How 85 Jews captured 9000 Italian troops in Bardia, Libya in WWII

[p(-)0ENiX]

Yes, that Book is a really good read, especially for those who enjoy adventurous novels and are also into reading about the historical battles of WW2 and the personal experiences of those who fought in that war. However, what makes the author of this book, Leon Degrelle unique is that he was a well known Belgian Political figure of that time as well as a soldier who started off as a regular infantrymen and eventually fought his way up to the rank of General in the Waffen SS, participating on the Eastern Front, to this day the most bloodiest theater of conflict in human history, and that was no small achievement. He was one of the few surviving Axis leaders of WW2. He's also written a few other books and articles on WW2 and even on Hitler.

Here is a short English documentary on him, although it is polluted with bias and propaganda, nevertheless its the only English Documentary on him and it'll give you some basic background info on this man :

That was a good documentary, & I watched all 4 parts of it. While the documentary presents him in a bad light, 2 of the older interviewees do present their support for his decisions. From what I know about Belgium, the linguistic division that still exists there can be traced back at the most to Roman times. The tribes that lived there were generally Celtic, but the presence of both Germanic & later Frankish influence led to this division. The Franks themselves were Germanic but their own tongue mixed with Gallo-Roman, eventually leading to the birth of the French language. Moving on to the WWII era, the Rex party was initially choosing to keep Belgium united on the basis of Christian morals & nationalism, but would that have worked provided the German invasion never took place?

I gathered from the documentary that it was the ideological agreement with National Socialism which caused Leon Degrelle to join the army & later the Waffen SS. Of course, that is apart from the desire of keeping Belgium safe & gaining rank & influence. In any case, what is the binding factor in Belgian nationalism? There is one way I can see the country staying united & that's essentially the acknowledgment of the unity of the land when it was a Roman province (Gallia Belgica) coupled with Christian morals, & the celebration of the Celtic roots of the people alongside the various Germanic & French roots & influences. Perhaps being a unitary state could help?

​

This was a very interesting documentary. Arminius has been frequently mentioned in National Socialist (Nazi) literature along with other historical German leaders like Frederick II and Bismarck, all of whom played a significant role in protecting/defending Germany from foreign subjugation in their respective time periods, though the Germans refer to Arminius as "Hermann". The Nazis and Germans in general took great inspiration from the story of Arminius. However what bothered me about the documentary was the exaggerated description some of those experts gave of the Germanic tribes and even Arminius himself, accusing him of having a lust for power which partially motivated him to betray the Romans and attain leadership of the divided Germanic Tribes, for the most part. By betraying the Romans he had more to lose (a comfortable lifestyle, etc) than gain. He was genuinely compelled to bring an end to the brutal occupation and subjugation of his people, and that really is inspiring.

And i do believe that the Germanic Tribes weren't as savage like as the experts in the documentary described them to be. The Germans were perhaps the most civilized and disciplined of the Barbarians the Romans would encounter. The Roman Cornelius Tacitus described them as follows: "The peoples of Germania have never contaminated themselves by intermarriage with foreigners but remain of pure blood, distinct and unlike any other nation". He even praises them in another quote: "Good morality is more effective in Germania than good laws are elsewhere".

Yeah, Arminius's German name is Hermann, but at Roman times, the Germanic people may have called him "Irmin" or "Erminaz" from the Proto-Germanic language. That's one theory, whereas the other states "Arminius" may be a derivative of a Latin word referring to a blue pigment, which when applied to humans, probably refers to eye colour. It's true that Arminius's desire to liberate his people was noble, but he was heavily influenced by the Romans. It's quite common for those raised in two different societies to sort of associate with both cultures & people, especially at a younger age. Personally, I believe he was motivated by various factors including a quest for freedom, keeping his people safe, & attaining status as well because he would later become the chieftain of the Cherusci. That's a somewhat decent replacement for sacrificing the Roman way of life. Regardless, there shouldn't be any doubt of his commitment to Germania either. After the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, Arminius continued to fight the Romans until his death, but within that duration, Rome lost all interest in occupying Germania east of the river Rhine. Instead, the Romans would continue to have influence there through client kings. Arminius was killed later on because people within his own tribe felt threatened by his ambition & influence, & there is a possibility that it was his absorption of Roman ideas that everyone else felt a bit terrified off. The Romans believed that they had been blessed to be excellent at governance, & the Roman concept of how a state should be run would have been an influence on those that were raised there. After all, if a warlord is influential enough to slowly gather support from all tribes, the chieftains would end up losing their power.

