diegis

More like Scipio Africanus is one of the most underrated generals (at least for the general public, not the historians). His plans and actions at both tactical and especially strategical level (where he defeat Hannibal) were brilliant, and the battle of Ilipa can be considered a victory about the same level of Hannibal's one at Cannae (and I do consider Hannibal one of the greatest generals, and both him and Scipio as at same level and slightly over Alexander or Caesar)

You should better be more aware of your own fantasies. This is really embarassing but you probably dont even realize in your quest to prove that everything in Thracia and even Dacia is Celtic. Gosh, i am wonder if Thracians knew how to make a fire before Celts comes around, or how to walk on two legs. Those are sica, a Thraco-Dacian weapon, and from ancient authors to modern historians everyone will tell you that. Did you ever wonder why they show up just in Dacian and Thracian areas, but not in Gallia or other Celtic areas in Central and western Europe? I know, is just a rethorical question

Gosh Cavaros, those daggers are Thracian/Dacian sica. Most of the pics and the idea with having too a possible sacrificial role come from Borangic, which clearly said they are of Thracian-Getae/Dacian origin. It is possible of course that some Scordiscii to adopt them as well (as Thracians or Dacians used Celtic like swords too), but they surely arent Celtic in origin (and you will not find them in other Celtic areas as far as i know).

Cavaros, i think you miss few elementary things Thracians was probably the first individualized people among so called "indo-europeans" and civilization was present well before the arrival of Celts in Balkans. Dacians was part of Getae (as Gauls for ex. was part of Celts from western Europe, and in both cases the names was used intermingled, like Getae=Dacians and Gauls=Celts). Getae themselves are considered the northern branch of Thracians, and both branches was well developed before any Celtic people comes around or be mentioned. See for example the Thracian influence over Greeks, like Peltasts and even some religious or spiritual influence. Getae (mentioned in writings since Herodotus and Darius I invasion in Europe) stoped actualy the spread of Hellenistic world north of Balkans, with their king Dromichaites defeting Lisimachus, one of the Diadochi (but another clashes occured before). Look what Paulus Orosius write: https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book1 "On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome

Isn't a contradiction betwen "I'm not going to get into the whole Dacians or no Dacians argument" you start with and the ending of your post, "Unless you propose that today's Bulgaria was also part of 'Dacia'?" The article clearly say: "What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later. 55 Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

First of all, interesting blog But the article you posted (didnt have time to read others) is kinda biased and with quite few mistakes. First of all the sources you chosed, like Boia, arent quite the best to discuss in detail the history of Dacians or ancient Romania. He isnt a specialist in that field, he is a "historian of ideas" and (as few others too) write inspired by the "new" ideas of so called "demythization" of history. Even that inspiration may come from the fact he received some courses abroad and was invited to classes and symposiums by Soros foundation which have a clear policy all over eastern Europe. Meaning it try to "rewrite" the history of the region, to promote "multiculturalism" (not necessary a bad thing, except when is enforced and have hidden purposes) and abandoning or desconsidering things that relate with nation, nationalism and such. The book of Boia from where you quote there was published in Budapest/Hungary by Soros foundation publishing house This "rewriting" of history is as bad as the one done by communists before. About the communists and their interpretation of history, as appear in your aticle too, the Dacian significance in Romanian history started to be presented in works from XIX century, before communists appeareance in history, let alone in Romania. I dont know (and i kinda doubt actually) about Bulgarians moving away from the Soviet protectorate, but during communist times in Romania (who moved away quite agressively from Soviet views, indeed) the official history maintained the view that Romanians have a Daco-Roman origin (similar with French Galo-Roman) and speak a Latin based language, Dacians wasnt that blown up of importance as some may imply. In fact new discoveries (archeological or in other sources interpretation) may show an even greater importance for them in Romanian history. Now coming to your article, the source you used http://www.academia.edu/1516327/Imitations_of_Republican_denarii_from_Moesia_and_Thrace disprouve what is write in that blog article Just few quotes: " The imitation of the denarii of the Roman Republic in Central and South-eastern Europe, primarily by the Dacians, has received long overdue attention in recent years. 1 Most of this has focused on discoveries in Romania, the heartland of the Dacian polity, where these coins are most often found. The fact that these imitations are also encountered further south in Moesia and Thrace, within the borders of modern Bulgaria, is almost unknown. 2 This article is primarily an attempt to compile a corpus of all known examples of these Moesian and Thracian imitations." "What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later. 55 Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

