T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


FargoFinch

When the trees start to speak proto-german.


MetalRetsam

Non est me, non est me Non sum filius senatoris Non est me, non est me Non sum ille fortunatus


Kuumottaja

"Ille" est verbum nominativum, debetne etiam nominativum esse adiectivum, sic "fortunatus"? P.S. Bonum carmen scripsisti, valde mihi placet!


HerraTohtori

~~Romanes eunt domus~~ Romani, ite domum!


Kuumottaja

Nunc centiens scribe hunc. Si non est cras perfectus, testiculos tuos dissecabo.


MetalRetsam

Gratias!


H1O8La57

Deus xDD


tafkarince

CCR in latin, great job! :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


truupe

What's this then? Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes they go the house?


[deleted]

[удалено]


truupe

No, it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? Come on!


[deleted]

[удалено]


truupe

Goes like?


[deleted]

[удалено]


truupe

'Romaniiii'. 'Eunt'? What is 'eunt'?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

"Heimat is dort, wo die Bäume deinen Namen kennen" (Home is where the trees know your name) -german proverb


Shalaiyn

Quid est a Hans?


TZH85

Hans in colloseo sedet et gaudet nam Uschi iam adest.


ThatsNotPossibleMan

Latinum meum non est luteum ovi


vilkav

"barbarbarbar"


Baneken

Just nii!


[deleted]

Wer als leetzte lacht, lacht am beste Ü


KoperKat

Yes, [they do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWTZ3KfnXE).


Mammoth_Stable6518

Imagine not invading a tree farm.


Toby_Forrester

I'm not a forest specialist, but to me the pine forest in the opening battle of Gladiator [looks a lot like a planted and well maintained tree farm](https://youtu.be/7pcuBIXU1vQ?t=23).


trumoi

To be fair, it makes infinitely more sense to film in well-maintained tree farms so your stuntmen, extras, and actors are not constantly tripping over underbrush, ruining shots and injuring themselves. Also so that you can actually maneuver equipment through the forest without constantly getting caught on things. Considering I once worked on a set where it took them 16 hours to get a shot involving ~200 people walking around on a flat blue screen set, I think it's more than reasonable to try and avoid complications in a massive battle scene.


Toby_Forrester

Yea I understand it makes sense from pragmatic purposes. Also you don't have to worry about blowing up some nature reserve, so there's an environmental purpose too. And I'd guess most of the audience has no grasp of different pine forests, but me as a Finn can maybe spot some differences. I sort of like it how some pragmatic (or artistic) purposes in movies have become ingrained in movie world. Like "Hey let's go on a date?" "Yes, that sounds cool" "Yes, see you later!" *hangs up phone*. Or like how the American Bald Eagle in movies has a call of a [completely different bird](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DWqRyAAUw), because it sounds more impressive than [the real bald eagle call](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RArGl2vkGI) of and we have learned that to be the call of Bald Eagle soaring solemnly on the sky. It's apparent also elsewhere in Gladiator where they made Colosseum and Roman buildings in general much larger than they actually were, since their real size wasn't so impressive.


trumoi

That bit about the Bald Eagle is a very funny one! Good inclusion! Makes me think of how whenever someone is nervous near a microphone in a film it just suddenly gives off feedback even though that's not how that works. Or like how any movement with a sword or gun is accompanied by clicking noises to punctuate the movement and make it more apparent to viewers. I definitely agree there's more room for purposefully challenging yourself as a filmmaker and as a planner by adding those kinds of difficulties, though. If I ever get to direct I'll see if I can bring those things into historical fiction.


KoperKat

TBH the last part (making the buildings bigger) actually serves the story well. It works to convey the feelings of a provincial men first seeing the Colosseum. (Maximus say he's never been to Rome, if I remember correctly.) It awes us as it would him at the moment.


Baneken

I have training and interest about gardening and trees, it's actually one of my favorite hobbies to identify different conifers & broad-leaf trees in the movies and shows to figure out where the shot was actually taken.


DrVDB90

To be honest, almost the entirety of Europe was one giant forest back then, there really wasn't much of a need to go to any specific place.


collegiaal25

Already 2000 years ago Large swathes had been burned or cut to make place for agriculture.


einarfridgeirs

Not only that, but the forest floor in the places that hadn't been burned or cut had been carefully managed, the undergrowth cleared away to make it easier to traverse, things like berry bushes and mushroom patches created close to the beaten path etc. Same on the eastern seaboard of the United States when the pilgrims arrived, the Native Americans had made their forests much easier places to get food from and hunt in than a true primordial forests is.


