How come Romans were never able to conquer Germanics despite supposedly being a superior civilization. The only time they decided to take over germania, they got crushed by germanics at tuetonburg.
Meanwhile Germanics have iinvaded italy three seperate times and conquered it. How did germanics conquer all of medland so soon? And this was not one time thing. Normans conquered italy as well despite being 500 years apart from their lombard brethren. Why are germanics such succsasful conquerors? Is it something in their genetics possibly?
because in spite of all the glory and romanticism about rome, they really were just greedy dagos at heart. nothing to gain from a bunch of forrests filled with snow apes.
Modern Italy is so cuckolded that the ethnonym for our Scandinavian people (the Lombards) is now one of the most common surnames in Italy. That is like if Italian were a surname in Denmark which it isn’t because the mighty Roman Empire never got anywhere close to there.
>How come Romans were never able to conquer Germanics despite supposedly being a superior civilization
Plenty of German territories were conquered by Rome. Germania proper although not conquered was frequently raided the most notable example of which is Germanicus.
>That is like if Italian were a surname in Denmark
hehehe
I have no idea what that chart is but if Italiano is an actual surname there is still no way it is as common as the name Lombard is in Italy. Lombard is one of the most common Italian names.
As it should be, considering that Lombards founded the kingdom of Italy.
>as common as the name Lombard is in Italy.
Lombardo is a fairly obscure Sicilian surname, and it's half as common as say, "Greek". This thread is a classic example of germanic wakanda moronation
also needless to say that it refers to actual lombards and not snowBlack folk who swooped in on a collapsed empire
>4th in Sicily
obscure
come on. Also Greek as a surname in ITALY means nothing. Greek as a common surname in Copenhagen would be far more impressive and comparable to what we Nordics did to you.
It just refers to ethnic LOMBARD (ie swarthy people like Salvini and Berlusconi) who migrated to Sicily.
>to ethnic LOMBARD (ie swarthy people like Salvini and Berlusconi) who migrated to Sicily.
Lomabrds didn't migrate to Sicily though
People move.
At what point would have they moved? It couldn't have been anywhere before the 12th century and large scale migrations didn't happen at that time and Lombards as a group were small at that time.
>Lomabrds didn't migrate to Sicily though
Ignorant moron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily
But those people are at least paternally Germanic. Any native born Lombard is certain ly Germanic paternally.
No.
Lombardy the region gets its name from the Germanic tribe.
And?
Half of Spain have gernamic names like Rodriguez, Fernandez, Gonzalez... yet none of them have Germanic YDNA. It means nothing
>Any native born Lombard is certain ly Germanic paternally.
From what are you basing this on? Germanics and Latins had separate laws and communities in the post Roman kingdoms and did little mixing except in Francia. Langobards were also less than 1 percent of the population do you think they killed every man and raped the women or something? They relied on the natives as soldiers, administrators and clergymen and probably wouldn't have been successful if they abused the natives.
In the 13th century the cities of northern Italy were booming and had merchants and pilgrims all over the Mediterranean. They were prominent in Constantinople who called them Latins and in Sicily where they were called Lombards. The revolt of the Sicilian Vespers against the Angevin Empire had several leaders of North Italian origin
>n the 13th century the cities of northern Italy were booming and had merchants and pilgrims all over the Mediterranean. They were prominent in Constantinople who called them Latins and in Sicily where they were called Lombards. The revolt of the Sicilian Vespers against the Angevin Empire had several leaders of North Italian origin
None of this implies migration of Lombards as an ethnic group to Sicily. Not to mention the later Medieval connotation of Lombard is not the same as the Germanic Lombard people, it referred to all Northern Italians and had nothing to do with their supposed ancient ethnicity
I didn't read all the replies. You're right they were latin people not Germanic Langobards, I thought you were asking a different question.
Northern Italy DOES have a lot of Germanic paternal haplogroups though, U152, U106 and even I-M253. Yes U152 is not exclusively Germanic, but prominent in the most important migration era Germanic tribes.
>U152
>Yes U152 is not exclusively Germanic
Fricking moron. Both the Romans and the Cisalpine Gauls were majority U152. Surely the U152 in northern Italy is due to come Germanized celts.
You could have made your point just by saying that they had significants I1 and U106
>Fricking moron. Both the Romans and the Cisalpine Gauls were majority U152. Surely the U152 in northern Italy is due to come Germanized celts.
