[darkside05]

Also out of curiosity... exactly where did the Visigoths originate? I've always thought of them being as one of the most underrated people of the ancient times due to their overrunning Rome (and I heard they pushed the Mongols back as well). I need to seriously consider taking some medieval history classes haha!

[WushuPadawan001]

I’m having a bit of trouble with the credit people give to the many northern tribal societies which invaded Rome throughout its history. Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Gauls, Visigoths, etc. were able to successfully invade and sack Rome because Rome had spread so far out (among other things). Roman resources (including the military) were hardly consolidated. Hence barbarian groups (as well as other invading civilizations) only had to face a fragment of Roman might. This is not to discredit the barbarians – they were indeed fierce warriors. But I from what I have studied I am under the impression that the barbarians never defeated Rome, Rome defeated itself.

[Hengest]

darkside05: The Visigoths were Northern Europeans, a Germanic people, that is to say from Germania (not just modern Germany), what the Romans called the huge expanse of land between the Rhine and the Danube. They were part of a larger people known as the Goths, and the name means "western Goths". The other half were known as the Ostrogoths, which means, you've guessed it, "eastern Goths". That said, by the time they defeated Rome, they probably didn't consist solely of Germanic tribes. There was probably a large contingent of Alans and others among them.

They were indeed quite a force to be reckoned with; not only did they sack Rome but they also made inroads into Spain and North Africa. They did suffer at the hands of the Huns, but then most did, so that's no great shame.

WushuPadawan001: I think it's important to keep the sacking of Rome by the Gauls seperate from that by the Visigoths and the Vandals. The Gauls sacked Rome in 390BC and, at that time, Rome wasn't anywhere near the military power it would become. It was strong but it still hadn't conquered all the Italic tribes; in fact, it wouldn't achieve that for another hundered years, until its third war against the Samnites in 290BC.

The Germanic attacks on Rome, however, occurred much later: the Visigoths in 410AD and the Vandals in 455AD. It's true what you say that Rome was probably on its last legs anyway, and I tend to agree with your statement that it was Rome that defeated Rome, but I think the Visigoths, at least, still deserve some credit, for sheer balls if nothing else. This was Rome, rulers of the known world for the last 500 years. Even the mighty Attila decided not to go through with a planned attack on the city.

You also have to remember that some Germanic tribes achieved victories against Rome when it was at the height of its power. The crushing defeat of the Romans by the allied Germanic tribes led by Arminius ("Hermann the German") at Teutoburg Forest in 9AD was a massive, massive blow to Roman pride, from which it never really recovered. It was probably the sole reason that the Romans never really sought to conquer Germania after that.

[graham1]

After giving up on the attempts to conquer the Germanic tribes, the Romans found it more to their advantage to trade with them instead. A number of those tribes absorbed a good bit of Roman culture & some of their language found its way into their own, but were never subjugated by Rome. A Roman historian, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, noted that 'the Germans loved their freedom more than life itself'.