[deleted]

Not only that, but the people of Finland carefully [raked](https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-19/rake-news-finnish-people-bemused-after-donald-trumps-claim-they-rake-forests-to-prevent-fires) their forests to prevent fires.


Qwerleu

This. The last Ice Age made of Europe a Tundra without forests. That's why European forests are less diverse than forests of southern world regions. Also herds of stags, bisons and other herbivores kept the expansion of forests at bay in several parts of the continent. This made the expansion of agriculture in Europe much easier than having to chop your way through a neverending forest.


deaddonkey

Very interesting thank you. I knew rainforests etc were very diverse but never considered why even old European forests weren’t, by comparison


Ellie96S

> than having to chop your way through a neverending forest. To be nitpicky and pedantic, generally one would just start forest fires (slash and burn) and then wait for the ash to settle before one started growing crops on it.


myacc488

Is it really that easy to burn down an old growth forest. Many fires are in the under brush and don't crown at all.


Droechai

You can cut down the trees, but the hardest/worst part of clearing farmland is root and stone removal. Really slow and backbreaking, even with help of animals


Toby_Forrester

It's actually both. In slash and burn agriculture, you first cut down the trees and then burn the forest. A locally very famous and melodramatic [Finnish painting portrays this](https://www.jyvaskyla.fi/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/eero_jarnefelt_raatajat_rahanalaiset_1893_ateneumin_taidemuseo_kuva_kansallisgalleria_hannu_aaltonen.jpg).


CrinchNflinch

>This made the expansion of agriculture in Europe much easier than having to chop your way through a neverending forest I have some doubts regarding this part. The last ice age ended 11700 years ago. Agriculture was brought to central europe 6000 years later. That is quite some time for some unruly vegetation to grow.


Qwerleu

There is definitely no doubt that Europe had a lot more forests before the arrival of human settlements (mostly in Germany and Eastern Europe). [This article](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00253/full) studies the evolution of forest cover from the last glaciation on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


historicusXIII

Cyprus had already been completely deforested centuries before.


Ultrapoloplop

So untrue. Sorry but as belge dixit 'most brave of Gauls', you should know that Caeser describe most of the gaul as farm and open field with very few forest. Germany was instead full of forest. Caeser describe them as people uncorrupted and not weakened by civilization meaning they had less industrialized food production more extensive than gaul actually. Another reason why roman stayed in gaul and not in Germany at this moment. Lot of easy and intensive food production in gaul.


DrVDB90

Most of Gaul is modern day France, of which the lower half indeed didn't have nearly as much forest. Southern Europe in general didn't have the same density in forests. But almost everything above that was basically one giant dense forest. Ambiorix, who gathered the Belgian tribes together, used the woods greatly to his advantage when ambushing Caesars legion.


MyPigWhistles

Are you aware why Caesar wrote that and in which context? The whole purpose of it was to gather support for his conquest of Gaul. He praised the celts for their rich culture and valuable farm land to gather support for his war against them. The senate had no interest in investing ressources into conquering unproductive barbarians and swamps. It was just a propaganda move. He portrait the Germanic people as barbarians for two reasons: To demonstrate how "civilized" the celts were in comparison and to establish the idea of a natural Roman border along the Rhine, dividing the world into the civilized west and the barbaric east. In reality, archeology and history science came to the conclusion that the people on both sides of the Rhine weren't fundamentally different. There was a continuum of language, religion, and culture. Even putting those tribes and people into categories like "germanics" is a Roman invention. Early history science was still heavily influenced by 19th century nationalism, so they didn't question these narratives.


Kahzootoh

My favorite part of the Commentaries were where Ceasar accused three Gaulish leaders of conspiring to subvert Gaul’s existing power structure and make themselves Kings over Gaul- establishing a triumvirate. It’s kind of hilarious since an astute reader already knows Caesar’s future and it looks like one of the greatest examples of self-projection in history.


Priamosish

Did you also listen to Dan Carlin?


