Germania: the Nation that Defeated Rome

[Cyclops]

Don't see what is the purpose of this thread really.

Actually you're right.

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

Nice riposte as I was sorta flaming the Das Reich school of racial history and it seems thats not whats being proposed.

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.

Yeah sorry stuff, there's people like that everywhere. I have seen Irish books claiming the Irish saved christianity and western civilisation (apparently they restocked Konstantinoplis with priests and books ). JKust spotted an American book claiming Phoenician and Roman sites in Tennessee and Los Angeles or some gumf.

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.

When the elite language conferes status as well as giving access to amazing tech, culture and resources there's a good reason for adoption. The tech/social organisation gap between Aztecs etc and Spaniards was colossal, those guys were stone age. In Hungary the political apparatus of control was only perfected in the 19th century, so thats state applied language control (same in France, Great Britain, Italy). IIRC ther langauge map of Hungary was a lot more complicated 200 years ago than it is now, is that right?

In a pre-modern socciety the language that gives access to resources and status is (IMHO) the one that will dominate. I belive Frisian and later Norse gave people in Britain access to European trade nets so those languages dominated despite the more literate Kelti/post Roman societies on the Isles. In Merovingian/Carolingian France/Italy/Spain the fruits of ZLatin culture were richer so the elites went Latinate.

I can't see why and Iranian/Thrakian horde would adopt German, unless the elite were German with absolute political control and access to status and wealth. To my mind that suggests the Goths were definitely a Gemran ruled horde whatever the composition (like the Mongols). No doubt they had a slav-speaking element as well, picked up along the way.

I do take your point, linguistics is a fuzzy (though brilliant fadscinating and rewarding) science and tells you nothing about the blood or politics of the speaker in and of itself.

[Calypze]

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

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

From what I understand the Germanic tribes were separated and often hostile to each other, but they had a sense of shared ancestry and culture, pretty much like the Greek city-states of the classical age (who were constantly at each others' throats).

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

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.

Well the Elbe would be another good border which is one reason why they wanted the river as the border before Teutoburg, maybe further under Germanicus. In that case you had a shorter conection to the Danube Limes and for a Expansion in to Dacia you had the Carpates from Bohemia till Dacia as natural Border.

[diegis]

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

Just that in our case here hyena occupyed the teritory of a dying lion, didnt hunt much of anything.

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.

Riiiight, so lets contortion what other people said and then go back to old history and Jordanes fairytale about inumerable people coming from the spring of the nations that was Scandza (even today Scandinavia have the smaller number of inhabitants per square kilometer in Europe) and spread all over like swarms of bees.
Good God

Fortunately quite few modern historians (like those I quoted) moved on on more solid ground and proves and rejected that theory

[Frostwulf]

I have no doubt Rome could have conquered Germania(or most of it anyway) as they had the men and the resources to do it. Germania was also richer in resources then the Romans either knew or didn't really consider. Regardless the Romans didn't conquer Germania because the resources from the land were not worth the effort and cost of men and resources to take.
Some on this forum tend to think the Romans would just walk in and have no problems in the defeat of the "Germans". It is certainly true that Tiberius/Drusus/Germanicus did walk through Germania(big parts of it) but it was not without its cost. About the only time you see battles is after the Romans had gone through a territory and then a/some tribe(s) would attack the Romans on the return trip. It was not a Roman steamroller as some tend to think:

Tacitus's accounts of the Roman victories in the campaigns of A.D. 15 and 16 must be read with caution and with skepticism, because in the next year, Tiberius decided to give up the attempt to subdue the Germans and recalled Germanicus Rome. The reason for these decisions must have lain in the Germans' tough resistance. Even with the enormous strength of eight legions, Germanicus and his army were unable to thwart the indigenous peoples' military resistance.The effort Rome expended on the campaigns was vastly out of proportion to any conceivable gain from acquiring this new territory. As many texts, including those by Tacitus, indicate, the Romans regarded Germany as a wild territory of endless forests and forbidding swamps, without the wealth of resources that Gaul had to offer. pg. 206-207

