Login

09-08-2003, 01:44 PM

Titus, 
 
What year did the big Gaul get it ? 
 
Was Tacitus writing contemporaneously ? 
 
( yes ... too lazy to go look it up !! ) 
 
 
Conal

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-08-2003, 02:13 PM

G.C.Tacitus: 55 - 117 (about) A.D. 
 
Titus Livius: 64 or 59 BC - 17AD 
 
That episode was in 361 B.C. (393 a.U.c) 
 
Too lazy? My turn next time... 
 
Vale, 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius

Goffredo · 09-08-2003, 05:53 PM

Lets not forget how the legions of Marius delt with the Teutonic and Cimbric fellows. Well trained and led the romans could and did win over and over again over howling hord of blonde giants. The Teutons and Cimbri were especally fierce and convinced to smash the sissy romans as they did at Arausio. 
 
This debate is academic anyway. The germans didn't fight one-on-one! Ariovitus' terrific german warriors fought in a phalanx as did the terrible gauls against Ceasar and the later goths. One-on-one duel was something of a fluke that caught the imagination of simpletons when the world had changed with warriors a caste. I really think this debate is outdated and conserves some of the odor of those myths so fond of those that like thinking in terms of aristocratic superiority - knights in shining armor over scum peasants - and/or racial (germanic) superiority over dark skin inferiors.

09-09-2003, 03:37 AM

Goffredo, 
 
QUOTE: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦this debate ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ conserves some of the odor of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ racial (germanic) superiorityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

09-09-2003, 12:16 PM

Titus & others, 
 
A Spanish Sword circa 360bc ? I know these guys were writing after the event but ..... is it fibbing or embelishment ? can we trust the rest of it ? 
 
Conal

Thiudareiks Flavius · 09-09-2003, 08:03 PM

warrior11 wrote: 
 
Quote:<hr>QUOTE: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦this debate ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ conserves some of the odor of ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ racial (germanic) superiorityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Goffredo · 09-10-2003, 06:25 AM

Hi Tim 
Warrior was quoting me. I don't think specific individuals are racist but I do think the warrior mystique has a great deal to do with the continuing of this thread. 
 
That warriors in germanic societies were trained from childhood to be warriors is very likely but then how many were warriors? I confess to be ignorant of ancient Irish and Germanic ways but for the moment I find it hard to believe all males were trained to be warriors. 
 
To try be more precise I DO find it EASIER to believe that many healthy males were warrior-like when the germanic peoples were on the move for generations like the Longobards, later Goths, after the bump from the Huns, or, even better example the far earlier Teutons and Cimbri. These guys had to frequently fight, or at least be credible in threatening to fight, when going thru territory of others. But the germans and goths living near the early empire were also farmers and probably had more important things to do than play warrior, like live and raise a family. 
 
To avoid argueing uselessly I think we might make progress by specifying eras. Are we speaking of republic era gauls and germans, early and mid empire 
germans, late empire goths, vandals, huns...? 
 
In any case, to be specific, the german warriors of the SOB of Ariovistus described by that other SOB Ceasar fought in phalanxs with shields so tightly locked that the romans legionaries had to climb ontop of the shield wall to strike from above. Ariovistus was not a peaceful King of a german community, but a War Lord, a true professional Warrior. Yes, the germans fought, like the gauls, a little more individualistically and not in the rigid macedonian or slightly less tidy Hopilitic phalanxs. But to insist, in this thread, on talking about one-on-one duels could be irrelevant to understand roman-german battles, or even german-german battles for that matter. 
 
Indeed I truely suspect the dueling capability of the Warrior was only useful in individual duels (note intentional loop) and not much in battle. In battle anything can happen and even a peasant with a pointed stick can kill a brave but momentarily distracted warrior, a bit embarssing, don't you say? (remember Kurosawa's Seven Samurais or Ford's Magnificent Seven) [a moment of silence for poor Charles Bronson] 
 
In very primitive societies this problem is solved by ritualizing the combat to take place ONLY between warriors! This problem was at the origin of the many warrior headaches even in medieval times when they thought themselves to be "Aristocratic" and felt they should be killed only by their equals. 
 
