Why didn't Rome Conquer Germania?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ค. 2024
- ♦Consider to Support the Channel of Patreon and gain cool stuff:
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE : goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon
♦Sources :
Paterculus, Marcus Velleius. Roman History.
Abdale, Jason R. Four Days in September: The Battle of Teutoburg, Pen & Sword Military.
Gibson, Alisdair. The Julio-Claudian Succession: Reality and Perception of the "Augustan Model".
Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian.
Levick, Barbara. Tiberius the Politician.
#History #Documentary #Rome
![Avenging Varus - The Germanic Wars [FULL DOCUMENTARY]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZyzY4ayG8R4/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s a common theme throughout history that guerilla warfare by small tribes in hostile terrain are the hardest to defeat.
Afghanistan lol
@@luluishername and vietnam
FARC.
@@luluishername Afghanistan is very bad terrain. Every attempt at conquering by the British, the Russians and the Americans were failed. Probably the hardest land to traverse in the world.
@@eniff2925 Greeks conquered it tho
Imagine fighting fierce tribes in hardly passable forrests every step on your way and when you eventually "conquer" an enemy headquarter its just a hill with 5 shacks on it. Germania was the perfect combo of being both tough to beat militarily and economically totally worthless to conquer.
Similar to Russia throughout history
Romaboo cope
That is not how the fight happened. The documentary is wrong. For instance, one moment, after a three days of fighting while slowly moving to open ground where they would defeat the germans easily, they left the army truss. When the barbarians found these treasures, they almost stayed their with their treasury, cause they already lost so much more men than the romans. It was Arminius again that could convince them to leave the riches behind and start to hunt the romans down again. They were really not though to beat military.
@@yannickmussche5068 Romaboo coping at its best
@@yannickmussche5068 Three days of fighting?
Whatever your source is, if it seriously claims that the ambush lasted 3 days it should be considered a myth that you should only take with a massive pinch of salt.
When you think about it, the Romans actually conquered all of today's Austria and Switzerland and around 30% of today's Germany. In western and southern Germany, many well-known cities actually began as Roman forts or colonies. Examples: Cologne (Colonia Agrippina), Regensburg (Castra Regina), Mainz (Mogontiacum), Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), Trier (Augusta Treverorum).
Yeah, its common knowledge they basically conquered everything up to the Rhine
Well yeah, but germanic tribes (which the romans generalized as Germania) back then extended a lot farther eastward
@@smartacus88 I don’t know whether you’re referring to central asia because of indo-aryans or caucasians (which is arguably europe), however this is not entirely accurate unless we go back all the way to the settling of europe by the homo sapiens. Since we came from africa, and had to cross asia to get to europe by land, it’s kind of a given that europeans sort of came from asia but that’s so unrelated and so far in the past that it basically doesn’t matter and isn’t a satisfying conclusion. And whites aren’t just germanics I would say, but I don’t know because the American definition for whites is so convoluted at this point
@@smartacus88 Really what they should just do is refer to every ethnicity individually instead of "white" and "black", it only makes racial problems worse. And it’s also just better to be more accurate
@@smartacus88 Slavic is nothing like Italian or Greek
I live at the exact place, Neuwied, where Caesar built his first Rhine Bridge in 55 BC. It is also the same area where we kicked the Vikings out over 900 years later when they sacked everything downstream up to around Andernach and Neuwied. There are a LOT of historical ruins, towers, museums and information to just soak up in and it got me highly invested into more ancient history and a bit of archaeology.
My first town I lived in, Mülheim-Kärlich over 20 years ago, which had just behind our garages a fully uncovered ruin of a Roman Villa. I would go there daily and hop around the former walls and just be in awe, even at a young age. Sadly it has recently fallen victim to vandalism and is no longer open to the public.
Ja moin, grüße aus Koblenz
When Arminius got accused that he would betray Varus he actually said that this is true but everyone took this as a joke. Sometimes the best lie is the truth.
Truth can't be a lie though, so he was deceptive without lying.
@@scintillam_dei.... an old trope is that there is ten ways of lying , only one is purely a lie
the nine others are a crafty mix
@@paprskomet Roman writers said that northern savages had remarkable height and light colours, yet people in many cases depict the early ancient Romans as light-eyed with brown hair making them look just like Goths. Even the Barbarian series is inaccurate. At least they don't have a cringetastic English mispronunciation of Latin more cringetastic than the word cringetastic.
@@scintillam_dei at least Cringetastic is pronounced with a hard K, so kind of Latin.
@@scintillam_dei Never heared about stylistic devices?
Augustus just whacking his head against the wall in frustration is one of the most relatable things he ever did
its v likely seutonius said that for dramatic effect lol... from what we know abt augustus he was the last person on earth to behave like that... im guessing seutonius was trying to get across that augustus was PISSED
Indeed. Who knew Augustus was so relatable
And the most disrespectfull thing what he has done to Varus!
A real leader would had made a proper burial!
The spartan culture was harsher but i believe they had more passion and respect!
@Amadeus Gaming Was Julius first or Augustus?
@@bravomike4734 Good point. I'd say Julius was the first, paving the way for the Princepe
There is a large part missing from this video. Marcus Aurelius would later fight a series of battles against the Germanic tribes, defeating them but his death put a halt to the drive north into Germania. His son Commodus decided (against his fathers advisors) to instead make peace with the tribes. This would prove a costly mistake as centuries later it was these tribes among others that would invade the western roman empire and lead to its downfall.
Lies again? Army's Largest Fleet
what was so bad about that? Empires have to fall. Greetings to Brandon, btw.
idk if conquering Germania wouldve stopped Attila, but the real reason Rome fell was bcz of the instability from succession civil wars and plagues in the third century.
Is that the guy from Spartacus whose son raped some slave chick and Caesar but then got tent poled by the rebels
So how did the battle scene at the beginning of "Gladiator" fit into all this?
Interesting finding this video now, as I am currently rereading Lindsey Davis' IRON HAND OF MARS. Davis includes a lot of information on what happened to Varus in her background on this book.
Her book takes place in 71 CE after Vespasian took power. Both Davis and Steven Saylor have done a lot of great background work for their mysteries set in Rome.
"As Tiberius was now busy in the Balcans"
Some thing just never change
As the UN is busy with Tiberius...
The Balcans - causing trouble for major european powers since 6 B.C. (at least).
Yes. The famous rebellion of two Batons (Illyrian military leaders, who opposed massive inscriptions of Illyrians in Roman army) played great role.
The real trouble was not ending their leadership and installing new roman ones in their place over there
@@justinallen2408 - KILL ALL THE RULING CLASSES ... seems like a good
idea !! When do we START??