I am of course aware of that, but no the U152 is from lowlander Germanics not "Germanized celts" it's one of the oldest Germanic groups which is precisely why I brought it up because the point is that it is not as useful in this era due to genetic similarities between the people of the time.
Don't mistake shared for exclusive markers.
U152 is a Celtic lineage, it’s found noticeable in central Turkey which means it relates to galatians who came from Gaul.
>U152 is a Celtic lineage, it’s found noticeable in central Turkey which means it relates to galatians who came from Gaul
It is not and never was exclusively "Celtic" (which does not mean anything "modern Celts" certainly don't have it). It is was found in many Germanic tribes since the EIA.
Italianon, I have a stupid question. If I happen to have as one my surnames a city in Italy, does it mean I am of israeli ancestry? Be honest with me, is it over?
No.
Ok, thank god.
I'm just terrone.
Lombardo is just what they called people from the area around Milan because that's where the Lombard Kingdom was centered. It doesn't mean that family actually has any connection to the Longobards. Probably what happened is some guy traveled from northern Italy and the locals called him Lombardo do differentiate them from others with the same first name.
>what happened is some guy traveled from northern Italy and the locals called him Lombardo do differentiate them from others with the same first name.
Exactly. It's an extremely common thing in Italy and you can find a billion examples of it, from Napolitano to Furlan, Padoan, Trevisan, Emiliano, etc.
Lombardo? That's not that common. Also it derives from lombardy, not you lego people, and it's ironically enough more frequent in southern italy (for you unkempt foreigners who don't know, most southerner surnames end with -o)
Lombardy the region is named after the conquering tribe which originated in Denmark/ Sweden before Rome’s fall.
Doesn't actually mean anything considering the Lombards spent centuries getting from Denmark into Italy. They were originally Pannonian before getting owned by the Avars. Latter rampaging through parts of Italy. Although some remained Roman or Roman Ruled. These were Naples, Gaeta, Amalfi, Sardinia, Venice, arguably Rome but not too much. And beyond that nothing survived. It was unequivocably over.
But the Lombards themselves hadlow population, so I doubt they truly impacted the places genetics in any completely transformative way.
You forgot to add that the reason why the name is so common in the south is that the Altavilla imported a shitload of peasants from Lombardy and Provence in their domain after they genocided the moors.
It has literally nothing to do with the germanic migrations.
The Hauteville didn't expell the moors, that was the staufers.
>The origins of these communities goes back to the 11th century, when soldiers and settlers from Northern Italy (at the time collectively called "Lombardy"[1]), settled the central and eastern part of Sicily during the Norman conquest of southern Italy.
You are right, they imported the peasants to latinize Sicily rather than to repopulate it.
>Lombards
>Scandinavian
are Ostrogoths from the Black Sea Scandinavian too, nitwit?
Why do you feel the need to make such dishonest and shitty threads?
The Roman inability to conquer Germany is mostly an issue of environment and the Germans knowing how to use it to their advantage. Even then the Germans typically just paid tribute to avoid the trouble. I think the invasions were successful because they were mostly done by more migratory tribes with more experience in conflict. I don't think it's anything too special. Rome was great for a time and then declined. German tribes picked up the mantle in the west and the Greeks took it up in the east.
>How come Romans were never able to conquer Germanics despite supposedly being a superior civilization.
They defeated the Germans many times but decided a full occupation of greater Germania wasn't worth the effort and not as effective extracting tributes and using them as a buffer state.
>Meanwhile Germanics have invaded italy three seperate times and conquered it.
Only the Lombards came in conquering, the Ostrogoths we're working on behalf of Constantinople. The Lombards were also unable to seize the entire peninsula.
>Normans conquered italy as well despite being 500 years apart from their lombard brethren.
They weren't brethren, Normans were Romance-speaking Catholics with mostly French DNA who helped the Italians fight off the Muslims. They also, like the Lombards, only got a portion of the peninsula. Not that it isn't a big deal but the Romans held a portion of Germania too.
Idk why you're trying to make history into a dick measuring contest but things are always more complex than they seem.
>because the mighty Roman Empire never got anywhere close to there.
Who the frick would want to go to Denmark lmao
>despite supposedly being a superior civilization.
That's the thing; they weren't.
Centralisation is not everything. The rest of Europe had hundreds of Oppida not just once single city. It had superior iron age technologies etc. Rome basically just got rich early and bought civilization for their betters: Greek philosophy, Celtic steel and armour etc.