In the primtive warrior sub-culture a warrior had to assert and defend himself; in particular, the leader maintained his position by being capable! It meant that he had to climb the sub-cultural ladder by out performing others and, once at some level, fend off those from below trying to eliminate him. 
 
To summarize I really do believe the german-vs-roman one-on-one issue is bogus and profoundly false. I reflects nothing of the military (battle field) aspects of roman-german relations in two aspects: 
1) germans fought in groups, as everyone did in ancient times; 
2) warriors were good in duels but that didn't matter anyhow. 
 
p.s. The germanic warrior mystique did acquire racist overtones in recent times.This particular ideology goes back 50-80 years before Hitler's warriors trampled about. Consider also that germanic history and archelogical digs took place in that same time span. They were organized and performed also with the intention of docummenting, if not inventing, a glorious past. German intellectuals were trying to build a Nation; even Bach and his religious music was used by many to tie the new nation together! Intellectuals do almost anything to realize their plans. Racism was the next step and many german intellectuals were racist way before Hitler made his first shave. It takes time for these things to become explicitely dangerous and viceversa to filter them out again. 
 
Mystifications did and DO happen. Even if the word RACE is not clear to some it does belong to our past. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/10/03 8:36 am

***Praefectusclassis*** · 09-10-2003, 05:46 PM

Livius's (early) history is not the most accurate you'll ever find. He's fond of Rome and not afraid to show it. Greets 
 
Jasper

09-11-2003, 11:44 PM

where does that come from?? 
 
In feudal societies in Europe perhaps 1 person in several hundred could be trained from an early age to be a warrior. 
 
In Pre-marian Rome every citizen knew he would be in the leginos at some time, and little formal trainng was given - a few days on the fields of Mars before setting out for campaign? Do we have any accounts of more than this? (training to bewarriors rather than training to operate as legions?) 
 
I'd suggest that all the societies of the era and for much longer relied upon teh "native talent" of their citizens - and that most of the training of pre-marian Roman legions at least was devoted to suppressing their "native talent" - not to making them better individual warriors!

09-12-2003, 08:50 AM

Salve, 
 
For Roman military training: 
 
Horsmann, G., Untersuchungen zur militÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤rischen Ausbildung im republikanischen und kaiserzeitlichen Rom (Boppard am Rhein 1991). 
 
There was not much difference between the pre-Marian and post-Marian Roman army when it came to training. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Thiudareiks Flavius · 09-13-2003, 10:05 PM

Goffredo wrote: 
 
Quote:<hr>Warrior was quoting me. I don't think specific individuals are racist but I do think the warrior mystique has a great deal to do with the continuing of this thread.<hr> 
 
I am as wary as anyone about exaggerated or romantic claims about "warriors" and have little time for them. But the arguments we have seen in this thread have been based on evidence - good evidence IMO - not wild romantic notions and certainly not any repugnant notions about "race". 
 
Given the way early Germanic history was twisted by the Nazis, people should be extremely careful with comments about "racial superiority" in the context of a discussion such as this one. Unless, of course, they are actually trying to be highly offensive. 
 
Quote:<hr>That warriors in germanic societies were trained from childhood to be warriors is very likely but then how many were warriors? I confess to be ignorant of ancient Irish and Germanic ways but for the moment I find it hard to believe all males were trained to be warriors.<hr> 
 
There is good evidence to support this in relation to the Germanics (I'll leave the Celts to one side, since I haven't studied them in anything like the same detail). Tacitus tells us, for example, that matters of major importance were decided by an assembly of all the men of the tribe: 
 
They sit down as they list, promiscuously, like a crowd, and all armed. .... If the proposition displease, they reject it by an inarticulate murmur: if it be pleasing, they brandish their javelins. The most honourable manner of signifying their assent, is to express their applause by the sound of their arms. 
(Tacitus, Germania, 11) 
 
Of course, it could be that all these men carried weapons that they had never been trained to use, but in a society where personal duels, bloodfueds, inter-clan wars, cattle raids and general warfare were part of everyday life, this seems fairly unlikely. The mark of a free man in early Germanic society was the bearing of weapons. It doesn't make a lot of sense to imagine that they bore weapons that they couldn't use. In fact, Tacitus goes on to tell us that the men of the tribe not only commonly bore arms, but that they weren't allowed to do so until the elders of the tribe deemed that he was skilled enough in their use: 
 
