Romans vs Germans in III century AD

[diegis]

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.

[Northern Neil]

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.

I have not got all my books to hand just now so I cannot be too precise, but some writers on the later Roman Empire have remarked that the super tribes of Allemanni, Frank and Goth were dangerous from the 3rd century on precisely because of partial Romanisation.

[sylla]

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.

I have not got all my books to hand just now so I cannot be too precise, but some writers on the later Roman Empire have remarked that the super tribes of Allemanni, Frank and Goth were dangerous from the 3rd century on precisely because of partial Romanisation.

I think most posters here in UNRV would agree the Germans and related populations were getting progressively stronger; that was only natural after having to face the Roman advance for such a long time.

In any case, it's clear that romanization was not indispensable for the Barbarians to become powerful warriors; the Huns were an excellent example of that fact.

The increase of the military proficiency was presumably one of the major factors that contributed to the collapse of the Western Empire, but just one of them and hardly the whole story, as it cannot explain by itself why the East survived while facing essentially the same menace across the Danubian frontier.

[diegis]

I think most posters here in UNRV would agree the Germans and related populations were getting progressively stronger; that was only natural after having to face the Roman advance for such a long time.

In any case, it's clear that romanization was not indispensable for the Barbarians to become powerful warriors; the Huns were an excellent example of that fact.

The increase of the military proficiency was presumably one of the major factors that contributed to the collapse of the Western Empire, but just one of them and hardly the whole story, as it cannot explain by itself why the East survived while facing essentially the same menace across the Danubian frontier.

 

 

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.

[sylla]

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.

More or less everyone propose the same general mechanisms; the problems come with the specifics.

For example, why did only the West fall?

The East had the same big internal problems (which in fact continued there long after the V century).

Romanized or not, Germans and Huns were also attacking there.

 

And for the record; I'm not aware of any evidence that Aetius "let" Attila "free" in Ch

Edited November 22, 2009 by sylla

[diegis]

More or less everyone propose the same general mechanisms; the problems come with the specifics.

For example, why did only the West fall?

The East had the same big internal problems (which in fact continued there long after the V century).

Romanized or not, Germans and Huns were also attacking there.

 

And for the record; I'm not aware of any evidence that Aetius "let" Attila "free" in Ch

[Kosmo]

Salve Diegis

Between 440-447 the huns not only defeated the Eastern roman field armies but conquered most of the cities and fortresses in the Balkans and there were lots of them. In many places the destruction it's confirmed by archeology so the complains that more then 100 cities were taken may be true. This shows that they did not used "hit and run" tactics even if they did not kept their conquest but sacked and destroyed the cities. Their composite army had probably a large infantry corps and a very efficient siege train to do what the goths failed to do before them.

Geography, the fleet and the walls of the capital protected most of the Eastern half and it's wealth from the invaders from Europe and the army did kept the Persian and the Caucasus frontiers safe.

[diegis]

Salve Diegis

Between 440-447 the huns not only defeated the Eastern roman field armies but conquered most of the cities and fortresses in the Balkans and there were lots of them. In many places the destruction it's confirmed by archeology so the complains that more then 100 cities were taken may be true. This shows that they did not used "hit and run" tactics even if they did not kept their conquest but sacked and destroyed the cities. Their composite army had probably a large infantry corps and a very efficient siege train to do what the goths failed to do before them.

Geography, the fleet and the walls of the capital protected most of the Eastern half and it's wealth from the invaders from Europe and the army did kept the Persian and the Caucasus frontiers safe.

 

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.

[sylla]

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla