Talk:Revolt of the Batavi

message: The top matter misrepresents the situation. There were no four legions destroyed. If the Batavi and Civilis had done that they would have gone down in history as outperforming the famous Hermann. There are various other inaccuracies as well. Cerealis fought no major pitched battles and defeated no one in battle. The Belgae thought the empire was kaput so they formed a rump state. As soon as Cerealis appeared most of them returned to Roman allegiance without even being told. The statement about the Batavi is a little strange. If they were so poor what were they doing in wealthy Triers and how did they manage to hob-nob with upper-class Romans? There was no Roman humiliation by the Batavi. The Germanic legions thought the empire was gone so they swore allegiance to Triers of their own accord. After Cerealis showed up they did feel very humiliated to have betrayed their country inadvertently. As punishment for their disloyalty two were disbanded by Vespasian. Now, make up your mind, who was humiliated, the Romans or the Batavi? In any case I don't see any humiliation. The Batavi did not have the same goals as Hermann (Arminius) at all and were not slighted by having foreigners on their national soil. The Romans were very generous to them. They were allowed back into Roman good standing (and wealth) with only the imposition of a garrison. They would have been under the authority of other garrisons of lower Germany anyway. That statement about the Batavi having little to offer, that is not reputable and is non-NPOV. The author might have said Amsterdam has little to offer either.
Well I could go on. I'm not going to put templates on the article and make a big stir here. The whole thing looks like someone's hasty interpretation at 1:00 AM and work or school the next day with no other source but someone's article on the Internet at hand. Some of those Internet collections definitely emphasize quantity over quality. In any case this article is clearly a first draft and needs at least a second, with someone actually taking a look at what the ancient historians say about the year and its incidents and possibly making some references to those words. I'm working on other material so I have to let it go for a while not knowing when I can get back to it. The format and page design look very good but there has to be a concern for accuracy.Dave 12:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top matter

message: The area now known as the Betuwe in the Netherlands where the Batavians lived was one of the richest agricultural areas arguably of the entire Roman empire because of its proximity to and location inbetween two large alluvial rivers (Rhine and Meuse) in the delta. The people of the area including the Frisians to the north have a history also during the Roman age of raising cattle and horses; the Batavians serving in the Roman legions often served as cavalry units given their experience on horseback in delta areas; see the wikipedia article Batavians. 
It can actually be argued that the Batavians were a rich people who because of their agricultural wealth could provide many more cavalry units and able men than other tribes and might have been exempt from taxation for the valuable strategic role they played on the border of the empire; Agriculture was the main source of wealth in the empire (ref the importance of grain from the Nile delta) since the food surplus was directly related to the amount of men that could be kept under arms. 
All this to illustrate that this article seems to reflect someones inaccurate opinion instead of historical fact.
Wikimam 02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other inaccuracies 

message: I think it would be helpful for a more full understanding. 1 such tribe is the Ubii
Virophage (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the tribes that supported the Romans be added to belligerents?