Without being armed they transact nothing, whether of public or private concernment. But it is repugnant to their custom for any man to use arms, before the community has attested his capacity to wield them. Upon such testimonial, either one of the rulers, or his father, or some kinsman dignify the young man in the midst of the assembly, with a shield and javelin. This amongst them is the manly robe, this the first degree of honour conferred upon their youth. Before this they seem no more than part of a private family, but thenceforward part of the Commonweal. 
(Tacitus, Germania, 13) 
 
So weaponry was not simply a badge of manhood for all free men, but the competent use of that weaponry was the requirement for full entry into manhood and was regulated by the tribe. 
 
The retinues of nobles dedicated themselves to warfare and combat full-time and formed an elite amongst the tribes' warriors. To keep themselves fit for combat Tacitus tells us that young warriors would leave their tribe in periods of peace and seek out wars to fight in. 
 
Tacitus makes numerous references to the regular violence which marked early Germanic society: "All the feuds of your house, whether of your father or of your kindred, you must necessarily adopt; as well as all their friendships ... Frequent then are their broils, as usual amongst men intoxicated with liquor; and such broils rarely terminate in angry words, but for the most part in maimings and slaughter." (Germania, 22-23) 
 
Then there is his famous description of the rite of passage for the young men of the Chatti, amongst others: 
 
As soon as they arrive to maturity of years, they let their hair and beards continue to grow, nor till they have slain an enemy do they ever lay aside this form of countenance by vow sacred to valour. Over the blood and spoil of a foe they make bare their face. They allege, that they have now acquitted themselves of the debt and duty contracted by their birth, and rendered themselves worthy of their country, worthy of their parents. Upon the spiritless, cowardly and unwarlike, such deformity of visage still remains. 
(Tacitus, Germania, 31) 
 
The only Germanic "sport" Tacitus involves a display of agility and skill leaping over levelled swords and spears and the most common grave goods amongst all Germanic burials are weapons - clearly something a Germanic needed in the next world as well. 
 
So the evidence is pretty clear - free men in ancient Germanic society were warriors and they were warriors trained from youth to fight. Given the propensity for the use of bloodshed to settle even the most minor dispute was settled by fighting - as indicated by the earliest Germanic law codes, which have lists of injuries and their compensations that read like a casualty ward textbook. 
 
 
Quote:<hr>To try be more precise I DO find it EASIER to believe that many healthy males were warrior-like when the germanic peoples were on the move for generations like the Longobards, later Goths, after the bump from the Huns, or, even better example the far earlier Teutons and Cimbri. These guys had to frequently fight, or at least be credible in threatening to fight, when going thru territory of others. But the germans and goths living near the early empire were also farmers and probably had more important things to do than play warrior, like live and raise a family.<hr> 
 
Sorry, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Yes, migrating peoples were frequently required to fight those whose territory they moved through. But settled tribes also fought regularly - against neighbouring tribes, invaders, raiders, wandering warbands, as well as inter-tribal feuds, family disputes, formal judicial duels and drunken brawls. These were warrior societies - that is what warrior societies are. 
 
Quote:<hr>In any case, to be specific, the german warriors of the SOB of Ariovistus described by that other SOB Ceasar fought in phalanxs with shields so tightly locked that the romans legionaries had to climb ontop of the shield wall to strike from above. Ariovistus was not a peaceful King of a german community, but a War Lord, a true professional Warrior. Yes, the germans fought, like the gauls, a little more individualistically and not in the rigid macedonian or slightly less tidy Hopilitic phalanxs. But to insist, in this thread, on talking about one-on-one duels could be irrelevant to understand roman-german battles, or even german-german battles for that matter.<hr> 
 
But this is not what is being "insisted on" at all. The argument is that the Germanics did fight in formation (which is quite clear) and were obviously inferior to the Romans in this respect. But the argument is that, in a one on one fight, a Germanic warrior as a member of a warrior society trained from childhood in fighting, would have been superior to someone given military training in adulthood. 
 
