Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Romans vs Germans

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Romans vs Germans
    Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 22:52
Batlle of Vercallae says it all...8 Roman legions(Tuetonberg trap had 3) vs OVER 200,000 Germans. Results: 140,000 Geramsn dead and over 60,000 slaves. Roman losses: less than 1000!!* Wikpedia nd German historian Theodor Mommsen.
There were many Roamn victories over the Germans that rivaled this ,from Maruius,Germanicus,Caesar and Drussus to name a few. They even reacched far into the eatern end of Germany. The tribes were thourougly beaten and only attempted guerilla war. The Forest trap was the most over rated in history. 3 legion loss was not great by other Roamn losses. Plus American Army historian ,Dan Ptersen, who studies the site feels that the Romans actually drove them off. (albeit many roamn losses plus standards) His evidence: burial mounds from Varus`s forces.  Only the victors could have done this.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 15:55
Originally posted by J.Caesar

I think the Romans had an easy time with them. Look at the battle of Vercalae for example. over 200,000 Geramns vs. 50,000 Romans
losses: 140,000 German dead, over 60,000 prisoners.
Roman losses; less than 1000! *Wikpedia
Yes Romans were mislead and traped and had some losses but they were rare but highly publized for various reasons.
Yes the Romans were very organzed and rarely surrenderd. However I feel all people of that era were well trained to fight from an early age. The Romans relied on infantry the most. (so the best way to beat them is cavalry)
Studying their battles for a long time I have conclude they were amazing hand to hand fighters. Inafantry is hand to hand. The Romans were alwys severly outnumbered. They had only two hands. However I think these legionaires must have possessed an amazing strength and agilty. I think the Celts had better weaponary and metal making skills(so perhaps Germans too) in which the Roamns copied. Pilum,chain mail.
Just think you had a fighter that was hadrier and fiercer than all. Just that great leaders like Caesar,Drussus,Germanicus get much of the credit and the individual Roman is overlooked. The battles and the numbers and excerpt from roamn soldiers(not Tacitus or other propaganda writers) shows soldiers of superior confidence against any regardless of the numbers. Do not think any soldiers of this day would be so confident in hand to hand against superior numbers.

Again the same, the urbanised armies armies are small and brave, the nomad armies are big and crap, This brave armies are sometimes chineese, persians, romans, greeks . Crap armies are nomads, germanic tribes and ofcourse Ottomans. Wikipedia is a ridicolous source. Not worth to mention it
Back to Top
mars View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote mars Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 12:48
Originally posted by edgewaters

It wasn't that difficult for the Germans to temporarily field massive hordes. They just lived off pillage from agriculturally productive areas ... surely the stores of produce such places laid aside would be more than enough.

Yeah, just imagine how much food need to feed those "massive hordes" every day.

Originally posted by edgewaters


Also note that the larger figures for some of the hordes are not claimed to be fighting men, but include women and children of the migrants.


OK, then does that mean Romans claimed they had 50,000 soldiers againsted 200,000 men, woman and children ?
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 19:26
It wasn't that difficult for the Germans to temporarily field massive hordes. They just lived off pillage from agriculturally productive areas ... surely the stores of produce such places laid aside would be more than enough.

Also note that the larger figures for some of the hordes are not claimed to be fighting men, but include women and children of the migrants.
Back to Top
mars View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote mars Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 18:21
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

Most of the accounts we have are biased to some degree because they are written by Romans. They exaggerate the number of enemies. 200,000 is obviously an exaggeration.



I agree, I hardly could believe any German tribe or tribes had the ability to field a 200,000 men army in one place, simply feeding those men would be a huge problem.
I think the only worthly enemy of Romans were Pathia/Perssian Empir
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 01:37
Most of the accounts we have are biased to some degree because they are written by Romans. They exaggerate the number of enemies. 200,000 is obviously an exaggeration.

Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 00:03
I think the Romans had an easy time with them. Look at the battle of Vercalae for example. over 200,000 Geramns vs. 50,000 Romans
losses: 140,000 German dead, over 60,000 prisoners.
Roman losses; less than 1000! *Wikpedia
Yes Romans were mislead and traped and had some losses but they were rare but highly publized for various reasons.
Yes the Romans were very organzed and rarely surrenderd. However I feel all people of that era were well trained to fight from an early age. The Romans relied on infantry the most. (so the best way to beat them is cavalry)
Studying their battles for a long time I have conclude they were amazing hand to hand fighters. Inafantry is hand to hand. The Romans were alwys severly outnumbered. They had only two hands. However I think these legionaires must have possessed an amazing strength and agilty. I think the Celts had better weaponary and metal making skills(so perhaps Germans too) in which the Roamns copied. Pilum,chain mail.
Just think you had a fighter that was hadrier and fiercer than all. Just that great leaders like Caesar,Drussus,Germanicus get much of the credit and the individual Roman is overlooked. The battles and the numbers and excerpt from roamn soldiers(not Tacitus or other propaganda writers) shows soldiers of superior confidence against any regardless of the numbers. Do not think any soldiers of this day would be so confident in hand to hand against superior numbers.

Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 10:04
I would say the Romans, as at that time (before devision) I really don't think there was any hard challenger infront of the might of the Roman Empire.


Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 06:59

J.Caeser

 You seem to be taking everything Caeser wrote as fact, its pretty obvious he greatly inflated the numbers of Gauls he fought against to make every victory seem more spectacular. Its commonly accepted that the Gallic wars are as much a masterful work of propaganda as an accurate account of a war. There is bound to be alot of fact in the Gallic wars, but there is also bound to be exaggerations, omissions etc to make Caeser look better or play down reverses, usually blaming them on others or including some account of a specific often named legionary performing a heroic act to take your attention away from a mistake.

 Tacitus had impeccable sources to draw from. There is doubt over Tacitus' account of Agricolas campaign against the Picts, due to Agricola being Tacitus' father in law. However you can say that about Polybius, good friends and former tutor of Scipio Aemilianus, are we to discount him to? all sources which may or may not have some bias? if we did we'd have gaps in history centuries long, because there are pitifully few detailed sources available. If we did that then Caesers accounts oughta be totally discarded and ignored.

"They were outnumbered even more than Marius was. Marius defeated German forces that were at least 10 his. This is well documented but for some reason most want to hear about the Tuetonberg trap. Romans lost 2 or 3 legions ina spread out formations and not expecting auxilary German support,but they turned on them.Roamsnproabbly outnumberd by extremes. However,the Roamns fought to the death without surrender, (Varrus commited suiciede)"

 Remember the tribes Marius fought against included with the fighting men, the women and children of the tribe, all on the move. So if its reported that the tribe was 250,000 strong, then you can bet atleast half that are non-combatants.

 The Romans at the Teutoburg did attempt to flee, infact theres reports of the cavalry attempting to escape but being cut down. The legions almost certainly wanted to run for their lives, but simply couldnt. The Germans kept up the pressure and refused to allow the Romans to regroup, the annihilation of Varus column and its supposed *stand* were more due to the fact the Romans couldnt escape if they had wanted to, than some act of supreme bravery in the face of destruction. The Romans didnt have a choice.

 I do agree though that people focus far to much on Roman defeat, ignoring or playing down Roman victories.

"Romsn did have difficulty with cavlry,Nunidiam(Hnnibals)and Parthian but never with the German cavrly"

 The Gothic cavalry at Adrianople smashed the Romans quite conclusively.



Edited by Heraclius
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Otho View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Otho Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 01:53
Originally posted by J.Caesar

Tacitus has been proven wrong many times and wrote fiction of the time. All hitorians now know this. He was never in places he said he was and many other fabrications. So we look to soldiers like Caesars accounts.