The romans were more succesfull conquerors than the majority of germanic tribes; basically only the franks had long lasting success.
Teotoburg isalso very famous because of how unusual it is; by contrast the battle of argentoratum where julian defeated a large alamanni invasion is a lot more obscure
For me it's
Holy shit lmfao
Are Germans really that bad at fighting?
No. Rome is known for exaggeration and lying, much like the ancient Greeks, to make themselves appear great. In truth they were pretty heavily fricked without Celtic or Germanic arms/armor/weapons or mercenaries and made heavy use of them.
Rome usually did have the advantage of being a unified state running over what were essentially city states and counties however, and often times the retinues they fought were militias supported by elite household troops, exactly like the medieval period. Once the Germanics got under a good commander, and were made up of their elites, they pretty much shit all over the Romans. See Robert Guscard or the Varangians.
>People in antiquity = people in the middle ages
>Not even a single thing right either
Damn homie I just think you're moronic
>People in antiquity = people in the middle ages
I didn't say that was the case. I said the way Germanics organized their armies and retinues was not dissimilar to what we see in the medieval period, which is true. I also stated that once they had a force made up of their elite troops with a good commander, again, using the Varangians and Normans as an example, they were absurdly strong.
>Not even a single thing right either
Explain. Not only did the Romans greedily adopt Celtic arms, armor, weapons and agricultural technology after Brennus wrecked their shit, and totally switch their warfare from hoplites to something similar to the Celts, they did the exact same thing with the Germanic peoples, only they went so far as to start adopting their clothing and mannerisms too, such as banging their shields and raising their king or general upon their shields for honors.
>Rome is known for exaggeration and lying, much like the ancient Greeks, to make themselves appear great. In truth they were pretty heavily fricked without Celtic or Germanic arms/armor/weapons or mercenaries and made heavy use of them
Yes, don't forget the Himera samples. Basically all the major fighting done by "Greeks" was actually just Balto-Germanic mercenaries fighting under Grecian banners.
Rome lost though, so clearly Germanics were superior.
Germanics lost to Huns and Slavs as well.
Incorrect, Germanics won the WAR against both.
Without the Dutch Charlemagne you would speak a Slavic/Celtic/Latin creole. A western version of Romania.
Yet we don't, because Germanics won. Why do you have to keep bringing up these irrelevant mental gymnastics?
The "Dutch" are Germanic in case you are too dumb to realise.
>Yet we don't, because Germanics won
What do our slaves have to do with anything? They were also forced to speak instead of whatever their old tongue was.
Browncel cope lol.
No women will look at you, you're literally too short to see anyway. You come to work and your daughters come to work in prostitutehouses.
They were BTFO by the Huns which is the reason they invaded Rome in the first place.
They were *arrow spammed by Huns like everyone else. Gayest way to fight I've ever heard of quite frankly.
They still lost. Atilla literally died from fricking his German prostitute too much.
Slavs were mostly a non-factor in this time. The only Germanic people they ever "conquered" were depleted settlements in from Germany to Crimea that they assimilated long after Huns were a memory, literal Iranics and groups that only became Slav later had more influence in these times.
>Slavs were mostly a non-factor in this time
All I'm seeing is that formerly Germanic territory such as Poland or western Ukraine are now populated by Slavs while the territory that were supposedly conquered by the Germanics from Rome all speak latin language and in some cases don't even have any trace of Germanic DNA left (Spain, most of Italy)
>spend 600 years butchering Germoids by the hundreds of thousands
>slave economy entirely supported by Germoid captives
>millions of germs bum rush the border begging for asylum from Huns
>W. Rome implodes during a civil war
>german mercenary contingents usurp authority
>spend next 1000 years fighting over who gets to pretend to be Roman
Maggots on a corpse, not strong conquerors
>Rome's origin story is literally being sacked and raped by its Northern neighbours
>It lost several generations of men more than once losing wars
Sorry son, you are coping very hard.
>Northern neighbors
You mean Gauls who not only share more genetically in common with Italics than Germoids, but also were so thoroughly annhilated by the Roman war machine that they ceased to exist as a culture for the rest of history outside of Ireland.
Meanwhile when the Germs tried that...
They don't share more with Rome than Germanics themselves share with Rome. In terms of culture Germanic culture literalluly grew out of Celtic culture, the two are not contemporary.
Brennus sack of Rome would be the equivalent today of some north Italian tourist laying waste on Barcelona. Hardly a nord vs med bait material
>nord vs med
Not all Germanics are nord, this is only true because some Swede you were arguing with online 5 years ago is still living rent free in your head.