Quote:<hr>Indeed I truely suspect the dueling capability of the Warrior was only useful in individual duels (note intentional loop) and not much in battle.<hr> 
 
Fine - and that's precisely what's being argued here. 
 
Quote:<hr>In the primtive warrior sub-culture a warrior had to assert and defend himself; in particular, the leader maintained his position by being capable! It meant that he had to climb the sub-cultural ladder by out performing others and, once at some level, fend off those from below trying to eliminate him.<hr> 
 
Exactly. Fighting was a standard part of life in Germanic society, which is why bearing weapons was the mark of a free man and why skill in their use was determinant of entry into adulthood for all free men. 
 
Stickers asked: 
 
Quote:<hr>Trained from birth as warriors? where does that come from??<hr> 
 
No-one said "trained from birth". Babies tend to be difficult to train. 
 
Quote:<hr>In feudal societies in Europe perhaps 1 person in several hundred could be trained from an early age to be a warrior.<hr> 
 
We're talking about societies several hundred years before anything which could be described as "feudal" and ones which were quite different from later "feudal" societies in many important respects. The bearing and use of arms by all free men is one such respect. 
Cheers, 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions. 
 
Come to my [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/member/Gunthigg/Thiudareiks" target="top]Stathigg[/url] in [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/City/23413" target="top]Germania[/url] at the [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/" target="top]Ancient Worlds[/url] community.Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thiudareiksflavius>Thiudareiks Flavius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-6/30850/200262963928-0-avatar-gif2.gif" BORDER=0> at: 9/14/03 12:52 am

Wagnijo · 09-14-2003, 09:53 AM

Hi Goffredo 
 
I saw yours and others comments on this debate but decided not to answer. When you comment on "the odor of germanic racial superiority" in the same post as you describe "howling hordes of blonde giants". Then you are quite hard to take seriously. But your recent post is of a much better quality and raises some valid points. 
 
But lets deal with that "odour" first. 
In the germanic groups we are quite used to 'nasty nutters' who tries to attach their weird policies to the 
germanic past. Luckily they usually doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have a clue about the subject and are easily identified and kicked out. 
 
I take that you guys on occasion has to flush out some 'faecests', who tries the same trick on the Roman past. 
 
But lets go to the interesting stuff. You and some others have raised some valid points. I'll try to comment on the 
most prominent. 
 
A) The germanics fought in groups(formations). So any discussion about qualities in man to man fighting skills are irrelevant with respect to the power balance between Romans and germanics. 
 
1) Yes They fought in formation. But any look on germanic weaponry around 1AD will show that large La Tene style swords was still in use by some germanic warriors. Since these swords demands an open formation if any to effective, we can conclude that germanic formations at this point in time probably wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t as closed or stable as Roman formations. This was a development to come as an effect of the _Roman contact_. 
 
This leads us to: 
 
2) I find it very hard to believe that a formation of individual warriors - in many cases from different tribes - 
will be as stable as a formation of trained professional soldiers. Inter germanic confrontations would therefore be more likely to dissolve into messy melees where individual skills would save the day. 
 
3) Most inter germanic battles were _not pitched battles_. OTOH most of the action a germanic warrior would see would be in raids on other tribes. In such raids they would rarely be time to set up formations. 
 
Defensive measures against raiders are demonstrated several places in Denmark. 
 
At the village Lyngsmose a shallow trench was made into minefield with thousands of bayonet shaped wooden spikes that would have been covered with mud and shallow water. The same sort of "minefield" was demonstrated at the village Borremose with 21.000 spikes 
 
Furthermore was several fjords made inaccessible for nonlocal sea raiders by submerged wooden blockades. 
Haderslev fjord has two such submerged blockades - one 425 m long and 24-35 m wide. The other 600 m long and ca 25 m wide. 
 
Such effort put into defending villages would not have been made unless they were badly needed for protection against raiders. 
 
One poster made a comment about the germanics living in a friendly countryside as opposed to the Romans and their big dangerous cities. Of course "you" lived in a friendly village among loving relatives, peaceful farmers, 
happy thralls, and honourable warriors. It was the homicidal thieving psychopaths in the tribe across the river - with the bad harvest - you had to worry about. 
 
