at the end.

We can say that Germans outlived Rome by the fact they was positioned in an area less important for Romans (as rich resources or some strategic importance), and from the fact they didnt pose a real threat to Rome when Rome was strong enough to crush them.

I do think however that Germans was an important foe, stronger then Celts after the Rome start to rise, but to say that they defeated Rome is wrong. Rome was defeated mostly by its internal problem, as any empire it started to fall at some point. German tribes just filled the void as someone said, or hurried up the process sometimes, they wasnt the reason for that.
Even when they start to have succes, they did it because was partially Romanized thru Germans who fought in Roman army. Germans adopted Roman religion (Christianity) and language of cult (Latin), some became fully Romanized and some even take the Roman name (see Holly Roman Empire, even if I know the words that it wasnt either holly, roman or empire)

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Well, there wasnt just one Parthian campaign, and among those we can say that just Trajan really intended to conquer all Parthia, in imperial era. You can add Crassus, but that was more like a personal campaign that a Roman state effort.
Caesar wanted too, probably after Dacia, but he was killed right before to start those campaigns

Usually Romans just wanted to make clear who's the boss in Orient, and sometime do it for glory and sacking the wealth of Parthians/Sassanids

About Germanic victories, I dont want to deny them, such as one from Arausio (I dont know why is less discussed then Teutoborg) was quite a spectacular one (well, then was still Republican Rome and Roman army and its comand wasnt the best at that moment).
I just said that such victories was exceptions and was rare (and usually take profit of Roman internal problems) and didnt actually defeat Rome, as Rome achieved its goals at the end.

We can say that Germans outlived Rome by the fact they was positioned in an area less important for Romans (as rich resources or some strategic importance), and from the fact they didnt pose a real threat to Rome when Rome was strong enough to crush them.

I do think however that Germans was an important foe, stronger then Celts after the Rome start to rise, but to say that they defeated Rome is wrong. Rome was defeated mostly by its internal problem, as any empire it started to fall at some point. German tribes just filled the void as someone said, or hurried up the process sometimes, they wasnt the reason for that.
Even when they start to have succes, they did it because was partially Romanized thru Germans who fought in Roman army. Germans adopted Roman religion (Christianity) and language of cult (Latin), some became fully Romanized and some even take the Roman name (see Holly Roman Empire, even if I know the words that it wasnt either holly, roman or empire)

The Romans clearly wanted to conquere the Parthian Empire entirely. Whoever claim something else is wrong. There is a motiv you can see by many Roman Generals, the so called "imitatio Alexandri". Nero wanted to do it with a Macedonian Phalanx and so he raised a Corps of over 10000 Man in the old Style, Caracalle did the same with 16000 man. Traian showed the same intentions on medaillions and statements. I can show you examples for a douzend other Roman Generals if you like.

The Parthians tried to Conquer Syria after Crassus Defeat. After that it seems to be never been the goal again. For the roman Campaigns in Parthia. The Romans never fought the Parthian Royal Army, because allways when they invaded the Royal Army was fighting in inner Iran in Civil War. Pillaging Cities is offcourse glorius... They could never Conquer Hatra and even if they made the Province Mesopotamia, it was basicly only Desert and the Cities in it like Hatra was still under Parthian rule.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Rome could have conquered Germany if it wanted. But there was no wealth there to make it worth it. Infinitely better to have a strong frontier along natural boundaries with friendly states on the immediate border.

[athanaric]

Don't see what is the purpose of this thread really. Germania is an exonym and it wasn't a nation, unlike Germany. Maybe the Cherusci were a sort of natio in the Roman sense. Et cetera.

Got/Gotes probably replace Get/Getos by a switch of letters, after Caracalla imposed a "damnatio memoriae" on his brother, Geta (singular for Getae, meaning the Getian). "Goths" appear right after Caracalla, sometimes called Getae sometimes called Goths.

Scientific method at its best

Lol Germans defeated Rome like a hyena defeats a carcass.

Hyenas are rather successful hunters as well. More to the point, I don't think we should make such strong statements.

Fascinating idea that the Goths were Getae, have not heard that.

Because it's BS, like so many Dacian-related theories that are floating around on these forums. Some people want you to believe that Germanics and Iranians were Dacian in origin, using propaganda books and mis-interpreting ancient sources.

In Russia the ruling elite adopted the local language, ditto England. Why would Thrakians forsake their long established culture and language? They must've been severely smashed to surrender their identity so unanimously (like the Britons who vanish from view in Britain).

That argument is actually a double-edged sword, as we say in Germany. Because in places like Hungary or Mexico, the local people actually adopted the language of the ruling elite. That doesn't say anything about Goths though, just that there are different possible outcomes of such situations.

The Romans clearly wanted to conquere the Parthian Empire entirely. Whoever claim something else is wrong. There is a motiv you can see by many Roman Generals, the so called "imitatio Alexandri". Nero wanted to do it with a Macedonian Phalanx and so he raised a Corps of over 10000 Man in the old Style, Caracalle did the same with 16000 man. Traian showed the same intentions on medaillions and statements. I can show you examples for a douzend other Roman Generals if you like.

