Romans vs Germans

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.

 Enclosed spaces indeed didnt suit the way Romans fought, undermining formation and favouring individual prowess in combat, the legionary system was one of groups fighting as one, the Gallic/Germanic tribes put much more emphasis on individual ability.

 The Roman system was far better in the open that much is true, but that doesnt mean to say they couldnt fight in the dense woodland of Germany at all, take the campaigns of Germanicus in the early 1st century AD, his victories greatly made up for the annihilation of Varus' column.

  As a general rule ambush (to infantry based armies especially) puts all be they Germanic or Roman to a great disadvantage, the tribes the Romans fought would of been cut to pieces or fled just as easily had they been cramped into a tight space and had the Romans closing in on them from all sides. Enclosed spaces could benefit the Romans as much as the tribes if planned properly, as the Romans tended to be on the offensive between the Rhine and Elbe it meant the Germanics had more chance of laying an ambush in the first place.

  A good source for this appears to be "Germania" by Tacitus...some interesting observations made by Tacitus about Germans.Appearently,Grmans used to laugh at the size of Roman soldiers(maybe this is not Tacitus).Two more very inter. things-when germans got drunk,they didn't quarell with eachother like Romans did-they would often kill eachother without prior argument;this is nice-they seemed to care more for their women then men-Romans knew that and used it constantly-they kidnapped their women and blackmail their husbands-poor sods did everything requested;but when romans kidnapped one of rheir male relatives,they didn't give a dime-"kill him,so what?"...

Anyone here read Germania...?

This was no strange here, in the ancient battle, most of soldiers were killed in the one-side slaughter after line of his side was broken , as Romans always said "whatever odds you faces, if you could manage to hold your line, face the enemy with weapon in hand, you will be safe"

I would vote for Romans

If Germans could make such army as Rome did, then they could also be the best.

In fact, if any enemy of Roman Empire was weak and had not such army, it is their fault, if they had a good army, then Rome was not THE BEST

am i right?

Originally posted by Heraclius  This guy just doesnt know when to quit

Well, you really must admire his tenacity. A lesser man in his situation would have just broken down and become more open-minded.

I think everybody says that Rome was the best-just becouse In fact in the world, if u ganna gather all the Ancient History books, half of them will be books which were dedicated to Rome, and even 1% will not be about Scythians, Sarmatians, Numidians, Goths and so on.

That is the main reason.

But nobody thinks that the was German states too, which fought and defated plenty of roman legioners, and died for their IDEA.

I do not wanna say that Romans were best, becouse they were not, they just were one of the best, that is it