 
B) Germanic society had no way of feeding an unproductive warrior caste and everyone had to do his/her bit just to keep the tribe fed and not wet. They were all primitive farmers and perhaps just a small elite could be viewed as part-time warriors. 
 
1) Germanic society was highly hierarchical with thralls, freemen and a warrior elite - any modern book on the germanics will tell you this. Forget the rosy picture of a society where everyone was free and equal. Then take a wild but educated guess at who did the brunt of the agricultural labour - The warrior caste or the thralls? 
So much for not having time to practise! 
 
OK maybe the warrior caste had time to do their thing, but how many were they 
 
2) Population sizes for germanic territories are mostly guesswork based on guesses on how many people that 
lived in a household, how many houses there was in each village and how many villages there was in a territory or similar guesses and estimates from gravefields. These guesses vary wildly and are not that reliable. 
 
But we can estimate the size of the warrior caste in another way. Some germanic tribes living on imperial 
soil didn't pay taxes. Instead they had to deliver units for Roman service. A not particular big tribe as the Batavians delivered 8 cohorts of auxilia and the imperial mounted guard - That is about the strength of one legion. 
 
It would make sense ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Âf the Romans would try to harvest the warrior caste to get the best recruits and to pull the teeth from the tribes. Likewise would the Batavians only let young productive men go into Roman service if they felt certain that they could feed the unproductive members of the tribe such as children and old people without this workforce. 
 
BTW Arminius and his auxilia was also delivered by the Cheruskans instead of taxes - I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t remember the strength of the Cheruskan auxilia - Tim? 
 
Of course the Romans later discovered that maybe it wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t such a great idea securitywise to let tribesmen serve in "national" units. 
 
All in all. Germanic tribes could survive without the work from sizeable units of young productive men - probably 
the very same body of men that constituted the warrior caste. 
 
One poster argued that this couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t be so and brought in the medieval "advanced agriculture" and argued that 
since there was problems and famines in medieval times this would have been even worse in earlier periods. 
 
3) Medieval agriculture was _not very advanced_ compared with earlier periods. Most of it was still subsistence farming as in the germanic period. They had mills and better ploughs (from the Slavs), but that is about it. 
 
The Romans had a lot of expertise in farming, but very little of it was applicable in northwestern Europe. E.g. the Romans had only one technology unknown to the germanics that really could raise the yield: - Irrigation. 
 
Irrigation in Northwestern Europe? ;-) 
 
The medieval raise in population was possible because they brought more marginal land under plough than the germanics ever did. The medievals would do this because they had acquired other technologies from the Romans such as an infrastructure capable of distributing food to the cities with ships by sea or river. 
 
In the germanic period any surplus had to be consumed locally in the villages - by the warrior elite and their attached craftsmen. 
 
If anyone still thinks that medieval agriculture was advanced, then they ought to check medieval yields. 
Depending on the sort of crop, it was between 2-4. Germanic yields cant have been that much lower since 
this is on the border of agriculture being worth the effort. 
 
But some might still have problems with savage barbarians producing surplus food. 
 
4) If the germanics couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t produce surplus food, why and how was the Roman Rhine army buying supplies in Germania Libera as documented in e.g. Gargilius contract from Leeuwarden? 
 
How is it, that celtic agriculture which was comparable to germanic agriculture, could support oppidae, craftsmen and a large nobility while the germanics supposedly couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t feed a warrior caste? 
 
BTW In roman sources you often see germanic territory described as almost barren desserts/marshes or dark forests. Do you really believe that places like Holland and Denmark was such bad farm land? 
 
 
C) OK! Maybe the germanics was able to put a decent number of trained warriors in the field. But where is the evidence that they really were so tough in man to man combat. Isn't it a fact that the Roman army on numerous occasions crushed and whipped them beyond recognition. 
 
1) Sure it is. But how good the Roman _ARMY_ was has little or no bearing on the question on how good the average individual was in single combat. 
 
There is no doubt that the Romans had better infrastructure, supplies, intelligence, reserves, commandstructure, and overall knowhow on how to fight a pitched battle and this is probably less than half of the Roman advantages compared to an early germanic foe. 
 