>Not all Germanics are nord
Nord = living north of the Alps or Pyrenees.
I suppose you say that because you consider Lombardy to be Germanic territory then. Only reason to use Germanic Nord in that connotation.
Makes sense. The Kingdom of Naples can be "Sued" Germanics then.
>Lombardy to be Germanic territory then
Lombardy is south of the alps I reckon
Idiot.
What you're going to argue that Lombardy is north of the alps?
Germania was a giant forrest. Even if the Romans were not betrayed and ambushed at Teutoberg and held unto Magna Germania there were no natural borders or even civic centers of note to hold unto beyond the Rhine. We are talking about vast swaths of an undeveloped wilderness with no roads and no idea where the Germanics populations were actualy located. It was nothing like Gaul where Caesar knew were the towns and villages the Celtic tribes inhabited.
Ancient Guerilla warfare was very painful for the organized Roman armies, they faced big troubles in both the Cantabrian Wars and israeli Wars that happened in that same time period of the Principate. In the great Illyrian revolt the Roman army almost faced complete disaster and total anihiliation had it not been for Germanicu's timely intervention, and we are talking about 10 legions fighting there, not 3 like in Teutoberg. In such assymetric warfare where the enemy also has the home advantage , numbers mean little andone defeat can also mean total disaster.
As for the barbarian invasions they are a completely different time period with a completely different relationship with Germanics. The barbarian invaders fought like Romans did and many were already part of the Roman army before or served as auxiliaries.
Also its to be noted that the Romans committed great atrocities and almost wholesale slaughter in all of these 3 wars. Dalmatia was almost depopulated, the Cantabri genocided. The israelites suffered nearly half a million of civilians dead.
Germanicus campaign in deep Germania had its main purpose to destroy any Germanic town or village remaining. The Romans were widely seen in Germania as despoilers and opressive tyrants. Trade existed , but for most tribes they recognized the Romans as an existential threat and this is why the emnity continued for centuries despite the soft romanization and adoption of Christianity by the 4th-5th century.
>the Cantabri genocided
This sound like a meme. Where would modern Cantabrian come from?
weather
Germany used to be much colder in the past and meds are not genetically adapted to this
Rome was too big as it is and didn't have a developed enough infrastructure to support the addition of new territories
they conquered big parts of Germany but soon lost them because they just didn't have the means to control such savage and uncivilised people
an unmounted aryan warrior is a disgrace
After a few hundred years Rome was completely transformed culturally, economically and racially. It got so bad that the elite just left and founded the Byzantine Empire.
>Why did the Romans never conquer my cold forest swamp? T-this is proof that we wuz kangs!!!
do germoids really
Pathetic cope, Romans DID try and fail to conquer it.
I never said they didn't try, did the cold damage your brain and impair your reading comprehension Hans?
The difference from all the other times when they failed and tried again until eventually succeeding, is that this time they stopped trying, because there was nothing of value to conquer.
You are still coping then. They DID keep TRYING and they kept LOSING, there was a battle almost every decade:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_warfare_between_the_Romans_and_Germanic_peoples
The Germanics won most of these battles and therefore can be said to have won through attrition. And yes these are different Germanic tribes, that's not an argument as Roman legionaires are also from different generations, provinces and even peoples.
The Germanic civilization can accurately be said to be the superior to Rome, even Romans admired the culture and many Roman citizens on the border joined them for that reason. You like Romans only because of British historians projecting modern Germanic values onto Romans which in turn influenced popular media and video games about them, but they were not anything special, not even in terms of organisation and discipline
Your own wikipedia page show that before the 3rd century Rome completely dominated the Germanics and loses were only occasional flukes
>many Roman citizens on the border joined them for that reason
Tacitus saying that some people did it is not some acclimation that it was common
The Germans did not win most of those battles lol. Just a quick count has me at 73-28 Roman lead
>Legend has it that Narses was recalled to Constantinople for turning the Romans under his rule into virtual slaves, thereby upsetting the new Emperor Justin II and his wife, the Empress Sophia. Narses then retired to Naples. In an apocryphal but often retold story, Sophia sent Narses a golden distaff with the sarcastic message that he was invited to return to the palace and oversee the women's spinning, and Narses is said to have replied that he would spin a thread of which neither she nor Justin would ever find the end.[60]
> From Naples, Narses supposedly sent word to the Lombards inviting them to invade northern Italy.[61]
So that's what happened after Bzyantines used Lombards mercenaries during attempt to reclaim Italy from the Goths
And in terms of Normans conquering South Italy: they had to btfo Lombards, Byzantines, Pope, independent lords and Sicilian Arabs
>being a superior civilization
They absolutely were. Civilization means urbanization. Germs had very little of this in Scandinavia, Frisia and Northern Germany where they originated. How Germanic tribes developed a culture of conquest with heavy infantry, largely without a highly developed cavalry tradition of their own, is a bit of a mystery but one can only assume that the MOG must have been that brutal.