And then years later the Germanics would be one of the primal catalysts in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so good job Varus I guess.
And centuries later, Germanics (or Franks to that regard) would have the privilege of entitling themselves Romans by the Pope.
Well not exactly, The the Visigoths just give the already broken and crumbling Roman Empire the last Hit.
Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor.
The rise of the Eastern Empire.
Overexpansion and military overspending.
Government corruption and political instability.
The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes.
Weakening of the Roman legions
Christianity and the loss of traditional values
constant Invasions by Barbarian tribes
the frequent civil wars.
Time, no empire rule forever.
This were some of the main reasons the Western Roman Empire fell
@@doyouevenpraise189 yes the complete answer western rome more or less killed itself
@@doyouevenpraise189 so essentially the same criteria for the fall of the American Empire
Only because the Huns started pushing them.
When you go to Germany today and stand on the banks of the Rhine, it's just so formidable. If you're outnumbered and stretched thin by the requirements of a large empire, it turned out to be the only way they could defend their borders.
5:00 "He payed special attention to the Eruscus tribe" is an understatement. He straight up kidnapped the leaders kids and braught them up himself in Rome.
Very light explanation...
1 - Romans did have two Germanic provinces "Germania inferior" and "superior" That are here showed as "Gauls" Which it wasn't.
2 - Keep in mind that Germania magna was low in population, a huge swamp with no real economic or geopolitic interest
3 - All that while the center of power and economy was the Mediterranean sea.
4 - With many rivlaries and bigger problems to deal elsewhere in the frontiers than wasting time, men and money invading this land
spoil sport
Indeed. Also, Rome suffered many worse defeats, and yet always kept on fighting until the end, if there was a reason to.
There was no reason to keep on fighting Germania. The balance between costs and benefits did not favor a new campaign.
Of course, in hindsight, a conquest of Germania would have avoided the Germanic migrations of the 5th century... But nobody can blame the Romans of the 1st century for not anticipating that.
No it wouldn't, because many of those migrations started further east. The only thing that would happen is earlier contact with Huns or some other nomadic nation and that's not a good idea.
So basically, since they wanted to conquer Germania but couldn't they resorted to all your presented arguments as the reason to leave it be.
@@Cloud-dq1mr It's simple: if a new territory can give you 100, to achieve a net gain you must spend less than 100 for its conquest.
With those 3 lost legions and other campaigns, the Romans were approaching said 100 threeshold, such that another campaign might have made the conquest of Germania Magna not convenient.
Same goes for the Kush Kingdom. Rome renounced to its conquest, so some people claim that Rome (of the 1st century) didn't have the power to conquer it... Ridiculous.
Germany was probably very heavily forested at that time (it still has a lot today), making it very difficult to explore
I love the german forests so much I like my country but sometimes our politicians are a bit silly but when you look at the whole country and conpare it with other countries you see that Germany is not bad at all
@@ericziqn7019 it doesn't matter if nobody asked, people can say whatever they want to at any time
Not only heavily forested,there is so many hills and mountains,that a roman legion will find difficult not just on travelling but fighting...
The roman legion were mostly reliant on their siege weapons and foot soldiers,the romans have very few cavalry force...
Look at the standard cammo of the Bundeswehr (the German Army). Forests still give a huge impact on Germanys landscape. 👍🏻
That is not really the case. The untouched forests of course were deep and overgrown but those near settlements were actually quite thin. While there were huge trees there was not much understory since the germans sent their livestock into the forests to feed on seeds and smaller plants
Gotta respect the Germans and their resilience throughout history.
They were cuccs, pink nordicucc barbarians that only took advantage of Rome having MULTIPLE civil wars and political conniving politicians and generals
It was less German resiliency and more the Romans determining at a grand strategic level that it wasn't worth their time. We can debate the wisdom of that determination.
@@myrnaa1077 they weren't barbarians
@@myrnaa1077 lol, cope and seethe afrikan. cope and seethe
@@RageCage1701 germans were better. now rome is a dusty memory and germany is the strongest country in europe even after losing two world wars.
Hey guys I'm from "Kreis Lippe" and we are Arminen and still very proud of Arminius. We have a football club called after Arminius (Arminia Bielefeld) and we have a huge monument for him too. (Herrmanns Denkmal)
That's very Barbari
@@Sam-pie yeah thats the question but he defents this region and the people that lived here from the enemies. It's a matter of perspective in this case.
Die hauptschlacht war jedoch im Kreis Osnabrück bei kalkriese.
The Main Battle was Not in lippe it was in kalkriese near by Osnabrück
@@Sam-pie why..are you a roman or a viking.....??...:-)
@@Sam-pie What a stupid statement. Protecting your homeland from invaders is something to be proud of.
and because their armies suffered overwhelming losses against a small village in Gaul, led by Asterix and Obelix.
😂
@Ronnie and I have you read the comics? They're great!!
@@1337-Nathaniel They are available in Latin. "Delirant, isti Romani!" (Asterix beating up legionary)
@Ronnie and I the comics were everything, growing up in Luxembourg I had a collection of all the old asterix et Obélix co'icz
Yeah, I read that in a book.
5:04 now THAT'S what I call foreshadowing
I live in Köln Deutz (part of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium). It's a pity that we have lost so many roman artifacts. At least some pieces of the wall are still there.
Due to too many bombings during WW2.
@PHL M Nope, a lot still exists, because Roman remainings are often underground. And there is still plenty of it. If you are interested, take one of the historical city tours with a historian guide. They are done throughout the year and there are many interesting facts.
nicely done, easy to understand with simple visuals
It is worth mentioning, that Rome was very much a mediteran civilisation. Its major centers of population and economy lay there. This is also one of the reasons Britain was conquered so late.
The Rhine was just a great border, but to really subdue all German tribes they would have needed to expand to the Vistula ... a logistic nightmare and an invitation to the horse tribes of the plain.
All Rome had to do was unite all of the Germanic Tribes under a Kaiser who would then be subject to Rome. This is what I would have done: Find a strong warrior chieftain, arm him with Roman weapons and send him on a conquest of all Germania. After he beats his last enemies, give him enough gold to build a magnificent city and a system of forts or castles to hold the empire together. There, Rome could have had a protected “back door” and they could have taken on the Persians, make them also into a vassal state.
