Thats what i tried to explain before. In the end it was not just one battle. Germanicus had much heavier looses in the campaigns which followed after Teutoburg.
There were no Dark Ages. Any serious Historian would tell you that. What happend was that the Culture changed an a biggest role in it was the Christianity, not Germanic "Barbarians". Italy was recovering under Eastern Goth rule. It was the Byzantine Empire which destroyed Italy in the end.
Last edited by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus; February 28, 2013 at 07:33 AM.
Proud to be a real Prussian.
Pyrrhus and Hannibal inflicted several defeats which threatened the very existence of Rome...
Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
"Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917
Unlike in Gaul, the bigger part of Britannia, Hispania, Greece, Africa, Syria, Egypt, Dacia etc. the Roman conquering of greater parts of the territory inhabited by Germanic tribes was prevented or better revised (because Rome had conquered it till 6 AD). Perhaps that is the difference the OP meant. It were not "the Germans" or a German nation, but the Cherusci, Bructeri, Usipetes, Chatti, Hattuarii, Tubantes, Angrivarii, Mattiaki and Landoudioi who defeated Rome. Other Germanic tribes had no problems to help the Romans at all.
You can add to such a "winner list" the Caledonian tribes and Parthia/the Sassanids.
Really ?
No loss of urban population, of administration, of long range exchange of goods, of teaching centers and educated people ?
The culture started to change before the germanic invasion, i agree, christianism played a huge role indeed, the society changed too, becoming more authoritarian and proto-feodal with the new "colon" statut akin to "serfs" and the power enjoyed by large landowners and tax farmers.
Anyway, saying there wasn't any "dark ages" for western europe following the loss of contol and the (long) fall of the western empire and what it represented as well as its elites, is a bit exagerated imo.
Last edited by Keyser; February 28, 2013 at 07:55 AM.
Yesterday I was in the archaeological museum of Frankfurt and noticed something quite interesting: the constant decrease of elegance depicted on pottery from Classical Greece to Roman times and up to Early Medieval period. While one cannot help but admire the beauty of Greek red-figured vases, Roman pottery was much uglier and I completely skip the Germanic pottery because there was nothing to see there XD
The Dark Ages are an undisputed fact but the social and cultural decline of the Roman Empire had started before the Germanic invasions.
Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
"Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917
Assess - Adapt - Attack
People attempt to speak about Dark Age because everything changed and that after the glorious Roman Empire it simply has to be worse living in many splitted cultures and realms. People also say that Inventions and cultural life became less and less, but only the way to find sources has changed. In the Roman Era you had one or two realms and an Ancient Text like from Plutarch or Polybios you could have found all over the Empire. In the "Dark Ages" you have allmost the same number of new textes, but you will find them only in a few Monasteries. Literature was allmost a Monopol of the Church at this time.
I have a problem with the Dark Age Term because many of the thinks of the "Dark Age" can be seen in other Empires. The old Persian and the Parthian Empire for example had a also a version of feudalism, they had a decentraliced rule with many minor Kingdomes. They also have pretty much no own literature or writing which survived. But would we call their rule as a Dark Age? Not really.
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.
Last edited by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus; February 28, 2013 at 08:11 AM.
Proud to be a real Prussian.
Yes, and the heaviest were caused by thunderstorms destroying his fleet. You forgot to mention that. Or that the Germanicus beat his Germanic opponents in all engagements and was not forced back by heavy losses, but was ordered back by Tiberius, who never trusted him (and was possibly involved in his death).
And the most serious historian of all, Oxford's Bryan Ward Perkins, would tell you that everything in this post is . Except for Italy recovering, recovering from being pillaged by Visigoths , Huns and Vandals that is, to some extent under Theoderic and Odoacer before him.
"Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to hurt his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of the immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured."
Euripides
"This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which avails us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
Augustine
Oh come on chaps, Give our German friends some credit.
They really upset that little prig Octavian and his street cred went down with the loss of 3 legions.
sponsered by the noble Prisca
No, we wouldn't, because we have no way to compare Sassanid Persia with Achaemenid Persia. On the other hand, we know that the ancient Greeks and Romans produced magnificent breakthroughs in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy etc. Social and natural sciences enter a period of stagnation in Europe which comes to an end only with the rediscovery of the classics and the transmission of knowledge from Arabian Spain and Sicily to Europe.
Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
"Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917
But everything changed...
And while living a rural life as a free peasant might not have been worse than under the roman rule (well if you ignore the quasi constant state of warfare among petty princes, the empire with its civil war, bagaudae rebellions and constant germanic raiding wasn't totally peacefull, but it managed to police its territory most of the time nonetheless), for many people, things changed in worse.
Yes, many new texts were produced, but the fact they are restricted to the church is a sure sign of changes... Even when it was christian, the roman empire was more alphabetised than what followed.
An obscure monastery can have a brillant intellectual life and magnificient library, but an obscure monastery isn't a place of education as open as what existed before. Because it's small, isolated and meant for a limited population, monks...
Charlemagne used that potential to reintroduce education on some level, so everything wasn't totally "dark" but that clearly show how things had evolved.
That's quite different though. It's not feodalism that create a "dark age" (although the introduction of said feodalism can create the conditions that lead to call it "dark age" or just highlighting it) it's a loss of urban life and writings (as well as less objectively and more arguably a fall in the quality of artistic and crafts production, on that i will disagree though). As to their litterature and writing, that's false, it's not very well known in the west, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that nothing have survived. I would hazard the guess the hellenistic domination who relatively disregarded the persian culture and latter mongol invasions are more responsible for the loss of persian (and arabs in the mongol case) sources than something else.I have a problem with the Dark Age Term because many of the thinks of the "Dark Age" can be seen in other Empires. The old Persian and the Parthian Empire for example had a also a version of feudalism, they had a decentraliced rule with many minor Kingdomes. They also have pretty much no own literature or writing which survived. But would we call their rule as a Dark Age? Not really.
Anyway, other places did enjoy (well not really "enjoying" but ho well...) dark ages too. The greek dark age is well known.
Forgetting that all those difficulties in paying and ruling over italy were in large parts because of the germanic presence, especially the gothic one and that those mercenaries were quite difficult to manage because of the military might they represented...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.
Romano-gothic relations are very interesting and complex and the romans were no saints either, ok, but lets not forget some basics there.
Last edited by Keyser; February 28, 2013 at 08:35 AM.
Well Tacitus described the pontes longi similar as Teutoburg and that the Romans were only saved because the choose direct combat in the final phase. The only difference to Teutoburg, was that the rest contingent of the attacked Romans arrived the Rhine instead beeing anhilated. It is a bit diffcult to interpred because Tacitus might wanted to show how a better Commander than Varus would have solved the situation, but the looses were still heavy.
At the Angrivarierwall Tacitus mention a Roman Victory, but still heavy looses on both sides and in the Seminar about the Germanicus Campaigns my Prof interpreted the Situation more as a Draw because the Germans could retreat and Germanicus did the same directly to the Rhine. Also we should know that Tiberius was not a favourite of Tacitus and that he had an agenda to overhigh Germanicus.
Do you mean the younger Bryan Ward Perkins? I beleave so. I read his book and i disagree in many parts. He is right in describing the Transformation process, but i disagree in the opinion that the Germanic Tribes were guilty of destroying the civilization and terrorizing their Roman population. With this opinion he belongs to the minority of historians if you look in to the last 20 years. I might be wrong but i have the strong feeling that their is a huge tradition to see it this way in Britain, based on the Book of Gibbons and later Books from Peter Heathen for example. Even here in the Forum, Gibbons is for many people still the Holy Grail, even if his work is 250 years old.
I won't deny that the Eastern Roman Mercenaries did many of the crimes in the time of Eastern Roman occupation, but still it was the guilt of the eastern roman Empire that Italy became depopulated in this time. The eastern Goths were a more homogeneous group and they had no problems with the Italians. The Goths too 1/3 of the agricultural land, which was free anyway and let the Italians by them self. Rome could stay autonomous for example. In the other hand they also build pretty much and Goth Ravenna is the best example for that. They gave Italy stability and order. The same way the Franks did for Gaul and the Vandals for North Africa.
Last edited by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus; February 28, 2013 at 08:45 AM.
Proud to be a real Prussian.