Poland - Serbia etc. thread

Germanic please.

It is really unfortunate that the English word for German is almost identical with Germanic. They are far more nuanced for other ancient tribes like the Gauls.

German....the father of the german nation...the first time otherwise continously infighting, fiercely independent Germanics came together to kick out a foreign invader...freedom fighters! :)

And not to forget, for foreign observers it was already clear there was a people at work...similiar looks, similiar behaviours and rituals, similiar culture...and they were about to be enslaved as one people, the inhabitants of Germania, the future slaves of Rome!

Well, Tacitus tries to present them as such, but there is very little concrete evidence for this. The constant infighting between the tribes suggests that they viewed each other more as rivals for ressources than fellow countrymen.


That suggest that there would have been no Germany if he had lost. A view on the fate of the former Roman territory suggests otherwise. Gaul was fully romanized, yet became eventually France. The Romans made succesful incursions into Germania, but simply lacked the ressources to control it.

If you want to praise someone as the father of Germany, then either Charlemagne or preferably Otto the Great are more deserving of the title. Arminius left so few behind that he was forgotten until the Renaissance, and even his Germanic name has been lost to time.

Hear, hear Tacitus! That's precisely the point; they were NOT merely one single, homogeneous mass.

Agreed as well that Charlemagne aka Karl der Grosse can surely lay claim to such a title more than Arminus:-)
Only Vercingitorix of the Gauls carries as much weight in ancient Europe!

Nothing really good stays forgotten for ever....

But really, how can anybody prefer the enslavers of ones own people...that is beyond me...would you rather had helped the roman legionaires to hunt and kill german freedom fighters? For some pretty buildings???

You know that you support a highly agressive, enslaving, oppressing invader with the Roman Empire, yes? The murderer of countless people across Europe...what do you think they would had done to the Hereros, huh?

Do I detect some double standard here?


pfffffffffffffffffffft

....IshouldchangemyusernametoArminiusfanboy....

:)

You may well disagree, but history would be the judge there!

History is a fickle judge...as it is mostly written by the victors.

What a roman victory would had meant for Germania and the Gemans you could see on Gaul...poor Vercingetorix...and the following mass murder and total destruction.

But hey, the lost lives and their freedom and their independence and their culture but they got pretty buildings! Yay!

PS: Vercingetorix didn't manage what Arminius did...that's the difference!

Really?

Sometimes, no, often, I truly wonder whether or not Germany was the actual "loser", what with the impressively tremendous advances
both German states made in comparison with us "winners" between roughly '49 -'68! We basically sat on our asses and let the Roosevelt
mantra "This is the best of all possible worlds." overtake our sense of purpose, filling most Americans with a sense of self-satisfied inertia,
while the von Brauns, Strugholds, Debus', and Rudolphs conquer NASA and essentially build our Space Program - ExNazis, whose claim
to fame was that they were the enemy of our enemies, THE REDS!!!

Far too much from ancient history does. It is really saddening to think how much knowledge about the past we have lost. We don't know e.g Arminius Germanic name, or the fate of his son for example.


What have the Romans ever done for us?

youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ

I mean aside from the fact that usually there was little difference in the life of the newly conquered common people, since the Romans liked to rule through the local elites who stayed in power, one has to wonder if the life of the people in Gaul was not better than the life in Germania. Sure, the conquest was bloody, but Gaul experienced afterwards centuries of peace and prosperity. Meanwhile the tribes in Germania continued to fight each other, and those who arrived from the East, and often wiped each others out. Life was by all accounts better for the people in Gaul than for the Germans.


We know in fact more about the Gaulish culture than about the Germanic culture thanks to the Roman conquest of Gaul. Neither culture survived in practice anyway by the Early Middle Ages. It would not have made much difference in the long run if Arminius had failed. Even if the Romans had conquered the territory up to the Elbe, they would have eventually left as their power declined.

Just to see how silly the idea of Arminius being the father of Germany really is: I was born in North-Rhine Westphalia, so I likely would have been part of a tribe that stayed loyal to Rome. You were - if I remember correctly - born in Saxony and you live in Berlin. So you might have been part of Maroboduus realm. You and me would have considered Armnius as an enemy and possibly fought against him, not a saviour or fellow countryman.