In the event, Tiberius' misgivings were completely vindicated; despite Germanicus' obvious conviction that success could be won at no great cost, little was achieved, and losses were incurred both at the hands of the enemy and as a result of atrocious weather conditions. Further, conditions were so unpredictable that one of Germanicus' battle-groups very nearly suffered the same fate as that of Varus six years previously - and at the hands of the same enemy, Arminius, chief of the Cherusci tribe. pg.36

Germanicus, for example, refused to heed Tiberius' advice that events had shown German campaigning to be costly in effort and manpower and low in results. pg. 37

During this time frame most of the "Germanic" tribes going up against the Romans would almost certainly face a defeat, but once again it was not without loss of men for the Romans.

Tacitus’ account shows on the one hand that the Romans were not concerned about securing permanent possessions in Germany, and on the other that with but one exception the Romans were victorious throughout the conflict. Pg.34

The overall situation as presented by Tacitus:

In the same winding tract of Germany live the Cimbrians, close to the ocean; a community now very small, but great in fame. Nay, of their ancient renown, many and extensive are the traces and monuments still remaining; even their entrenchments upon either shore, so vast in compass that from thence you may even now measure the greatness and numerous bands of that people, and assent to the account of an army so mighty. It was on the six hundred and fortieth year of Rome, when of the arms of the Cimbrians the first mention was made, during the Consulship of Caecilius Metellus and Papirius Carbo. If from that time we count to the second Consulship of the Emperor Trajan, the interval comprehends near two hundred and ten years; so long have we been conquering Germany. In a course of time, so vast between these two periods, many have been the blows and disasters suffered on each side. In truth neither from the Samnites, nor from the Carthaginians, nor from both Spains, nor from all the nations of Gaul, have we received more frequent checks and alarms; nor even from the Parthians: for, more vigorous and invincible is the liberty of the Germans than the monarchy of the Arsacides. Indeed, what has the power of the East to allege to our dishonour; but the fall of Crassus, that power which was itself overthrown and abased by Ventidius, with the loss of the great King Pacorus bereft of his life? But by the Germans the Roman People have been bereft of five armies, all commanded by Consuls; by the Germans, the commanders of these armies, Carbo, and Cassius, and Scaurus Aurelius, and Servilius Caepio, as also Marcus Manlius, were all routed or taken: by the Germans even the Emperor Augustus was bereft of Varus and three legions. Nor without difficulty and loss of men were they defeated by Caius Marius in Italy, or by the deified Julius in Gaul, or by Drusus or Tiberius or Germanicus in their native territories. Soon after, the mighty menaces of Caligula against them ended in mockery and derision. Thenceforward they continued quiet, till taking advantage of our domestic division and civil wars, they stormed and seized the winter entrenchments of the legions, and aimed at the dominion of Gaul; from whence they were once more expulsed, and in the times preceding the present, we gained a triumph over them rather than a victory.

Not exactly a walk in the park as some would suggest.

[Frostwulf]

<<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.>>

Originally Posted by Timoleon of Korinthos
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 ?

Well considering that Halsall believes that the Goths actually came from the Wielbark culture and that Christensen says that the "Goths=Getae" came from Jerome, how could this not considered to be "cherry picking". You are choosing the parts that suit your belief and discard that which is directly in conflict with your Getae=Goth belief.
I already explained Drinkwater's book to you in another thread and why he said that the "Germans" were not a threat, you of course take it to a level that the author did not mean.