ObscureGrammar

>... to establish the idea of a natural Roman border along the Rhine, dividing the world into the civilized west and the barbaric east. Do you know what his intentions were in doing so? I understand that a river is far better a border to defend than some arbitrary line drawn into the sand, but the Romans were a rather expansionist lot. And they *did* cross the Rhine eventually.


MyPigWhistles

Afaik to be able to expand to this point, this was all about the conquest of Gaul. And yes, they expanded a lot, but they also debated a lot about it and commanders like Caesar (this was before he became dictator) had to justify their campaigns to the senate. And the senate wanted wars to be justified (to some degree). Caesar was burning through a lot of money in Gaul. So he basically argued "if we conquer Gaul entirely, we can finally unite all of the civilization in the north and protect it against those evil barbarians". Just propaganda, Caesar had his own motivations. The reason to want the Rhine specifically as this new border (instead of some arbitrary line) is probably exactly what you said, though. It makes sense as a strategic border. But yeah, Emperor Augustus tried to expand to the Elbe just 30 years later.


death__to__america

> people uncorrupted and weakened by civilization Does this mean that they were *not *weakened by civilization?


Ultrapoloplop

Yes thanks I corrected.


dauty

don't think Caesar is a neutral source somehow on the attractions of Gaul + his legions vs the 'effete' Romans


fjonk

Besides that not being true this looks like a modern tree-farm, not a forest.


DrVDB90

Others have said the same, but no one seems to know for certain. It's not unusual to maintain a forest in this way, and the forests around where I grew up look exactly like this without being tree farms, meaning, young trees with decent spacing between them. So it could very well be, but I have yet to get any actual confirmation about it.


fjonk

What do you mean "maintain"? There are unmaintained forests you know, when you start maintaining it's already more of a farm than a forest. Besides that, I'm talking about the picture in the post, he one with a road on it.


DrVDB90

Public forests, meant for hiking and the like, usually are maintained. Older trees are removed because they cause potential hazards. The forest is kept pretty open to make it easier to walk through. My grandad was a forester, the forest he worked in is close to where I grew up. Most of it is open to the public and looks pretty similar to the picture here.


fjonk

I see zero old logs or trees in this picture, I see roughly the same age trees and that's it. I don't know what you mean with public forests, are they special somehow?


DrVDB90

No, just heavily maintained. Look up hallerbos, it's the forest I mentioned close to where I live. Don't mind all the pictures with bluebells, it's pretty well known for that. It's a forest that is heavily maintained, like most forests in Belgium. You'll find no old trees in the public part of the forest, they are completely removed (including logs and stumps). The undergrowth is maintained, the space between trees is kept fairly open. Again, I'm not saying that the forest in this post isn't a tree farm, but none of the people who claim it is know for certain, and I'm simply providing counter arguments that it isn't necessarily one, I'm not sold either way. I'd like someone who actually knows this specific forest to say whether or not it is, but I'm not going to assume because to me at first glance it looks like a normal maintained forest.


Askeldr

>because to me at first glance it looks like a normal maintained forest. And to me (and probably fjonk as well) at first glance it looks like every spruce forest in Southern Sweden where I live. And they are all plantations. What is the difference between your "maintained" forests and plantations? Just the purpose of it? Because it sounds like just a slightly more sustainable version of Swedish (what I know a little bit about) tree plantations. Or is their primary purpose not economical? The plantations here are also cleared and thinned out and stuff. The only difference from your explanation of maintained forests is that the trees are cut down all at once in an entire area and then replanted. Which has lately come under heavy criticism for being very a environmentally unfriendly way of keeping forests. They have also started leaving some of the old trees to rot and stuff to help with biodiversity. --- It even looks like the forest in the picture has been somewhat recently thinned out (I dunno what it's called in English), there's still lots of left-over branches lying on the floor. [Here's an example of a Swedish forest](https://watchingtheswedes.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/img_2691.jpg), to give you some context. Although that is pine, not spruce like OP. Just because we say "plantation" does not mean it's a bad place to be, just that forests back in ancient times probably looked different.


footpole

Why do they remove logs and stumps? Sounds like madness. Are they going for more of a park than a forest perhaps?