That's correct, the Barbaric nature of the Germanic tribes described in the documentary is essentially war time savagery. It was not their standard code of conduct because Germanic tribes held the values of honour & integrity in high regards. The Romans themselves were extremely violent during war time, whereas this documentary shows Roman soldiers as being somewhat cowardly, which is far from the truth. Behaving like a savage during wars was quite common in the ancient world. Many armies including the Roman army looted during times of war. Human sacrifice however was considered barbaric by the Romans & many other civilized nations. Another point to note is that even civilized nations like the Carthaginians have accusations of practicing child sacrifice on them. With all that being said, it was crucial to be tough in the ancient world, especially in an environment governed by the survival of the fittest. There are plenty of acts practiced by civilized nations that would be considered barbaric or at the very least, horrific today. For instance; the Spartans whipped male children till they bled to toughen them up. In this ritual, families would gather around their children to watch the whipping & provide moral support. Whichever child was able to sustain the full amount of whips without passing out was honored. In Achaemenid Persia, royalty receiving military training at a somewhat younger age were locked up in a courtyard with a lion that they had to kill, or they would end up suffering the consequence of failure (death). As far as I know, no one would intervene in that test incase it became clear that the subject was doomed to failure. I think King Xerxes of Achaemenid Persia underwent that particular test.

Yes, race is too obvious a reality to be ignored by anyone, there's plenty of evidence to prove this. And i agree with the notion that although humans have evolved and continue to do so, we are by no means descendants of apes or any other lower life form.

I agree, & the followers of Abrahamic religions can rest assured that no common ancestor of humans or chimpanzees has ever been found. Furthermore, any shared genetic material we have with other animals at this point from whatever I know isn't conclusive enough to point to any common descent. The human genome isn't entirely understood, neither is the chimpanzee's genome, so people should expect changes in the future as new evidence pops up.

 

[Desert Fox]

That was a good documentary, & I watched all 4 parts of it. While the documentary presents him in a bad light, 2 of the older interviewees do present their support for his decisions. From what I know about Belgium, the linguistic division that still exists there can be traced back at the most to Roman times. The tribes that lived there were generally Celtic, but the presence of both Germanic & later Frankish influence led to this division. The Franks themselves were Germanic but their own tongue mixed with Gallo-Roman, eventually leading to the birth of the French language. Moving on to the WWII era, the Rex party was initially choosing to keep Belgium united on the basis of Christian morals & nationalism, but would that have worked provided the German invasion never took place?

Yeah, the documentary has a lot of fallacies in it, one of them that Degrelle agreed to let Hitler annex Wallonia , which isn't historically true because Hitler had not aspirations to expand Germany's territory in Western Europe. There aren't that many documentaries on Degrelle that are in English. Most videos of him are either in French or Spanish with only one or two in English or with English subtitles.

Yeah, pretty much, though im not that well versed in ancient European history but the division between the Flemish and Walloons dates way back around the time period you referred to.

Regarding the Rexist party, you summed it up well. Degrelle used the Catholic faith as a common bond between the Flemish and Walloon to unite them, similar to how Hitler used race to unite Germans of all social classes.

I gathered from the documentary that it was the ideological agreement with National Socialism which caused Leon Degrelle to join the army & later the Waffen SS. Of course, that is apart from the desire of keeping Belgium safe & gaining rank & influence. In any case, what is the binding factor in Belgian nationalism? There is one way I can see the country staying united & that's essentially the acknowledgment of the unity of the land when it was a Roman province (Gallia Belgica) coupled with Christian morals, & the celebration of the Celtic roots of the people alongside the various Germanic & French roots & influences. Perhaps being a unitary state could help?