I'm not going to get into another back and forth Goth debate with you, but there is only one question I would like you to answer. Can you produce one historian/archaeologist post 1950 that supports your theory that the Getae and the Goths are one and the same, or that the Dacians made up the majority of the Goths? I'm not talking about Palade or someone who talks about the creation of the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture, but someone who supports either the belief that the Goths and the Dacians are one and the same or that the majority of the Goths were Dacians.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I have no doubt Rome could have conquered Germania(or most of it anyway) as they had the men and the resources to do it. Germania was also richer in resources then the Romans either knew or didn't really consider. Regardless the Romans didn't conquer Germania because the resources from the land were not worth the effort and cost of men and resources to take.
Some on this forum tend to think the Romans would just walk in and have no problems in the defeat of the "Germans". It is certainly true that Tiberius/Drusus/Germanicus did walk through Germania(big parts of it) but it was not without its cost. About the only time you see battles is after the Romans had gone through a territory and then a/some tribe(s) would attack the Romans on the return trip. It was not a Roman steamroller as some tend to think:



During this time frame most of the "Germanic" tribes going up against the Romans would almost certainly face a defeat, but once again it was not without loss of men for the Romans.


The overall situation as presented by Tacitus:


Not exactly a walk in the park as some would suggest.

Thank you very much. That is pretty much the opinion of the german Profs i could hear about the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest and the Germanicus Campaigns. I didn't knew that British Historians wrote a source critique with the same opinions.

[athanaric]

Riiiight, so lets contortion what other people said and then go back to old history and Jordanes fairytale about inumerable people coming from the spring of the nations that was Scandza (even today Scandinavia have the smaller number of inhabitants per square kilometer in Europe) and spread all over like swarms of bees.
Good God

Fortunately quite few modern historians (like those I quoted) moved on on more solid ground and proves and rejected that theory

Actually, I think you mis-quoted them and inferred meanings that were never there to begin with. Just like you did with my post.

[diegis]

Well considering that Halsall believes that the Goths actually came from the Wielbark culture and that Christensen says that the "Goths=Getae" came from Jerome, how could this not considered to be "cherry picking". You are choosing the parts that suit your belief and discard that which is directly in conflict with your Getae=Goth belief.
I already explained Drinkwater's book to you in another thread and why he said that the "Germans" were not a threat, you of course take it to a level that the author did not mean.

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. 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".
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.
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.

I'm not going to get into another back and forth Goth debate with you, but there is only one question I would like you to answer. Can you produce one historian/archaeologist post 1950 that supports your theory that the Getae and the Goths are one and the same, or that the Dacians made up the majority of the Goths? I'm not talking about Palade or someone who talks about the creation of the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture, but someone who supports either the belief that the Goths and the Dacians are one and the same or that the majority of the Goths were Dacians.

No, dont go because I already know your opinion. Anyway, I dont get whats wrong with Palade, the most qualified to talk about the archeological finds of Santana culture? Is that he doesnt back up your opinions or what?
See above the quote from Halsall, there is Kulikowski as well, and others.
Before them (or Palade) the things was interpreted like this. When an artefact with some runs on it (or of a different style) was found among those of Dacian (also called Danubian or La Tene in some studies) it was imediatly said "look, those people was Germanic Goths", despite it was exceptions in a sea of Dacian artefacts, pottery ceramic etc.
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
However there is no proof for that and was never proved for real (the Scandza migration I mean).
Those authors (Halsall, Christensen, Kulikowski etc) reject it plain and simple.

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.

This discussion was done back and forth before, and I already know that couple centuries of propaganda are not easily overcome so I assume is useless to post more info.

About Germans, it was posted on this site (I dont bother to search now) few articles about the discovery of some battlefield in northern Germany, dated in III-rd century AD.
It was a battle between a Roman army (probably during the expeditions of Maximinus Trax to Elbe) and Germanic tribes. Romans won according to archeologists, and there was some German historians who pointed out that Rome wasnt that interested to transform the teritories far from Rhine in a province, and the Germanic tribes wasnt a threat for Rome.
Romans ruled by appointing tribal client kings and sending expeditions when was needed.