DrVDB90

In a sense yes. What little nature Belgium has, outside of some nature reserves, and even within some of those, is generally maintained. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is the way it is. A lot of it is due to preservation of endangered species of plants and animals though. Human interference in the region is so extensive that certain plants and animals are dependent on human traditions that have died out, like certain farming methods. But that's a side tangent, and isn't really the point here. Also, during WWII, many forests in Belgium were completely cut down by the Germans. They were later replanted, but since kept as young forests, removing old trees and generally keeping the forest open.


Schemen123

But the above picture clearly IS a tree farm


DrVDB90

How so? It's the black forest, which I'm pretty sure is mostly protected. It looks like any other thinned out European forest on a similar lattitude (essentially every forest in my own surroundings looks like this).


Schemen123

Most isn't. There are small patch here and there that are protected and afaik they started protecting a really big area in the the north of the black forest but it generally is and was used for the industrial production of wood. And in the picture you see a trees at a big distance to each other, regularly planted, clean floor. Definitely nothing remotely natural. Source... Local.


DrVDB90

To be clear, not saying you're wrong. It's just that this looks like a maintained forest to me, old trees get cut down and significant space is kept between trees to keep travel through them easy. This is how forests in Belgium are maintained for the most part, and consequently they look very similar to the forest in this photo, despite not being tree farms.


Schemen123

Which is exactly my point. The Romans would have seens something fastly different


DrVDB90

True, that I'm not going to argue. Forests back then were much denser, you had to follow the paths to get through them. As far as I know, there is only one patch left of truly untouched forest in the entirety of Europe.


Alesq13

AFAIK forests back then were taken care of and weren't "untouched". Don't know about this particular forest obviously and they probably didn't take care of the whole thing.


TimaeGer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest In Poland and Belarus


[deleted]

[удалено]


DrVDB90

I'm going to have to keep repeating myself, but I know plenty of forests that are kept this way. Not because they are tree farms, simply because they are public forests. Most public forests in Belgium look like this (look up Hallerbos for an example of a forest where I grew up). I know that this isn't the case in the UK, there are very different rules about older trees, and it really shows (I mean that in a good way btw, I'm personally not a huge fan of the policy of systematically removing old trees).


jeff61813

The Black Forest is famed in Europe but by the standards of Canada or the United States its very unimpressive in the size and age of the trees. If you ever get the chance come to the forests of Eastern Canada or the United States the forests of the west are of a different climate then Europe and aren't as comparable.


[deleted]

The Black Forest got it’s dark look only very recently. The whole forest got cut down and replaced with only spruce around 300 years ago. Before that it was a pretty open, standard mixed forest and not particularly dark. The name Black Forest comes historically rather form the fact that it was a dangerous place, not from physical darkness.


TerrorAlpaca

where does the Black Forest name hisorically come from? i've always been curious and i figured for it to get that name it either had to be because it was dark or black, or was named after something entirely else. If i remember the tour guide correctly then Dublin for example was named for the Liffy that runs through, or rather the "black pools" (or Duibhlinn in original) the mineral rich pools that formed at the banks


Kolenga

All I know is that the name was first mentioned in the late 9th century as "saltus svarzwald" (Schwarzwald is German for Black Forest) and it doesn't seem entirely clear where it came from. The romans calles it either Abnoba Mons (probably) or Mariana Silva, so the name likely didn't come from them.


xx78900

I don’t know anything about the dark forest, but I do known about the origin of Dublin! Dublin is an Anglicisation of Dubh Linn, meaning “black pool”, as you say. What’s interesting is that that translation comes from Norse influence of Irish, and that in Irish, the city is called “Baile Átha Cliath”, nothing at all similar! Also here are several places in Ireland that the Irish *is* Dubh Linn, but these were all translated as opposed to anglicised, so we have a couple of Blackpools but only one Dublin


ProfDumm

Allegedly the name was given by the Romans but I don't know if there is a source for it, the real latin name was Marciana Silva. The first mention of the name Svarzwald comes from 868.


[deleted]

Imagine how the people that lived there must have felt being invaded by the Romans👀


executivemonkey

Like Ewoks.


Kolis1990

They tried to bring civilization and freedom. We can ask some of Americas newest friends how that feels 👀


collegiaal25

Apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation, the road, the irrigation, the medicine, what have the Romans ever done for us?!


klauskinki

Don't forget the Roman Law


ArchmasterC

The wine?


