Arvioustus

Probably economics and then deseases or combination of both. Malaria, plaque and perhaps lead based deseases are well documented in this period. Think most historians have become enlightened enough to realize the the migrations occured because of this decline and before that they were repulsed for a long time. Do not forget the empire was huge and strecthed out and still had the power to repulse. (they had revolts all over the empire) Many modern historians have discounted what many German historians have written (practically all of moden data concerning /German Roman realtions) because it had elements of superior barbarians over running the inferior Roman army. We all the know the truth now. The barbarians were kept out and when they did raid they were punished severely and many of the most important German tribes were made part of the empire. Also, Roman incursions(except the over rated Tuetinberg delemna, Aryan historians made it out to be biggest Roman loss ever, not even close!) all the way to the Elbe and the crushing of revolts (Batavia,etc.) showed Roman superiority many times over. After all if the 'mass migrations' could have occured at an earlier time they would have! They tried many times, but Rome was economically strong and proved its legionaires could defeat them regardless of enemies numbers and how stretched out the empire was. So the real reason has to be either economic decline (cannot defend) or deseases which caused an inabilty to have enough manpower. We know the late Romans had difficulty getting enough manpower to be sure.

The 'literacy test' you mentioned, I am not so sure. The Romans are then backward compared to the Greeks? The Romans idolazed the Greeks to be sure and who was it that stated ' a good Greek is better than any barbarian but a bad Greek is worse than any'? Romans were considered barbarians to the Greeks for various reasons too. Think more data will come from this region concerning its Roman period. (probably neglected and squashed during communist era) Just the location of where Dacia is suggests a nation that can take care of itself. The Romans valued Gold above all, Dacia had gold and was free from Rome for a long time. For, example Rome view Germania inferior as a source for their typical recruitment odf sone but superior supported taxation,which menat alot to the Romans. You do not think the knowledge of Dacian gold was perhaps the real reason for Roman interest there? The location of Dacia also supports a nation that can handle itself and maintain independence. The German tribes I am sure did all they can to invade and were repulsed. The Samartian to the east the same and of course the Romans. If I am not mistaken the largest invasion force the Romans ever assembled was needed to conquer Dacia. (except of course civil wars) The Romans lost many battles there, to be sure Romans lost battles all over but given the size of the Roman force this was a major feat.( even though I have read the Romans were most likely outnumbered,plus Dacians had German allies) The falx was not the only thing Dacia possessed that was formadible I am sure, they traded with Greece long before the Romans did so they must have obtained much. Doubtful Dacia was backwards in most areas especially warfare.

Dacia, I would not classify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps other areas in the frontiers had similar? January 2006 Discover magazine

Dacia, I would not clssify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye. January 2006 Discover magazine

If you look at ancient Roman artwork and portraits it is very difficult to say they are even 'Mediteranean looking' ( even though I do not know what that is exactly). I see a variety of faces almost like the USA of today. They really do not even look like modern Italian faces. It seemed like blond hair and dark hair were well represented as well were an amazing aray of physical diversity much more so than the modern Italians I studied. If I was to generalize and compare I would see the Romans as a muscular type people( not the body builder type but a look of extreme strength) and not very attractive facial features at all. (the modern Italian does not resemble them at all) However, looking at the portraits it is plain to see that hair or skin tone was not an issue but just an extreme lack of facial beauty. I am not talking about portraits of the slaves (there are many) but of the Romans. Ethnically it would seem like they are in a class by themselves and just merged with other Europeans so much that they dissapeared completely.

357 with ammo, first aid with matches(to enchant natives) an Roman history books to show who they are and what becomes.

I think historians in general promote what they want promoted. Ussually you would assume the Aryan historians change history and facts to promote their ideology but they are not alone. It seems that through omision or downplaying of certain events over others the same distortions occur. This event it seems can be one of the biggest massacres of civilans in ancient history. One question, how come the civilains could not protect themselves at all? Another question, ancient Judea has produced much turmoil (guess it still does) and the fantasism must have produced fierce fighters and many problems for the legions. My guess why the Romans could not protect these 250,000 civilians just shows that Roman legions are just streched too far perhaps. Why historians downplayed this needs serious attention.