@@christianfreedom-seeker934 the social organization of the germanic tribes, both within and between would have made such a despot an impossibility, sure he might conquer alot - but his entire empire would fall apart the moment he died, as all loyalty was sworn directly onto him... Also kings or warleaders were appointed by tribal strongmen when needed and operated under constraint... Any gemanic ruler who too openly wen't against the traditional structuring of power, would very fast find himself a human saccrifice in one of those swamps
@@christianfreedom-seeker934 ah yes, create your own German vlad the impaler😂
@@christianfreedom-seeker934 Wouldn't work. It sounds like a good idea in theory since it was actually done before to my knowledge in non German speaking places. That said, Germanic tribes of their era had a culture of backstabbing the man at the top of the hill. There's every chance the man you put in charge will just spit in your face after he's suceeded, And then he's even more dangerous than your previous enemy. Because they're German and not Roman, the soldiers will continue listening to him
Scotland was never conquered right?
The Roman historian Tacitus answers the question raised by this video in four Latin words:"coercendum intra terminos imperium" (restraining the Empire within its boundaries) to describe the policy of the emperor Augustus at the end of his life and that of his successor Tiberius. Contrary to Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Romans realised that conquering is one thing, pacifying and building a lasting civil administration another thing which was equally important (I think they learnt that lesson after the Second Punic War when they saw how easily their Italian and Sicilian allies would desert if given a chance,as Capua, Syracuse etc had gone over to Carthage.
Provinces were only ineffecient under the empire, due to it's need to centralise and control, as well as its fear of competent governors and generals who would be rivals to the throne. Under the republic provinces were massively cash positive, in great part due to the fact that they could just assign talent to solve problems.
They were conquered, hence the Holy Roman Empire.
Also, Tacitus said Germania was a region "hideous and rude, under a rigorous climate, dismal to behold or to cultivate". Also, "silver and gold the Gods have denied them, whether in mercy or in wrath, I am unable to determine".
@@viktor8928Agreed. All these conversations and reasons why rome didnt conquer and rule germania can be summed up in one single expression. If you conquer stupid net-negative areas for stupid reasons, the quicker your empire will dissolve. The Romans absolutely could, if they neglect more important things that are attributing to the empires longevity, influence, and legacy.
No one knew the northern reaches would be a problem until much later centuries; and even if they conquered germania, once again, then that negligence to the other more important and powerful areas (of any kind) that need more importantly be attended to.. would have dissolved the roman empire in the early 400 AD in example, rather than later
(i.e. another more powerful enemy not being stopped from growing to be ignored, in order to ignorantly conquer all of unprofitable germania, would have been the germania of the later stages of the roman empire).
@@viktor8928 Good point, there was not much economic incentive to invade Germania.
The Netflix show Barbarians season 1 highlighted this exactly! It was really well done. Plus, I speak German so it was fun to watch in their native German!
Definitely not THEIR native German. That was an ancient form of some Germania tribes' languages that much much later developed into German.
I didn’t know any of this! Perhaps this was the turning point in the entire Roman Empire? Thanks for the video!
Be aware: this video is quite inaccurate! Consider it to be more fun and entertainment than any kind of valid information!
There is an error regarding what is called "Gaul" and with this an massive error regarding "conquering Germania" in general. This kind of violates what this video is all about though... The territories right next (left of) to the Rhine were already German tribe territories, not Gaul territories by any means, like what the narrator is talking about on multiple occations. These territories were called "Germania Superior" and "Germania Inferior" and were actually German tribe lands which were conquered by the Romans. This means, that quite a number of Germans were living under Roman rule at this point in time. This feature is quite significant when talking about the Varus battle (and their part in the fall of Rome, but the video doesn't go that far). Gaul territory surprisingly ends a lot further to the west, than what the map is showing or what the narrator is telling us about. It was the larger "Germania Magna" to the right of the Rhine (but also a bit further east, than what the map shows), that the Romans "failed" to conquer. This video also misses the opportunity to mention the "Limes" border defence installation, the second largest in the world in size, after the Chinese Wall. This was build by the Romans to protect themselves from the German tribes living in Germania Magna.
Thanks for the information....these videos that are narrated by the author or whatever, always, always are f****** flawed...😀😳👎🏾👎🏾👀
@@wendellthomas179 It's a shame in my opinion. Because the video quality, animation (ok, there isn't that much, but better than some other videos out there) and narrator voice all seem pretty appealing to me. Sucks, that he ignores so much about this topic. Unfortunately, the level of misinformation is way to high, that you can't count is as "simplified" or " in a nutshell" kind of video. Watch other videos instead or search for "Germania Superior", "Germania Inferior", Germanic tribes and the Romans, or whatever, if you are interested to learn more about this topic.
Were you there babe?
@@dnocturn84
Well said.
This videos is to be considered as part of many other videos and written material. No single book or a video can do justice to a complex topic such Roman Empire. 🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@wendellthomas179 you should see half the videos out there about Vikings, the inaccuracies drive me nuts, but the videos are still entertaining.
Total War: Rome II actually did its best to recreate the factions. The threat of Germanic tribes is implemented in also Aurelian's reconquest whilst besieged on all sides. Even the tribes in Pannonia , former Dacian territory, now Goths pose a threat.
A continuous year insertion would have been nice. Great content.
I love your Channel bro. Great Stuff
Actually, they conquered a nice chunk of Germania and founded cities there such as Cologne, still the fourth largest city in today's Germany. They also traded a lot with Germania and made several incursions. Every empire must end somewhere and this is just where the border was. An empire cannot overstretch itself, either.
@Eff dees - These areas are heavily populated, but I agree that they never conquered the heart of Germania. Of course, it's tough to compare to today's states and the Roman geographers were not so sure either where Germania should end in the East. East of river Elbe the people were culturally different, that's for sure. From the structure of villages those were recognizable as Slavic. The expansion of German-speaking people all the way to the Baltic states was only in the Middle Ages.
@@erikt1713 what they mean when they say when not conquering Germania is they stopped at the Rhine not going more than that
It clearly shows in the video what you said. It seems like you didn’t watch the video. No reason to say actually when the video states what you said.
well, Cologne and a number of other cities well known today are on the left bank of the river Rhine and therefore in Roman territory. however, the map shown in this video does not cover all Roman territory in what is known as Germania. The river Danube was another frontier and the land south of the Danube was occupied by Rome for a long time
Plus Magonza..Treviri Etc etc
Watch "Barbarians" on Netflix for an epic series on this.
No thanks
Good one.
Netflix will show u truth xD
is barbarines good? I didnt think it looked to good to me. I may have to check it out now. I thought Britania was stupid though, sadly.
@@zanzikar7 It's good for toddlers.
This was super interesting, thx for this
This is much needed context, thanks
To set Augustus' reaction to Arminius' betrayal to verse:
"Roses are red,
My Empire rules many regions,
Quintilius Varus,
Give me back my Legions!"
