American Reacts Why didn't Rome Conquer Germania? | Knowledgia - McJibbin Reacts

[@lyonelk3108]

Love the rome content also don't worm yourself too hard if you ever feel tired or down take a break we can wait

[@McJibbin]

thank you that means a lot 🥰😊

[@Fallopia5150]

I second that! Sometimes you look very stressed.

[@Fallopia5150]

Rome 'lost' 3 Eagle standards in the battles in Teutoburg. This was a terrible thing to happen. They had to look for and find them. Took them 30 years. They won battles in Germania but Germania was determined and kicked Rome out.

[@antoniosorella1745]

Ne ha recuperati 2 di aquile, con il generale Caio Giulio Germanico. Sconfisse Arminio. Alla fine fu Richiamato a Roma.

[@ReezeGoingSenseless]

Lets be fair tho, Romans fucked up like half of germania getting them eagles.Sure, SPQR got their natis handed to them, but damn!

[@theoderich1168]

The "betrayal" of Arminius (we call him Hermann) was loyalty towards his own people who were suppressed and maltreated by Romans at the same time; so was he a terrorist or a freedom fighter ? BTW I think we know far too little about our ancestors; the Phoenicians have been to Britain and Skandinavia hundreds of years B.C.; amber from the Baltic Sea has been found in Egyptian tombs; there have been trading routes across Europe for thousands of years we know nothing about, in part because nobody left written testimony - the Nebra sky disc is roughly 3500 years old. They were no Barbarians, they just were diffferent from the Romans. Rome's aim was power, the tribes in the centre of Europe loved their freedom, not wealth or power

[@alexvonrom7942]

The romans didnt use elephants, the reason why there is one on the banner is because the identification of a legion was composed by 3 factors: the number, the name (wich isn't chosen randomly, it corresponds to where the legionairs were raised, for example the I legio Italica was from Italy, the VIIII Hispana was from Spain etc.), the symbol, wich could be an animal, a god or even an object, it didn't truly define nor where the legion was founded nor any characteristics of how it was made (as they were all the same except auxiliaries), it was more of a symbol to impersonaficate the strength of the legion, and no, for what we know for certain the romans never used elephants in combat, at least themself, this because even if ti may seem like a wonderful weapon (some claim it to be the first "tank") the elephant was just an animal that actually could be defeated easily, as the romans did against hannibal, you just need to put the tails of some pigs on fire and make them run near the elephants, they will scare the shit out of them and run away, also if in combat, the romans has plenty of non-mele weapons and really it doesn't take much ammunition to bring one down

[@adrianmed7353]

Barbarians its a tv series about Arminius and Varus . They speak latin and german which make it more immersive.

[@marcgarrigosmane166]

But the tribes didn't spoke german

[@Grib68-]

I’d like to recommend the Boudican revolt of AD 60.

[@magnusemilsson7205]

One explanation for some of the Romans' difficulties in conquering the northern areas that I have heard about was the organization (from Swedish history books). A Roman soldier was paid, and with his salary he supplied his wife and children who lived safely within the Roman Empire. In the north, there were warrior families, where the father fought, and his wife was just behind the front with his children and oversaw food and other things. The motivation then becomes a little different, if the Roman soldier retreated, it did not matter so much and rather better for his wife and children that he survived, but for the other it would mean that his wife and children would be slaughtered. Above this the north also more practice guerrilla warfare, that the Romans had problem to cope with.

[@althelas]

The Danube is way in the east of Germany, the river you mean is the Rhine. In my area (Southern Bavaria) there was one tribe the Romans never attacked, instaed they tried to stay on their good side, because they made unique and very durable swords and the romans wanted them, they were very valuable and only the high and mighty could afford them. The reason why those swords were so good was that the celts made it from metals that assumably came from a meteorite that had hit the area at one time between 2000 and 400 B.C. It is also assumed that the fear of the celts from "the sky falling on their heads" came from the Chiemsee impact. From archeological findings around the lake and the wider area suggests, that at the time of the impact the carea was heavily populated and the meteorite destroyed everything and forced the surviving people to flee to safer grounds. The area was inhabitable for a few decades and probably even centuries, before the first settlers came back. Those settlers found ore in the ground that was harder to work with but made amazing knives and swords. This is still a theory, backed by archeological finds (Fun fact, you can still find fragments of that meteorite in the woods around the lake, if you are lucky.) but the scientists hope that one day the theory will be proven right.

[@vanessanesener4028]

Herknungr - Chauken (Dark German Folk)

[@AbyssWatcher745]

4:20 The 5th Legion had an elephant symbol because the fifth were the ones that fought and killed elephants in a battle in the Roman civil war under Julius Caesar against the Pompeiians.

[@antoineduchamp4931]

Connor, the Romans just were not used to losing battles (similar to the US today) and the defeat in Germania as mentioned here had a terrible effect on their morale. It was a serious wake up call for them.

[@dia6olo64]

While many will base their argument on the prowess of the opposing forces, reality is the Romans could have very easily taken Germania just as Caesar could have taken Britania with his hands tied behind his back, the same applies with the Romans in Scotland. Circumstances prevented them from happening not the opposing forces, the British tribes of the time would have had ZERO chance against Caesar had it been a genuine full blown attempt at a conquest as was proven approx 100 years later when the Brits were no match for the Romans. The Romans held a vast aria of territory and had many internal conflicts which often kept them fighting amongst themselves,the net result of that being that while they were often on missions of conquest they were also just as often dragged from pillar to post because of other areas needing attention. It resulted in many conquests attempts that the Romans started but often failed to see through to completion. It really had nothing to do with the prowess of the opposing forces, not that they didn't have numbers and good forces but simply that the Romans of the time simply had much more, they had trained armies, they had literally an endless supply and were logistically FAR superior. Why the Romans didn't conquer this, that area or why they lost this battle that battle comes mostly down to the circumstances of the time and not the opposing forces because the Roman forces with the many factors mentioned above behind them were far superior than anything else that was around in that era.

[@tonywilkinson6895]

If you read , Eagles at war is life changing.

[@lyonelk3108]

The only reason rome conquered brittain was emperor claudius needed to boost his legitimacy . For numerous reasons claudius was seen as a idiot and incapable. By conquering brittain a land caesar did not even conquer he could put those rumors to rest thus he did

[@Fallopia5150]

He had a stutter. Brilliant man though.

[@antoineduchamp4931]

Sorry you were not well - wow, you drink from some of the largest bottles/mugs I have ever seen. Things are always bigger in Texas, but I know you are not a Texan! Later in Roman history Connor the Germanic tribes moved out, and marched on Rome. They became the dominant force in Rome ultimately, and in time were partly responsible for the end of the Roman empire.

[@overheatedeskim054]

Sure you won't react to that