>Normand conquered Italy despite being 500 years apart
This was a bit different as they weren't even Germanic speakers, many or most just had Germanic paternal origin. Their style of warfare was extremely different, they maxed out on cavalry and were at the forefront of technology in those regards. Also highly capable leadership. People talk like they were Vikings 2.0 and perhaps there was some cultural runoff into their aggression and success but totally a different type of people to Germanic tribes.
> Learn from Huns vassal and later Avars
Because there's more nuanced factors to historical conquest than some moronic chud idea of """superiority"""
Why bother? Germania was very underdeveloped and the romans had already conquered much more valuable territories such as Asia and egypt (population centers) and galia plus iberia (mining and other resources). Germanic ended up migrating to the Mediterranean for many reasons, Attila was one but also germania was a shithole, especially with the lower temperatures of the period.
This explains absolutely nothing.
>germania was a shithole
shithole implies a kind of failed urbanism, which Western Germanics didn't have or want any at that point and they didn't want to be subjugated as the Gauls had been. Germania was merely still mostly forested. Suebi and others had been raiding, even through Roman territory for centuries by the time the Huns were a factor. The Goths and other eastern Germanics had swept through the Steppe centuries before the Huns were on the radar of any westerners and had a multi-ethnic empire there, mimicking Roman provinces in aspects of material culture.
No one really knows why they started leaving the reaches of Nothern Europe, perhaps they just needed to yeet. As for why the Mediterranean it should be obvious, they had more wealth from many centuries of building advanced trade networks and a large empire that couldn't possibly hope to defend against every city or act of piracy.
>we DECIDED to live in swamps and mudhuts, therefore it was ok
This is my father's wetland passed down to me gay. Wetlands are undeniably kino and any street shitting urbanite who doubts this will be placed in one permanently. Germanic peoples lived in wood and stone longhouses, you're referring to poorgay reconstructions of hovels built mostly by students.
Is this what savages actually tell themselves?
Your "modernist" architecture is just bauhaus developed by the exact same "savages".
>he actually lives in a swamp
They did have urban centers though. They were not too dissimilar from later medieval towns other than the fact they used stone differently and had it be less common. Germania was sprinkled with castle towns like Heunburg and Manching, not too dissimilar from Gaul.
Isn't this Celtic?
Yes.
Distance to: Celtic:HEU002
0.03621379 French_Alsace
0.03644758 BelgianC
0.03650325 Swiss_German
0.03686211 French_Nord
0.03705504 French_Occitanie
Distance to: Celtic:HEU001
0.02819903 French_Bigorre
0.02850598 French_Auvergne
0.02855079 French_Occitanie
0.02906970 Basque_Araba
0.02970063 French_Chalosse
Samples from actual Heuneburg.
No such thing as Celts. Oppida were built all over Europe, not just Hallstatt. Oppida of the same style were built as far north as Norway and West as Spain.
Yes and no. The design started in Gaul, but spread as far as the Baltics and into Germany. It stayed present as a building style into the medieval period, as did most material culture. Seriously, most of the material culture for the northern European's didn't change much from the bronze age to the founding of Jamestown, other than becoming for advanced and aesthetically pleasing.
>It stayed present as a building style into the medieval period
Do you mean the wattle and daub with thatched roof? Europeans have been building with this technique since the neolithic. Tudor (highly patrician) facades mimic this even these days with exposed timber and stucco.
Both timber framed, wattle and daub construction for houses, as well as the defensive walls "murus Gallicus" or "murus dacicus".
Another pathetic cope.
If it was such a shithole the HRE Emperor's would've built their palaces in Italy. Instead they built it mostly in Germany and barely visited their Italian domains.
You are more roman than germanic in anything but blood OP
And even that stopped to matter for the romans after a while
Why did the USA lose in Vietnam if they are so cool?