Yeah that was the motivating factor. After WW1 the political structure of a lot of European countries, particularly on mainland Europe, was altered drastically. This lead to political and economic instability and Democracy was shoved down the throats of these countries by the Victorious Allies. Although Germany suffered the worst from the treaty of Versailles, no country benefited from the new order established post WW1. The Communists with the aid of the Bolsheviks in Russia and many prominent Jews in Europe began taking advantage of the political instability in European countries to establish communist states, and this in turn lead to the rise of Fascist and Nationalist movements to counter Communism and even Capitalism which breeds Communism. Germany was the most successful example of a National Socialist state thus many political parties like the Rexist began to borrow certain National Socialist principles and even cooperated with Germany once the war went into full swing. Germany was the dominating military and economic power in Europe and the only counter to Communism.

Regarding the Roman influence on modern Belgium, that is interesting and only goes to show that Europeans have more in common with one another historically and even racially than they do with the millions of non-Europeans whom they have allowed to live among their midst. This was something Hitler advocated on a pan-European level by advocating European unity based on common European identity while preserving each individual nation and its distinct individual identity.

​

Yeah, Arminius's German name is Hermann, but at Roman times, the Germanic people may have called him "Irmin" or "Erminaz" from the Proto-Germanic language. That's one theory, whereas the other states "Arminius" may be a derivative of a Latin word referring to a blue pigment, which when applied to humans, probably refers to eye colour. It's true that Arminius's desire to liberate his people was noble, but he was heavily influenced by the Romans. It's quite common for those raised in two different societies to sort of associate with both cultures & people, especially at a younger age. Personally, I believe he was motivated by various factors including a quest for freedom, keeping his people safe, & attaining status as well because he would later become the chieftain of the Cherusci. That's a somewhat decent replacement for sacrificing the Roman way of life. Regardless, there shouldn't be any doubt of his commitment to Germania either. After the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, Arminius continued to fight the Romans until his death, but within that duration, Rome lost all interest in occupying Germania east of the river Rhine. Instead, the Romans would continue to have influence there through client kings. Arminius was killed later on because people within his own tribe felt threatened by his ambition & influence, & there is a possibility that it was his absorption of Roman ideas that everyone else felt a bit terrified off. The Romans believed that they had been blessed to be excellent at governance, & the Roman concept of how a state should be run would have been an influence on those that were raised there. After all, if a warlord is influential enough to slowly gather support from all tribes, the chieftains would end up losing their power.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. He was essentially ahead of his people in that regard due to Roman influence but then again he considered himself more suitable to unite his people which is probably what historians have considered to be his personal motivation which in my opinion isn't really a negative thing since he did have leadership qualities and the Germanic Tribes would only have benefited in the long run.

That's correct, the Barbaric nature of the Germanic tribes described in the documentary is essentially war time savagery. It was not their standard code of conduct because Germanic tribes held the values of honour & integrity in high regards. The Romans themselves were extremely violent during war time, whereas this documentary shows Roman soldiers as being somewhat cowardly, which is far from the truth. Behaving like a savage during wars was quite common in the ancient world. Many armies including the Roman army looted during times of war. Human sacrifice however was considered barbaric by the Romans & many other civilized nations. Another point to note is that even civilized nations like the Carthaginians have accusations of practicing child sacrifice on them. With all that being said, it was crucial to be tough in the ancient world, especially in an environment governed by the survival of the fittest. There are plenty of acts practiced by civilized nations that would be considered barbaric or at the very least, horrific today. For instance; the Spartans whipped male children till they bled to toughen them up. In this ritual, families would gather around their children to watch the whipping & provide moral support. Whichever child was able to sustain the full amount of whips without passing out was honored. In Achaemenid Persia, royalty receiving military training at a somewhat younger age were locked up in a courtyard with a lion that they had to kill, or they would end up suffering the consequence of failure (death). As far as I know, no one would intervene in that test incase it became clear that the subject was doomed to failure. I think King Xerxes of Achaemenid Persia underwent that particular test.

