Talk:Battle of Idistaviso

two sentences don't add up

"The heavily-armed Roman legionaries stood fast, but Arminius' warriors slowly began to route [sic] them in overwhelming numbers. The Romans, along with the Chauci who fought on the Roman side as auxiliaries, defeated the allied Germanic forces decisively, inflicting heavy losses on them."

This doesn't make sense. First Arminius is routing the Romans, then the Romans have decisively defeated the Germans. The attentions of someone knowledgeable in the subject is required. Metalello ^talk 05:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does this name come from?

Aren't "Battle of Idistaviso" and "Battle of Idisiaviso" much more common? Delbrück refers to "the two great battles of Idistaviso and the Angrivarii bank" while arguing that they were invented or greatly exaggerated. (Renfroe translation, vol. 2, p. 114.) 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand some of the arguments in the challenges to Delbrück's alternative view

... I don't agree with Delbrück, but think he deserves a fair hearing. Can someone explain why his arguments are about modern German politics instead of the campaign and its histories? Can someone explain why the demographic issues aren't issues? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Decisive victory

The infobox currently says the result was "Indeterminate". Surely it should say "Decisive Roman victory, Romans withdraw after punitive campaign successfully completed". Thue (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

How "punitive" it was isn't for us to decide. Is there an WP:RS that states "decisive Roman victory"? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "How "punitive" it was isn't for us to decide."? Of course it is for us to decide how punitive it was meant to be, relying on sources. Thue (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Decisive" is one of the standard categories used in the infobox. As for a source, take [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_2#18 The Annals (Tacitus)

]: "It was a great victory and without bloodshed to us. From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies [...]". Thue (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sources, alone. If we interpret sources and come up with "decisive", a word they didn't use, that's WP:SYNTH; we can't do that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Todays Historians are not sure, if it was a Roman victory at all but Tacitus used it for Propaganda. As Ralf G. Jahn "Der Kampf der Arminius Koalition gegen Rom" points out, if the Roman victory was so decisive, why could the Germanic tribes go for a second battle at Angrivarierwall only days later? And by losing both battles Arminius would not have been able to hold his strong position as leading germanic chieftain, who beat the Marcomanic tribes under Marbod only one year later in a bg battle. The Roman target was to conquer Germania in 16ad and they failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.169.174 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the battle was clearly a Roman victory. The eagles of Rome were recovered, and Arminius ended up being killed by his own men because of his political decline after this battle. The goal was retaliation and it was achieved. Barjimoa

Nonsense. Arminius was murdered because he got too powerfull.

(talk) 22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's original research, particularly linking this battle with the assassination several years later. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)