Cringe
@@alimuhannad9476 Stay mad cringelord
This is how I like to start my Saturday morning
it's actually 10pm here
Right with a joint in hand ;)
Jumping Romans that are in your backyard? Swing first, ask questions later lol.
@@zacharysoares1985 Same👊🏻
You like to start your saturday with expanding your kingdom?
In 8th grade, we had a field trip in Kalkriese where the battle of Teutoburger Wald between Varus and the Germanic tribes probably happened and where one of those Roman armoured masks was found. It's actually not far from where I live. Back then, I didn't think of it much but looking back it was an amazing experience. It's basically an open-air museum where they traced back and reconstructed battle fortifications. There were also some digging sites where archaeologists were still looking for weapons, armour, coins, and stuff.
actually watched a movie about it , great doc by the way !
6:32 Well, he wasn’t wrong.
I think it would have been nice to have mentioned the Limes in this video, as it is practically the symbol of the romans giving up on conquering germania instead focussing on drawing a line in the sand, much like hadrians wall in northern britain.
It did mention forts being built
@@TheCrazierz yeah but most people won't think of a hundreds of kilometer long border wall with just that and frankly I have the suspicion that quite a lot of people have never heard of the german limes only of hadrians wall.
Hadrian's wall was not so much a defensive barrier or the point at which the RE gave up on expansion, as is erroneously assumed, as it was a method of consolidating travel corridors to facilitate the collection of border and commerce taxes.
The Limes also was not a solid wall all along the border of the conquered Roman territory in Germania Magna. It was a string of forts / castellae within easy signaling of each other. There were some minor palisades but not a true WALL along this line of forts in areas where natural borders like rivers or such did not provide ample defense.
@@RustyDust101 Well, hadrians wall also was not that impressive as a wall. And besides this is not a wall measuring contest, if it were we should be talking about that chinese one. Also I recall the palisades being acompanied by earthen works concentrating trade through a manageable number of gateways for taxation purposes. Either way, impressive structure which should be more widely known.
Love these, awesome
Bro if only Varus had listened to Armeniuses stepdad 💀
The Roman occupation of Germany over the course of nearly 20 years of uninterrupted military campaigns (12 BC to AD 5) its eastern borders were expanded and moved further east, from the River Weser to the River Elbe. wild lands (covered by forests and marshes), with a population difficult to control, since it is distributed not in large urban centers but on the contrary in numerous small towns of no more than 50-100 inhabitants, failed when the entire army sent to garrison the new Germanic province, it was completely destroyed in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest, in 9.
There were also initial colonies and trading posts (always Phase I of the roman colonization program) established between Alba and Odra. But after it didn't work out well... well I wouldn't write about my biggest failure snd mistske in MY history books either... what exactly is what ronans did! 🤗
Germanicus for instance had to take a massive legion into battle to merley *stall* the raids into Roman territory.
Overextension and not as much as centralized kingdoms as gaul.
bad admin tech got him
@@filiptalimdzioski7281 AE is too high
I mean Gaul wasn't exactly centralised either
Coalition war
@@australiananarchist480 Atleast it had enough tribes to control the whole territory under Rome.
Mountains and rivers, the great borders of antiquity. When you have a natural boundary like the Danube or the Rhine river you can't really expect to take a piece-meal approach to conquest on the other side. The next river to hold would have been the Elbe which is basically the old East-West German border, representing an area maybe half the size of Gaul from the Rhine - still MASSIVE for those times, especially from an already frontier region.
Actually the next river for the Romans to hold was the Weser river which they had advanced to (at Hameln, Rinteln and Minden Römerlager) and had managed to hold on to, but never the less found too difficult to hold with only three legions especially during the winter, which is one reason why they retreated along Tecklenburger Wald towards their winter quarters at Cologne and Xanten at the Rhine when they were ambushed in the Silvia Teutoburgensis.
Some historians state, that the fondness of Romans for rivers as borders caused them many problems. In the ancient world without many good roads and especially in the dense forests or Germania rivers aren't borders. They're the best way to travel and transport good and have contact. So many tribes or groups were unwittingly split by the Romans causing conflict.
We already know this, it’s because general maximus desimus meridius was captured, imprisoned & forced to fight as a gladiator in Rome.
This channel is absolutely incredible. I love the videos you guys create, super informative and very well presented. Seriously underrated channel. Keep up the great work!
Who are you?! This is what it is like when children play History and are simply ignorant - even graphically incapable of coming up with something real. Never let your students subscribe to this shit!
@@AndrewsPublications r u a professor?
@@harvestingseason2725 just a troll. ignore him.
Germans: *Spend centuries trying to beat the Roman Empire*
Also Germans: *Spend centuries arguing that they're the rightful children of the Roman Empire*
@dr. Will J. Rosenblatt 🤣🤣👌🏻
"Spend centuries arguing"
There is no arguing...
@@frankishempire2322 True. Cause we weren’t.
Watched a 3 hour documentary once, apparently it's mainly because Maximus Decimus Meridius, general of the pheonix legions, commander of the armies in the North was betrayed and thus became a gladiator to avenge the murder of his wife and child and to set Rome free.
There is a Netflix series about this that I watched. I am surprised how accurate it was, after seeing this video.
When you sit in a dark forest and suddenly the trees start chanting in German you don't want to remain there.
@Der Traubengott yet they went back and destroyed everyone. Think about Norse history of the gods. ITs so similar to each other. But there is a disconnected. And this disconnect happens during the later Dark ages when Rome falls. The climate changes. IT gets colder. And when things clear up again The gods while still similar are now Different. Its curious why the climate changes. Its unsure why atm far as i know.
@@Terlin1466 What are you talking about? What climate change are you referring to
The crucial factor for the continuation of any nation regardless of it's affinities is leadership. The Romans lost their commitment to merit advancement and gave into political and nepotism pressures.
This has been the downfall of every empire and nation state, resulting in the poorest of choices in military leadership and civil monetary decisions. This is happening today and will tomorrow, human nature is always corrupt.
Same thing is Happening to American empire? Give example.. China is the next big boss no?
Oh, you explain the fall of the Roman Empire, a complex entity of several thousand years, with ONLY one decisive factor.
Man, you are super intelligent. Who are you? Professor Einstein?
We can clearly see how pathetic the politicians are today!