Exactly! This whole human rights and rules of engagement etc is a modern invention. The history of mankind is laden with bloodshed, rape, torture, etc and its not much different today in third world countries.The Romans themselves weren't that far off either when it came to barbarity, how they would watch men slaughter each other (or get slaughtered by animals) in the Arenas in order to divert the people's attention from political and even military defeats. Even the sexual exploitation of ones political enemies through raping the female and male relatives, prostituting them.

I agree, & the followers of Abrahamic religions can rest assured that no common ancestor of humans or chimpanzees has ever been found. Furthermore, any shared genetic material we have with other animals at this point from whatever I know isn't conclusive enough to point to any common descent. The human genome isn't entirely understood, neither is the chimpanzee's genome, so people should expect changes in the future as new evidence pops up.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense actually. What are your thoughts on the Australian Aborigines??


BTW, check this video out, (though, will warn you, contains some graphic and sexually explicit scenes):

 

[scorpionx]

Strong weed indeed, real strong

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Yeah, the documentary has a lot of fallacies in it, one of them that Degrelle agreed to let Hitler annex Wallonia , which isn't historically true because Hitler had not aspirations to expand Germany's territory in Western Europe. There aren't that many documentaries on Degrelle that are in English. Most videos of him are either in French or Spanish with only one or two in English or with English subtitles.

Yeah, the invasion of Belgium took place mainly due to the need for dealing with the Allied forces towards the west. No problem, if I need any more information regarding Leon Degrelle's eastern campaign or the eastern campaign in general, I will refer to the book you mentioned.

Yeah that was the motivating factor. After WW1 the political structure of a lot of European countries, particularly on mainland Europe, was altered drastically. This lead to political and economic instability and Democracy was shoved down the throats of these countries by the Victorious Allies. Although Germany suffered the worst from the treaty of Versailles, no country benefited from the new order established post WW1. The Communists with the aid of the Bolsheviks in Russia and many prominent Jews in Europe began taking advantage of the political instability in European countries to establish communist states, and this in turn lead to the rise of Fascist and Nationalist movements to counter Communism and even Capitalism which breeds Communism. Germany was the most successful example of a National Socialist state thus many political parties like the Rexist began to borrow certain National Socialist principles and even cooperated with Germany once the war went into full swing. Germany was the dominating military and economic power in Europe and the only counter to Communism.

Yeah, I am aware of a number of major issues & events during this time period. I finished watching “The Greatest Story Never Told” some time back & it was very helpful in learning a lot of other details concerning the war that I was unaware off. I must add that even though I had previously read a lot of the barbarity that took place against the German population towards the end of the war, having to watch the suffering in video format was infuriating. In any case, the Rex party’s decision to absorb elements of national socialism was correct. Germany’s economic recovery, military & technological progress as a result of national socialism is very impressive, & I plan on reading more about that later on. Yeah, there is no doubt that communism had to be dealt with, & capitalism certainly has its own share of flaws. The Islamic economic system is also worth looking in to for those that are interested in this subject & in my opinion is an excellent model for many countries. Leaving that aside, I dislike democracy for reasons both of us are aware off as per our previous discussions. This system of governance was the cause of various problems going all the way back to ancient Rome itself, which happened to be the first representative democracy. The birth of the empire was pretty much a result of democracy’s failings.

Regarding the Roman influence on modern Belgium, that is interesting and only goes to show that Europeans have more in common with one another historically and even racially than they do with the millions of non-Europeans whom they have allowed to live among their midst. This was something Hitler advocated on a pan-European level by advocating European unity based on common European identity while preserving each individual nation and its distinct individual identity.