The ancient region of Germania doesn't correspond 1 to 1 modern Germany, plenty of the oldest cities in Germany are former Roman towns and forts, you have a city literally called colony.
>tuetonburg
How do morons manage to dishout such monumental misspellings in an age of Google and autocorrect?
The bigger the misspelling, the least likely autocorrect is to notice and adjust it.
Also let's be real, even in 2024 autocorrects are just as likely to turn a correct spelling into a mistake as viceversa.
And you're only going to google a spelling if you're not sure about it, a moron who's convinced he's correct is never going to check if he's made a mistake.
>The archeological site at Harzhorn is the only attested battlefield from roman times in Germany besides that at Kalkriese, both of them in modern lower Saxony. For the former frustratingly little detail is given by literary sources besides brief mentions of military activity in the region for the reigns of Caracalla, Alexander Severus, and Maximinius Thrax, with coin hoards of the latter two serving as the main clue for its likely date.
>Interestingly, nearly all of over a thousand artifacts are traced to roman militaria, including cheiroballista bolts. Only a handful finds of arrow and spearheads belong to clearly native germanic make. It is almost certain that over many centuries of contact the natives had adopted roman equipment by then, very likely for the same reasons roman imports show at contemporary Scandinavia and how a century later the spatha would displace other swords both in the roman army as well as beyond the limes and ultimately become the origin point for migration period swords.
>Given the local geography and disposition of the finds, including the plentiful ballista bolts, the battle was very likely a failed attempt to block the local pass to a roman army coming back from the north, probably the north sea or baltic shoreline in some kind of punitive campaign there, with the field artillery, virtually certain to be in the roman side, playing a decisive role in forcing the pass.
Utter nonsense written by a midwit. Europeans everywhere have been making bigger swords since before Rome was even founded, it was not a new development. The small swords used by Rome was an economic choice befitting a Mercantile Republic.
It is quite obvious that you would only find spearpoints and arrow heads left behind on battlefields as swords were an extremely valuable loot. At minimum you would want to retemper the iron for other tools if not for swords themselves.
>The small swords used by Rome was an economic choice
Roman swords got smaller as the shields got bigger and viceversa though. You can see the gladius go from 65cm during the punic wars down to 50cm in the early empire and back up to 70cm in the mid-late empire. The pattern doesn't fit the empire's prosperity at all.
It had very little to do with economics and everything to do with how romans deployed soldiers in battle and who they were fighting, as you can tell from the blade geometry going slash>thrust>slash over the century as the romans faced less/more/less well armored opponents as their main threat.
Also
>moron assuming I'm German
I'm English/Swiss you idiots.
Why do all the lowest IQ posters on IQfy crawl out of the woodworks whenever Germanic is mentioned and immediately assume it means German?
Most of Europe is Germanic or had Germanic origins you dumbfricks.
the romans muttified their land and basically imploded before they got conquered
the germans basically just walked over the corpse of the roman empire
Mongolian Huns did the job. Germanics only served like a slave caste.
Huns lost and were obliterated from history. Every last one of them butchered out of existence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassianae
>Mongolian
Cope, they were R1a West Eurasian men with Han maternal DNA. Mongolians are C1 mostly raped China, but not West Eurasia.
>ywn be a pretty lombard princeling ruling a comfy rustic italian town with a harem of olive italian bawds
why even live?
You're right, you shoukd fricking have a nice day. By the way, i've never met an olive skinned italian in my life, i don't know where you worthless transalpine barbarians come from but we don't look like you think we do.
It's a terrible feel
>Lombard invasion of Italy
>conquerers
Lombards just third-partied the Goths and Romans while those two were still fighting each other. The Goths themselves you could barely say even conquered anything, more like usurped - and even if it could be considered a conquest it was like winning a fight against an old man with dementia. These a long with teutoburg just show that Germanics (at least the ancient ones) had more patience and knew when to pick a fight better than the ancient meds.
>Normans conquered italy as well despite being 500 years apart from their lombard brethren.
Normans did some cool shit I’ll admit that, they were just fighting the Greeks in the Mezzogiorno then though not the Romans, they got dunked on when they tried to frick with Greece and Anatolia though.
Frick off to IQfy morons this thread is off topic
>Italy gets devastated by the Gothic wars and plagues
>snowBlack person opportunists take notice and invade
>they still failed to take key locations such as Ravenna, Rome and Naples
There's nothing impressive about the Lombards.
Your post not impressive anyway