I am saying that is a possibility ,yes. Analyzing the battles it seems that Roman losses ussaully contribute to poor leadeship and/or inability to cope with cavalry. However, even in loss they inflict severe casualties on th enemy while being outnumbered greatly with Hannibal being the exception on this. When victories they sometimes take such little loss that some conclusions have to be made. The Romans also had a great desire for slaves so I am sure those numbers should be fairly accurate.(they had to bring prisoners back) Hannibal is such an interesting exception on this but does not counter my theory on the individual Roman superiority as I will expalin. Romans for the first and perhaps only time outnumberd their oppostion and still lost. I can explain how they lost so many battles to Hannibal because the legions were not what people think they were, brilliant fighting machines. No, they were led by polticians not military men ussually. ( oppostion ussually had military men as leaders) It would be nice to think their discipline and training is the answer to their success , as it may have helped , but it seems that the legions were ussauly bumbling around and being outmanuevered by all. Caesar even was severly outmanuevered by the Celts and Germans. They lost because they did what Hannibal didn`t , engage the Roman infantry totally. (When Hannibal did it was a guise) I do feel that the Celts and Germans would have beaten the legions with better use of their cavalry and just do not engage the Romans directly. Why? Caesar,Marius, Geramanicus and others inspired them to beat the odds, doing so against such great numbers, leadership with questionable motives and/or amazing confidence about their mens superiorty? What leader would tell their troops lets attack these 200,000 Celts/ Germans with our 50,000 man army, we have the advantage. Ridiculous! This is not strategy regardless of the outcome. The Romans did this not with brilliant manuevers or traps just but with just relying on the infantry. Great generals would not do this. Arrogant and charismatic leaders perhaps would. The oppostion did not use their numbers and cavalry effectively, if they did Roman loss would have always occured. Even though I feel the Celts and Germans had inteligent and clever miltary leaders they did not grasp how to beat them as Hannibal did obviously. I can understand why though, their sheer numbers would convince any general, how we can lose? I know this takes the the Roman miltary system down a notch but I think it should be. Hannibal used intelligence and superior use of cavalry. I know some German tribes had cavalry (Caesar used some , I think for economy and Roman lack) but they were not the Numidian cavalry. The Goths later proved the effect of cavalry with sheer numbers against Roman infantry. Goths proved to be the most effective German tribe against the Romans through cavalry and brilliant leadership.This is how you beat men that are superior to you are with hand to hand, cavalry can easly outmnauever and cause havoc and greatly weaken the infantry giving your infantry better odds. Hannibal did this. Everyone who was effective against the Romans did this, from the Atlantic to the Black Sea! Looking at Hannbals battles he did all he can to nullify the superiority of the Roman infantry. Hannibal proved that the Roman fighting machine was not adaptable and can be outmanuevered easlily. Hannibal did humiliate the Romans more than anyone ever in their history, just because he lost in the end is meaningless to me. He showed that the Romans can be beaten by strategy and cavalry and not going against their infantry. Why, because these infantry men had to be amazing physical specimens with hand to hand abilty that was fierce. Those of you who are trained with hand to hand knife skills know what I am talking about. Being outnumbered you have to have great agilty to avoid and the best get cut up.( All people of that time were trained in hand to hand) Also, abilty to take many wounds for sure; no matter how good you are. This is theory only: take heart those who love the Roman military machine. Perhaps I am wrong , at least that I am open minded on matters that happened 2000 years ago. It just seems so logical looking at all their battles in totality and how the opposition feared their infantry. I understand this takes the brains out of the Roman war machine in favor of the braun. Just want people to consider all possiblities, that is all. Too many are just so opinionated that they can be blinded to the obvious.

Answers.com has the same results in the battle of Vercellae....even the losses of less than 1000 Romans. well maybe the Romans lost 2000 in this battle. Still amazing. Amazing how so few want to recognize the Roman soldier here. No trap here,just kicking Barbarian butt while not getting losses. This should be looked into. Strange how some do not like these Roman victories but never dispute Roman losses in which they lost. Peculiar. Maybe we should believe what Tacitus says, don`t think so. Many sources , many different stats to be sure. Even Caesar however gave huge numbers of Geramanic tribes, I do believe him, a bit.

Did Caesar ever have result where by so few Romans were killed given the huge odds against him? Gaius does live in the shadow of his nephew to be sure but is it justified? Two main battles: Approx. casualties Battle of Aquae Sextia====over 110,000Germans against 40,000Romans results- 90,000 Germans killed, 20,000 captured and less than 1000 Romans killed! Battle Of Vercellae ---over 200,000 Germans againt 50,000Romans results: 140,000 Germans killed ,60,000 captured..under 1000 Romans killed! These results speaks volumes about the abilty of the Roman fighting force. (This is hand to hand not bombs....much stabbing had to occur, where the Germans stabbing each other? How many Roman battles ever had this amount of success? Not many, how about anyone remembering Roman battles where they lost over 100,000 men, think Crassus did in Parthia, not sure of many more. Source: wikipedia

Makes you wonder: Religion was designed to provide peace and worship but seems like just the opposite occurs. Perhaps Rome had a even more serious religious problems than we think and many of think they were many, but at the level of these modern conflicts?

