For the vast majority of the time the Romans had the upper hand, there was the disaster at the Teutoburg in 9AD but in a pitched battle the Roman legions could smash almost any force in the known the world and the Germanic tribes atleast for awhile were not the most difficult army to face.

 During the crisis of the 3rd century when the Roman empire was collapsing coordinated invasions from the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Alemanni and many many more tribes still couldnt break the Romans and at the Battle of Naissus in September 268 a massive army of Goths was annihilated.

 At the same time when the Roman army was smashing the Goths at Naissus the Alemanni the big threat to the west had occupied parts of northern Italy, however at the lake Benacus in November 268 the Emperor Claudius II Gothicus with some 35,000 men crushed an Alemanni force of 100,000 leaving half of them dead of captured and the rest running for their lives.

 Soon the Roman empire was reunited and the Germanic tribes expelled from imperial territory. A sure sign that the Roman empire was far from dead and was more than capable of resisting the barbarian threat.

 The Germanic threat then dwindled for some time and although invasions still occurred it didnt reach the chronic levels of the 3rd century again until the late 4th century when the eastern Roman armies were smashed at Adrianople in 378 by the Goths, not long after that the western empire began to seriously unravel and the tribes simply could not be held back any longer.  

 So army V army in a pitched battle the Romans were highly likely to win, if however there was incompetance in the leadership of the Roman army like at Adrianople then the Germanics could take advantage of it and their often superior numbers began to tell as the Imperial army rushed from one crisis point to another.

 Many successes of the Germanics coincided with internal chaos for the Roman empire which the Germanics exploited, civil wars, corruption and the decaying of the Imperial army meant it was eventually unable to hold the frontiers on a regular basis and the empire fell away as the tribes were pushed westward by the seemingly unstoppable Huns and the frontiers collapsed, the pressure on the empire was then irresistable and destruction was inevitable for the west.

 The general rule is I think that a well led Roman army would probably defeat anything the Germanics could throw at them, a good example is the Roman/Byzantine reconquests in which the Vandals and Ostrogoths were defeated by small but extremely well led Roman armies. There are also many examples of superior Roman tactics overcoming Germanic numerical superiority, however as the Roman army slowly decayed the Germanic army advanced and the balance was broken.

 I still strongly believe however that the Roman legions were superior to the the Germanic armies and that view is justified in the various examples ive pointed out, even when in dire crisis the Romans were able to defeat and expel the Germans. Also had the Germans been superior the Roman empire would surely not have survived as long as it did.

  Even though the Germans obviously contributed the collapse of the empire the internal decay was far more serious than the common invasions from across the Danube and Rhine. They only added to the chaos the empire was already in and eventually helped tip the balance and the empire was unable to recover.

 The last century or so of general German superiority was one out of 4 or 5 centuries of general Roman dominance.

 I did wonder why the *tribes* if they could even be called that by the time of the reconquests, seemed to be far less effective as they used to be, against Byzantine armies which quite frankly left alot to be desired if im honest. Ruthless largely uncivilised mercenaries as likely to attack their own commanders than the enemy they had come to defeat.

 Also the numbers seem to have vastly decreased i'm more familiar to seeing Germanic tribes having armies of 100,000 men in the field, obviously the tribes where no longer on the move and had settled but still the size of the armies Belisarius faced in North Africa for example were pretty small, I mean Belisarius only had 15,000 men when he landed in Africa.

 Had the warrior culture which had so characterised the Germanic tribes deteriorated so fast and so considerably? I wonder was the Vandal army for example made up of a mixed blooded force of Vandal-Libyan troops and that the culture the Vandals had come into contact to greatly diluted there own to the point were Vandal males were more likely to be merchants or something like that instead of the fierce warriors of days gone by? I mean it was only 75 years or so before when they had sacked Rome under Geiseric.

 Probably miles off but I find it odd how the Vandals who were once a ferocious germanic tribe were defeated by a pretty hit and miss Byzantine army.

Well one thing that needs to be considered when looking at the numbers is the Ostrogoths could naturally field more men in the days when they were on the march. "Wherever I might roam, where I lay my head is home", and how true it was for them. Either they stick together, travel together and above all fight together, or else they die. When they took over Italy things suddenly changed, because now they had land to til, towns and cities to guard, and borders to defend. Not only that, but they also had a navy with dozens of ships (though much of this was manned by local Italians). All this used up thousands of men, so much that Belisarius' impending invasion made the Ostrogoths realize they had conquered a territory which they lacked the manpower to hold. They ceded Provence to the Franks simply because they didn't have the men to hold it.

I wouldn't say their numbers were all that much different from the time they were rampaging around, Vitigis was still able to muster a force of 80,000 men to besiege Belisarius at Rome. But overall settlement meant using men to defend the lands that had been taken, migratory mentality and pressures no longer applied and so men were less willing to serve as they had been in hard times of the migrations.

