Romans and Germans

I was wondering how could the Romans manage to defeat and subjugate the Gauls but never did the same with the Germans. Essentially they are very similar people with pretty much the same battle technique etc. I know the Romans struggled early on its early days with the Gauls but later on they swept through it rather quickly. Was the difference the generals? No other general really reached the ability of Julius Ceaser. Just wondering why the Roman techniques were so effective versus Gauls but they couldn't handle the German onslaught.

Well Germany was very densely covered with forests and it's people were many and experienced warriors. Now you'll say so were the Gauls but it's not quite the same. Germans were much more intelligent warriors. They would strike in the dark and they were very good at ambushing.
The thing is that the Roman Empire was becoming more andmore corrupt and it was losing money. I'm not sure why but they stopped their expansion on the Rhine. Someone else should continue this. I really don't know why they started defending instead of invading.

I know just enough about this to make myself look stupid, but in addition to the forests that BP mentioned, I think the Gauls were too attached to their towns. The Romans could better force them into battle at or near these fixed locations. I don't think the same could be said with the Germans.

Quote:

---

I was wondering how could the Romans manage to defeat and subjugate the Gauls but never did the same with the Germans. Essentially they are very similar people with pretty much the same battle technique etc

---

Gauls French born losers

Germans Germans born winners ~D Except when it comes to world wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Gauls French born losers

Germans Germans born winners ~D Except when it comes to world wars.

---

Weren't the Franks a Germanic people while the Gauls were Celts?

Germania was left in charge of a stupid pos named varius. He really pissed off the Germans then walked into an ambush. I don't think anyone as incompetent headed up the Roman occupation of Gaul.

The Romans were beaten by an inferior force at teutorborg forest wich took them decades to recover from.

Hannibal killed 300,000 Romans and allies and yet they afforded more legions and recruits to fight for the cause. They were still hurt by this but appearantly not enough.

So it's obviously the economical situation played a good role on this. Also the rhine river is possibly a good choke point with very few crossings for an army in mass, all Roman movements could be detected by a small scout party.

On top of this the Gauls had a much better road system for the Romans to use. The gauls had some elaborate paved roads between major cities and possibly of the same quality as the Romans. Now I have no idea how good the German roads were but the crossing of Teutorburg was an unfavorable road for the Romans to use and it prevented the Romans from using there cavalry on the flanks of the column to protect it better from an ambush.

Early on in the empire the Romans could quickly recover from major defeats but as she grew the recovery took longer.

So all in all Rome was becoming to big for her own good.

Look at the map.

In order to conquer Gaul, you have to walk form the Med to the Channel and from the Atlantic to the Rhine, obliterating anybody who opposes you and chasing those who run (lest they return). This is what Romans and especially Caesar could do and did.

In order to conquer Germania (back then in time), you have to walk from the Alps to... where to? Ahem, Nordcap?
... and from the Rhine to... ahem, where to? Urals?


Romans did try to "conquer" Germanic lands - as far as they could/found it suitable. E.G. most of the present day Bavaria was Roman. Emperors like Marcus Aurelius trashed the Germans repeatedly - thus there was nothing in the Germans as a folk that prevented them from becoming good Roman citizens...

It's a paradox to me why the Romans stopped fighting the Germans. Why did they choose, after Germanicus, to keep the Rhine-Danube axis as northern frontier?

You see, the Romans had this simple view of war: Rome was going to win eventually, no matter what. The question rises, after Teutoburger: what happened? Why did the Romans not react to this defeat like they had reacted to any other defeat by a foreign force before, namely by throwing more men into the fight until Rome won? Sure, they sent Germanicus, but after him nothing happened. I can hardly believe that Romans had suddenly developed a more Hellenic view to war, so short a time after Caesar's ruthless campaigns.



~Wiz

Perhaps with the end of conscript armies that came with Marius Rome could no longer expect to be able to replace huge losses? After all, I believe that legally Roman soldiers were still expected to pay for their equiptment, but generals started to bear most of the burden of raising armies. And maybe they didn't have the buying power of 50,000 independent farmers?

Another consideration is: Was it even worth the trouble to conquer a cold inhospitable land full of unshaven barbarians? The Romans never even bothered to really settle in northern inhospitable regions like Belgica, they just expanded to natural borders.

Quote:

---

Gauls French born losers

---

The gauls are long gone. Current day french are of germanic descent, mostly franks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Gauls French born losers

---

Funny.