History does not talk about this much but it was an enormous masacre of regular citizens. Curious, did the Huns even mascare this many? Not at one time I am sure. Did the Roamns put 250,000 citizens to death? The massacre of Roman citizens on a massive scale by armed Jewish mobs in Cyprus (recorded as 240,000) and Cyrene as well as the destruction of pagan temples forced brutal retaliation. Massacre was met with massacre as Trajan ordered legionary response to the uprising. Jews were virtually expelled from Cyprus and the population of North Africa (Jewish, Roman and Greek) was decimated. The revolt and its suppression dragged on even into the reign of Hadrian (who would be faced years later with another considerable Jewish uprising in Judaea), but Trajan still yearned for his Alexander style eastern campaign and exacting revenge against the people of Hatra. A planned renewal of the offensive was brought to a halt as the emperor fell ill during the summer of AD 117, and Trajan began the trip back to Rome. Landing in Cilicia after a short journey by sea, the emperor died in Selinus on August 9 most likely of natural causes.

It looks like your analysis of Germanic fighters were similar to the Viking? What I have read there was a huge variation between most, some heavy cavalry, some light and they fought with a great deal of strategy. They always new the Roman strength because they had much information from Celtic and Belgic (probably Germanic) on the size of the legions. The Romans had spies of course but it seems like the Geramnic forces alwys engaged the Romans with an amazing amount of troops. Who has the better strategy? True the Romans won most of the battles but this cannot be because of their strategy. Perhaps because the Romans were led by policians and the Germans were led by leaders who came up from the ranks. I feel the Romans biggest advanatge was the individual foot soldier, his abilty to overcome many odds is legendary. Just many researches do not dwell on this because it leads nowhere and just simplifies what is the Roman machine to them. However, the machine did work but its abilty was based on a superior physical specimens I am sure besides training. Hand to hand they must have suffered many wounds being so outnumberd and I still cannot understand their success given the odds. Marcus Aurelius was an interesting figure against the Germanic tribes: Eutropius: Compendium of Roman History, VIII.12-14 Marcus Aurelius was trained in philosophy by Apollonius of Chalcedon: in the Greek language by Sextus of Chaeronea, the grandson of Plutarch, while the eminent orator Fronto instructed him in Latin literature. He conducted himself towards all men at Rome, as if he had been their equal, being moved by no arrogance by his elevation to the Empire. He exercised prompt liberality, and managed the provinceswith the utmost kindness and indulgence. Under his rule affairs were successfully conducted against the Germans. He himself carried on a war with the Marcomanni, which was greater than any in the memory of man (in the way of wars with the Germans)---so that it was compared to the Punic Wars, for it was exceedingly formidable, and in it whole armies were lost; especially as in this reign, after the victory over the Parthians there occurred a great pestilence so that at Rome, and throughout Italy and the provinces a large fraction of the population, and actually the bulk of the regular troops perished from the plague. With the greatest labor and patience he persevered for three whole years at Carnutum [a strategically located fortress town in Pannonia], and brought the Marcomannic war to an end; a war in which the Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Suevi and all the barbarians in that region, had joined the outbreak of the Marcomanni. He slew several thousand men, and having delivered the Pannonians from bondage held a triumph at Rome. As the treasury was drained by the war, and he had no money to give his soldiers; and as he would not lay any extra tax on the provinces or Senate, he sold off all his imperial furniture and decorations by an auction held in the Forum of Trajan, consisting of gold and cups of crystal and precious stone, silk garments belonging to his wife and to himself, embroidered---as they were---with gold, and numbers of jeweled ornaments. This sale was kept up through two successive months and a great deal of money was raised by it. After his victory, however, he refunded the money to such purchasers as were willing to restore what they had bought, but was by no means troublesome to those who wished to keep their purchase. After his victory he was so magnificent in his display of games he is said to have exhibited in the arena one hundred lions at once. Having then at last rendered the state happy by his excellent management and gentleness of character, he died in the eighteenth year of his reign, in the sixty-first of his life. He was enrolled among the gods, all the Senate voting unanimously that he should have such honor.

Average height is unkown but there was a 5 ft. 10.0 in minimum, same height as Mike Tyson. Quickness and stregnth are very effective tools in which the Roamn soldiers surely had.