@Lyzko: Well, Germany is one of the best examples when losers wrote their history, not the winners.

Exactly my point in post #878:-)

Yeah...that would had happened to Deutsch-Südwestafrika too, once the Hereros had been defeated and killed...and Hitler had build his Autobahns across the continent....

Seriously?


Bowing down to some fare away lord isn't the german way...there is a reason we build up to over 500 prospering fiefdoms later and even now are fiercely federalistic. Arminius wanted to form a second Rome in Germania, forcefully unifying the tribes...he was educated in Rome after all and had seen first hand what a unified country could achieve. But coming together to fight an invader is one thing...bowing down to one ruler something else. So they showed him the finger and in german fashion killed him off...and they were FREE to do so! That was the whole point!

Look to France now...besides Paris there is not much...totally centralized, like Rome once was...Germans and Gauls are like cats and dogs...totally different people!

We had exactly 12 years of centralism during the Hitler years and the enforced 40 years of the GDR...but it isn't our way...and hasn't been since 2000 years.


Tell that the Hereros, they should had laid low and enjoyed the german overlords...they brought so much modern civilization to the desert after all!


Their power startet to decline as they couldn't conquer Germania! Arminius' victory send shock waves till Rome...that was the beginning of the end, the limit of roman power...

Rome's power didn't decline by itself...and later it had been other german people putting an end to it (Visigoths, Vandals).


I would had been a volunteer! :)
But I very much doubt with that much wandering going on we could know where we would had ended up..


Well...The Roman Empire has been for far to long seen through rose tinted glasses by some scholars...reading only roman sources...calling freedom fighters "barbarians".

That is a prime example of falsifying history for centuries.

But recently you can observe a change....more and more historians putting the enemies of Rome into their focus...putting history right!

Arminius is "re-discovered"...with lots of videos, movies, books...I'm following that...but not only him...it's also about Vercingetorix, Boudicea and others..

It won't happen. The EU strategically needs Serbia, as the final expansion of the EU into the Western Balkans would be impossible without Serbia. Serbia on the other hand has such a deep and emotional connection to Kosovo that any government that tried to renounce the claim would be brought down in hours.

But common sense solutions should prevail. A broad agreement that Serbia won't be required to renounce their claim to Kosovo as long as it's clear that the Serbian constitution temporarily doesn't apply in Kosovo can work. I'd also suggest that Kosovo should be asked to drop "Republic of" from the official name in return, so that Serbia can refer to Kosovo without being forced to acknowledge that Kosovo is a separate republic. All of this would unblock Kosovo's membership of various institutions, and combined with some minor legal fictions, would allow Serbia to drop the use of "Pristina" to refer to the state of Kosovo too.

It has to be something for something in order to achieve a lasting settlement. We already see that both Kosovo and Serbia are willing to give diplomatic status to the liaison officers stationed in each capital, so through some creative thinking, we can get somewhere.

Nobody can become an EU member with uncleared territorial conflicts...and as long Serbia doesn't make a clear cut it will simmer on, uncleared!

And even then it needs unanimity...I very much doubt Serbia will get all votes.

This "Serbia is needed for the EU final expansion" isn't a fact for many EU members...maybe some, but definitely not all..

Yeah no, the height of Roman power in fact came afterwards under the five "good" emperors in the second century.


That is hardly the case with Arminius, who was glorified as a freedom fighter. I mean your posts pretty much reflect the historical writing about him until 1945. A new generation of historians is now trying to paint a more objective picture of him, hence why I said you ought to read a book about him.

Honestly it would take way too long to point out all the historical outdated views you write here. Starting with the famous "Germanic freedom". Entire articles have been written about this topic and how far it was probably an invention by Tacitus who used it as a topic in order to contrast the "freedom" in Germania and the lack of freedom under the Principate. This is why you should read a book about it.


I am sure the Polish people would have appreciated it if Germany was still refering to its' former territories as "currently under Polish adminastration"... . No, Serbia needs to accept the reality. Kosovo is an independent state, whose people are firmly against becoming part of Serbia again. Serbia needs to renounce all claims to it so that there is no danger of another war in the future.