I think was several reasons, one political, as mentioned by Caldrail, another one was that in 85/86 a Dacian army invaded Roman province of Moesia, making big destructions (Roman troops are defeated and governor Oppius Sabinus was beheaded), so Domitian called back any available troops and rush to Moesia to deal with the problem. Another reason is that Caledonia wasnt probably considered too worthy to be transformed in a province, as it wasnt either a rich teritory, nor a strategic one, and the costs of start building towns, fortresses, roads, aqueducts and so on and keep troops there was too big compared with benefits (similar with what happened in some Germania teritories betwen Rhine and Elba)

Well, it wasnt unstopable or invincible, but for sure had for quite a long period, a crushing dominance. I must say that Assirians for ex, employed first trully multifunctional army, with rapid deployment of assault chariots, psichological warfare, dedicated engineers units who provide suport for crossing rivers, or build all kind of stuff, use of incendiary weapons as burning pitch tar and so on, but Romans set a kind of standard who have many similarities with modern times, or is praised in modern times.

Yes, and we might add as well the medical services that legions had, including what we call today "field doctors" who go on battlefield or close by and treat the wounded right there, then evacuate them to what we can call hospitals. Where even surgery (and sometimes quite complicate interventions) was done for the wounded or sick legionars

Yes, he talk mostly about what was in the prime time of the legions, he mention even foreign nations from which Romans of his time can inspire, Dacians, Thracians, Macedonians, and couple more others. Fact is that those things was usualy done in Roman legions, and wasnt Vegetius inventions Sure it was a necessity, and this discipline (sometimes or usualy less harsh today) is still imposed in modern armies, and have its roots to the legions. From perfect marches to clean up your guns or your uniform, your boots, until they shine (especialy on inspections or parades), to punishments for diysobeing the orders or not doing your mission. Sure, not like decimation or lashing or beatings (this last one might still be around in many armies) Well, if you dont believe is one thing, but they surely existed, because other way they wouldnt be mentioned. And their paralels with modern armies are clear. About a chaotic ambush situation, i dont think any modern regular army unit will do much better then a Roman legion back then. Yes, but more times this helped them and surprised the enemies. I think Caesar said that Germans for ex. was quick runners, but have a weak resistance or stamina, and wasnt able to stand much physical work, especialy compared with his legionars. I think a guy called Nero (not the emperor ofcourse), if i am not mistake, made a spectacular quick (and long) march with his army, from Rome to somehwere north of Italia, and took by surprise the Carthaginian army led by Hanibal brother (Hasdrubal was his name if i remember correct) who come in his help from Hispania. This Carthage army was destroyed, and Hannibal lost all his reinforces. So yes, Roman soldiers (still not "profesional" at that time) was able to fight even after those marches, but usualy was not the case that a battle to start imediatly after a march I think modern professionals arent too diferent from Roman ones. Sure, diferences exist, but Romans are somehow the roots for any profesional force

