Quote:*Caesar single handedly invented the Germans and 'Germania' as a threat to Rome.

Servilius Caepio and Mallius Maximus might disagree with that assertion and certainly Gaius Marius used the crisis as an opportunity to change things!

Quote:The Battle of Arausio took place on October 6, 105 BC, at a site between the town of Arausio (modern day Orange, Vaucluse) and the Rhône River. Ranged against the migratory tribes of the Cimbri under Boiorix and the Teutoni were two Roman armies, commanded by the proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio and consul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus. However, bitter differences between the commanders prevented the Roman armies from cooperating, with devastating results. The terrible defeat gave Gaius Marius the opportunity to come to the fore and radically reform the organisation and recruitment of Roman legions. Roman losses are described as being up to 80,000 troops, as well as another 40,000 auxiliary troops (allies) and servants and camp followers — virtually all of their participants in the battle.

The Cimbri and Teutones pre-dated Caesar by 50 years.

Still, your point about ancient historians is well taken. The so-called "Father of History" Herodotus told some whoppers ( like 2.1 million Persians invading Greece). They uncritically reported folklore as fact.
Even Titus Livy, an heir to roughly two centuries of Roman historical writing, when confronted with two sources which disagree seems to arbitrarily pick one. He also had no sense of scale. He reported as "wars" what must have been little more than riots between denizens of mud-hut villages!

For that matter, our resident fundie's "bible" claims that more than 185,000 Assyrians were besieging Jerusalem. At the time, Jerusalem was a miniscule little shithole of about 10,000 people. Doesn't seem like it would have been an economical use of force even if the Assyrians had been able to raise an army that large.

"History" is full of such examples. [/i]

(March 31, 2010 at 10:03 am)Thor Wrote: Believers insist that Jesus was a real person who performed real miracles. I say he's a myth. To me, some convincing evidence for this comes from the fact that we don't know when he was crucified or rose up from the dead. Of course, we also don't know the date he was born (I hope no one is going to try to argue that he was born December 25).

I can sort of accept that we don't know when he was born. He was supposedly born in a barn and maybe the date was somehow lost to history. But we don't know when he died? When he was resurrected? A momentous event like this and NO ONE thought to write down the date? Particularly when you consider that Jesus was (supposedly) publicly executed! Come on! We know the exact dates of many things that happened in the ancient world, but we don't know wehn Jesus died? I find this hard to swallow.

Do any believers have a reason why this would be?

Yes, that is a very good question. For that matter, why aren't there any contemporary accounts of the Resurrection independent of the Bible?

Quote:BTW, boy, where do you get that from?

I think I know how he got the date: the year 33 AD is supposed to be the only year between 26 and 36 in which the dates for Computus (the church's traditional algorithm for putting the date of Easter), and Passover line up. I could be wrong.

Min you are very good at research here's a hint Virgo and blood moon.

I don't consider astrology a "science."


Any more than I consider your bible "factually based."

It's the science of astronomy you need to research not the false religion of astrology.

@Min.
Thanks for that, I was under the impression Caesar invented a non existent [major ] threat. Are you saying the Germanic tribes were a significant threat to Rome during Julius Caesar's time?

My understanding is Vecingetorix did not unite the tribes against Rome until the last part last of Caesar's Gallic wars. He was defeated and executed in Rome.

That actual Roman defeat by the Germans occurred under Augustus,with the Varian disaster [wrongly] placed in the Teutoburg Forest (9CE) This permanently halted Roman expansion at the Rhine.Is this more or less correct, or way off?

I know very little about Roman history. Not through lack of interest. I've simply read more modern history.



PS: Do you think what's his name is aware there was no such thing as 'astonomy' in the C1st CE. Or that there is no evidence of pregonition,fortune telling or biblical prophecy? OK, to be fair,some biblical prophecy written after the event comes close-ish, if more than little skewed and embellished with the odd bare faced lie.

(April 3, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Godschild Wrote: It's the science of astronomy you need to research not the false religion of astrology.

So what exactly do we need to research? Cut the cryptic clues and present your point.

(April 4, 2010 at 12:18 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 3, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Godschild Wrote: It's the science of astronomy you need to research not the false religion of astrology.

So what exactly do we need to research? Cut the cryptic clues and present your point.

Astrology: the primitive belief that Earth is the center of the universe, and that the stars dance around in the sky singing to each other and foretelling one's future

In seriousness... what 'point' could the person have?

The reason that no one knows the date of the mythical Christ's resurrection is that it never happened and he did not exist. If you read the accounts in the gospels about this event you will note that the differences between them is nothing short of an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a brain. Not to mention that to this very day they don't even know where his tomb is located. All of these so called sites in the holy city are nothing but symbolic representations since they have no real tomb for him to come strolling out of.

Quote:Thanks for that, I was under the impression Caesar invented a non existent [major ] threat. Are you saying the Germanic tribes were a significant threat to Rome during Julius Caesar's time?

I suspect you have two questions run together there, Pad, so let me try to sort it out. YOu can correct me if I've mis-read you.

One, Caesar was consul in 59 BC and upon completion of his one-year term was appointed proconsul in Gaul beginning in 58. His province included Cisalpine Gaul (today, Northern Italy) and Provence, which is southern France around Marseilles. As proconsul Caesar had command of a few legions and the right to raise more if needed. As he arrived at his command word came of a Gallic tribe, the Helvetii and perhaps a few Germanic allies who had abandoned their homelands and were seeking passage across Roman territory. To make a long story short, Caesar denied them passage. The Helvetii then decided not to fight the Romans and instead tried to make their passage to the north of the Roman domain. A Gallic tribe in their path, the Aedui, appealed to Caesar for assistance and he graciously accepted them as "allies" and attacked the Helvetii. While the numbers mentioned in The Gallic Wars are patently absurd (as absurd as the numbers of Assyrians in G/C's silly bible) the fact remains that the Helvetii were an entire community on the move and had their women and children with them. Caesar made an example out of them and the carnage must have been brutal. Now, if this is what you mean by Caesar "inventing" a threat, you have a good point, except they were Gauls not Germans. There was no threat to "Rome" and no real threat even to "Provence." The Helvetii were going around. Caesar needed a casus belli to build his army and reputation. It was a stunning political move, giving him an ally in the Aedui and letting the Gauls know that there was a new sheriff in town. Yes, it was a little tough on the Helvetii but the Romans considered them barbarians anyway.

The second part about the Germans is somewhat more hazy. There were many German tribes and only a few of them had been involved in the wars which ended when Gaius Marius crushed them. There is speculation that the cause of the Helvetii's move was pressure from Germanic tribes. It makes some sense. People do not migrate without a good reason. In addition to that provocation there had been German intervention ( a king by the name of Ariovistus figures into this) in Gaul in the period immediately preceding Caesar's arrival as proconsul. As soon as he finished the Helvetii Caesar, again at the instigation of the Aedui, provoked a conflict with Ariovistus and defeated him. Perhaps Caesar's goal was to demonstrate the Rome was the protector of Gaul from the Germans? Eliminating the German presence west of the Rhine in 58, Caesar some years later gave the Germans a demonstration of Roman engineering by constructing a bridge across the Rhine and marching around Germany in a kind of parade militaire designed to awe the Germans and show them that they were not safe from Rome on the East bank of the Rhine.

The fact is that by 50 BC, Caesar had conquered Gaul and the fear of a Gallic invasion of Italy (Gauls had captured and sacked Rome in 390 BC) was erased. Governments need enemies from whom to keep the people "safe." Perhaps in the aftermath of the defeat of the Gauls it was necessary to conjure up the Germans for that role?