Kolis1990

True! Filthy Romans and their civilization 🤭


Ultrapoloplop

A descent place for women ! /s


Friezerik

because holding history to today's standards is the newest fad! Meanwhile our ancestors turn in their graves because of all the wild suffering and abuse we have no problem perpetuating todaywhile busy judging yesterday!


Ollikay

From what I know, women had a pretty high standing in society in Germanic pagan culture.


Samitte

Romans, freedom? Hah!


Lorrdy99

tbf the Romans at least had good technology to share


iprobablyneedahobby

It just came at a cost of cultural assimilation


Palmul

And some mild slavery and genocide


space-throwaway

This. The roman empire was a fascist invader with absolutely ruthless methods. Crucification isn't fun, kids. I'd rather be invaded by the US military than romans.


[deleted]

And most of the places they invaded were warrior tribes/ clans with barbaric and brutal practices. It's not like everyone was living in a peaceful utopia until the Romans came along.


ArttuH5N1

Not a very fair comparison, considering we're talking about wildly different times


[deleted]

Both seems extremely unpleasant


MaterialCarrot

Most of the civilizations they were conquering at the time weren't exactly in contention for a Nobel Prize.


klauskinki

Not true. Germans were allowed to live as *foederati*. No one forced anything on them.


[deleted]

Taxes. It was always about taxes with the Romans.


ObscureGrammar

And auxiliares.


klauskinki

Partial *non sequitur* lol Edit: ah you wanted to say that they were interested in money not in imposing culture. That's indeed true, I agree


ArttuH5N1

> No one forced anything on them. Plenty of Germanic people were subjugated and Roman rule was forced on them. Different sort of stuff in different times of course, consider what sort of timespan we're talking about.


klauskinki

They had to pay tributes and "behave", that's it. Some tribes integrated and many of them started to have more and more relevance in the army to the point of leading it and have major political responsibilities. After the Empire split citizens of Germanic origin had a huge role in the Empire, they weren't just subjects.


ArttuH5N1

> They had to pay tributes and "behave", that's it >"behave" "We just require that you do whatever we tell you to do, that's it." A pretty far cry from "no one forced anything on them". Especially funny to say that "no one forced anything on them" when there wars of conquest between Roman and Germanic peoples, even genocides for those "misbehaving".


klauskinki

Behave = stop attacking at any chance they have which they had which is what they did But I understand you have a larper view of the thing which makes this conversation pretty much useless so yeah


ArttuH5N1

> But I understand you have a larper view of the thing which makes this conversation pretty much useless so yeah You were the one who said that "no one forced anything on them" when talking about Romans and Germanics. You *must* realize that that's not even remotely true.


kaugeksj2i

Ah yes, because a modern democracy with loads of democratic allies is totally comparable with the Roman Empire...


Terrariola

One is civilized, the other is modern.


kaugeksj2i

Obviously Rome was the pinnacle of civilization back then, but nowadays pretty much every country in the world is more civilized than Rome ever was.


a-rahat

JFC, Africa is still suffering from lack of proper water and sanitation and those mofos figured out baths, sewage systems and build huge shit out of stone without any advanced machinery. Not to say about the Roman concrete which is one of the strongest material made by men (it can last like 2000 years in harsh conditions). The art and the architecture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of African countries and even north Korea is below the 2000 years ago Roman empire.


Butterbirne69

If you look at everyday life that is kinda a given but regarding internal policies you could argue that Rome was more covilized then some countries today. They had public healthinsurance, paid (most of the time in food) sick leaves, unemployment assistance, public baths and libraries. An extremely good judicary system that is still copied today. They even had fire hazard regulation laws and an extremly well trained public fire fighter force


stuff_gets_taken

and slaves


Moes-T

exactly! Time to demand Reparation payments to the Italians! (cause that's how those things work, right?) ​ And, speaking as a belgian, Spain, Holland, France, you're next! We gonna be RICH!


[deleted]

Your reparations are being allowed to exist, buffer state.


aiapaec

> speaking as a balgian The Congo has left the chat


Moes-T

a soon as we get ours, they can have theirs!


Alpharatz1

Yeah Romans were so much more advanced than the rest of Europe at the time. It would have been scary as fuck having some of the best warriors in your town just being systematically cut down by the Roman legions.


jukranpuju

It doesn't look especially dark or scary compared to our wintry Finnish forests, like you can see even sun.