Hahhaaha, hahaha, oh you rly think there's another solution then violence? Let me laugh even Harder Hahahah
@@iche9373 I suppose he did enumerate the problems on the surface, that does make sense if you look back at the history of many nations committing themselves to this repetitive nature, though I'm sure there are more depths that contributed to the downfall of the Romans that might not have been written down, so we could only speculate those that we could discover.
plot twist: Italy is projecting robots and modern troops' guns, artillery, tanks, jets and ships to reform the Roman Empire, calling it "Roman Empire II"
i have read a lot about the roman conquests in germania, this short film illustrates it in a wonderful way. good work
Rome attacks Germania... grandpa Schwarzenegger: "hold my mead"
Thucydides once stated:
"War is an evil thing; but to submit to the dictation of other states is worse.... Freedom, if we hold fast to it, will ultimately restore our losses, but submission will mean permanent loss of all that we value.... To you who call yourselves men of peace, I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side"
The feminists who are running our country into the ground will soon discover this to all our cost.
You can do that even better, you can wage war against your free country for achieving the freedom to submit to foreign rule.
Freedom is a completely arbitrary concept this is why this pompous old phrase don't have sense and they can be re used by everyone without any real meaning.
Suicides once said: "If anyone dares make a joke using this stupid name, they should consider suicide."
The Germans had honed their skills on the Celts and Scythians for a thousand years.
💯
Reminds of that time when the romans marched north, towards the tribes of cisalpane gaul.
They were also ambushed, with the trees playing a big part.
Usage of land, influences a lot, it seems.
Imagine walking from Rome to Northern Europe. It is easy to forget that to move an army that means walking in these years. Good Show.
Who are you? Are you so old and you watch such nonsense?
Not a big deal. Moving an army meant walking all the time untill 20th century.
Western Europe*
Me: I wonder when this will go downhill for the Romans.
“And then they are friends with Arminius.”
Me: Yeh that’ll do it.
it went downhill when Varus betrayed rome's allies by demanding exorbitant tributes. this is why arminius flipped to the german side, his people were being starved.
Varus was previously stationed in the middle east, and became somewhat known for corruption and greed, as well as brutally putting down any hint of rebellion. The tribes were of warrior traditions and had a great deal of freedom before the Romans came along. Additionally, Germanic law relied on fines, while Romans were relatively quick to execute. Combine this knowledge and it's pretty easy to see how Varus might have brought this on himself.
@@cageybee7221 It was more then "Tributes". It was about "Home","Believe","Freedom". Arminius meant that Rome will change the culture of the Germans.Rome crucified the Germans,Slaved them ect.
I know,people adore the Ancient-Rome. But peoples who have been overrun by Rome wasnt that happy. But indeed. Rome demanded more and more tribute.
So, looking at all this,the Germans wasnt people who lived in the mud. They actually had Weapons,Knifes,Swords,Bows,Speers before coming in contact with Rome. Jewels,Cloth,Dishes,Tools ect.
Arminius and the Germans who followed did all to preserve German culture and language. We still speak our tongue because of him. Isnt that amazing?
@@headhunter1945 Word.
@@ksgermania6159 i've always found the "mud huts" narrative laughable, because the romans lost to them all the time, so if it were true what would that have made the romans?
Danke Hermann!
FYI from 80 AD to 260 Roman control extended eastward from the Rhine At Mainz up the Weser River and then SE to the Danube encompassing an area the size of the German State of Baden-Wurttemberg, 20 thousand square miles.
1 more vid on why Dacia is deserted since Aurelius pls
I haven’t watched the video yet but the romans (and the byzantines for years to come) seemed way more interested in the east than the west. There was nothing of interest in those lands back then. I’m surprised they even went as far as England.
Bro, England had very interesting rocks I hear
@@TheCrazierz lmao, in the east rocks had a gold coating
Caesar's England campaign was more of a punishment campaign for helping Gaul. Avl Plautius' campaign was a campaign for gaining popularity for Claudius.
They mined lead, silver, copper and tin in England. Some say lead poisoning brought down the empire as they used lead alot.
London was a roman city back then. Londinium
Marcus Aurelius was also close to conquering Germanyia during the Marcomannic war, aldough instead of the Rhine he attacked across the Danube. His sucessor however abandoned the campaign.
Purple-red is such a nice colour.
Too much overextension.
Should've made them vassals and placate them with that prestige
@@laurnborne3830 They don't like to be ruled in any form not even symbolically. That's why they were so many tribes to begin with. They had tribes within tribes and so on. Plus Julius Caesar kind of made that impossible. He instilled a healthy amount of hatred in many of the germanic tribes when he crossed the Rhine just to burn down tribal settlements.
The empires and kingdoms changed over the course of history, but it's amazing that the conflict / rivalry between the Latin and Germanic people groups along the Rhine border spanned two millennia and has largely not changed, even until the modern times today between France and Germany.
The French aren’t really Latin people are they? They are Gaulo-Celtic.
The french are celtic, germanic and gaul.
The french have more in common with the british and irish than with the spanish or italians. The southern provinces maybe not so much but certainly most of the north and central regions. Everything north of Leon for sure.
France is not a latin country. The Gauls and Celts are a Germanic group. So on that basis, France is more Germanic than Latin, though Gaul was part of the Roman empire for centuries.
@@shanehughes3511 Absolutely!
@@wyihupoip8105 And of course the same goes for the Franks afterwards.
If it hadn’t gone this way, German could have become a Romance language like French. Crazy to think about.
As a Dutchmen, I can confirm that there isent alot here that would interest conquoring people xD
We have land NOW but like half of our country has been 'conquored' from the sea. We have to fortify the ground where we want to build things and even then our buildings tend to sink into the ground (even if just a little and very slowly) at a rate of maybe a half to a few centimeters per year. Sidewalks very regulary have to be raised up again because they have lowered below street level. We are essentially living in a swamp turned semi-solid land and back then, it was just swampy forest.
I recommend the Eagles at War series by Ben Kane. The 3 books tell the story of the all the events, from the ambush to Germanicus’s campaign. I liked it because the author shows multiple points of views, from historical figures like Arminius and Varus, to made characters that show you the point of view of regular Legionnaires.
Amo GERMANICVS. ¡GLORIA PARA EL SUR DE EVROPA!
Fur englisch sprecher. Dann ist es immer etwas "anders"
This is Roman Empire in a Nutshell
And nowadays in that same forest, some banger small scale festivals take place around summer season.
So essentially, the Empire that justified their conquests by calling their enemies barbarians, implying they are stupid, lost a battle of not only brawn, but brains against them and it shook them to the core so much they couldn't comprehend it.
Top 10 anime betrayals
Shield hero wants to have a word with you.
Generally, the Roman emperor Domitian conquered southwestern Germany, namely the ("Decumatian Fields") in 85 AD. And part of the Germans, namely the majority of the Hutt tribe, became Roman subjects!
You became a Roman subject!