And somehow they tended to get shafted by their own men on those expedition (except Traian). Maybe some other Romans weren't too keen on conquering the Parthian Empire

For the roman Campaigns in Parthia. The Romans never fought the Parthian Royal Army, because allways when they invaded the Royal Army was fighting in inner Iran in Civil War. Pillaging Cities is offcourse glorius... They could never Conquer Hatra and even if they made the Province Mesopotamia, it was basicly only Desert and the Cities in it like Hatra was still under Parthian rule.

And Parthia was under pressure from the E and NE, similar pressure to what the Romans had to endure, while the latter had more resources. Ah well, I guess some people need to jack off to the glory of an empire which is long gone.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Rome could have conquered Germany if it wanted. But there was no wealth there to make it worth it. Infinitely better to have a strong frontier along natural boundaries with friendly states on the immediate border.

Dear Ferret, i fear to argue against you, because i so often the same opinion and you have the status as best debater of the year but i have to refer to the arguments before which show that Rome showed strong intentions to Conquer Germania Magna, like the cities, villages and farms they build in the area. Specially the example of a completly city with civil status is unique for that time, normally you would expect military settlements of veterans.

Also if they had conqueres Germania to the Elbe they had a much shorter Boarder than with they had with the Rhine to the Danube.

[athanaric]

Dear Ferret, i fear to argue against you, because i so often the same opinion and you have the status as best debater of the year but i have to refer to the arguments before which show that Rome showed strong intentions to Conquer Germania Magna, like the cities, villages and farms they build in the area. Specially the example of a completly city with civil status is unique for that time, normally you would expect military settlements of veterans.

It could be though that they were trying an "acculturation" approach instead of an organized campaign of conquest, i.e. using settlements such as Waldgirmes to convince the natives of the superiority of the Roman way of life, while simultaneously reserving the right to stage punitive raids against tribes that caused trouble. After all, Romanization worked pretty well for some time in the Germanic provinces left of the Rhine, at least for some time.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It could be though that they were trying an "acculturation" approach instead of an organized campaign of conquest, i.e. using settlements such as Waldgirmes to convince the natives of the superiority of the Roman way of life, while simultaneously reserving the right to stage punitive raids against tribes that caused trouble. After all, Romanization worked pretty well for some time in the Germanic provinces left of the Rhine, at least for some time.

Yes that can be said in this way. One reason was simply because there was no larger authority the romans could trade with or conquer. Still there is the attempt to see the region as a new province. The civil settlements were organized and payed by the state, which can be seen in the statues of Imperial Family in Waldgirmes. Tacitus said that Taxation was the reason why the Germanic Tribes fought against the Romans. I think there were other reasons as well, but after they formed a alliance which could be defeated by an roman Army, the situation had changed and the number of Legions they used in the Germanicus Campaigns are equal to Caesars conquest of Gaul. If they would wanted just a campaign of vengence they would have done it one seasons, maybe two, but not for several years, with expansive investments.

I can understand that people could see it in another way, but as more archaeoligical sites behind the Roman Limes i saw, the more i saw the attempt of the romans to really conquer Germania Magna.

Often forgotten is that the Germanic Provinces had not allways the same size. After Teutoburg the Roman retreated behind the Rhine. In this time you have no settlements on the right side. In the time after Arminius death they resettled a strip of a douzend kilometers east of the rhine and in the time of Domitian they first reached their maximum to the east around 40 Kilometers in to modern southwest Germany.
In the end of the 2./begin of the 3th century they abbondend all settlements east of the Rhine again, only a few Military Camps were left but they used just a single Tower of the Camp because they lacked the manpower. Assumed reason are that the Legions were gone and fighting in the east and that the population was reduced by deseases. There are no archaeological proves for Germanic Attacks which is often made as reason of the 3th century crisis.

[Menelik_I]

Germania's a Nation?
In 9?

Same reaction for me, it is always amusing how people are quick to confuse the Geographical area name with Nations, it is embarrassing. Germania refers to to a geographical region in 9 AD, making a direct national claim based on current day Germany doesn't make sense unless you are Goebels in 1939 and running very low on imagination.

As for the defeat itself the point for Rome to retreat was that there wasn't much of anything of value beyond the Rhine anyway, otherwise they could put 100k men in a punitive expedition to recover the lost Eagles in double quicktime, also I don't see how occupying the geographical region known as Germania up to the Elbe would change the Dynamics of the later barbarian invasions.

[athanaric]

The Rhine does make a convenient border, especially in light of the fact that there are few other natural borders east of it, and in any case, Dacia was given up too, so Germania isn't a singular case. Seems the development potential of Germania libera wasn't worth the risk and expense of having to maintain an "open border" from a Roman PoV.

[...] Goebels in 1939 [...]

It's Goebbels. [/Grammar Nazi mode]

[removeduser_487563287433]

Dear Ferret, i fear to argue against you, because i so often the same opinion and you have the status as best debater of the year but i have to refer to the arguments before which show that Rome showed strong intentions to Conquer Germania Magna, like the cities, villages and farms they build in the area. Specially the example of a completly city with civil status is unique for that time, normally you would expect military settlements of veterans.

Also if they had conqueres Germania to the Elbe they had a much shorter Boarder than with they had with the Rhine to the Danube.

This is one period against a period of centuries, however. The Romans limited their military activity to keeping the polities on the other side of the border friendly to Rome. These polities fought the people in the hinterland for the Romans, and provided the Roman garrisons with their supplies - both profited out of the arrangement. Rome never sought to upset this arrangement.