Gawain spell bad. Attitude smelly, too. ~D

I've always gotten the impression the Romans never really found a reason to bother seriously trying to conquer the damn Germans. They already had the better farmlands of Gaul and an empire stretched to its logistical and adminstrative limits. Plus the Romans had had some old axes to grind with the Celts, and not coincidentially a military system that worked well against the somewhat ...limited Gaulish horde tactics.

The Germans, apparently, had a rather less accommodating way of waging war, and made far greater use of terrain.

Something to remember: the Celts had once been confined pretty much to the British Isles and northwestern France, but for one reason or another burst out of there some half a millenia earlier and overran much of wester, southern and south-central Europe. They'd apparently also driven the Latin tribes out of their old haunts in northern Italy.

But they apparently couldn't make much headway against the Germanic tribes.

Quote:

---

Another consideration is: Was it even worth the trouble to conquer a cold inhospitable land full of unshaven barbarians? The Romans never even bothered to really settle in northern inhospitable regions like Belgica, they just expanded to natural borders.

---

I thought that a successful career as a general was an excellent step to reaching high office. Thus politicians had a reason to wage war against Romes neighbors. Plus I'm pretty sure that post-Marian armies werre privately financed so you have a system set up to go off conquering useless areas. Britton I believe fell into this catagory.

A few Points to explain how:

1. Germanic Gouvermental System / Tribes

Germania was splitted into diffrent tribes and confederacys with a gouvermental system that can mostly be called Aristrocathy. The Tribes would be ruled by a Council formed by the Social Elite, the "Knigts" or upper Warriorclass. So any Germanic Region could maintain an own Gouverment, even under Roman Rule. Through the romans could not stop the forming of such Councils nor abolish Arms. That made Rebellions very easy.

2. Hard Territory

Germany in this Time was full of Swamps and Forests with a cold climate. The Romans from the Mediterraininan had troubles with Illnesses and that their Legionary tactics were unequate for that Region.

3. Romanisation fails

In case of Gaul, someone with contacts to Rome or Roman Citizenship was considered a Traitor. The Germanics instead favored Trade with Rome and many nobles, like Arminius, were schooled in the Roman Army. It was seen as good business.

So the roman attempt to romanise the Germans instead gave them a well Officercorps and more techs.

However, German admireship for Rome and imitation of their Culture never ended. Due to with Charlemagne Germany considered itself beeing Rome (Holy Roman Empire of the german Nation). So Germany in Medieval used to imitate Byzantium, in the German Renaissance came mainly from Italy and since the Napoleonic mostly French Culture influences Germany.

4. Political Mistake of Rome

The Romans stopped their Annexionplans after the Rebellion of Arminius, which allowed the Germanics to survive. The later Rise of the Germanics was then a self-made problem.

i think the main reason was economic. they didn't conquer germany for the same reason that they didn't conquer scotland or ireland there was a huge economic disincentive to do so. gauls and britions were semi-civilised [by roman standards]. they had towns and roads and and could bring a profit to the empire once incorporated. the germans had no such systems. so the romans would have to build the towns and infrastrucuture. another important consideration was where do you stop? when germanic tribes were defeated, they could and often did just retreat further into the great forest that was central europe at the time. caesar led several successful invasions against the britons as well as against the germans. the romans incorporated the britions and not the germans because the britons could relatively easily be absorbed into their economic and social systems and the germans could not.

Why do most of the posters in this thread maintain that Romans stopped fighting Germans after Teutoburg? What was Marcus Aureli doing among the Marcomans then? Vacationing?

They didn't stop fighting them. But they switched from systematically trying to subjugate Germania, as they had the rest of the world, to a more or less defensive policy, only expanding to respond to German aggression. A very un-Roman attitude.

Contrast this with Rome's other foe, Parthia, which was invaded time and time again, though with little success.

I think the reason in the changed policy was the Imperial system.

Under the republic, ambitious governors and generals had instigated a great many wars, gaining great wealth and widespread fame in the process, and spreading Rome's rule far and wide. Pompey and Caesar were but the latest and most successful of the lot.

The emperors, starting with Augustus, probably realised that it was these successful wars of conquest were what brought the republic down. With the love and admiration of the masses, the riches of foreign lands, and a loyal army at their back, they could and did establish themselves as dictators, kings or emperors.

Naturally inclined to his own power, Augustus put a stop to this system in the simplest way: governors who were not members of the Imperial family were not allowed to wage wars of conquest anymore. All glory was to be the emperor's, and the emperor's alone.