@@loneranger4734 Better to be Roman than barbarian!
@@user-kf3dg3ud5m how anything above or on the east of the Roman empire weren't barbaric? So yes, your ancestors too. Chill about it, the Romans were far ahead compared with any other culture in Europe (excluding ancient Greece maybe from which the borrowed quite some).
@@Rondo2ooo In Eastern Europe, the Romans are admired, because thanks to them we can use the Western benefits of civilization. And without the Romans, the modern world would never have been!
@@user-kf3dg3ud5m As I know Moskou and Kiev are founded by the vikings just like they came to the swamps of the Netherlands and many other places. Ukraine flag has even a tribe symbol from Rurik on it. So allready european roots and i agree without the romans things would be very different nowadays :)
Good explanation of thew Roman incursion deep into Germania PRIOR to 9 A.D. Poor, superficial description of the Battle of Teutoburg forest. For one thing, the weather, the heavy, protracted rains and large baggage trains spread out over 12 miles played an enormous role in the demoralization of the Roman Legions, among other things.
good history and not unexpected that the empire would stretch too thin eventually
Whoever is running the simulation, let us know how the "what if Varus didn't trust Arminius" version played out.
Overextension, aggressive expansion and not enough spare admin points to core it
Ah yes. A fellow HOI4 player.
You're missing the Roman province of Raetia (established under Augustus) to which most of Southern Germany (nowadays Baden-Wurttemberg and major Parts of Bavaria) belonged... as well as the province of Germania Superior on both sides of the upper Rhine valey... Three (Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt) of the five largest cities in Germany are located on territory ruled by Rome in 0 AD, with Cologne being one of the most prominent Roman settlements in Germany.
If you ever get the chance, visit the statue of Herman the German in New Ulm, MN.
Arminius, riding together with Varus at the head of the Roman column:
'Hold on bro, I'll be back with more troops.'
technically not a lie
@@don_juant It was a promise
its not quite accurate. Amrinius was in charge of around 100 troops that were hired by the roman that know the land and were looking out for enemies. which in itself was quite a good idea. they were ahead of the roman troops, if they die, nor roman died. They know the land and it tricks, so they really help them out. Just bad luck that the head of thoose guys couldn't see the rest of his people just dying because of the romans. Funny thing is also hat as his father was entering and accused him of betrayel he actually said its true. But everyone thought it a joke because he lived in rome for 20 years, learned the language, learned everything about the military and was good leader.
@@Infiltator2 It was a joke. You know a joke does not need to be 'quite accurate' or whatever you're claiming?
@@AudieHolland i know, that wasn‘t related to your good joke. It was just additional information for you that i wanted to provide
This is like those games where you have like 4 successful campaigns, do everything right and your top general just kills himself falling off his horse on the ride home.
Not surprising that the Germans were putting a hell of a fight till the end, after all these were the very people who invaded half of Europe, fought 2 superpowers in various places & didn't surrender until Berlin fell.
Wonderful job! Thanks for this gem! Just a friendly correction: the inhabitants of germania were (and are to this day) not called germans but germanian (in latin germani). They were made out of many different subcultures (the most dominant being the Alemannen, the teutons and the celts) without a strict body of governance and no state. There was also constant migration from the east. In the end, a wild mixing of germanic and slavic people took place, out of which, later, the first "germans" would result.
the celtic tribes are not germanian
So much wrong here. First of all it's not "germanians" but germanics. Celts are not germanics. They are celtic. The governance system is more complex and strict than you think. Most dominant "subcultures" aint a thing. More the western, northern and eastern cultures or the germanics are what sets them apart. "In the end, a wild mixing of germanic and slavic people took place, out of which, later, the first "germans" would result. " I'm sorry but what the hell is this? It's such a unscientific argument. You could argue that Charlemagne/ Karl der Große forming of the "Holy Roman Empire" birthed germans but slavic people were not included but fought against. Everything you wrote their pains me as a historian. Please don't talk if you don't know anything about germanic history.
Rome: Germania meh.
Also Rome: Conquering modern day England and Wales, is suitable.
@Safwaan Absolutely false, where did you get that nonsensical information? Briton before it even became apart of the empire was one of the most important trade hubs and had some of the best metalworking in the known world and lots of important metals (such as tin and iron) and other materials.
They were also known for breeding extremely good warhorses and the best war dogs which were sought after across the world and were another important part of trade for the isles.
The British Island were rich in ore and bronze hence their was more incentive in subjugating it as compared to Germania
@Safwaan well ENGLEND farmable land is only beaten by Germany 56 englend 54% france 49% poland 51%
GERMANY ANNEXING POLAND IS Basically ANNEXING ANOTHER GERMANY
Romans used England heavily in terms of food/tin
@Safwaan German main weakest is Russia underdeveloped status, in many place Russia on global map has few sectors of lights being so dim in some spaces it’s non existent
Germany would of beaten the Russians if Russia didn’t blow up all roads and rail roads
Germans could get tigers to front to stop Russian armor break throughs allies where to far behind to do anything leaving all the heavy lifting on Germany
look it up in fair battles Germany always won. like even Italians beat them without anti tank guns. Germans reach mascow there was barely any rails or roads left so Germans also running of oil
@Safwaan meanwhile, its birth rates is worse out of the eastern nation
slowly becoming new china
Also I want to add is that the great era of Roman warfare, expansion, and conquest was with the Republic due to stability. The Punic Wars saw the Romans defeated many times with huge loss of life by some dude named Hannibal. The Roman Republic persisted through the Punic Wars. Second Punic War was 17 years of heavy fighting and great losses, but Rome kept at it and won. It kicked off a period of expansion that would be the foundation of the eventual Empire.
A major reason for this was internal stability of the Republic before the late era of Sulla, Marius, Caesar, etc. The Senate was fully functioning and command of large armies could be entrusted to men for foreign wars. By the time we get to the Imperial era, the Roman Emperors were not trusting enough of giving someone command of large field armies for fear of being usurped. Late Roman Republic and Imperial Roman Legions were fickle in their loyalties, not like the Republic Legions that conquered Carthage and the Mediterranean world.
The only times in the Imperial era where we see great expansion was when the Empire was stable and the Emperor powerful enough in his control that armies can be sent abroad. Either that, or an Emperor so good with unquestioned authority and leadership, i.e. Trajan, to personally lead the army in conquests, and not worry about someone starting a rebellion back in Rome. These periods were few and far in between for the Empire and more energy was spent just to keep everything together and for maintaining the frontier defenses.
Even then, those frontier defenses were the cause of instability for the Empire. I lost track how many times Legions in the frontier, especially in the Rhine defenses, where the soldiers felt like raising one of their own in rebellion to become the next Emperor.