Um I don't mean to jump all over you for this, but whatever questions exist about accuracy in Tacitus exist tenfold for Caesar.  His work was far more propaganda than history.

The fact is that this question of Romans vs. Germans is only valid until about the end of the 1st Century CE.  At that point, much of the Roman army was made of Germans.  Before that, well there's no question that the Romans were more successful, but I think their ruthlessness and willingness to invent reasons for pre-emptive strikes were certainly factors in their success.
Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2006 at 09:58
Tacitus has been proven wrong many times and wrote fiction of the time. All hitorians now know this. He was never in places he said he was and many other fabrications. So we look to soldiers like Caesars accounts.
Gallic wars were statred to defend Gaul against Geramanic incursions. Caesar handeled this with amzing effiency just like his uncle Maruis did against the Germans.
Seirous scholars know the truth, German tribes were of little difficulty,they are severely overrated. The Dacians, Iberian celts and Parthian horse men proved to be Romes` only trouble. The biggest Roman attacking force ever was used againt the Dacians. Those used aginst the Geramns were in reality few comapred to Romes other campaigns. Why, because the truth be known Romans did not have much fear for them except the numbers of soldiers.
Only once did Caesar record any fear, when his soldiers seen the quntity against them, (they thought Caesar perhaps nuts) They were outnumbered even more than Marius was. Marius defeated German forces that were at least 10 his. This is well documented but for some reason most want to hear about the Tuetonberg trap. Romans lost 2 or 3 legions ina spread out formations and not expecting auxilary German support,but they turned on them.Roamsnproabbly outnumberd by extremes. However,the Roamns fought to the death without surrender, (Varrus commited suiciede)
The Roamns that got revenge many times and proceeded to the Eble easliy pacifing any. There wa little need to obtain the forests of Germany to Rome,little wealth. Dacia was acenter of Gold making.
Also, the Geramn individual soldiers must have been in realty 'clods'. Caesar was amazed at their inabilty to fight once wounded. Also, he turned the Rhine red with thier boold whilr the Germans drowned in Rhine trying to flee. He was amazed at how they fleed because they had such huge amount of numbers. Caesar then crossed the Rhine and marched for 17 days there and the Germans fleed in terror.
Geramn soldiers being fierce is the biggest farce there was and was orginated by a couple of German historians who tried to prop up the forrest trap and Geramnic migrations centuries later. Now these were migrations into a Roman world that was really no more. They couln`t even field a sceond army to defend against Attila. Previous to this they fought the Goths back over the Danube in a huge victory. Again being so ooutnumbered it seems on the ridiculous.
Romsn did have difficulty with cavlry,Nunidiam(Hnnibals)and Parthian but never with the German cavrly. In fact theu used German cavalry as auxilary because they plentiful and cheap. They were obtained from the fiercest tof the German tribes who were manily in the Belgae area who the Roamns handled easily.
These are the facts and takes the 'Conan' out of barbarian. I have to assume that perhaps they were a little taller but they must have been so much inferior to the Romans in stregth and speed. You need speed in with a sword especialy if you are so outnumberd. Training perhaps helped a little but in those days all were trained to fight at a very early age. Modern fencers say it just is near impossible to be outnumbered 2 to1. Romans were many times. (against north Europe anyway)
In conclusion they(Germans) were perhaps the most over rated warriors ever, to be sure ,and were only propped up by 'Aryan' historians who carried a hidden agenda it seems. Unfortunely this carried over to a degree to England. The truth is coming out about the fall of the empire too and it has little to do with external forces.

Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 14:18
Vegetius and many others describe the height requirement at 5 ft 10 in. They do allow some flexibilty it seems but they also required big shoulders and strong legs and heavy musculture in general. These soldiers were required to march carrying 90 pounds many milese per day. Also, many construction projects too. The Roman infantry proved not to have an equal. The cavalry did however. To beat the Roman infantry Hannibal and the Parthians showed that effective use of cavlry is the answer. Celts/Germans did not use this effectievley maninly because their leaders had such huge numeric advantage they thought the Romans would not be a problem. However, it seems that one Roman infantry man can kill 2 or even 10 to one was the norm aginst the 'barbarians'. Hannibal and the Parthians were a compltetly differnt story. Avoid hand to hand against the infantry.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 03:18
Originally posted by J.Caesar

Not quite. The late roamn period has many reasons for its decline but most historians abandened the barbarian theory.


Well to make that claim you would have to overlook the fact that the barbarian armies, by the 5th century, were so cost effective and so militarily effective that they made up the bulk of the soldiers in the later Roman Empire. It has been well documented by the historian Procopius that when Belisarius and Narses began their Byzantine reconquista, that most of their troops were barbarian mercenaries. I have a source for that actually On the Wars by contemporary historian Procopius of Caesaria.

Originally posted by J.Caesar

In this period the west was in so much decvline that Rome was a very poor city with a fraction of the pop. and that is one reason for the move to Constinople. The army was a shell of itself.


That's the result of doubling, and doubling and doubling the army's pay. Meanwhile Roman gold steadily drained to the east to pay for luxury items. Economic ruin through poor economic control and an overcostly military. By the 4th century the Empire was so poor it resorted to pay and supplying it troops through barter rather than coin. Source: Michael Grant, The Later Roman Empire.

Originally posted by J.Caesar

As for the numbers in the  battles just look it up..the Romans were alwys heavily otnumberd.


Quite often, but not always. Decius had a force roughly the same size as Knias, it was annihilated along with the Emperor. Ticinus, Trebbia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae were all crushing defeats for the Romans inspite of vast numerical advantage. Numerous Roman campaigns against Parthia with numerical advantages ended in failure. Mundus' (535 AD) invasion of Ostrogothic Illyricum ended in failure inspite of relatively even numbers on both sides.

Originally posted by J.Caesar


Recent archealogy on a female gentestist did on Roman soldiers revealed from bone density studies among others..average height, very dense thick bones., meaning heavy musculature,plus very worn at the attchments,sugesting heavy use of these.
What this cannot reveal is if these soldiers were quick and agile, I will leave this to speculation.


I asked for a source from your last post and you didn't provide one. For this particular comment I also require a source. What does "average" height mean anyway? Average for their time? Average for my time? Average for me? (I'm 189cm)
Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 01:00
Not quite. The late roamn period has many reasons for its decline but most historians abandened the barbarian theory. In this period the west was in so much decvline that Rome was a very poor city with a fraction of the pop. and that is one reason for the move to Constinople. The army was a shell of itself. As for the numbers in the  battles just look it up..the Romans were alwys heavily otnumberd. The biggest force(north) they did use was against the Dacians(thracian people) who the Romans thought much better fighters than the Geramnics. The numbers they used also supported this. Dacians had excellent cavalry and nice weoponry the Romans feared, falnx for example. Dacia had the location where they had to keep the Germanics at bay(which they did for along time) and the Scythians to the east of them,then the Romans! When Rome conquered them they used their greatest force..in the west anyway(Romans used and lost more men against the Partians)
Recent archealogy on a female gentestist did on Roman soldiers revealed from bone density studies among others..average height, very dense thick bones., meaning heavy musculature,plus very worn at the attchments,sugesting heavy use of these.
What this cannot reveal is if these soldiers were quick and agile, I will leave this to speculation.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 00:45

Originally posted by J.Caesar

Marius also put severe beating on the Germans and in one battle killed so many and there was so much blood on the battlefield that the Romans decided to use it for vineyards, bones used also for the vines. It was said that the wine produce an ussual vintage. Marius was so horribly outnumbered too.

Emperor Decius had a far superior force to the Germanic chieftain Knias. And yet he lost badly, he was himself killed in battle. Generally the Romans had the upper hand, but not always.