I am not saying that Germans didnt resisted or wasnt valuable warriors. Is just that Rome wasnt either too interested in conquering them, as there wasnt any valuable assets there, nothing that important to really count for the empire (no gold, no rich agriculture lands, no strategic position). And that was what "save" them, more then any military resistance. Romans take as province lands (forming Germania provinces) just what they considered whorty and ruled the others area by client kings, trade influence and raids and expeditions because the benefits to make those lands in a proper province was too small compared with the costs (for roads, cities, aqueducts, making place for agriculture, keeping troops for control etc)
If you will switch Germans with Gauls, I am pretty sure they will have the same fate as the Celts, as Gallia was a worthy trophy and attracted much more the Roman interest

[Frostwulf]

@diegis
I am skipping everything you wrote, just so you can concentrate on this one question. Please read what I am saying and try to understand it so you can respond to it.
You are saying that the Goths and Getae are one and the same, Goths=Getae, or you may be saying that the Goths are mostly Dacians. What I'm asking is what post 1950 professional historian/archaeologist supports this view that the Goths and the Getae are one and the same or that the Goths are mostly Dacians?

Im going to help you out with eliminating some of the ones you named.

Kulikowski never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same.

Palade never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same. He did say the Dacians "played a leading role in the creation of the Culture", but this is different the claiming the Goths were the same as the Getae or that the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians. Having a lead role in the make up of this culture is certainly different then actually being a Goth, the Ubii and La Tene culture is a good view of this. Not to forget as you know of Wheeler and him talking of a Dacian culture next to the Sintana de Mures/Cernajachove Culture, and also after the departure of the Goths the Sintana de Mures/Cernajachove Culture continued on for awhile.

Halsall never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same.

So once again I'll ask you, who makes the claim that the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths are the same as the Getae?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

About Germans, it was posted on this site (I dont bother to search now) few articles about the discovery of some battlefield in northern Germany, dated in III-rd century AD.
It was a battle between a Roman army (probably during the expeditions of Maximinus Trax to Elbe) and Germanic tribes. Romans won according to archeologists, and there was some German historians who pointed out that Rome wasnt that interested to transform the teritories far from Rhine in a province, and the Germanic tribes wasnt a threat for Rome.
Romans ruled by appointing tribal client kings and sending expeditions when was needed.

The battle you write about is the Battle at the Harzhorn or Kalefeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_the_Harzhorn the english article is very old and miss some important facts. The most important thing about the battle is that Roman Troops could do Campaigns in to deep Germania Magna in the 3th century. This is an interesting fact, but in the same way they had no longer any civil settlements right of the rhine and the Limes was left.

As for the battle. The actual German research tell us that a Roman Corps between 1000 and 8000 Man was marching back in to the roman Empire, come from the north. They found the hill of the Harzhorn full of Germanic Warriors and started an Attack which failed. After that they started a second attack with Scorpions or similar smaller Catapults. This time they could break the Germanic defenses and they could march home. Still it was not a glorious victory. The large number of Roman artifacts centred on smaller areas and the finds of waggons, transport animals and supplies, show us that they brock trough under heavy looses and the loose of their baggage.

In this case it was only a Victory for a short time, because they feared their chasers enough to give up the baggage and the man protecting them.

The theories for the background of the battle are still work in progress, but the one i know of is, that the Emperor who initiated the Campaign wanted to gain Reputation in a Campaign against some Germanic Tribes.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yet another thread hijacked by Romanians trying to force more absurd Romanian origin theories.

[diegis]

@diegis I am skipping everything you wrote,

Not a surprise, this is a tactic too, avoiding the hard points

just so you can concentrate on this one question. Please read what I am saying and try to understand it so you can respond to it. You are saying that the Goths and Getae are one and the same, Goths=Getae, or you may be saying that the Goths are mostly Dacians. What I'm asking is what post 1950 professional historian/archaeologist supports this view that the Goths and the Getae are one and the same or that the Goths are mostly Dacians? Im going to help you out with eliminating some of the ones you named. Kulikowski never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same. Palade never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same. He did say the Dacians "played a leading role in the creation of the Culture", but this is different the claiming the Goths were the same as the Getae or that the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians. Having a lead role in the make up of this culture is certainly different then actually being a Goth, the Ubii and La Tene culture is a good view of this. Not to forget as you know of Wheeler and him talking of a Dacian culture next to the Sintana de Mures/Cernajachove Culture, and also after the departure of the Goths the Sintana de Mures/Cernajachove Culture continued on for awhile. Halsall never said the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths and the Getae are the same. So once again I'll ask you, who makes the claim that the Goths were made up of mostly Dacians or that the Goths are the same as the Getae?