Thats pretty interesting view on the topic. I gotta say i havent really tought about it, i always tought empires were more reliable and overall strong, but after seeing your point of view, i gotta say i am convinced that you are absolutely right. Indeed great empire is harder to persist, because backstabbing, plots and overthrows. Thank you!
@@tychus8219 A major misconception in relation to ancient history is the idea of a modern state in general. People tend to think anachronisticly and use modern concepts where they dont belong. For example you see the huge territory, but most people living there are not roman citizens (until some emperor gave general citizenship).
The provinces were heavyly exploited over centuries to sustain wealth for a few romans. The proconsul was rarely ever interested in developing the province he was reigning over, but instead tried to get out of it as much as possible, which regularly evoked huge conflicts with the natives.
Best comment. The empire system was ineffective and weak and used most of its energy in internal affairs. Also it favored nepotism over competance. "Germany was not worth the efford" is bullshit, since it always was a thread to roman boarders.
“Some dude” lol, you are “some dude”, Hannibal was a legend
@@fishingislife9554 Facts.
Really enjoyed the video and thank you so much for not interrupting it with a sponsor ad that's really annoying. however I do miss the 60 year old fat man in period costume running across an empty field lol
The Rhine frontier is such a fascinating place
Short answer: goddamn trees
and the goddamn swamps. You can cut a path though trees, building roads through swamps wasn't practical at this time. Wasn't enough population density, nor enough cities to bother connecting.
I live in Bielefeld which is a German city situated along the Hermansweg which itself runs throughout the Teutoburg Forest. Bielefeld was originally North of the Forest but now has areas on both sides. Just down the road near Detmold we have 'Hermannsdenkmal` which is a 53.4 meter statue in honor of Arminius. I've visited this many times and also the Teutoburg Forest. I also competed in the Hermannslauf back in 1987 (a cross country run through forest/built up and road areas) from Hermannnsdenkmal to the Castle (Sparrenburg) in Bielefled. A total of 31.1 KM of pretty grueling terrain. I completed it in 2 hours and 39 minutes, which isn't too shabby considering I was on the lash until 3am the night before :P
You are lying as an German I know that something like Bielefeld doesn’t exist.
@@manibigbadam4069 So true
@@manibigbadam4069 Very true.
@@manibigbadam4069 Arminia exist?
@@mypfpisliterallyyou6126 don’t know if Prince of darkness told bullshit or not but in Germany there is an running gag that Bielefeld doesn’t exist.
the problem was never to conquer germania, but to keep it after the conquest. the rhine and the danube represented more easily defensible borders from raids
wow it was so intresting i watch it 3 times
Because they considered it was an unproductive region and expensive to maintain 📜
Exacly! If people think Rome could not conquer Germania they are simply clueless :D
Alexander the great says " hi lol"
@@hillbilly904 ? They tried it over and over again. The problem was that the terrain is the worst for a organized army. In the south are big mountains and everywhere else were huge forests and swamps. This is just a pure Nightmare. They were so anxious about Germania that they build the limes(huge Wall) to defend themselfes.
That's another factor
@@hillbilly904 Augustus tried to conquer it,Germanicus, Germanicus son Caligula, Marc Aurel did everything he could, Commudus tried it and in the end Rome gets destroyed by a german tribe with Odoacer (Flavius) as leader. They are just not the superpower every Rome nerd think they were.
Peter Heather wrote a book called 'The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarian'. In chapter 2 of the book, it highlights that the main reason for Rome's refusal to conquer Germania Magna was due to economic and logistical reason. Germania at that time was relatively undeveloped with no major towns, settlements or roads unlike in Gaul. Moreover, the Rhine frontier was already practical for logistical purposes because Romans transport their supplies from the Mediterranean through the Moselle river and to the Rhine river. It's less to do with the defeat at Teutoburg forest which stopped the Romans, because the Romans suffered worse defeats in the past by Hannibal, yet continued fighting against him. Furthermore, the Romans continued the conquest of Dacia, despite Rome's defeat by the Dacians in the First Dacian War. To conclude, Rome did not pursue the conquest of Germania because of its just not worth it economically.
you know... the beginning of this video talks about roman ambitions in germania to adress this argument. Also there are plenty of examples of other places the romans tried to conquer/conquered, which werent that developed e.g. scotland, northern balkan, arabian desert. its also a weak argument, because there is no real way of telling germanic and celtic tribes apart and you have great degrees of intermixing, especially in southern germany where you can find a lot of important oppida (Manching, Menosgada, ...). The argument of "not worth it" is already one, that caesar uses in his de bello gallico and we all know how
questionable his statements are ;D
Germania Magna was full of wood which was a most important ressource of the Roman civilisation instead of the Mediterranean which had been already deforested at that time due to the Roman hunger for wood. That would had been the economic worth of conquering Germania Magna.
Yes indeed, the Rhine and the Danube make excellent natural borders
The soil in Germania is more naturally fertile than in the roman world but at that time the thick forest cover meant it could not be exploited
@@konsumkind99 they could tell Celts and Germans apart. The start of that book is him explaining about the Germams being different from the Gauls in language and custom
@@krisinsaigon yeah, no. The root of name "germanic" is actually the name for an celtic tribe. But im talking about modern sience anyways. "According to Herbert Schutz, although the peoples to the east of the Rhine included Celts and mixed populations, as a political contrivance Caesar defined a population boundary along the Rhine ignoring cultural lines, invented a people and denominated all of them to the east as Germani, grouping them with the unrelated Cimbri and Teutones and giving their lands the name Germania, as opposed to Gallia". In fact its really hard to identify a typical germanic tribe, since they had no uniformal language, religion or tradition. So using the term 'germanic' is controversial, since it doesnt define a people group
The great illyrian revolt played a major role in the inspiring arminius to revolt as well
Sweet little summary
Never understood why the loss of 3 legions were such a big deal for Rome. After all, they suffered much bigger defeats in the past and shrugged them off.
Maybe it’s because they gained nothing out of it? Plus losing to Germanic tribes is relatively worse than losing to say Carthage.
The Romans thought it would be easy since german unity was nonexistent but once this reality was shattered they were not stupid. They understood that Germania was not even prosperous and full of "savages" so the cost-benefit ratio of such an undertaking was unimaginably low. Why even go through the hardship of conquering and occupying Germania with a comfy barrier such as the Rhine anyhow. Besides, if you leave the Germans alone they'll end up killing each other before the day's end! Less work for Rome ;)
Edit: They did shrug it off in the end and immediately spent the next 20 years or so making war on Germans in the name of Vengeance during the campaigns of Tiberius and Germanicus. They just didn't see the point of conquering Germania.