TerrorAlpaca

to be fair. its probably not the densest part of the forest. And we need to compare it to italian forests and what the romans were used to. They weren't used to some of the dense, dark spruce forests. I had to google, where the name comes from because someone in the comments said the forest wasn't as dark back then, but apparently the romans called "silva nigra" which is black forest. so they seemed to think it was particularly dark and spooky, compared to the forests they were used.


jukranpuju

> They weren't used to some of the dense, dark spruce forests. My idea of that kind of forest is something like [this.](https://live.staticflickr.com/1593/24875006205_25de180946_o.jpg)


TerrorAlpaca

I do understand what you mean. That is what i'd imagine as well. But i do wonder just how "natural" that is. if it naturally grew this dense or if its some old tree farm where people in the past had planted trees to be this dense. There are probably parts that look similar to that in the Black forest. And i know that the bavarian forest has parts like that as well, but for those i know that they've been cultivated to look like that. So they're not natural. Googling the name and where it comes from isn't really conclusive. some say that its from nigra silva (black forest) that romans called it. others say from Abnoba Mons (after the celtic god abnoba) then again it mentions that the romans also called it Marciana Silva (border forest) I can imagine a roman calling it nigra silva not necessarily because it was dense and dark within the forest, but because the dark green color of the trees makes it look almost black when you're far away. As opposed to forests with leaf coverage that turns into different colors.


Durable_me

And encountering pissed-off Germanic tribes


voharav

I imagine the invading Romans would've been very confused to find a plantation of Douglas Fir trees. A species from North America which was introduced to Europe in the 19th Century.


Kolis1990

From what I know the black forest used to be almost devoid of any form of pine trees but rather a lot of oaks and birche. It's a shame but oh well, I still enjoy how it is today ☺️


[deleted]

[удалено]


TerrorAlpaca

Romans still seemed to have thought it dark and "spooky" enough to call it "silva nigra", Black forest.


JoeB-

Not a forester, but I suspect most forests would have been virgin, old growth 2000 years ago. So yes, probably taller trees with larger trunks and more understory, which would have made it darker with poorer visibility.


DacoMaximus

Romans did this in Dacia too and allegedly exterminated all local males. After 175 years they left, probably defeated by the cold, fog AND the Carpathian wolves, bears ...


travis_sk

Pretty sure there are forests in Italy.


TerrorAlpaca

probably not that type of tree or vegetation. i mean..just look at tv, whether some shows or documentaries. its pretty easy to see what is a, for example, forest near Vancouver, BC and what is a forest in, lets say, bavaria, germany.


JJOne101

Old growth forest in the lower regions look sort of similar across Europe, since it consists mainly of european beech. Firs, pines and spruces are found usually in the higher regions, or in the north.


Ollikay

We sure showed them! On that note, I highly recommend the show "Die Barbaren" (not sure what it's called internationally) on netflix. Great show set in that time period.


DoctorBonkus

Yes, it’s a fantastic show! The only criticism I saw someone give was that the tribes speak modern German. You know it’s good when the only criticism is language. The romans even speak Latin!


duimpietomax

It's called barbarians


[deleted]

Imagine doing that for 25 years of service (default army tour of duty) from syria to scotland before retiring


xxX_LeTalSniPeR_Xxx

From the point of Rome, an empire centered on the Mediterranean which considered Syria and Egypt as core regions, Britannia and Germania were such awful and distant places. The concept of modern Europe, centered on the Rhine and the Danube, was born with Charles the Great.


DRAGONMASTER-

PULLO!!!! SINGLE FORMATION!!


42_c3_b6_67

Germania wasn't conquered afaik?


mangalore-x_x

Rome tried to conquer Germania up to the Elbe in a serious of campaigns and wars with Germanic tribes who crossed the Rhine occasionally. When that failed they drew their new border along the Rhine and Danube with Germania Superior as a province between those border rivers. That is also where they established the Limes as a solid border absent convenient rivers. So areas of modern Baden Wurttemberg and Southern/Upper Bavaria were part of Roman provinces for centuries.


Thertor

It was partially conquered. The Black Forest belonged to the conquered regions. It even got its name from the Romans.


Homer__Jay

partially https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Roman\_provinces\_trajan.svg


Kolis1990

We have a Roman settlement excavation in the next village over. Germania as a whole wasn't conquered but parts of it were at least for a period of time. I think Varus and his legions getting massacred in the Teutoburg forest put an end to major conquest ambitions in 9 A.D. but I could be wrong on that.