Let me explain you more simple then. Those authors reject the Jordanes tale about the Scandza migration. They think the Goths are formed "in situ", on the teritory of Santana/Cerneahov culture, and as the Dacians was the main element in that area and the majority of artefacts are of Dacian (Danubian or Latene) origin so Dacians played the leading role in the formation of this new entity caled Goths To this Dacian group was added people and influences from others present there, Sarmatians, Daco-Romans from nearby Roman Dacia province and Germanic people (later even Romans from other provinces). This mix formed a super tribe similar with Franks or Alammani in west, but in this case the leading role was played by Dacians. They dont say directly, but indirectly they imply exactly this. Goths was a mixed population, formed on a Dacian base with addings of other people, and was formed in III-rd century AD. This is why ancient authors called them Getae because they wasnt quite fully Dacians, as they was mixed, but they do have a Dacian base so the name Getae is used instead, the older and broader name of Dacians and northern Thracians tribes. This is why ancient authors dont relate them with Germans either, unlike Bastarnae, a smaller tribe contemporan with them (and who probably was absorbed by this "Gothis" confederacy") and who is clearly named as of German stock (I think some author said they are similar in custom with Scordisci or something).

Yet another thread hijacked by Romanians trying to force more absurd Romanian origin theories.

Coming from someone with an almost inexistent knowledge of the ancient history of this area and who thought if I remember correct that Wellingotn was a better general then Napoleon this just make laugh

The battle you write about is the Battle at the Harzhorn or Kalefeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_the_Harzhorn the english article is very old and miss some important facts. The most important thing about the battle is that Roman Troops could do Campaigns in to deep Germania Magna in the 3th century. This is an interesting fact, but in the same way they had no longer any civil settlements right of the rhine and the Limes was left. .

Yes, thats was the battle I was talking about, thank you. And I dont deny the Germanic resistance, I just said that Romans wasnt really interested in conquering Germania up to Elbe (reasons was presented many times here, by several forumists), they take just what they considered is worthy or necessary for them. So we can't say that Germania is the nation that defeated Rome, thats just a sensationalist title to sell something

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Yes, thats was the battle I was talking about, thank you.
And I dont deny the Germanic resistance, I just said that Romans wasnt really interested in conquering Germania up to Elbe (reasons was presented many times here, by several forumists), they take just what they considered is worthy or necessary for them.
So we can't say that Germania is the nation that defeated Rome, thats just a sensationalist title to sell something

That really depends on the time. In the 3th centuy they had clearly no ambitions to conquer the lands, before Teutoburg and the Germanicus Campaigns, there are good arguments which back the idea that that wanted to conquer Germania Magna. I presented some of them to you. Under Domitian till the adoptive Emperors they started a second attempt and moved the border between 20 and 40 kilometers in to the east, just to loose everything right the rhine a few decades later.

I agree that the title is a bit populistic, but people use such titles to get attention to their ideas. Instead i would prefer the title: The germanic tribes, the people which stopped Rome.

[Calypze]

Riiiight, so lets contortion what other people said and then go back to old history and Jordanes fairytale about inumerable people coming from the spring of the nations that was Scandza (even today Scandinavia have the smaller number of inhabitants per square kilometer in Europe) and spread all over like swarms of bees.
Good God

Fortunately quite few modern historians (like those I quoted) moved on on more solid ground and proves and rejected that theory

You overlook that conquests in history very rarely resulted in extermination. As the Germanic tribes migrated from Scandinavia (probably due to climate change) and to mainland Europe they encountered other peoples who lived there. What would then happen is that the Germanic tribes would militarily defeat the other peoples and install themselves as an aristocratic ruling class. Over time (Germanic migration downwards in Europe took centuries) the defeated peoples would become Germanicized.