Not in the territorial expansion...to see a limit to their conquering was a paradigm change, unimaginable before. Of course such a colossus wouldn't fall immediately, but it was the beginning of the end...from then on Rome didn't expand any further, which it would had needed to do to get the resources and the taxes to stay on top. It was a hungry colossus.


Much much later...as german nationalism was needed to build a german nation...As you said so yourself he was purposely "forgotten" for centuries...
And believe me I read what I can get about him...but I'm taking most stuff german historians say with a grain of salt though...to much "Rome" is still coming through. The best history stuff comes today from the Brits...

I wonder why that is...it's mind boggling if you ask me. There we know all about our own aggressive, murderous, invading age and have learnt how bad and despicable that all was but you and others can't stop drooling over another mass murdering Empire. That wanted to murder and enslave your own ancestors at that! Sorry...but that won't wash any longer...

By historians, you mean Kegan, Gooch, Trevor-Roper and the like?

Wrong. Rome reached the height of its' expansion under Trajan, more than 100 years after the Varus battle.

classicalassociationni.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/sentius-the-centurion-and-trajans-conquest-of-adiabene/

After the Varus battle, the Romans continued to conquer parts of Southern Germany, parts of the Balkans, most of what is now England, and significant parts of the ME.


Also wrong. Rome's greatest rivals were the Parthians, who had prevented Rome's Eastern Expansion. Its' successors and Rome (later the byzantine Empire) would fight each other until the dawn of Islam. Honestly, the history between those two great empires is fascinating.


There was no purpose behind this, you would be surprised if you knew how many sources we have lost over the years. It is estimated that we have maybe 1% of the works of ancient historians left. He was just not all that important in the greater scheme of things, and historians after Tacitus had little reason to write about him.


Not in ancient history. German historians are usually considered among the best along with the French on this subject.


Well, this is precisely the problem. You like to think that they are our ancestors, because they lived in the same territory as we do. I used to think the same when I started studying, but as historical research has shown in the last 50 years, this is very debatable at best. Simply too many tribes passed through that territory over the centuries to believe this. And as I said, it is highly questionable if those tribes even felt some kinship among themselves. They usually had not the luxury to do so. There is a reason why many tribes (including the one of Arminius father-in-law) stayed loyal to the Romans.

All I am doing is trying to see history like it probably was, rather than imaging it based on my modern experiences. The Romans were violent conquerers, but that was the norm. The Germanic tribes showed each other not more mercy than the Romans when they fought each other. But I think it is still a very big achievement of the Romans that they managed to forge an Empire, in which entire generations could live and die without fearing outside invaders. That is something we only achieved almost two thousand years later.

That aside, I have yet to find a modern historian who glorifies the Romans.Nor does anyone glorify Arminius for that matter.
If you want a solid introduction into Roman history, I'd suggest you read Karl Christ. His books are naturally a bit outdated, but he does a good job illustrating the Ancient world to us. It is really fascinating to learn how similar and yet how strange it is to ours.

I'd give up on this, B.B. Tacitus (look at his very handle) is a historian and seems to know his stuff!
Guess B.B conveniently forgot, the fathers of most modern historiography, let alone art history, were
in nearly every case, German: Ranke, Mommsen, Treitschke, Winckelmann, Schliemann, Woefflin, Worringer, Furtwaengler,
Riegl etc.....

I really recommend reading his book about the Roman Empire, outdated as it might be. He won deservedly the Nobel price for literature for this.

That is a prime example of jewish gratitude for you... I've read her father was a Jew from Czechoslovakia who was the ambassador in Belgrade when the Germans invaded Yugoslavia during WWII. A Serbian family took the little girl Madeleine and her family in and hid them in the basement, risking their own life, until she and her family managed to reach the relative safety of the US.

She thanked us by being one of the most vocal and hawkish proponents that demanded for our country to be bombed...

...which shows the American insanity of allowing foreigners to serve in the US government in any capacity - janitors included.

Also do you happen to have the link to that article from the New York Times which is mentioned near the end of this interview?

Very comforting to know that there are still decent Americans who haven't been totally brainwashed by Hollywood and mainstream media anti-Serbian propaganda that was present during the 90's.

