Was the Germanic tribes victory over the Roman armies really a victory?

[sas]

Was the Germanic tribes victory over the Roman armies really a victory, or a defeat? Did it really pay of for the germans and the world?


We're having this discussion at Historic Battles , what do you think?

[chequita guevara]

Uhm, yes.

[Dan Severn]

Which victory or defeat?

The Germans and romans had been at odds more and more since caesar's conquest of Gaul.

Eventually, The germans superceded the romans in europe and north africa.

[chequita guevara]

The Germans conquered Western Europe and set up societies that still exist 1600 years later. How that can be considered anything less than a victory is beyond me.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Romans got beat badley, and what was left of Rome, the Turks kicked 1000 years later.

Soooo it wasn't such a good system after all, as there were just minor improvement even though there was almost 2000 years of governmental/scinetific continuity.

Nevertheless todays world is built on those values soooo... something good (perhaps, that remains to be seen) came of it eventually.

[Bereta_Eder]

Dan,
Not in Byzantium (the eastern Roman empire, the greek one) It lasted one thousand more years after rome fell to the barbarians.

[Bereta_Eder]

every empire falls eventually, then others are created and then we can see basketball games.

[Lord Merciless]

Rome self-destructed with its endless civil wars, usurpations, and later despotism. It was a wonder that such an entity survived for 500 years.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Dan,
Not in Byzantium (the eastern Roman empire, the greek one) It lasted one thousand more years after rome fell to the barbarians.

The "Eastern Roman Empire" was really a greek empire, related more closely to the Hellenic Kingdoms before the arrival of rome. The Latin Empire was all but dead by the end of the second century. Rome itself ceased to be the Imperial capital in the west, replaced by Medioplanum.(Milan.)

[chequita guevara]

The Eastern Roman Empire wasn't a Greek empire until after the 4th Crusade. Prior, it was a cosmopolitan empire with nobles and royalty from all nationalities.

[Bereta_Eder]

predominantly greek with the language greek and the laws a mixture of roman and greek.
romios (=christian greek) royalty accepted marriages from other nations (like serbian queens) to forge alliances.

there kings names such as "slayer of bulgarians" and such so it was alliances made and wars with those not made.

[Arrian]

Seems like a victory to me. It sure as hell paid for the Germans at the time, and those tribes and those that came later became the European countries we know of today, like Che said. Now, if you want to blame the Romans for losing Gaul and inflicting the Franks on the world... Just kiddin'

-Arrian

[Wernazuma III]

I guess this thread was partially meant as an invitation to Historic-Battles (.com)

But beside that: For the Germanics it definitely paid off. Some off them saved their as*es from being whipped by the Huns or they left home because they barely had to eat.
The Germanics of Antiquity were nothing but archaic, fierce, cruel, savage barbarians without great achievements. In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages they became the founders of several kingdoms which proved to be very vital, prosperous and innovative. Germanic elements fertilized a culture in decay.

[Ned]

What was Augustus thinking when he called a halt in to Roman expansion in Germania. Sure it took the Germans 400 years to conquer the Western Empire, but you just had to know that they eventually would.

After the German takeover, and especially after the wars in Itally in the mid-500's, the West was in a state of collapse. The old civilization was gone and the new civilization was little more than lawless banditry. I personnally believe that the Empire in its last century had become a very humane place to live largely due to Christianity. However, taxes were high, feudalism was rising and the the trade economy was already falling apart prior to the German takeover. Even without the Germans, the Roman Empire needed a strong leader to reunite East and West and to fix what was wrong with their economy. However, by the time such a leader emerged - Justinian - it was already too late for the West.

No, the German takeover was not good for anyone. History would have been better had the Romans taken over the Germans.

Augustus, you were wrong.

[Dis]

When did this happen?

Was this one of the battles in World War 2. Battle of the Bulge maybe?

Well considering we still speak Latin today and use Roman numerals I have to say the Romans won

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Dissident
When did this happen?

Was this one of the battles in World War 2. Battle of the Bulge maybe?

Well considering we still speak Latin today and use Roman numerals I have to say the Romans won

Actually, we use arabic numerals.

What does that tell us?