@@DACalvinify I don't buy that. The Romans suffered much bigger defeats by German tribes before this battle. I think Augustus used this as an excuse to pull out of that money pit called Germania in favor of consolidation of the territories already conquered. Even history in his time showed him the Germans needed to dealt with by conquest. He should of realized that though Germania cost more resources that it was worth, the price of that cost would be many times less than the cost of garrisons, future battles, property damage, and plunder caused by leaving Germania essentially unconquered and by unconquered I mean not occupied/annexed.
@@Stormbringer2012 What bigger defeats?
@@Stormbringer2012 What? History in Augustus' time showed him the Empire was far too large to defend without natural borders. Besides they didn't conquer Germania for the same reasons they didn't conquer the desert. Wasn't worth it.
Actually, I think that giving up on conquering Germania (specifically west of Elbe) was, in hindsight at least, a colossal mistake and a great miscalculation on the part of the Romans.
Germania wouldn't have contributed much in terms of lucrative goods, taxes and trade like eastern provinces did, but what it would've contributed was much more important in strategic terms and would definitely outweight the risks and costs - exceedingly shorter border to defend, bigger population poll for economy (taxing) and army (recruitment) to use, and a potential for defence in depth better than Gaul could ever offer it.
And also, a good deal of the tribes that in later centuries formed confederations and made big incursions into the Roman territory would now be subjugated and part of Rome.
As a consequence, not only much more legions could've been raised, but more of them could've been sent to guard the eastern provinces from Parthian and especially Sassanid Persia.
But of course, even the most perfect, most inpenetrable border in the world is useless if even in a timeline like that there is not a social stability, people aren't treated well and the emperors are still assassinated on a daily basis and usurpers are a normal occurence.
I’m surprised to see in the comments that so many people believe that conquering Germania would have prevented the collapse almost 500 years later. You guys are failing to realize that using the Rhine as the massive obstacle that it was, like the alps and Danube, is probably the best reason why it lasted for another 500 years. Cause what makes Rome truly unique is how long it lasted. Conquering Germania likely would’ve caused the collapse sooner. History of empires has proven blind expansion is a monster that is never full. They thrived on cities so that tax and trade you say will help with resources will never be enough to sustain the kind of resources needed to seriously consider the endeavor ever again
@@divifilius2357 wait dude, are you for real?
Where did I claim (or give that impression) that conquering Germania had something to do with the fall of the west in the fifth century?
Anyway, you are writing as if adding Germania to the empire would inevitably mean they'd never stop expanding, which is not really true. Elba offered almost the same protection as did the Rhine, but since it was positioned further east, most of the northern Danube would've been eclipsed into the territory and not directly exposed to the unconquered lands, which would equal much shorter border to defend and more population to be mobilised if needed. So THAT should've been the FINAL border.
And I already said that all the borders of the world account to nothing if there is internal instability and mismanagement of the budget (overpaying the army and that sort of thing).
It wouldn't fix the central problem of "everyone wants to be emperor."
@@asdfasdfasdf1218 no, it probably wouldn't (although who knows). I never said it would though.
I wouldn't call it a colossal mistake as they did quite well even without it. Moreover, conquering any territory bordering your own is usually pretty good, the problem is risking huge amount of resources (and potential political turmoil) in an empire with thousands of problems for what essentialy is an investment in the future.
I would argue that if one could pick a conquest that would be most valuable for romans it would be Parthia. Although it would require massive campaign it is certainly possible. The difference is that once the initial investment was done, a lot would be repaid with loot and the land would immidiately start producing income. Nomadic tribes are also much less of a threat than a germanic uprising, making it relatively less expensive to govern. You can quite reliably compare Germania and Parthia to Britain and Egypt respectively, one being a nuisance far away and the other the golden goose. Conquering Parthia woul likely accelerate the schism of the empire, however for the time being it would make a noticable difference.
It doesn't really matter since with the arrival of empire romans started looking out for competition and threat on the inside, rather than outside. Political instability, extreme riches and unrivaled might meant focusing on keeping the empire together was far more important than any further expansion. Romans could've probably conquered the world if they worked together, but in the end it would only bring the fall quicker while not changing much (for the romans that is).
Part of the reason Rome didn't annex Germany was that Caesar couldn't drum up sufficient support for the war; compared to the cost of carrying out the invasion and union, there wasn't enough to gain. Romans liked to annex grain-producing areas to increase the ability to feed Rome's industrial base, and Germany didn't have sufficient amounts of large plantation-style farms... now as far as manufactured goods, and ability to manufacture goods: they had that- but really to Rome it would basically be almost useless... the soil conditions were bad for how Rome operated.
And when they did occupy parts of Germany; they found the two ways of life really didn't mix all that well.. now they *did* employ Germans as soldiers in their army, and these men did quite well- so one of Germany's "exports" to the rest of the empire when Germany was part of it were troops, but the tax system didn't work out so well; and only started fights. Hence the Romans didn't want to have to completely depopulate and then have to repopulate the area to sustain troops therein, so they cut their losses, wrote off the investment, and changed directions and operating procedures regarding the Germans.
This video is simplistic and sensationalized. The best part is about Drusus after that ... not so much.
First off - while Augustus was certainly upset about it - the Romans had lost vastly more men in previous battles against migrating tribes and Hannibal than they did in the Teutoburger Wald.
The Cimbrian War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War
The Second Punic War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
I would not attribute to "risks" the lack of desire for the Romans to fully subdue the area between the Rhine and Elbe. It would be more the "costs" of doing so and Rome having become over extended under Caesar and Augustus already. Under Caesar, Rome had vastly expanded in Anatolia, Africa and the Middle East - especially in taking Egypt.
As long as further conquests were easy - they had gone on - but once they started being a problem - Augustus seems to have felt it was time to consolidate what they'd taken. The Rhine was a natural barrier to hold and a better one than the Elbe.
If you look at the costs vs. rewards of the new areas taken under Caesar - the Eastern areas were worth vastly more than Germany - and - were potentially threatened by a much more serious enemy in the Parthians.
It also is not as if the Romans stopped expanding all together. Their expansion in the area of the Danube was also extensive. They also went on and took Britain but here - what did they get for it? Britain, like Germany didn't have that much wealth - when compared to the Eastern Roman Empire - but both still had to be garrisoned against invading Picts, Irish and other Barbarians.
The Romans certainly could have conquered Germany West of the Elbe but didn't feel it was worth the expense to both conquer it and to hold it against barbarians farther to the East.
.