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]
