Third century battlefield found: Romans fought the Germans later than expected

Is the point of this post to point out that the Roman Empire, at some point, included parts of Germany?

Is the point of this post to point out that the Roman Empire, at some point, included parts of Germany?

Arrowheads, axes and coins: Archaeologists have located a battlefield dating back to the 3rd century AD in a forest in northern Germany. An entire Roman legion equipped with battle catapults of the kind portrayed in the film "Gladiator" is believed to have fought a Germanic tribe here.
[...]
Historians say the discovery of the battlefield is so significant because it appears to refute the assumption that the Romans withdrew from Germania after their defeat by an alliance of Germanic tribs at the battle of the Teutoburg forest in 9 AD.

Many of the weapons found are in good condition and they prove that Roman armies were still engaging in major military operations far north of the Alps at a time when the Roman Empire was in terminal decline.

It is nice to know that Romans were present there so early. So, based on the number of commanders in the legions, the population of literate in that neck of the woods was ten? My point is, I find it so silly to seemingly value those in history that naturally did exist, yet were nothing like us moderns. Let us be honest, so much of the world were illiterates, and unable to count beyond their fingers (and toes?). Is this interest something akin to ethnic pride? Ancestor nostalgia?

Foofie wrote:

It is nice to know that Romans were present there so early. So, based on the number of commanders in the legions, the population of literate in that neck of the woods was ten? My point is, I find it so silly to seemingly value those in history that naturally did exist, yet were nothing like us moderns. Let us be honest, so much of the world were illiterates, and unable to count beyond their fingers (and toes?). Is this interest something akin to ethnic pride? Ancestor nostalgia?

You are referring here to ... what exactly? History as a science? Your "popular" understanding of the past?

May I kindly remind you either to contribute to the thread or leave it and start a new, own one.
Thanks.

Considering so many of the posters on A2K are American, I believe my question has some merit. Do I start threads, for A2K readers, with some arcane history of NYC? In other words, when a thread is relating to history, it is often in context of discerning the correctness of some historical fact of general interest. A post of the above thread, in my opinion, is quite interesting to Europeans, Germans, possibly Italians (aka modern day Romans). But, as an American of a country only a few hundred years old, it would be like starting a thread about new archeological discoveries on the site of Custer's Last Stand. In other words, quite interesting perhaps to some people, especially Westerners, Native Americans, but not to a general audience, I believe. But, that should not stop you from posting specifically Eurocentric threads, by no means. Perhaps, I am still sensitive about the centuries of the term Far East being used, since it was based on how far the region was from Europe. Now we say Pacific Rim nations. Europe is sort of boring to many Americans, in my opinion. So, there are many that enjoy your posts, and advise you of such. Can you accept my less enthusiastic response, since I do take the time to read your posts? I choose to read your posts. I choose to comment on them.

I sincerely doubt that you have attended any history classes in any type of school in any country.

This may excuse you deep ignorance of any historical context.