"The Romans. They had discipline, the Germans did not. The Germans were fierce individual fighters, the Romans were fierce group fighters. Obviously, in massed numbers, the side that fights as a group will triumph over the side that does not.

The Romans only really lost when they faced insuperable odds or screwed up badly, like in Teutoberg. Varus was an idiot."

 True.... 

I say Romans. Because the Romans conquered the know world, and they had the longest Empire in history. The Romans also had the most organized army on Earth, dude a average Roman soldier can mach 20 to 25 mils in 5 or 6 hours�. They even Fought big bad battles like 40,000 Romans VS 255,000 others the Romans bin known to win�.

They also Romanized Europe and influents the world we live in�. I mean (correct me if I�m wrong, politely ) the Germans at one point in history saw them selves as Romans and named there ruler Kaiser meanig Caesar, and help build the Holy Roman Empire�.

I believe Roman success had more to do with excellent leadership rather than superior troops. The list of great Roman generals is unending, Ceasar, Pompey, Lucullus, Aetius, Scipio, Belisarius, and Narses just to name a few. No matter how disciplined a force is, unless it is well led it will be defeated. This can be seen in various Roman disasters like Cannae, Carrhae, Teutoburg, and Adrianople, where the Roman command was not competent enough, or simply made too many mistakes, though in a battle, one mistake is already too much.

In a muscle to muscle confrontation, the barbarians would simply have overpowered the Romans. They were physically more hardy and possessed superior numbers. It was Roman tactics that won the day, not just the legionnaires.

 The Roman army was no braver than its enemies, when the Romans appear to have been more courageous over a longer period of time its almost certainly due to their training and self-confidence.

 It seems biased to say many of the great Roman defeats were due to incompetance of leadership than the army itself, however when you look at these heavy defeats as Belisarius points out you can see major problems with the commanders in those battles.

 Varro (Cannae), Crassus (Carrhae), Valens (Adrianople) and Varus (Teutoburg forest).

 None of them appear to have been skilled commanders, in the hands of a Trajan or Aetius or indeed Belisarius those same Roman armies that were crushed would almost certainly not of been. If the commander is poor then even the great army can be annihilated.

 I personally feel its a grave injustice how Roman defeats are infinitely more famous than its victories.

o yeah, Crassus was the worth general

U know what?????

When u guys, western guys, when Rome or any other western or European states won the war, u always will say thet, sure, this battle was theirs, there is no problem with other side, Romans were powerfull and that is why they won

But when Rome loses, u ganna say that, well, The commonders were weak, or there was no discipline in that army, or something else that will try to cover "your" lost

Am I not right?????

Did I wrote any nationalist ideas here????-NO

Becouse that is reality, Because there was 300 senators in Roman Senate, and Each of them had their own mass, and each of them were elected twice and had to fought one major battle in order to be Consu!!!

I think, Crassus was not weak, but Parthians were stronger, But Suren was Smarter, ok?????

What u ganna say now???

Suren was Iranian, not Turkish

I know, u ganna close this topic tooo

Is that so Hard Morally to Accept That????????

Becouse they were not stronger

But Rome was not stronger that Pathia toooo

And also, Do u know the tactics that Crassus used to defeat Spartacus?

Did u read Chavanyoli-Spartacus?

Crassus was not a businessman, He was a I consul, II businessman

I am Gentleman

hm

thank u

I find it surprising that no-one has so far pointed to the fact that Rome's political system (Republic in the beginning) helped legitimize its power and also the drafting of recruits. A government for the people (if not by the people) can exert power and inflate nationalistic tendencies much easier than an emperor can.

I doubt any empire/emperor could survive devastating defeats as the Romans did at the hands of Hannibal. Yet Rome could field one army after another, by exerting exactly its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Yeah, at leas, u got a little my point. At least u got that There was states stronger that Rome in its time, at least u got that each empire is strong when it is wealthy. And I am not talking about Sassanis, and also, durin Sassanid they had about 20-30 million population, becouse the most populated part of world was China and Mesopotamamia, And during Parthia too, But at least, thatnk u, u accepted that There was a time that Parthia was better that Rome, and Carthage too, and Huns tooo,

 Nobody has tried to make out that the Romans were superior right throughout their history, at one time it was defeated by the Gauls and Rome itself was captured, there was a time when Rome had no decent navy and Carthage ruled the seas, there were times when Greek armies could dominate the legion on the battlefield. Pyrrhus of Epirus for example.

 Rome over time adapted, overcame and conquered the Gauls, destroyed Carthages navy and eventually the Carthaginian empire, survived Pyrrhus captured the Greek territories in south Italy and eventually conquered Macedonia and ruled the Greeks overall. Then onto the Diodochi in the east Selceucia being the biggest.