That’s true, the Europeans are generally far closer to each other racially, culturally, historically, & linguistically than they are to anyone else. The Romans certainly played their part in uniting Europe, the task of which would later be replaced by Christianity in the Medieval Age. I agree with the notion of European unity, but all attempts at truly uniting must be thought out carefully. For instance; what role would religion play in this scenario? Bosnia for instance is a Muslim majority nation, would that cause friction with any pan-Islamists that might exist there? Of course, Islam doesn’t necessitate religious unity, neither does it impose or aim to impose a religious identity. Instead, it encourages mutual respect & some cooperation among those that share the belief. Let’s not forget that the scripture honours & speaks of mankind’s diversity as a divine sign as well. However, as with our own country, some fools tend to divide the world in to believer & non-believer, instead of looking at it as a vast, diverse place filled with various people; each with their own language, culture, appearance, history, etc. I do realise that this scenario doesn’t apply to most of the continent, & Europeans today are extremely unlikely to divide themselves on a religious basis, but it might still be a good point to take in to consideration or discuss.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. He was essentially ahead of his people in that regard due to Roman influence but then again he considered himself more suitable to unite his people which is probably what historians have considered to be his personal motivation which in my opinion isn't really a negative thing since he did have leadership qualities and the Germanic Tribes would only have benefited in the long run.

Exactly, uniting the Germanic tribes was one of Arminius’s motivations for going to war with Rome apart from those that I mentioned earlier. The problem was that the Germanic tribes had no desire to unite, or at least, some of their chieftains didn’t. Later on, while Rome was falling apart, the Germanic tribes would be capable of fielding much larger armies, & were significantly more advanced than they had been previously. However, even then, many tribes were fighting against Rome on their own as independent entities with a few minor tribes alongside them instead of a unified Germanic people. The Franks & the Visigoths are the best examples of those in late Roman times. Would the tribes have benefited from Roman rule? Sure, but their identity in the long run & their evolution as a society would be artificially determined by the Romans. The freedom that Arminius gave them guaranteed that they evolved at their own pace, & were free to pursue their own way of life. Would Arminius’s united Germania have been beneficial in the long run? Maybe so, but there is a possibility that the Germanic tribes at that point could have resented the change in lifestyle brought about by having a central Germanic government. It might have even prevented the historical expansion through migration of Germanic tribes like Saxons & Angles in England or other places, thereby limiting their cultural influence unless they chose to conquer. Another problem is that an organised Germanic kingdom would be seen as a major threat to Rome, & the Romans would have undoubtedly chosen to go to full scale war to destroy them. Besides, the tribes simply weren’t ready to face Rome’s full wrath back then, especially if Arminius wasn’t present to lead them in war. By remaining in tribal units, the Romans found it easier to ignore them.

Exactly! This whole human rights and rules of engagement etc is a modern invention. The history of mankind is laden with bloodshed, rape, torture, etc and its not much different today in third world countries.The Romans themselves weren't that far off either when it came to barbarity, how they would watch men slaughter each other (or get slaughtered by animals) in the Arenas in order to divert the people's attention from political and even military defeats. Even the sexual exploitation of ones political enemies through raping the female and male relatives, prostituting them.

Yeah, back then the rules & regulations at war time sort off depend on the society that you visit. Unlike today, nations weren’t pestered to adopt the same concept of rights or rules of engagement, & moral values would differ depending upon the nation being discussed. People generally assumed that their own values were the best, for instance; the Germanic tribes considered some Roman laws as being completely ludicrous & vice versa. I agree, mankind’s history is full of various types horrors, & this applies to almost all civilizations, irrespective of their time period, religion, etc.

In defence of the colosseum, the entertainment there isn’t too different from many modern day movies, it’s just that violent acts couldn’t be performed via camera effects back then. Of course, that doesn’t mean I would be cool with being forced to fight a couple of lions in the arena. On a more serious note, some Roman intellectuals did speak off the dangerous affects of violence in the arena on the human mind, but that had no bearing on Roman entertainment.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense actually. What are your thoughts on the Australian Aborigines??