So, in the next few centuries the only wars of conquest fought are those instigated by the emperor himself, for whatever reason. Augustus tried to conquer Germania, and failed. Tiberius was not terribly interested in governing and war by the time he ascended the throne. Caligula... well, hardly needs explaining. Claudius thought more glory was to be had by following in Ceasar's footsteps than in Augustus', and took on Britain instead of Germania. Later emperors would rather face the Partians and try to win the riches of the east than venture into the german forests again.

Anyway, this is what I think is the explanation, though I can't really recall what books I got this from. (Brunt, perhaps?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

I think the reason in the changed policy was the Imperial system.

---

You may be very much true in this.

For an emperor, it was really a tough question:
- send a good general and he will become an important political figure upon returning
- go yourself and leave the capital on the mercy of your political opponents.

The expansion just had to be halted...

-

Quote:

---

Why did they choose, after Germanicus, to keep the Rhine-Danube axis as northern frontier?

---

It was the natural border. You can't rule the whole world at once. You have to concentrate. Even that was too much, hence the division of the east and west.

Centuries later, Ottomans lost because of the exact same reason. They (we) had nothing to do beyond the Danube but Suleyman had to spank the Germans hard. :charge:
-

Actually, the Rhine/Danube was not much of a natural border. In fact, it was more of an impediment to Roman punitive expeditions than it was to German raiding parties or even armies.

The garrisons were at the rivers because it eased supply immeasurably. There were a lot of soldiers on the frontier, and supplying them all without boats would have been nearly impossible. Moreover, transport by water is faster than by land, and if one part of the frontier was threatened, it was much easier to ship reinforcements down the rivers than march them through the hinterlands.

-
Well, I didn't mean "natural" in its topographical meaning. It was more of a marker of the end of feasible expansion. Of course, one has to secure the Donau if he wants to sit behind it. (Again, the Ottomans did that by controling Wallachia and Moldavia but going any further was a crazy adventure and led to the inevitable breakdown.)
-

Quote:

---

I was wondering how could the Romans manage to defeat and subjugate the Gauls but never did the same with the Germans. Essentially they are very similar people with pretty much the same battle technique etc. I know the Romans struggled early on its early days with the Gauls but later on they swept through it rather quickly. Was the difference the generals? No other general really reached the ability of Julius Ceaser. Just wondering why the Roman techniques were so effective versus Gauls but they couldn't handle the German onslaught.

---

The short answer is that the Gauls were closer to Rome, and remained a traditional enemy of the Romans even after the Northern Italian tribes had been subjugated because of history.

By the time Rome shared large borders with the Germans the Roman Empire had really become too large for much further conquest without stretching itself too thin. Combine those factors with the fact that the terrain in Germania was inhospitable, and the province itself relatively poor and it isn't really suprising that the Germans in large part remained outside of Roman domination. I really don't think it is due to any special characteristic of the Germans, or their manner of waging war...the Romans defeated larger German armies more often that not. It was simply location. Had the Germanic tribes lived in what is now France & Northern Italy, and the Gauls in what is now Germany, the Germans probably would have suffered what was historically the Gauls' fate.

Quote:

---

The gauls are long gone. Current day french are of germanic descent, mostly franks.

---

That isn't true. The Gauls didn't simply vanish when the Romans or Franks occupied the land. They are as much the modern French as the Romans or Franks are, and in fact more so.

Quote:

---

But they apparently couldn't make much headway against the Germanic tribes.

---

That isn't true either. The Gauls once dominated Central Europe.

And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian Forest (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there.

- Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Something to remember: the Celts had once been confined pretty much to the British Isles and northwestern France, but for one reason or another burst out of there some half a millenia earlier and overran much of wester, southern and south-central Europe. They'd apparently also driven the Latin tribes out of their old haunts in northern Italy.

But they apparently couldn't make much headway against the Germanic tribes.

---

im interested in where you got that info from

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Browning

Why do most of the posters in this thread maintain that Romans stopped fighting Germans after Teutoburg? What was Marcus Aureli doing among the Marcomans then? Vacationing?

---

Defending against an unexpected Rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longshanks

The Gauls didn't simply vanish when the Romans or Franks occupied the land. They are as much the modern French as the Romans or Franks are, and in fact more so.

---

Genetics studies have shown that Belgians and English (so I assume the same goes for the French) are, genetically speaking, more then 80% (don't remember exactly, IIRC it was 86 %) of germanic descent, so technically the gauls didn't entirely disappear but I certainly wouldn't call modern western europeans "of gaelic descent".