Well, if we read what Vegetius i think, writed, and many others, Roman Army was indeed what might call an example for today armies. Discipline was harsh usualy (ofcourse, less during peace time but much more during war), training was hard, including runing, marches (even swiming) with all equipment on the soldier, wrestling, boxing, use of individual weapons (and colective ones as balistae and catapults) and fight in bigger formations as well, engineering works etc. This is exactly what a modern army do as well Organization was clear and flexible (decuria, centuria, cohors, legions etc. similar with group, platoon, companies, battalions, regiments/brigades/divisions), there was a chain of comand quite well established, signals was used on the battle field, both visual and in sounds, to give orders during battle. This again is similar with modern armies Logistic was very good, soldiers have with them all their personal stuffs, weapons, tools extra clothes, armour and food for a period of time, and they was trained to march quite long distances equiped like that (this is quite above average armies today, as physical request) They used even specialized inteligence networks, use spies, bribes and politics to resolve some problems, again, as modern powers do. Soldiers was all profesional and equiped by state, again as modern armies, which inspire quite a lot from Romans.

I came across to a website, and a map they did, with DNA subgroups of Europe, not sure how realistic are, but is interesting http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-europa.html

Dacians had too the right, short sword similar with Gladius, but aparently most spread was the Sica, somehow similar in lenght, maybe a little shorter, but having a curvature (looking like a giant claw) and able to be used not just for slashing, but even for stabbing too in diferent angles, easier then a right sword, especialy when your sheild is pushing in the enemy shield and the space of the battle was full of peoples. Falx was a bigger Sica i think, and was designed to bypass the shield. Due to shape and weight it can pierce a helmet with its tip, from above, it can easily cut legs (in a kind of schyte or hook and pull move) and arms, and, due to same shape and system of use it can used in more confined space, dont need the same space as a long Celtic like sword. It was possible as well to hook and pull the enemy shield, unbalancing him and drag him down Gladius was however very good for Roman formations and warfare style

Yes, IF. I do not believe those legions should ever have been sent on campaign with Rome's military strength so low. Those three legions should never have gone on campaign in the first place, because as we saw, they needed heavy axillary support in Germania. I think the entire campaign was doomed, especially since they were lead by such a naive commander. The fact the Romans before the battle were in such a long column was just asking for trouble. But yes, I agree that if they had succeeded, it would have been better. But it was obvious they would not succeed (in my opinion). ~I agree with that. The desert was not the best position for a Roman army, as it was too open for the Parthian tactics of attack. If Rome has gone further into the East, I am certain it would have only lead to ruin. Carrhae shows us that even the strongest Roman army can be defeated relatively easily in the east. In fact Rome pretty much conquered Germania with Germanicus campaign, it was just that the emperor, for diferent resons, call it back. It was a land with little importance for romans i think, mostly swamps and forest, no infrastructure, no cities, no fortreses, no rich gold or silver mines, no significant agriculture land, and, at that point in history, no strategic value either. The investments to make there a province will be way to huge compared with benefits. Romans controled however the area thru client rulers, a much cheaper way of control and even in III century AD (a bad century for empire) they was able to send the legions deep in northern Germania to punish the rebel tribes. Traian i think was the only one in position to conquer Parthia, but fortunately he was too old at that moment, and died during campaign (a heart attack i think, he was ill) About the answer on topic, i think that yes, first and most known is Iulius Caesar, even if i like more Scipio Africanus and strangely, i am interested in Catilina too. It was interesting if Caesar wouldnt be killed and he make that expeditions against Parthia and Dacia (not sure in which order), both of them being pretty strong too. Traian manage to conquer big parts of them, but i am not sure Caesar might have the same succes, with his fantastic battle plan in MEsopotamia and around the Black Sea

Well, its a very interesting debate, and it seem that the oldest "Homo Sapiens" remains found until now in Europe have some features who point in the direction that Homo Sapiens interbreeded with Neanderthal after all This is the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3129654.stm

Hmm, hard to choose for me, someone betwen -Scipio Africanus - he deal excelent with Hannibal and Carthage, and was probably the mastermind behind his brother who was in charge when romans defeated seleucids, as well he seed the roots for the later Marius reform of roman army -Caesar - all well known about him -Traian - defeated the last two important enemies of Rome at that time, Dacia and Parthia, and spread the empire at its largest, the peak of roman power. -Caius Marius - make the reform of the roman army, crushed the Cimbrii and Teutonii at Aque Sixtie and Vercellae, defeated Jughurta in Africa -Flavius Aetius -"the last of the romans", manage to assure the survival of western roman empire during his time, dealing with germanics and huns, and was the one who defeated the feared huns in one of the most important battles of late ancient times -Belisarius - the one who come close to restore the old empire, reconquering large parts of the western one, and defeating a lot of diferent ebnemies with smaller resources