I haven’t read about them in detail, but from what I know, there are theories suggesting that some of their ancestors were among the earliest migrants out of Africa apart from those that arrived from South Asia. The link below should be more helpful:

Aboriginal genes suggest Indian migration - Australian Geographic

BTW, check this video out, (though, will warn you, contains some graphic and sexually explicit scenes):

That’s an excellent video bro, it’s all about hitting the boiling point. Everyone has a different threshold for reaching that point, but once they reach that, they will tear their enemies a new one.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yeah, the invasion of Belgium took place mainly due to the need for dealing with the Allied forces towards the west. No problem, if I need any more information regarding Leon Degrelle's eastern campaign or the eastern campaign in general, I will refer to the book you mentioned.

Yes that is the reason why Hitler invaded Belgium because the Belgian gov.t, although overtly "neutral" had secret negotiations with the British and French to allow their armies passage through her territory to attack Germany. The German's were well aware of these negotiations through their intel network and thus decided to strike first into Belgium but the main German Armored thrusts came through the Ardennes Forest.

Regarding Leon Degrelle's Book, i highly recommend reading it. It is well worth the read for anyone really. I'd put it right up there with epic stories like the odyssey though it isn't fictional and doesn't contain any monsters. Every page of Degrelle's book is worthy of reading.

Yeah, I am aware of a number of major issues & events during this time period. I finished watching “The Greatest Story Never Told” some time back & it was very helpful in learning a lot of other details concerning the war that I was unaware off. I must add that even though I had previously read a lot of the barbarity that took place against the German population towards the end of the war, having to watch the suffering in video format was infuriating. In any case, the Rex party’s decision to absorb elements of national socialism was correct. Germany’s economic recovery, military & technological progress as a result of national socialism is very impressive, & I plan on reading more about that later on. Yeah, there is no doubt that communism had to be dealt with, & capitalism certainly has its own share of flaws. The Islamic economic system is also worth looking in to for those that are interested in this subject & in my opinion is an excellent model for many countries. Leaving that aside, I dislike democracy for reasons both of us are aware off as per our previous discussions. This system of governance was the cause of various problems going all the way back to ancient Rome itself, which happened to be the first representative democracy. The birth of the empire was pretty much a result of democracy’s failings.

Yeah, that documentary is really good and touches on a lot of emotions while showing the other side of that particular era in history that most people only know from the perspective of the victors of WW2. Not many people are aware of the atrocities committed upon the Germans at the end of the war and these atrocities continued after the war for a few more years.

Indeed, not only Degrelle and the Belgians but also other anti-Communist/Capitalist Nationalist movements throughout Europe greatly admired the German socioeconomic revival under National Socialism and sought to implement their own versions of it within their respective countries. It should be noted however that Hitler and the National Socialist never really aspired to spread their ideology beyond their own borders.

There are two books that i recommend in this regard:

Amazon.com: Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs eBook: Richard Tedor: Kindle Store

And:

Amazon.com: Communism with the Mask Off and Bolshevism in Theory and Practice eBook: Joseph Goebbels: Kindle Store

Regarding Islamic Economic Model, i've heard a lot about it from members here on this forum yet no one really explained this model to me and how it would work also why no Muslim country has implemented this model yet.

That’s true, the Europeans are generally far closer to each other racially, culturally, historically, & linguistically than they are to anyone else. The Romans certainly played their part in uniting Europe, the task of which would later be replaced by Christianity in the Medieval Age. I agree with the notion of European unity, but all attempts at truly uniting must be thought out carefully. For instance; what role would religion play in this scenario? Bosnia for instance is a Muslim majority nation, would that cause friction with any pan-Islamists that might exist there? Of course, Islam doesn’t necessitate religious unity, neither does it impose or aim to impose a religious identity. Instead, it encourages mutual respect & some cooperation among those that share the belief. Let’s not forget that the scripture honours & speaks of mankind’s diversity as a divine sign as well. However, as with our own country, some fools tend to divide the world in to believer & non-believer, instead of looking at it as a vast, diverse place filled with various people; each with their own language, culture, appearance, history, etc. I do realise that this scenario doesn’t apply to most of the continent, & Europeans today are extremely unlikely to divide themselves on a religious basis, but it might still be a good point to take in to consideration or discuss.

