Rome being tolerant ? Never heard of the persecution of Christians ? Or was this a proof of tolerance ?
And the collaps of Rome started earlier ,much earlier than the 5th Century and had nothing to do with religion .
And it is not so that the period that followed was a dark age : this is only propaganda .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Rome being tolerant ? Never heard of the persecution of Christians ? Or was this a proof of tolerance ?
And the collaps of Rome started earlier ,much earlier than the 5th Century and had nothing to do with religion .
And it is not so that the period that followed was a dark age : this is only propaganda .

The reference to "The Dark Age" is a depiction of we don't really know what happens during "The Migration Period" However, scientifically, not much happen during this time period. There were a lot going on in the Islamic world at that time when Baghdad was the center of science. Europeans have a tendency to call this time period; the medieval or feudalistic time period. It more or less ended with the Yersinia Pestis and it caused what we call the Renaissance period of human history.

The Romans were more technical advanced than what the Europeans were during the Migration/Merovingian period. The Romans knew about how to deal with sewage and getting water to their urban areas. The Europeans didn't know that for a very long time. The Romans used concrete, the Europeans forgot about that too. Another great thing the Romans knew about was how to create heated floors.

One reason for why the West Rome collapsed was, they tried to incorporate all the different tribes/clans of the Western parts of Europe. The Romans tried to conquer what we would call Germany today, with a minor success.

This is not correct : Rome went not further than the Rhine .
And the main reason for the invasion of the Germanic tribes was the population explosion of the Barbarians ,while west of the Rhine there was a prosperous Roman Empire that had big demographic problems .
The similarity with what happens today is striking .

Originally Posted by lljadw

This is not correct : Rome went not further than the Rhine .
And the main reason for the invasion of the Germanic tribes was the population explosion of the Barbarians ,while west of the Rhine there was a prosperous Roman Empire that had big demographic problems .
The similarity with what happens today is striking .

The Romans tried to conquer what we call Germany today. Have you never heard of Varus lost legions and the battle of Teutoburg Forest, it's pretty close to Osnabruck. Varus and his three legions were moving between Rhine and Weser. Varus was betrayed by Arminius. The son of a German chieftain and was brought up and schooled by the Romans. So you were wrong again, home schooling doesn't work so well, does it

The Romans called everybody outside their realm for barbarians, they were allied to some of them and enemy to others.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The Romans tried to conquer what we call Germany today. Have you never heard of Varus lost legions and the battle of Teutoburg Forest, it's pretty close to Osnabruck. Varus and his three legions were moving between Rhine and Weser. Varus was betrayed by Arminius. The son of a German chieftain and was brought up and schooled by the Romans. So you were wrong again, home schooling doesn't work so well, does it

The Romans called everybody outside their realm for barbarians, they were allied to some of them and enemy to others.

Rome did not try to conquer what is now Berlin, or Leipzig !!
Rome did also not try to conquer the Teutoburgerwald : it was only a punitive proactive raid , as Britain was doing in Afghanistan to secure its north-west frontier .
The Rhine remained the border of the Roman Empire.

And Arminius did not betray Varus : Arminius adjusted his strategical position and switched sides .
Talking of betray is using today's hypocritical moral standing for something that happened 2000 years ago .

Originally Posted by lljadw

And Arminius did not betray Varus : Arminius adjusted his strategical position and switched sides .

Maybe General Andrei Vlasov could have raised that at his trial I am sure Stalin would have been impressed alternatively he would have died laughing on the spot.

There was no trial for Arminius .
And what he did was not much different from what the Pretorian Guard did in Rome ,which was selling itself to the highest bidder .
Arminius would have been a very good British, Australian, US politician . But in Italy he would be considered as an amateur ,
There is no such thing as betrayal in politics

The Romans were east of the river Rhine. There was a Roman fort in Barkhausen (not far from Hanover. The Romans had been in what we call Germany earlier than 7-9 BCE, they built two bridges over Rhine in the 55 BCE. The battle of Teutoburg Forest occurred in 9 BCE.

Varus was appointed governor of the province Germania, which means he was it's political leader and it's military commander. Arminius was what we would call a German today. He was the son of a German chieftain, but he was forced under a normal practice to Rome and got a military education. Arminius was also a Roman citizen. The practice to take young boys from their parents and area was a common practice throughout the Roman empire. The purpose was to make them Romans, it failed considerably with Arminius. The Romans never captured him after the destruction of the three legions at Teutoburg, that's why he was never facing a trial. He stayed with the German tribes to try to unite them toward the Romans

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The Romans were east of the river Rhine. There was a Roman fort in Barkhausen (not far from Hanover. The Romans had been in what we call Germany earlier than 7-9 BCE, they built two bridges over Rhine in the 55 BCE. The battle of Teutoburg Forest occurred in 9 BCE.

In the writings of Augustus he talks of Legions operating as far east as the river Elbe with a Roman marching camp at Treva and fleets reaching the Schleswig-Holstein region.