Teutoburg Forest/Kalkriese

[Frostwulf]

I just finished Peter Wells book "The Battle that Stopped Rome" and the battle and situation was fairly similar to what I had figured happened (there are different possibilities). I remember someone mentioning that there was a web site that dealt with this subject in detail, does anyone have a link to it? Does anyone else have any suggestions on recent books on this subject?

What did surprise me in this book was the authors views on some of the subjects in the book, such as the amount of Germans that Arminius had with him, why the Romans never conquered Germania(most of this is standard but he did throw something out of the ordinary in) and the situations with Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus.
If anyone has read this book, what are your thoughts on it?

[Blarni]

I've read it, I thought it was pretty good.

It's been a while though - by German numbers do you think they were too high? As I recall he does a fairly in-depth calculation of the population based on settlement numbers and draws the potential levy from that. It does seem a very high - almost Romanesque estimate.

Also doesn't he take the view the battle was a question of hours rather than the more traditional 3-days? That does make some sense, though i have no strong thoughts either way.

[konny]

It's been a while though - by German numbers do you think they were too high? As I recall he does a fairly in-depth calculation of the population based on settlement numbers and draws the potential levy from that. It does seem a very high - almost Romanesque estimate.

I don't know the book in question, but this seems to be a false approach to this question: Germanic armies were not based on mass levies (nor were Celtic BTW) but on professional warbands; "independent mercenary companies", if you like. There was something like a levy, what was all male (and sometimes even female) and able inhabitans defending their villages in case of an attack.

I would rather question the idea that Arminius would have been able to gather the levy from a wider region for his campaign, even though peasants from surrounding villages would have certainly joined the army. More likely would his army have been composed of a huge alliance of warlords. Also, this would have been easyer to gather secretly than marshalling masses of peasants because the warbands were constantly away, fighting this or that feud, raiding this or that neighbour. In return the disappearence of most of the male peasants from their homes in all of Westphalia would have certainly not gone unnoticed by the Romans.

This would also have fitted more his later fate: He was killed when trying to become king. A "king" for the western Germans was not a supreme ruler of the people but a supreme commander of the warbands. The idea that he tried to get all those warbands under controll after successfully commanding them in battle, and being killed trying by the warlords, makes more sense than have him trying to establish a kingdom in Mediterranean sense in the German woods.

[Barbarian Nobility]

I was always under the impression that the Germanic raiders in the teuterberg forest were few in number, and used drums and horns to give a false impression of strength

[Blarni]

The Romans of course made out they were a vast numberless horde. I don't know of any contemporary suggestion they were using trickery to inflate their numbers in Kalkriese.
I think Wells calculates the local population alone could have fielded up to something like 18,000 warriors (correct me if I'm wrong Frostwulf, it has been a long time since i read it). But with such a perfectly planned and executed ambush they didn't need superior numbers to win, but I would expect they couldn't have been too outnumbered or more Romans along their very spread out column would have had time to form up. And with it being such an up-close and intense fight I don't think pretending greater numbers would have been necessary.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I just finished Peter Wells book "The Battle that Stopped Rome" and the battle and situation was fairly similar to what I had figured happened (there are different possibilities). I remember someone mentioning that there was a web site that dealt with this subject in detail, does anyone have a link to it? Does anyone else have any suggestions on recent books on this subject?

What did surprise me in this book was the authors views on some of the subjects in the book, such as the amount of Germans that Arminius had with him, why the Romans never conquered Germania(most of this is standard but he did throw something out of the ordinary in) and the situations with Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus.
If anyone has read this book, what are your thoughts on it?

Actually Romans did conquer Germania , not only the western part but also the eastern , it was tought that at the moment it was just a matter of time and "romanization" to finish subdueing , the Teutoburger ambush tough upverted the things and made face that the Germany was all but subdued yet , so Romans had to abandon much of the outposts and forts deep in Germany and revert back to former territories , but actually they did kept and conquered germanaia for some decades , wich is short time compared to the near millenium of timespan of Rome power...

[The Noble Lord]

Actually Romans did conquer Germania , not only the western part but also the eastern

I thought they never conquered Germania and that river Rhine was the border.

[Ahlerich]

I thought they never conquered Germania and that river Rhine was the border.

they moved east of rhine as well but never got a firm grip there

[eisenkopf]

I thought they never conquered Germania and that river Rhine was the border.

The Romans made it to the River Elbe in AD 6, but after the battle this thread is about, they retreated. The rivers Rhine and Danube became the northernmost extent of the Roman empire, with the Limes as border fortification.

[Mangalore]

The Romans made it to the River Elbe in AD 6, but after the battle this thread is about, they retreated. The rivers Rhine and Danube became the northernmost extent of the Roman empire, with the Limes as border fortification.

Actually the recent digs in the area suggest the Romans did not retreat but tried to subdue the Germanic uprising for another 10 years, then finally retreated and declared the new northwestern borders finals.

[The Noble Lord]

The Romans made it to the River Elbe in AD 6, but after the battle this thread is about, they retreated. The rivers Rhine and Danube became the northernmost extent of the Roman empire, with the Limes as border fortification.