Originally posted by J.Caesar

 You have to really wonder how can these people so ineffective while outnumbering the Romans.

Inferior logistics, inferior weaponry, lack of access to the wealth of technology in the Mediterranean. And if I recall correctly, they killed tens of thousands of Romans in battle before Marius actually managed to defeat them. Obviously not so ineffective given their disadvantages.

 

Originally posted by J.Caesar

We have much evidence that the Germans had excellent weaponary and better metal making skills than the Romans.(obtained through the Celts)

Fantastic, provide us with a source so I can see that evidence.

Originally posted by J.Caesar

 Can you imagine a roman army outnumbering them...lets say 250,000 to 40,000 > What would the Roman army do? You know. Well Caesar,Marius and Narses and others were outnumbered by this amount! Case closed.

I can imagine the total collapse of the Roman state from maintaining that many troops. The difference between a Roman army and a German army came down to simple economics in the end. The Roman army was vastly more expensive to maintain than a German one. Roman superiority was due to superior logistics, better equipment, superior technology, incessant training, and the political superiority of the Roman state over the fragmented Germanic tribes. In the end this military superiority was enormously costly, the Romans could not maintain such a military without continued conquests and slaves. As a result the Roman military declined, while the Germanic tribes (having adapted to the Romans) produced a military that was both economically sustainable and militarily effective enough to destroy and occupy the West Roman Empire.

Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 23:58
Marius also put severe beating on the Germans and in one battle killed so many and there was so much blood on the battlefield that the Romans decided to use it for vineyards, bones used also for the vines. It was said that the wine produce an ussual vintage. Marius was so horribly outnumbered too. You have to really wonder how can these people so ineffective while outnumbering the Romans. We have much evidence that the Germans had excellent weaponary and better metal making skills than the Romans.(obtained through the Celts) Also, they some fought on a phalnx type formation and some tribes had a llot of cavalry. Their leaders were also broughtn up through the ranks through ability not poltics as most romnas were.
All this matteterd little becuse the Roman infantryman was so superior in every respect. Fighting hand to hand with lances, gladius, spears would result in many wounds for both. Outnumbering an opposition is always a huge advantge in war but much more so in hand to hand. You have to reaqd the numbers that the Germanics outnumbered the Romans..amzing numbers. No other logical conclusion can be made. Can you imagine a roman army outnumbering them...lets say 250,000 to 40,000 > What would the Roman army do? You know. Well Caesar,Marius and Narses and others were outnumbered by this amount! Case closed.


Edited by J.Caesar
Back to Top
Virgil View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Virgil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 03:53
Originally posted by HistoryGuy

That battle in 9AD was basically a massacre since the Romans didn't know how to fight in enclosed spaces. They only knew how to fight in open fields.


That's not true. Tuetoburg Forest was an ambush. The Roman army was moving through a small trail without weapons at the ready. Roman legions and good generals were flexible enough to fight in mountainous terrain like Spain and Armenia as well as forested areas like Gaul and the German frontier.
Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 00:00
Caesar fought the German Allani and many more and was heavily outnumbered. The Germans showed that they cannot fight hand to hand at all. They dropped theirv weopns and drowned in the Rhine an many accounts. Height irrelevant it appears, Romans must have had a huge stregnth and agilty advantage. Also when the Goths invaded they too were humiliated given their huge numeric superiority. Later Narses and Belisorious proved how inept the Vandals and Goths were. Now most accounts the German migarations were enormous numbers. These very same tribes were easly handled by the Huns who were easliy handled by the Chinese. Only way the Huns were stopped when Aetious legions combined with the Germans and Celts. Later Aetious could not even get a legion moblized, that will tell you how the late empire was in decline and was the only way German tribes could wander in. The German tribes for centuries attempted to penetrate into Rome and ALAWYS were stopped. The Tuetonberg trap very overrated as most Roman losses were, by Aryan historians anyway. Most Germamn tribes were defeated by Marius,Germanicus and so many other beat the Germans and even going as far as the Elbe. The Germans lived in enormoius fear and even gave the Romans many slaves in an effort to appease them. This is historical facts.
My premise is that the Germans were not the Romans biggest foes,they were delt with when Rome was Rome handily (late Rome was just a shell of itself) , there were many better foes. (Hannibal, the Parthians, Greeks) These groups were much superior fighters than the Germans. This is the truth...the numbers do not lie. It  just amazes me how many do not pay attention to the numerics...hand to hand fighting the numbers matter. Laws of physics and a study on knife and fencing suggest that a two to one advanatge always wins. The Germans had at least 10 or 30 to one odds on the Romans in all battles from Caesar to Narses. This speakes volumes! German fighters may have height (Romans had a minimum  5 ft 10 in requirement though) but they had to be uncoordinated , weak clods! They just had to be...sorry to offend any Aryan historians but this American historian speaks the truth and does not have any propaganda as an agenda.