BTW: Battle of the Bulge= Americans and British vs. Germans. The Angles and Saxons were just as Germanic as the Modern-day Germans.

[chequita guevara]

If it wasn't the Germans, it would have been the Huns, the Bulgars, the Avars, the Slavs, or the Arabs. Ultimately, the mpire could not conquer nature, which is what did them in. In 535 Krakatoa exploded altering the world's climate. Around the world empires and cities collapsed. In Mexico the great city of Teotehuacan was overthrown. In the Roman empire, the Bubonic Plague came out of Africa. An Indian empire was overthrown. The Avars were overthrown by the Turks, which sent the Avars on a 4,000 mile trek where they slamed into the Romans. China fell to a barbarian invasion. Rome was doomed.

[Dan Severn]

Bubonic plague came from asia.

The military anarchy which had reigned throughout the third century, followed by the fourth century dictatorships, is what destroyed the fabric of roman society.

[KrazyHorse]

Rome had already been sacked a half-dozen times before 535. You can't blame theri fall on something which hadn't happened yet.

[Al B. Sure!]

Chegitz:

So you're saying the major barbarian migrations were due to climatic changes? what happened that sparked the Sea Peoples in 1200 BC? Or the Mongols?

[DanS]

Che is correct in that Rome went into a dark age after Krakatoa (or the conditions caused by what we believe was Krakatoa). If he's saying that this sealed Rome the city's fate, then there's some merit in that. Remember that Constantinople was also later sacked, but was able to hang on as a city for several hundred years after that.

Btw, I was not led to believe that the plague came from Asia, but rather it is assumed from abnormally cool temps in deep central Africa.

[KrazyHorse]

Was Constantinople sacked prior to the Crusades?

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhoo, the Eastern half had been growing much stronger than the Western half for a couple of hundred years before the initial sack of Rome. The fall of the Western Empire was fairly predictable...

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Frogger
Was Constantinople sacked prior to the Crusades?

I don't believe so.

And rome was no longer the center of even the western empire after the 200's. By 535, Rome was a city in the Kingdom of Odacer.

[DanS]

No. That's what I'm referring to. They were able to hold on as a city for several hundred years after that.

[Ramo]

The bubonic plague sealed the fate of the Eastern Empire, not the West.

Small pox and measles destroyed the West.

[KrazyHorse]

250 years. And Rome had been sacked more than once, by nations that were more that merely annoyed at them...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Frogger
Was Constantinople sacked prior to the Crusades?

I don't believe so. The Avars would have sacked the city but were paid a hefty tribute instead. Before that, I think the Goths sacked the city in the 280s, while it was still called Byzantium.

Severn, go to Secrets of the Dead on PBS.org (click on Catastrophe!). According to them, as DanS said, there was an unsually cooling of the climate in Central Africa. Ships bring ivory to Constantinople brought the plague to the Empire in 542. There were no records of the plague in the East. (It brought down the Celts in Britain, btw, the less settled Germans were less affected by the disease and they were able to conquer Arthur's realm following his death).

What's really interesting is that Islam was able to com about becuase of this event. The climate change shifted the center of Arab power from Yemen to the central Hejaz. The cities of Mecca and Medina grew in power because Yemen ran out of water.

Speer, I don't have any info about what sparked the movement of the Sea Peoples. The Mongols and Turks, however, were also sparked by climactic change. In this case it was much slower, the climate changed at the begining of the 14th Century. The Thirtheenth Century had been very good for Europe, but along came the Little Ice Age, and empires across the world fell. In America it was the end of the Anasazi people of the US south West. It sent the Mongols on the move, as well as the Plague, which this time came from North Central Asia. France was hit terribly hard. The years 1314-1317 were absolutely horrible. It rained constantly, sot that the crops rotted didn't grow much and rotted in the fields. There was mass starvation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
The bubonic plague sealed the fate of the Eastern Empire, not the West.

Justinian probably would have been able to restore the Empire were it not for the plague. Even Celtic Britain was hit by the plague, because it was still in contact with the Empire. It still traded with them and lived in cities. Where ever this was the case, the plague struck.

[KrazyHorse]

There were no records of the plague in the East

The plague first appeared in Constantinople.