This are 2 articles, about curved knives and swords used by Dacians (north thracians) and in the case of "sica" by southern thracians too. http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/nemvs/nemus%202009/4.pdf This is about "sica" (usual considered a dagger, but some including shorter swords under this name as well), and have a short english text from page 14 on, as well several sica blades discovered, and their dimensions http://cclbsebes.ro/docs/sebus/08_Borangic.pdf This one is about the even more famous "Falx Dacica", as well have a short article in english, from page 10 on, and present most of the falx blades (very few, unfortunately) discovered until now, with images and dimensions This was the "national" weapons of Dacians, made famous especialy during Daco-Roman wars from 101-102 and 105-106 AD, a feared weapons who had a sinister fame among roman soldiers.

For the first time museums from Romania, Rep. of Moldova and Bulgaria gathered together artefacts from what is know as "Old European Civilization" for a presentation at Institute for Study of Ancient World from New York. This indeed highly sophisticated civilization, or proto-civilization, because lacked the writing (thus is still in debate if the so called "tablets from Tartaria" are a form of writing) was the most developed human comunity in the world back then, with developing of copper blacksmith, a superb pottery and having even cities with about 2000 houses and 10,000 inhabitans, thousands years before Mesopotamia or Egypt. http://www.nyu.edu/isaw/exhibitions/oldeurope/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01arch.html?_r=3 http://heritage-key.com/blogs/helen-atkins...male-male-power http://www.flickr.com/photos/37011992@N08/...988974/sizes/o/ http://www.wnyc.org/slideshows2/lostworld

Close but not so; those and other emperors of the late III/early IV century were from Dalmatia (Illyricum), not Dacia. (In modern terms, Croatia, not Romania). A fascinating anecdote; would you be kind enough to post the full reference? Thanks in advance. The quote is exact but comes from an extremely unreliable source, the Historia Augusta, especially fictionalized for the "minor biographies" of usurpers like Regalianus. Troops from both sides of the Danubian border often raided the other side; however, a persistent re-occupation of a significant portion of the former Roman Dacia seems unlikely. Salve Sylla Well, i didnt said they was born in Dacia north of Danube, but that they was from dacian origin. I dont know exactly where was born Regalianus for ex., but Galerius and Licinius was born in Moesia (later know as Dacia Ripensis) province, as well there was born the father of Constantine, and this is today Serbia mostly, not Croatia, and was a former dacian teritory incorporated in roman empire previous to one in north of Danube. About Lactantius and what he wrote about Galerius http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/t...pers.html#XXVII More specific the chapter XXVII, at the end.

Regardless of their intent. The Romans army withdrew and never reconquered Dacia. Not even with Diocletian's reforms. They were either unable or unwilling to undertake the reconquest. The main point of my post is to find out what was going on in Dacia during that time interval. How Romanized were the Goths? What legacy, if any, did the Goths leave behind when they crossed the danube in the 4th century? Constantine the Great (who's father was probably from dacian origin as well, and his brother-in-law Licinius being from dacian origin too) retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province. Galerius for ex. was one of the emperors from dacian origin who took most of his troops from the region (acording with Lactantius in "De mortibus persecutorum" he even intended to change the name of the Roman empire in Dacian empire), as well Regalianus, one of the throne usurpers was from dacian origin and even pretend is the from the same family with Decebalus, probably to took under his control the free dacians too.