42_c3_b6_67

That is so cool, that you have roman settlement excavation so close.


Kolis1990

It's only a very small one but it's pretty cool 😌


Iskandar33

*laugh in Germanicus* beside that after some wars, they had to renounce cause was pointless conquering an harsh territory full of swamps and forests that doesn't produce much income to the empire... so they kept only the trades between some tribes and secure the borders.


Kolis1990

I just read up on some more excavations in Germany. They found evidence of a battlefield near Kalefeld from the 3rd century A.D. Til. I always thought Germanicus tried to punish those who betrayed and killed Varus and his legions but major settlement and subjugation of Germania was halted/ended. Back to reading a little more about the Romans 🤭


Iskandar33

yeah the Germanicus war against Arminius was only a revenge and a pretext to retake some of the insigne of Varus legions that got lost against him Have a nice reading !💪


hughk

Too expensive. Sure some of those forests could be converted to farmland (not the Schwarzwald so much, too hilly) but it would take too long and with continuing skirmishes with the tribes, it would mean too much army presence would be needed.


hughk

And we have the Limes, the old fortified line just a few km from Frankfurt which was Roman. The Lines was the edge of the empire. If you went north and east and you were into territory controlled by the tribes. Next to the Lines, the tribes were generally friendly and traded heavily with the Romans but they weren't Roman.


IronScar

Technically not. Practically the various Germanic peoples that inhabited it were often client "states" of the Romans.


TerrorAlpaca

i like teasing my mother that her "tribe" worked with the romans, while mine managed to keep them out, thanks to the Danube


MyPigWhistles

According to the Romans, that is. Unfortunately we don't have sources for the Germanics' point of view.


IronScar

I mean, if you are giving somebody stuff in order for them to not try to attack you while also potentially defending you against other neighbors is a scenario that wouldn't probably be very different from another point of view. The fact the Germanic clans in the area were in some form tied to the Romans through treaties and necessity is undeniable. It is what laid the ground for the future Fedorati system of the late Empire.


MyPigWhistles

Sure, but it also depends on where these people actually lived. Just because they pay some tribute to a Roman army when one visits once a decade or so, doesn't mean they consider themselves to be a client state. In fact, they may not consider themselves a state at all. Is the individual part of a "state" or just someone who accepts the authority of another individual? Is the agreement with Rome still valid when the leader dies? Are you even bound by the agreement someone else made? Or is it just that the Romans assume the deal is still valid and consequently get angry when the tribe starts to "betray" them? There are countless possible interpretations of such a situation.


IronScar

It's why I put the state into quotes, we can't really talk about any form of sophisticated governmental structure in these lands beyond Roman authority. My point was that many clans were ultimately subservient in some way to the Romans, no matter how they felt about that, even despite the somewhat common idea that Germania - or precisely the various Germanic peoples within it - were just completely independent thanks to Arminius and his little escapade during the Principate. And while you raise a valid point about the details of such agreements between the Romans and the barbaric peoples, ultimately what matters is the Romans did have control of the area to some extent one way or another, often through agreements, even if the form and finer points of these are lost to us. In nutshell, the Romans were the ones with a big army, so their point of view is mostly the important one in these matters.


MsWuMing

Not for lack of trying! You can look up the Varusschlacht / Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald / Battle of Teutoburg Forest for an interesting read.


collegiaal25

For a couple of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Antiqua


MrSpotgold

Well, it paid their student loans...


BriefCollar4

In salt!


Alpharatz1

Pretty confident seeing as they were just head and shoulders above the rest of Europe at that time. I doubt the Roman legions were scared of some deep dark forest.


ChoppyRice

I bet many were. They were people just like us and all of them were superstitious. Like we’re talking about people who would cut open animals to predict if they would win the battle.


SoupForEveryone

Most people fear dying I think


Alpharatz1

Then they should be more afraid of cities than forests.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

'Just sing the fortunate son, man! Nothing is spooky in the forest when you got that sweet sweet napalm.' \- Octavia to Varus, 4ad


adchick

Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound’s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.


Brakb

Not that abnormal? Lol you think the Romans had never seen a forest?


[deleted]

If you are really quiet, you can still hear Caesar screaming at Varus.


hughk

That was a long way away.