 The relationship between Parthia and then the Sassinids and Rome was one of fluctuating fortunes, a civil war for example could give the Parthians a great oppounity to raid Imperial territory and loot a few cities before the imperial army could return. The same the way when a poor ruler or weakened Parthia was about Rome could avenge the earlier raids by weakening its ancient foe further perhaps sacking the Parthian capital again and setting up puppet kings as a buffer.

 The difference is between Rome and the Parthians it the Parthians never threatened the existance of the Roman empire, they could raid and at times conquer territory such as Armenia, parts of Syria, Mesopotamia the Holyland etc. But the imperial armies would then return and either drive the Parthians out or the Parthians would withdraw rather than give battle.

 Never did the Parthians have a chance of actually conquering the Roman empire, the Roman armies were to big and powerful, its population much much larger than the Parthians and then Sassinids controlled, Rome was also fantastically wealthy. It could afford to replace armies it had the population to do it and the funds to pay for it.

 The Huns were a flash in the pan when it comes to Rome, they looted alot of cities and territory defeated alot of Barbarians and had its confrontations with Rome. Rome had had this for centuries already anyway, during the crisis of the 3rd century things were much much worse, by the time the Huns arrived the western Roman empire was as good as doomed anyway. But the Hunnic empire collapsed and were actually then used by the same empire they had once fought against, as mercenaries, the Byzantine empire used Huns in its mercenary forces in the North African campaigns and in Italy.

 The Parthians goals appear to have been little more than raiding Roman territory, obviously they knew their own limitations which is always a good thing. The Sassanids were a real menace in the east and definately a threat to likes of Asia Minor and Syria and more, the Sassinids took over at the perfect time, the Roman empire was on the verge of entering the most traumatic time in its history the crisis of the 3rd century, seeing the Roman empire almost collapse. The Roman empire then and after was almost constantly in civil war, economic crisis and suffering from massive barbarian invasions as the decline of the army increased more and more.

 Your right Belisarius about the Sassanids wish to restore the empire back to where it was under the Achaemenid empire.

 "Shapur King of Kings, brother of the sun and moon, sends salutation. Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I require you to restore all this, it would not become ill of me... but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to recieve Mesopotamia and Armenia"

 A letter from obviously King Shapur to the then Emperor Constantius in 360 I believe, suffice to say Constantius did not hand over any territory to Shapur. However it clearly shows the intentions of the Sassanids to reclaim territory they believed to be rightfully theirs. Undoubtedly Armenia and Mesopotamia would have been used to launch campaigns into Roman territory in the future making this *reconquest* a far more realistic goal.

And do not forget the 260 year battle, when Valerian laid under knees of Persian King and felt sorry for Atacking Sassanid empire

And remember Attila, crossing Po River, meeting Pop Leo and returning back without destroyong Rome in 452.

So, There was times that Sassanids made Empire bigger thatn Rome, or Arabians, maybe 1.5 times bigger, or Gokturks, may be 2 times bigger and Chinese TAN, may be 2 tuimes beggier and 2 times stronger than Rome

That is why I prefer Germans

But, Heraclius, I liked your 1 word-That Romans were not better in Courage than Garmans!!!

Good Spoken

 The size of an empire isnt always particularly relevant, the Roman empire was big enough, it had no need to extend its territory, it had everything what else was there to gain? it was incredibly rich, had a large population, it had many natural frontiers which could be easily defended if adequately guarded.

 All that would of happened is the Roman empire would have had to pay a fortune to conquer new territory, occupy it with legions, hold it and begin the process of romanization for little to no gain.

 Being a Roman obviously doesnt make you more courageous just because your a Roman. However the vastly superior training, discipline and equipment gave the legionary supreme confidence that he would prevail against any and all enemies.

 The Germans were incredibly brave, but often lacked organisation this largely negated the fact that the Germans were excellent individual fighters, because they were charging into a mass of legionaries who were trained to cut them to pieces and more often than not, did just that.

 The legions could defeat Germanic armies of 100,000 or more and only lose a couple of thousands themselves. That says something about how deadly a force the Roman legion could be.

 It took centuries for the Germans to get the upper hand on Rome, by then Rome was way WAY past its best.

Yeah, off cource, u will have no any information about it

Ok, Heraclius, Tell me The name of the battle That was More Than against 100 000 germans and Rome lost less than a thousand

Thell me The general that fought that battle, please

Carrhae:

30000 romans killed including 10 000 preatorian

10000 were sent to captivity

Less than 500 Parthians died

But, i am ok/

Give me a link, I wanna learn about those battles

I am not Persian

Turkish Captured your Canstantionople and just ince, untill today

How many Byzans Armies was became martyrs Becouse of Arabs, Sassanids, Khazars, Avars, Bulgars, Slavians??????