Well, first, Traian ocupied just a part of Dacia, not all. Many dacians remain outside the province borders, and was usualy called "free dacians"(some of their most important tribes being known later as Costobocii or Carpii). Archeology show as well that usualy common peoples of dacians (thus not the majority of nobles and priests) survived well in roman province, even if affected by the war, so romans bring a lot of colonists (the localities almost doubled their number, and many dacians was resettled in locations where can be better controled). Roman colonists arrived from many parts of the empire (many right from Italy), but the bulk of them was probably from neighbour provinces (Moesia, Panonia, Thracia, etc.), provinces who was inhabitated as well by dacians (and thracians, thraco-dacians), already romanized. This help to spread of latin language more quickly (they was probably bilingual, and understand each other), as well the contacts betwen dacians from the province and free dacians was strong. However, dacians from the province rebbel quite often against roman rule (first time in the year of death of Traian, and Hadrian almost wanted to abandon province back then), and later they coordinate this rebellions with invasions of free dacians (some of this invasions go as far as reaching deep in Greece). In III century AD will appear the peoples called goths, and they formed the so called (by archeologists) Santana de Mures/Cherneakhov culture. Goths was infact a conglomerat of peoples as dacians, sarmatians, germans, taifali, possible even some celts too, a mix who had very visible roman influences too. This are some quotes from some historians who deal with the subject (from wikipedia, but their books can be find on the internet too)": ""Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (ie the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Allemani or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier"". ""Halsall (2007, p. 132)The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences, but most come from existing cultures in the region"" ""Matthews (, p. 90) argue that it shows that the local Daco-Getans played the leading role in the creation of the Culture"" After goths pass the border (the Danube), and entered in roman empire as "foederati", then move further to west, the majority (thus probably not all) of their dacian component remain in Dacia areas. Teodoric the Great goths was just 100,000 (the entire people not just warriors) if i remember correct, when they moved in Italy, so not a big population. ""Matthews (, p. 91) settlement was continuous from the period of the Sintana de Mures/ Cernjachov Culture right through the Migration Period into the Middle Ages proper"". Halsall, Guy (2007), Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, Cambridge University Press Matthews, John; Heather, Peter (1991), The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool University Press Kulikowsky, Michael (2007), Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric, Cambridge University Press There is as well even more "pure" dacian archeological cultures finded, beside this Santana. However, Aurelian retreated mostly the army (formed back then by 2 legions, each around 1000 soldiers ), civil administration, and patricians, merchants, etc. Most of the peoples stay, especialy common peoples, farmers, etc. based on the fact they have relations with the "barbarians", who was in a big part from the same nation with them, they was free from paying taxes to romans, well, they was generaly free now, even if probably many need to give a kind of tribute to new military arrived, anyway way less then to roman administration. The contacts with romans was still keept anyway, and roman influence was still going on, since Danube wasnt a real border, and dacians from both sides still continue their relations, both of them being already under heavy roman influence (from linguistical point of view more). Emperor Constantine the Great even retook partialy the teritories north of Danube (he took the title of "Dacicus Maximus" too, like Traian), and build a bridge there, and fortifications in north of Danube. This mix of dacians and former roman colonistst who remain in Dacia (both northern one and Moesia for ex.) will still be in contact with romans, and adopted a romance language (with a dacian substrat stronger then gallic one in french, from what i read) a local development of vulgar latin spoked in the area (some of the most arhaic form i understand) and eventualy form the proto-romanians (folklore and mythology remain dacian instead). The huns for ex., who had the base in Panonia fields, or any migratory peoples coming from stepes had less influence in the Dacia, because the teritory was covered 80 % by forests and 30-35 % by mountains. Peoples gradualy abandoned the towns, who was on roads possible used for invasions, and rely more on rural life style, less afected by migrations, but without to be able to build a new strong state/kingdom, up until middle ages. About goth influence, it was more like a dacian (and obviously roman) influence in this conglomerat of peoples, since this two was the higher developed cultures. Ofcourse after they move in roman empire and dacians remain in Dacia, the germanic part becomed more pregnant and dominant, but dacians was still saw in high regard by goths, even after they move in west (see Getica of Jordanes, and independent of him, Issidor from Sevilla).