Edited by J.Caesar
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2006 at 23:23

The claim I made earlier about the superior height of the tribes inhabiting the area between the Rhine and Vistula Rivers is based on archaeological surveys conducted which concluded that the average "Germani" of Roman times was roughly two inches taller than his Italian counterpart. This is not due in any way to racial superiority, but rather seems to be the results of diffferent lifestyles. The Romans were an urban civilization, heavily dependent upon intensive grain based agriculture. Although the Germani certainly were dependent on agriculture, they engaged in hunting a a great deal more and their diets (richer in protein) had the effect of enhancing their height. We see such trends today as populations move away from intensive agriculture and eat more meat they tend to get taller.

As far as Caesar defeating the Germans, there was only a couple of actual engagements. Caesar dealt with Ariovistus and also crossed the Rhine to spread terror, but one can hardly speak of widespread victories by Caesar over the Germans. Caesar's concern in Gaul were the Gauls, the Germans had neither the organisation nor the will to try and make too much trouble for the Romans at that stage.

The late Roman campaigns against the Germans were hard fought and included many failures. We have to remember the Western Empire folded under their migrations in the end, while the armies of Belisarius and Narses were vastly different from the legions Caesar commanded.

Back to Top
J.Caesar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote J.Caesar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2006 at 23:03
Germans quite inferior. Caesar humiliated them so easily. Many fled in retreat dropping their weapons and drowned in the Rhine in retreat. Now Caesar was outnumbered by maybe anywhere from 10 to 50 to one! The Germanic tribes were easier and not as fierce as those of Gaul. Some historians(Tacitus..who most know was a fabricator at all levels) may have portrayed them as 'noble and fierce' but i feel that was not the case. The numbers do not lie. The fact that Caesar(and others) went after them being so outnumbered tells volumes. Ancient historians sometimes propped up their enemies to lofty heights for propaganda and just to make them a formidible foe. In reality the Germans onle beat the Romans in a trap or be such overwhelming numbers. Late Romans like Narses and Belisarious humiliated the Vandals and Goths even more so perhaps. Maybe 15,000 Roman soldiers to 100,000 Vandals or Goths!
Germans were not fierce obviously and could not have been much of a physical specimens either, here is why;  Training and orgainzation helps the Romans, yes, but in those days all were trained in hand to hand at a very young age. In hand to hand  though numbers is an extreme advantage! Laws of physics...you have only one hand.  The Romans were so outnumbered that you have to conclude that they had to be the fiercest and best specimens of their time and perhaps for all times. I think I remember a genetist stating that she was amazed at their bone density(Roman soldiers) and attachments. Their height was only average (Their was a minimum 5ft 10 in. requirement in the legion) but their musculture was such that they had extreme strength and perhaps agility.( attachment wear)         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;          Perhaps this is the real reason of Roman success...not to take anything away from Julius of course.


Edited by J.Caesar
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.