Most of the time the Romans probably didn't have to go into battle. A little display of strength would likely calm 
any germanic leader who had become to mighty and restless. Or perhaps they saved even that effort and supplied one of his rivals with a monetary gift and perhaps an illegal supply of Roman weapons and asked him to take care of things. 
 
Even if things went out of hand and a tribe or coalition raided Roman territory. The Romans would be confident that they could bring up enough force to contain and crush or at least expel the intruders. 
 
The point to notice is that the force the Romans thought they needed to be confident was significantly 
higher at germanic borders than elsewhere. 
 
After Varus defeat the comparatively short (for the Roman empire) Rhine border was guarded by 8 (eight) legions. That was about 1/3 of the _complete Roman army_. Let the rest of the army take care of Parthians, Dacians, Jews, Iberians and other borders and restless occupied territories. And do not forget the germanics at the Donau!. 
 
Even when matters cooled off after Clades Variana the Romans left 4 legions just to guard the Rhine. 4 legions 
is about 20.000 men with auxilia you hit 40.000! 
 
This is an insane force for a preindustrial society to have permanently stationed to guard such a small border. Just the economy is mindboogling. 20.000 legionaries would receive about 6 million silver denars a year, 20.000 auxilia about 5 million. If we put a denar at 3 grams of silver (Nero denar) we end up at 330 tons! of silver a year. Now add supplies and buildings and you might start to see what kind of threat the Romans considered the germanics. 
 
In short: The Romans was very aware that they would almost always beat the germanics but they were also painfully aware from bitter experience that this particular brand of barbarians had the capability to take out 1-2-3 legions if the s*** really hit the fan and that they should be handled with the outmost care - and some backup forces. 
 
 
D) OK maybe the Romans did consider the germanics a threat. But did they really have to? Wasn't the germanics more a kind of bogeymen to the Romans than a real threat. All this germanic warrior bravado seem to hinge on the Cimbri and Teutons who arguably was at least partly celtic, and that one Battle in Teutoburger Wald, which was fought under very special circumstances. And what has this to do with warrior skills anyway? 
 
1) You are right! Forget the Cimbri and Teutons. They cant be used since all info about them is clouded in legend. We hardly know, who they were anyway. So maybe they added to a Roman germanics complex without good reason. 
 
But the Varus battle has everything to do with this, and it is not only the completeness and the magnitude of the Roman defeat that matters. This battle is one of the few where we at least has some historic sources and archaeological material to judge events from. Everything points to a battle that was fought running in a number of melee actions. 
It really doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t matter that the Romans was betrayed by the auxilia. As long as they werenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t litterally stabbed in the 
back they had to be dealt with mostly in direct man to man confrontations ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ and dealt with they were. 
 
And the Varus battle is not the only example! In the following campaign Arminius almost did it once more in 16AD 
 
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œA column commanded by Caecina was enticed by Arminius into a swampy position, where it was in extreme danger, and a severe engagement took place. The scheme of Arminius was to attack the Romans on the march; fortunately, the rasher counsels of his uncle, Inguiomerus, prevailed; an attempt was made to storm the camp and the Romans were thus enabled to inflict a decisive defeat on the foe. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œ Tacitus, Annals. 
 
Again the Romans are brought into a position where they cant make their advantages in a pitched battle bear and the 
Germanics gain the advantage. Fortunately for the Romans Arminius is overruled and the advantage was lost. 
 
And Arminius wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t the only germanic who had figured out the proper way to engage the Romans. 
 
In 16 BC the Sugambri hit the army of govenor Lollius with 2 legions (Clades Lolliana) Dio 54.20: 
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œIt seems that the Sugambri, Usipetes, and Tencteri had first seized in their own territory some of the Romans and had crucified them, after which they had crossed the Rhine and plundered Germania and Gaul. When the Roman cavalry approached, they surprised them from ambush; then, pursuing them as they fled, they fell in unexpectedly with Lollius, the governor of the province, and conquered him also.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Goffredo · 09-14-2003, 01:31 PM

Guys been on vacation? 
I was beginning to fear I was taken too seriously. But then there are those that prefer to not answer because they are "superior". JOKING!!! Just playing around a bit. Forgive me. 
 