How does one define Gaelic descent vs. Germannic descent? Looking at all the mass migrations over the millenia I have a hard time visualizing where one could find a "standard" for measurement. Each tribe could be of different racial stock, and there were many tribes. I'm very skeptical of those genetic studies without knowing their criteria. After all, who is to say that many northern Gaulish tribes weren't of the same basic genetic make up as their neighboring Germannic tribes to begin with?

Furthermore, while I'm not on the continent, to me the average Englishman or Belgian does not look like the average Frenchman I've known--and certainly different than the average German. Average height, hair color, complexion, facial features, etc. seem different. (I'm not going to go into detail beyond that, because I don't see trying to do "racial/ethnic classification" as a useful or productive excercise. And it could very well turn into heated arguments.) And of course, "average" is not the best representation of the broad range of appearance one usually finds in any given area either.

-
Red Harvest is right. We're not talking about semi isolated neolithic populations. The DNA games could at best be curious experiments and at worst watered down racisme.
-

the germans didnt defeat the german as easy as gaul because the germans were a more formidable enemy .there beserkers were actually so crazy they cut themselves adn chewed on there weapons and shields if they had them .axmen were crazy they found skulls that were completly smashed and people died in one hit .but i have read some pieces of histry about the germans and apparently there main weapon was a javelin type weapon .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlegannon

the germans didnt defeat the german as easy as gaul because the germans were a more formidable enemy .there beserkers were actually so crazy they cut themselves adn chewed on there weapons and shields if they had them .axmen were crazy they found skulls that were completly smashed and people died in one hit .but i have read some pieces of histry about the germans and apparently there main weapon was a javelin type weapon .

---

I don't understand the entirity of your post, especially the start.
It is likely that some of the German units carried javelins, some of their heavy infantry units carried javelins, like the Romans legionaries and their pila.

As for beserkers, many barbarian warriors were "crazy" and cut themselves. It was part of their warcry to make them more fearsome when faced with their enemies.. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

-
Red Harvest is right. We're not talking about semi isolated neolithic populations. The DNA games could at best be curious experiments and at worst watered down racisme.
-

---

I agree, because Celtic and Germanic are language groups, not gene pools. I would be interested to see the genetic research though, to know what it amounts to and what it might tell us.
Any links or book/article titles?

I've no links to share right now, but the dismissing the "Celtic descent vs German descent" idea doesn't make much sense to me. There are traits that can be followed genetically which "belong" to each group ("belong" being used loosely, since they are all fundamentally mutations). There was a study on TV once where Norse genes were tracked down throughout Britain, and another study where a certain gene which belonged to Genghis Khan was tracked down throughout Britain (the number of people with the gene was surprisingly voluminous). It's all very interesting stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders

Genetics studies have shown that Belgians and English (so I assume the same goes for the French) are, genetically speaking, more then 80% (don't remember exactly, IIRC it was 86 %) of germanic descent, so technically the gauls didn't entirely disappear but I certainly wouldn't call modern western europeans "of gaelic descent".

---

I life in southern Germany and I want to give some remarks on the genetic (even though I am no expert):

Were I live is a river that traditionally seperates the Germanian tribes of the Bavarian and the Allomanian. Even today you can find different DNA footprints. And belief me every kind of nationality marched through this area. Another example can be found in Turkey. There is a village were the people claim to descend from Alexander's army. And modern DNA analysis foung that this is right. You find the same pattern as you do in Greece, while the environment has a "Turkish" pattern. Acient reports tell that Alexander left here some wounded soldiers.

When the Saxons conquered Briton they didn't allow the male Britons to marry (=to get children). They themselves married the Saxon girls. So there was a quick penetration of Saxonian DNA. That didn't happen in France.

-
Which village is that? Interesting.

Reminds me of the English suburban where the people were DNA-relatives of the cromagnon skeleton found in a nearby cave.
-

Ah, but the same was said about the Kafirs in Afghanistan... they were supposedly descended from the Macedonian/Greek soldiers left by Alexander when he descended down from the Hindu Kush to the Swat highlands. This legend was told from the time of Marco Polo, and is still widely percieved true, but antropological research has proved them to be something entirely different from Greeks, Macedonians, Indians or the Afgans.

Although I must say a Pashtuni friend of mine greatly admires the Kafirs... not for their tales, their architecture nor their language... but for their ladies! ~D



~Wiz

there is supposed to be some village in the swiss? alps, that look like all the other people in the region but their dna can be traced to asia and people reckon its from some of atilla's boys who got lost or defeated or something.