Yeah, good point, i never actually looked at it from that angle. But from my personal experience most Balkan Muslims tend to be very secular and Nationalistic. They aren't in any hurry to form some kind of Islamic union with Arab or South Asian Muslims. In fact i also read somewhere on the net that they deported Arab fighters after the Balkan war in the 1990's because the Arabs tried to implement Shariah and establish a Islamic state but the Bosnians didn't want to have any of it .

Exactly, uniting the Germanic tribes was one of Arminius’s motivations for going to war with Rome apart from those that I mentioned earlier. The problem was that the Germanic tribes had no desire to unite, or at least, some of their chieftains didn’t. Later on, while Rome was falling apart, the Germanic tribes would be capable of fielding much larger armies, & were significantly more advanced than they had been previously. However, even then, many tribes were fighting against Rome on their own as independent entities with a few minor tribes alongside them instead of a unified Germanic people. The Franks & the Visigoths are the best examples of those in late Roman times. Would the tribes have benefited from Roman rule? Sure, but their identity in the long run & their evolution as a society would be artificially determined by the Romans. The freedom that Arminius gave them guaranteed that they evolved at their own pace, & were free to pursue their own way of life. Would Arminius’s united Germania have been beneficial in the long run? Maybe so, but there is a possibility that the Germanic tribes at that point could have resented the change in lifestyle brought about by having a central Germanic government. It might have even prevented the historical expansion through migration of Germanic tribes like Saxons & Angles in England or other places, thereby limiting their cultural influence unless they chose to conquer. Another problem is that an organised Germanic kingdom would be seen as a major threat to Rome, & the Romans would have undoubtedly chosen to go to full scale war to destroy them. Besides, the tribes simply weren’t ready to face Rome’s full wrath back then, especially if Arminius wasn’t present to lead them in war. By remaining in tribal units, the Romans found it easier to ignore them.

Yeah, that's true actually. It was the Germanic's natural aversion to Roman authority and even cultural/traditional norms which prevented them from accepting Arminius' leadership after the battle's were won. But the bright side to that is that they were not influenced by the degeneracy that had become prevalent throughout the Roman Empire. They did however evolve on their own into a powerful entity, eventually far more stronger and dominating than Rome.

Yeah, back then the rules & regulations at war time sort off depend on the society that you visit. Unlike today, nations weren’t pestered to adopt the same concept of rights or rules of engagement, & moral values would differ depending upon the nation being discussed. People generally assumed that their own values were the best, for instance; the Germanic tribes considered some Roman laws as being completely ludicrous & vice versa. I agree, mankind’s history is full of various types horrors, & this applies to almost all civilizations, irrespective of their time period, religion, etc.

In defence of the colosseum, the entertainment there isn’t too different from many modern day movies, it’s just that violent acts couldn’t be performed via camera effects back then. Of course, that doesn’t mean I would be cool with being forced to fight a couple of lions in the arena. On a more serious note, some Roman intellectuals did speak off the dangerous affects of violence in the arena on the human mind, but that had no bearing on Roman entertainment.

Yeah, that's actually true. After watching movies like Saving Private Ryan and some of those gory Zombie flicks those Syrian War videos with all the bloodshed don't seem too shocking but that doesn't undermine their seriousness and the tragedy though.

I haven’t read about them in detail, but from what I know, there are theories suggesting that some of their ancestors were among the earliest migrants out of Africa apart from those that arrived from South Asia. The link below should be more helpful:

Aboriginal genes suggest Indian migration - Australian Geographic

Interesting.

That’s an excellent video bro, it’s all about hitting the boiling point. Everyone has a different threshold for reaching that point, but once they reach that, they will tear their enemies a new one.

True, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

[livingdead]

we should make a bollywood movie on this with sunny paji and mithun da and salman khan
anybody wants to suggest a name?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Must be false story

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

One beer a day keeps Jews dreaming all day

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Is there a count of how many movies are made about jews in hollywood while ignoring 25 million other nationalities

 

[Jlaw]

Almost as bad as some "brave" Indian soldiers defended a point in the Kargil war against 3000 Pakistani soldiers