Were the Germans physically superior?

[Robert Vermaat]

Actually, I said 1 in 100-- five times lower than 500. The term "Italians" came from the History Channel video, titled "The Roman Legions," and actually they claimed it was 1 in 1,000. How the HC people knew they were "Italians," I'm not sure. (Perhaps from diagnostic traces of spagetti sause.) :lol:

Ah, my mistake. Or I must have (unconsciously) known that the HC said 1 in 1000 - that would have made my mistake pretty average. :roll:

I actually agree, the point is useless and could be argued infinitum.

Indeed!

However, in the higher ranks of the extremely-late, falling-over-the-cliff period, we see a lot of Richomeres, Ordovacers, Arbogasts, etc., while all the names of the Gauls, Syrians, and Greeks, who served at that time were recorded in fading ink.

Just Germanic individuals who made the army their career, or (in the later 5th c.) were influential due to their background. We also continue to hear Roman names next to these barbarian names (with Stilicho carrrying a Germanic name, but being born and raised 100% Roman). Still later and all the time in the East we al;so find Alanic and Persian names - same mechanism, even though we know for sure that the Army of the East was NOT full of Alans, Goths or Persians.

The simple point I was trying to make, is that there had to be a significant number of Germans in the Roman military throughout the Imperial period. And-- exactly like you said-- it's impossible to tell the ethnicity of all the Roman soldiers through the ages, with the few exceptions of those with marked funery steles.

We agree there. It's just so that many 'popular' tv shows keep repeating that old information that goes back to the 19th century...

It is a TV show but could Rome from HBO be accurate as far as Pullo's background story goes. Seems okay to me but I am no expert. That's why I ask.

No. Especially not for this topic which is 400 year later.