How many times Did Rome took Ctesifon????

Trayan????

What about VAlerian that laid under the legs of Shapur and prayed him to let him freee????????

Thank u for links, lets do not talk about battles that were won, becouse, if it was an empire, then it needed to won a battles in order to be

Why u do not talk about weakness of that empire

That would be better discussion

I kniow why, becouse, u will answer:

-there was no weak parts of Roman empire-

That is why Italy was under the horses of Hannibal 14 years????

that is why, more than 250 000 roman Princeps and Hastatiis died there, becouse Roma was not wea?????

Come on, be truthfull, nobody will hurt u, Just think

think that Romas was good, But was not the bes, and think why I think so

http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Marius - http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Marius

30 000 ROMANS were killed in Sextiae

less than 1000

hmmmm

30 000 < 1000

What was grade from MAth???

Or u have problem with History???

 Carrhae is a tired example by now Janissary, it wasnt even Romes heaviest defeat or one of the most important in the grand scale of the history of the empire. Infinitely outweighed by the fact the Persian capital was turned into little more than a source of loot for the Romans.

 Septimius Severus sacked Ctesiphon in 197AD, suffice to say Ctesiphon was sacked and captured many times by the Romans. Its also worth pointing out Heraclius won the last great war between these two ancient titans the Roman/Byzantine empire and the Sassanids in the 7th century, just prior to the arrival on the scene of the Arabs.

 Anyway that isnt particularly important, since we could go on all day about the Romans capturing a city the Parthians/Sassasnids taking another etc and it would become very tedious.

 Janissary " http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Marius - http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Marius

30 000 ROMANS were killed in Sextiae

less than 1000

hmmmm

30 000 < 1000

What was grade from MAth???Or u have problem with History???"

 I believe the problem is with your English Janissary, not Belisarius' math. Please show more respect.

 From that link you gave it says;

 "The leading contingent of the Germans, the Ambrones, foolishly attacked the Roman position without waiting for re-enforcements and 30,000 were killed."

 That says 30,000 Ambrones died not Romans like you said, so read it carefully next time before spouting off.

 Examples have been given of massive victories the Roman army gained over equally massive German armies, clearly showing the general superiority of the Roman armed forces to the Germanic armies of the time.

 The Germans scored victories against Rome, the Teutoburg forest and Adrianople are the most famous, but Romes defeats are always more famous than her victories. Try as Belisarius pointed out the battle of Aquae Sextiae, Vecallae, and then theres Naissus and lake Benacus.

 There are other German and Roman victories, to list them all would be pointless, my point is that everybody revels in the defeats Rome suffered, but conveniantly ignore Romes victories. Everybody has heard of Carrhae god knows we never hear the end of it from you Janissary, but how many people know much about Naissus? Lake Benacus? why arent these even greater battles as famous as Romes famous defeat at Carrhae? Seems there is more bias against Rome than there is for.

 Finally Janissary, I hope you realise I have no personal stake in this, by that I mean you can criticise the Roman empire/army all you wish, it doesnt bother me in the slightest aslong as your criticism is correct and justified. As impartial a view as possible is what I want, ive never tried to play down defeats like Adrianople, why would I? its well known fact it was a massive defeat and exposed Roman weakness, I could just as easily continue pointing out how weak Parthia once was against Rome in Trajans day, could easily point out that the Sassanids were defeated by Byzantium in the last great war between them. It goes both ways.

 When I make mistakes I just sneakily edit my post

I am an exchange student in USA, so I am not as good as u

ok??

sorry

The only reasons battle like Carrhae and Adrianople are so famous is because they are so unique and rare...That is, Romans loosing so badly...Overall they did have the best system and the most successAnd there were many other great powers too...Germans, Persians, and Ottomans...etc.



Edited by Komnenos with an unofficial warning sent via PM.

-------------

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

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 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?

And also, it was not easy for Rome to capture

It was not easy for legion to fight against celt which holds 3 times bigger sword in his hands

I would say, it was Roman discipline and experience that won battles

if we'll mention, we'll see that, the battles that Rome fouht, they lost very few men, and battles that they lost, they lost almost all the men

That give us a key word-unexperienced generals or wrong tactical choise

Why Romans could not win Hannibal in Cannae, but They could do it in Zama???

Becouse Scippio chosed better tactics that those 2 legats did (sorry i forgot the name)

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"

the whole roman vs germans thing reminds me of two things.

1) how the romans lost every battle against hte greeks who had settled italy, yet still won the war.

2) how the USA won every battle during vietnam and still lost the war.

the romans suffered the same thing, they won every battle but in the end, they could not replenish their troops while the germans kept coming back for more. over and over again the romans lost troops they couldnt replace, much like sparta duing their war with thebes (which they lost and were obliterated basically).  in the end, it all came down to numbers.

  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...?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.