If you want a known example of such a process, look at the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England. The Anglo-Saxons didn't exterminate the Romano-British (75% of the ancestors of the British and Irish arrived between 15 000 and 7500 years ago), thet defeated them, imposed their own culture and made themselves the ruling class.

[Frostwulf]

Not a surprise, this is a tactic too, avoiding the hard points

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.

Let me explain you more simple then. Those authors reject the Jordanes tale about the Scandza migration. They think the Goths are formed "in situ", on the teritory of Santana/Cerneahov culture, and as the Dacians was the main element in that area and the majority of artefacts are of Dacian (Danubian or Latene) origin so Dacians played the leading role in the formation of this new entity caled Goths To this Dacian group was added people and influences from others present there, Sarmatians, Daco-Romans from nearby Roman Dacia province and Germanic people (later even Romans from other provinces). This mix formed a super tribe similar with Franks or Alammani in west, but in this case the leading role was played by Dacians. They dont say directly, but indirectly they imply exactly this. Goths was a mixed population, formed on a Dacian base with addings of other people, and was formed in III-rd century AD. This is why ancient authors called them Getae because they wasnt quite fully Dacians, as they was mixed, but they do have a Dacian base so the name Getae is used instead, the older and broader name of Dacians and northern Thracians tribes. This is why ancient authors dont relate them with Germans either, unlike Bastarnae, a smaller tribe contemporan with them (and who probably was absorbed by this "Gothis" confederacy") and who is clearly named as of German stock (I think some author said they are similar in custom with Scordisci or something).

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.

Language probably made a difference, and when Gothic was codified as a written religious language in the fourth century, the use of the Gothic bible will surely have identified its user as a Goth as well as a Christian. But languages can be acquired and many of the philologically Germanic languages spoken in central Europe were mutually intelligible. Pg68

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?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Coming from someone with an almost inexistent knowledge of the ancient history of this area and who thought if I remember correct that Wellingotn was a better general then Napoleon this just make laugh

Your pseudo-historical theories have been repeatedly smashed. I don't understand why you still bother.

[SorelusImperion]

I agree that the title is a bit populistic, but people use such titles to get attention to their ideas. Instead i would prefer the title: The germanic tribes, the people which stopped Rome.

You want to know what stopped Rome ? Logistics and Persians.
The Germanic tribes were a factor in destroying a Roman Empire later on but they could hardly be called a "nation" and fought for the Romans and against other Germanic tribes just as much.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

You want to know what stopped Rome ? Logistics and Persians.
The Germanic tribes were a factor in destroying a Roman Empire later on but they could hardly be called a "nation" and fought for the Romans and against other Germanic tribes just as much.

First. That is the reason why i wrote Germanic Tribes. Second, the most tribes which were formally allied with the Roman stood against them at Teutoburg. Just Tribes like the Ubians which lived left of the Rhine were on the Roman side, out of obvious reasons. Second. True logistics were a big problem, but that is not the reason why they stopped the Conquest. In fact the Transportsystem was in many ways one of the best in the Roman Provinces. In few Provinces you have such a huge network of rivers and lakes than in Germania Magna and the Germanic Provinces.

[SorelusImperion]

First. That is the reason why i wrote Germanic Tribes. Second, the most tribes which were formally allied with the Roman stood against them at Teutoburg. Just Tribes like the Ubians which lived left of the Rhine were on the Roman side, out of obvious reasons. Second. True logistics were a big problem, but that is not the reason why they stopped the Conquest. In fact the Transportsystem was in many ways one of the best in the Roman Provinces. In few Provinces you have such a huge network of rivers and lakes than in Germania Magna and the Germanic Provinces.

Germania wasn't a primary target for the Romans. They never cared enough about this poor underdeveloped land to make an effort similar to what they invested into (trying) to conquer Persia. The defeat incflicted by Arminius and his allies pales in comparison to what the Romans send to and lost on the Persian front.