Here is the above mentioned article from the Jew York Times by this little piece of $hit Thomas Friedman who was the leading warmonger and chief agitator at the time:

nytimes.com/1999/04/23/opinion/foreign-affairs-stop-the-music.html

Thomas Friedman: Hooked on War

Writing columns and appearing on broadcast networks to assess the war, Tom Friedman was close to gleeful. "Let's at least have a real air war."

"It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted." He added: "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too...."

If the idea of civilians trying to continue with normal daily life while their government committed lethal crimes was "outrageous" enough to justify inflicting "a merciless air war" -- as Friedman urged later in the same column -- would someone have been justified in bombing the United States during its slaughter of countless innocents in Southeast Asia? Or during its active support for dictators and death squads in Latin America? For that matter, Friedman could hardly be unaware that for several weeks already American firepower had been maiming and killing Serb civilians, children included, with weaponry including cluster bombs. Today, Iraqi civilians keep dying from the U.S. war effort and other violence catalyzed by the occupation; meanwhile, of course, not a single concert or merry-go-round has stopped in the USA.

When righteousness moved Friedman to call for "lights out in Belgrade," he was urging a war crime. The urban power grids and water pipes he yearned to see destroyed were essential to infants, the elderly, the frail and infirm inside places like hospitals and nursing homes. Targeting such grids and pipes would seem like barbarism to Americans if the missiles were incoming. Any ambiguity of the matter would probably be dispelled by a vow to keep bombing the country until it was set back 50 years or, if necessary, six centuries. But Friedman's enthusiasm was similar to that of many other prominent American commentators who also greeted the bombing of Yugoslavia with something close to exhilaration.

The final paragraph of Thomas Friedman's column in the New York Times on April 23, 1999, began with a punchy sentence: "Give war a chance." It was a witticism that seemed to delight Friedman. He repeated it, in print and on national television, as the bombing of Yugoslavia continued. A tone of sadism could be discerned.

slobodan-milosevic.org/news/atlfp090607.htm

Here is even one in which we Serbians are compared to Germans and our leader Slobodan Milosevic to Adolf Hitler, such was the hysteria of the war propagandists surrounding the Clinton administration at the time.

observer.com/1999/05/how-dare-those-serbs-defy-our-air-power/

@Tacitus
Meinecke too!

War Criminal Madeleine Albright - this monster deserves to burn in hell.

youtu.be/uDfsAxvIMyc

Eastern Slavonia - Serbs Stone US Ambassador Madeleine Albright

youtu.be/1FaPuBUY558

Madeleine Albright in Prague: "Disgusting Serbs!"
(Czechs interrupted her book promotion and called her in her face "Bloody Grandma" & "War Criminal")
youtube.com/watch?v=UBrpNiw9DTk&t=30s
(Czechs asked her to sign photos of her victims instead of her book )

"Privatizing" Kosovo: The Madeleine Albright Way
gatestoneinstitute.org/3516/kosovo-privatization

Students & faculty protest 'war criminal' Madeleine Albright commencement speech
rt.com/usa/343061-albright-war-criminal-protest/

Yea, monster Madeleine Albright thought that she can BS against Serbs in the middle of the Czeshka. But Czechs told her.

Can you imagine that Serbian peasants saved that same Madeleine Albright (as little Jewish girl) from Nazis during WWII? They did. And she nicely thanked to Serbs. Now we are disgusting and Madeline can have her own private company on Kosovo. She mobilized entire NATO to fight for her.

Let us remind of one drinking song by Serbian singer Toma Zdravkovic, from time of Yugoslavia > /Toma Zdravkovic - Evo vec je jesen, a tebe jos nema (Tuzno leto)/ translation: It is autumn already and you aren`t here (Sad summer) >>>

youtu.be/4BmVFW-9ARY

and here he sing German WWII war-song Lili Marlen in the Serbian movie Balkan Expres >>>

youtu.be/xMe9aTkdWRw

Toma Zdravković was one of the last Belgrade boems, he wrote all of his best songs after his wife left him.

youtu.be/d2Yy7mtZNFs

Toma Zdravković - Kafana je moja istina

This one is like his personal autobiography.

Or maybe not...... truly awful..... the first song sounds Greek or Turkish, do Serbs not have any national identity?

The second song is full of German Nazis.... par for the course with Serbs, I guess.