Salut Kosmo Well, first, about huns. Yes, they did that, but at that moment romans fought on other fronts as well, and was already in a big decline. Roman army was just a shadow of one from 2-3 centuries ago. There was no coordination betwen the two empires, who was atacked from all parts, economy was falling, and roman empire was in a course of disintegration. As well, huns was in fact a mix of diverse peoples, dominated by the proper huns. They had among them for sure even former members of roman army, payed well with what Attila gained from his incursions, Attila himself being, if i am not mistake, hostage at romans, or living to them for a while, so he know alot about them as well. This "romans" surely help him with their knowledge of siege weapons, and so, as well possible he had peoples "inside" roman empire, who help him when need (i think at one siege he manage to capture the fortress being help from the inside). Thats why he manage to had that succesess. His composite army and multiethnic army, when meet a roman one (as well composite and with many auxiliars from germanic tribes) able somehow to fight and lead by a competent comander (Flavius Aetius) was defeated. About eastern empire, yes, you are right, but dont forget Justinianus and his general Belisarius, who, a century later after Attila was able to revive for a short time the old roman glory, based on the land army as in old times.

I think the germanic (and related populations) getting progresively stronger for 3 reasons: 1- romans getting progresivly weaker, due their big internal problems, as endless civil wars and battles for power betwen a lot of emperors, pretenders to throne, generals from diferent regions, etc., the chronic corruption of administration, and slowly but steady fall of economy, because of all that, and ofcourse the fall of interest for "martial virtues: of many roman citizens, this come to the 2- a lot of germanics (and not just) are accepted and recruited in roman army, and received roman type of training and equipment, rising up their level of martial power and knowledge, and in the same time make them to have an inside knowledge of roman army. Before that germans had just exceptional succeses (as Arausio), but more because romans mistakes (or stupidity of some commanders), and not necesarily german prowess. Even Arminius was in fact roman citizen and high regarded officer in roman army, this explaining his succes at Teutoborg. 3- other powers as dacians and celts was already eliminated by romans. About huns, in my opinion they are a little overrated, mostly because roman church propaganda, who use them as a "boogeymans" to bring peoples to them, as well to "make" the pope looking "big", since he resolved the problem with Attila (probably bribe him infact) to not invade Rome. Huns, especialy when acted alone, so just few thousands of cavalry archers, was very succesfull using "hit and run" tactics (using even the roman roads system to move quickly across the empire), good for plunder, but not for real conquers. They benefit alot as well on the fact that romans was in agony, and not able to rise any good army to deal with them and their tactics (especial the western empire). However, when the huns wanted to fight more in the "classic" way, and to conquer cities and teritories, using a mixed army, and romans manage to bring an army too, romans win (see the battle of Catalaunic fields/Campus Mauriacus, when Flavius Aetius let Attila alive and free because of his own from political reasons). They was good as long as Attila (who also lived a while among romans) lived and manage to keep them togheter (they becomed too a mix of different peoples, with huns just as the dominants leaders). After Attila death they was defeated by some smaller germaic tribes and practicly dissapear from the history.

Sorry if is a repost http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...96720%2C00.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/0...ield/index.html http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/eur...0G348qEMr&B This show that romans wasnt at all stopped by Teutoborg disaster, but they in fact controlled Germania betwen Rhine and Elba long time after that, even in III century AD. They send armies in north of Germany, and defeated the germans who tried to stop them. My opinion is that germans manage to rise as a power in Europe mostly after alot of them was "romanized" and accepted in roman army as auxiliars and mercenaries (due to endless internal wars of romans, and they need of new soldiers), where they received roman type of training and equipment, and after roman empire start to crumble and fall because of its huge internal problems, and after romans "cleaned"up Europe from other powers as Celts, Dacians and Greeks.