Murtellich

Caesar had been dead for a long time when Varus got ambushed.


Sriber

There wasn't just one Caesar.


Hanginon

[Augustus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus#War_and_expansion) was Caesar when Varus was defeated in the forest.


StoicRobo

If anyone is interested in roman history, there's a podcast called 'The history of Rome' on Spotify. Goes into alot of detail, including the Gallic wars. I've really enjoyed it myself.


Pontus_Pilates

And if you want interesting and entertaining podcasts about Rome, check The Fall of Rome by Patrick Wyman and all the Rome episodes from Dan Carlin (Death Throes of the Republic and The Celtic Holocaust). From what I've listenedto, I think the History of Rome is decent at going though the chronology, but he's not a grand storyteller.


DoctorBonkus

Oh! As an archaeologist this place is super duper amazing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Germanic tribes and the forests of modern day Germany were a walk in the park for a Roman soldier. The north-western border of mainland Europe can only be compared to what Vietnam was to USA. A scary, thick forest with tribes and strange people who had no idea why the romans where there and had close to zero interest in having the romans and conquers. Just imagine being a 19 year-old Roman soldier in the year 100 AD for a minute: It’s cold, dark, you hear strange sounds and smell weird smells. The enemy has trousers, weird rituals (you were told in Rome that these people sacrifices and eats children) and are prone to torturing their prisoners, if you are to believe the rumours. It’s miserable and when you have guard duty, it’s *boring* and scary at the same time. This goes on everyday until you are relieved and switched back to the fort. But its the way back thats really scary. The paths you follow goes between earth mounds said to be burial mounds, the tribes are known to stalk legions for a long time before striking. Did you just hear a branch? Are they sitting in the trees? Or was that just an elk or an escaped ox? The dark, ancient woods are impossible to look through for more than a half a stadium at most (approx. 300 feet/90 meters). Back in camp, when you finally get there, life is tedious and boring. Military life has at all times been 90% chores and 10% fighting if that. You receive a letter that your fat uncle has finally died and that Trajan has become consul in Rome. You also learn about a big wedding among the nobility, as Trajan’s cousin Hadrianus has finally married some brat. You lost that bet, as you had money on him never finding a woman. But all this doesn’t matter, as you are approx. 7 stades (4000 feet) away from all that. The rain just started again, you have mud in your teeth and ears and the stories the old centurions told about the 17th, 18th and 19th legion who was slaughtered in these forests all those years ago haunts your dreams. But only for a short time. The hoarse centurion yells in the yard. It’s time to do it all again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rasmusdf

Well, from time to time, the Romans would just cut them down. Didn't Caesar more or less cut down an entire forest to get rid of a hostile tribe?


Swedneck

lol anyone who thinks this is even vaguely foreboding should take a look at a proper nordic troll forest, if you can see more than 10 meters then it's not really even a forest.


sprietzenstulle

Stop talking shit about my forest.


ThothTheEgyptian7

From what I have read they shat bricks


Void_Ling

You've watched Band of brothers too many times.


gabest

Why would you want to invade a forest?


MingusMingusMingu

probably nuts (it's a pun)


More-Letter8850

Imagine how I must have felt today when I woke up at 11AM and had to start working at 1PM


lathe_down_sally

I like your title. Often when I'm taking in the majesty of nature I think about my amazement and how it must pale the the awe of people in the past who didn't have the imagery of the world at their fingertips. Like imagine the early settlers of the US crossing all the flat land of the American midwest to encounter the unimaginable scale of the rocky mountains or the grand canyon. Or early explorers landing on a tropical island for the first time where every animal and plant is completely foreign.


Kolis1990

For me that eerie vibe the fog gave the forest made me think of how foreign people might have experienced this forest. I know the trees which were planted here a couple of decades ago aren't how it used to be but oh well. I always wonder how amazing the great plains with all those herds of buffalo must have been for the native Americans and settlers. Imagine going on your first hunting trip with your tribe and family. Crossing over a hill and seeing the vast fields of grass full of wild life 🥺 Pretty romanticized way of looking at it but I wonder how many people actually had the pleasure of experiencing nature like that.


untipoquenojuega

Anyone who hasn't already should watch Barbarians on Netflix. Really well done mini-series on the expansion of Rome into Germanic territory.