Cimbri and Teutons were not legends at least not when they got slaughtered. I also don't forget that the Romans got slaughtered too at Arausio and of course at the great Teutoburg! 
 
But I wish to resist thinking in terms of body count. I really do believe that more germans warriors were killed by romans legionaries than the other way around. But even is this were so it would be as useless as trying to argue that one-on-one the average german was better than the average roman. 
 
Many armies have learned, the romans too, and recently the US in Vietnam (Iraq?), that victory cannot be measured in terms of body counts. But it is also true that the roman empire lasted quite a long time inspite of Arminius, Kniva and other exceptionally capable "barbarian" leaders and the unquestionable(?)one-on-one superiority of the warrior-trained-since-birth warriors. 
 
I take my hat off to Arminus, Kniva and many unknown germanic leaders that had to fight against roman imperialism, both explicit with invading killing, raping and deadly armies, and implicit with those economic forces that change ways. I am sure many intelligent creative and heroically desperate fights took place that no one ever documented. I personally think there only a small chance that another rare Tacitus-like book will be suddenly found to tell some incredible and incredibly forgotten story. But t happened with Tacitus' Germania so it might even happen today (maybe the lost book by Pliny in the charred books of the huge private library in Pompeii might tell us something new). 
 
Tacitus. Thank god he left us something to read about the germans. Had it not been for him we would have had to deduce everything from difficult to interpret archelogical finds and be left with running incredible risks in extrapolating or forcing analogies from what is known of peoples of far FAR later periods. 
 
But actually I think the Romans (Tacitus) is probably credible in the emphasis of the descriptions because he was moralizing when writing of the Germans. Moralizing works when the reader can "see" and recongnize the truth. I think the ancient romans were somehow fascinated with the vigor and freedom of the free yelling blonde warriors as they felt that way about their own ancient ancestors ("them good old days when we too were free and yelling warriors, maybe not so blonde and not corrupt by all this greek or asian stuff"). 
 
But in general lesser moralizing historians are very dangerous to take to the letter! By trying to prove a point they delete and manipulate facts and might even invent some to cover a gap in the story here and there. But I understand that Tactitus' descriptions have found confirmations in cross-checks but more interestingly in field work. So hurray for the Germans but a triple hurray for a culture that allowed a Tacitus to come into being. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/15/03 11:00 am

09-14-2003, 03:37 PM

Wagnijo, 
 
 
QUOTE: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œBut any look on germanic weaponry around 1AD will show that large La Tene style swords was still in use by some germanic warriors. Since these swords demands an open formation if any to effectiveÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œ 
 
If SOME germanic warriors used long swords doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t necessarily mean that it was weapon of majority. In fact it was the other way round. By the way it could be some sort of cavalry spatha as well. 
 
QUOTE: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦most of the action a germanic warrior would see would be in raids on other tribes. In such raids they would rarely be time to set up formations.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Goffredo · 09-15-2003, 08:23 AM

Quoting: 
"Those legionaires was cut down by experienced warriors in much the same way that a zulu warrior probably would take out an English colonial swoldier in man to man combat if the soldier had to rely on his bayonet, and in much the same way that an experienced Apache warrior would take out a cavalryman in knifecombat, and in much the same way that a samurai would take an european company soldier foolish enought to draw his sword on him." 
 
I'll buy the Samurai (trained for fast single strikes before the unlucky chap knew what sliced him), 
but I really don't believe the Zulu nor the Apache would be on average better than a white soldier on a one-on-one struggle to death. 
 
Each culture has his bags of tricks and they have only relative value; i.e. respect to whom you are up against. To think a bayonnet or army knife is child's play in the hands of sissy european or u.s. soldiers is simply naive and probably false. Trained european and US soldiers were tough and very deadly, not only bacause of technological weapons, but because they were mean and full of stamina, as colonial history unfortunately shows. 
 
(no glorification intended) 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/15/03 10:59 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Roman Legionnaires in first century Judea?	MarcusNorwood	3	2,500	12-05-2012, 02:54 PM Last Post: Albertomv
	Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?	Severus	36	8,145	10-27-2006, 04:41 PM Last Post: Tarbicus