Thanks, that's what I thought anyway.

[Holger Danske]

The Romans made it to the River Elbe in AD 6, but after the battle this thread is about, they retreated. The rivers Rhine and Danube became the northernmost extent of the Roman empire, with the Limes as border fortification.

True, and another interesting thing about that battle is this:

On “Monumentum Acyranum”, Augustus own descriptions of his deeds, it is told that in the year 5 AD he sent Tiberius on a major clearing expedition to the most northern parts of Germania. With a fleet from the Rhine and possibly a supporting land-army he advanced to the Cimbrian Peninsula, and made peace agreements with the local tribes there.
This first official contact with the “danes”, since the Cimbrian and Teutonian migrations in 150 BC shows, that there appearantly was an active interest in Rome in an annexation of the southern parts of Scandinavia into the Roman Empire.
But this interest was brutally stopped in year 9 AD, when the Roman General Quintillius Publius Varus was beaten in a Germanic ambush in Teutoburgerwald at Kalkriese in Germany. At this battle 3 Roman Legions were anihilated; Approx. 30.000 men.

The mission for Varus was to prepare the advance of the Imperial border to the River Elb. But after this major loss, the Romans resignated and gave up any further offensives beyond the Rhine, and the northern border of the Empire stayed at the Rhine.

Add to that there is also evidence that the Cimbrians/Danes where active allies of the Roman Empire in it's fight against the Germanic tribes... A shame the Romans never came as far north as planned.

[Abendstern]

Add to that there is also evidence that the Cimbrians/Danes where active allies of the Roman Empire in it's fight against the Germanic tribes... A shame the Romans never came as far north as planned.

The Cimbrians were a Germanic tribe. And why is that a shame?

[Blarni]

You're right, 'levy' is totally the wrong word, I wrote in haste. I really just mean potential manpower.

[motiv-8]

Nonetheless, even without physical presence in the north and east of Germania, Rome completely dominated the region, as evidenced by the porous border (until the Crisis) and the wealth of Roman artifacts throughout what was once considered the barbarian wilds.

One might argue that it was a much more profitable turnout for Rome than actual political incorporation and governance.

[konny]

Nonetheless, even without physical presence in the north and east of Germania, Rome completely dominated the region, as evidenced by the porous border (until the Crisis) and the wealth of Roman artifacts throughout what was once considered the barbarian wilds.

That's absolutly correct. If you wanted to be someone in Germania you had to own Romans goods of luxery, pay our men Roman coins, certainly have to speak an acceptable Latin, have to had served your time in the Legions, and things like that. It was something like the total French cultural dominantion over Germany in the late 17th to mid 18th Century. There was a reason why the Germans later wanted nothing more than becoming part of the Empire (of course, to their terms: as free men on their own lands); and when finally conquering and destroying the Roman Empire (accedintly, one might think) they had nothing more urgent to do than labeling their new empire "Roman" and stick to that name for the next 1,000 years.

There was also a not to little political influence Rome had on the Germany by supporting this or that warlord with arms and money. But this was one of those fatal boomerangs because it resulted in the developement of the strong alliances, like the Franks, Allemans and the like, that proofed to become a real threat to Rome.

[Wagnijo]

That's absolutly correct. If you wanted to be someone in Germania you had to own Romans goods of luxery, pay our men Roman coins, certainly have to speak an acceptable Latin, have to had served your time in the Legions, and things like that.

A bit like the tribesmen in Afghanistan who wants an ak-47 in their hand and some dollars in their
pockets.

They must just love the US and Russia?

And a bit like the native americans who got horses, guns and metal tools from the europeans and must have wanted to become cultural euros.

It was something like the total French cultural dominantion over Germany in the late 17th to mid 18th Century. There was a reason why the Germans later wanted nothing more than becoming part of the Empire

They wanted a share of the imperial wealth.

Raiding imperial territory is not a good way to open negotiation about joining the empire.

The motivation for becoming part and parcel of the empire only materialised when the Huns decided to go pre-medieval on their backsides.

(of course, to their terms: as free men on their own lands); and when finally conquering and destroying the Roman Empire (accedintly, one might think) they had nothing more urgent to do than labeling their new empire "Roman" and stick to that name for the next 1,000 years.

Err!? That happened more than 300 years after the fall of Rome when the Franks long had been good christian europeans.

Germanics living outside the christian world happily carried on raiding without giving a hoot about empire
or romanitas.

There was also a not to little political influence Rome had on the Germany by supporting this or that warlord with arms and money. But this was one of those fatal boomerangs because it resulted in the developement of the strong alliances, like the Franks, Allemans and the like, that proofed to become a real threat to Rome.

THis may have been one reason, but the small germanic tribes also formed larger polities in the zone that was not directly influenced by Rome - Saxons, Danes aso.

Cheers
Wagnijo

[Barbarian Nobility]

So im starting to wonder what would have happened if the Romans conquered Germania?.....Im kinda thinking it would have just been a massive drain on their resources, kinda like how Britannia was during the Pictish and subsequent Saxon invasions...IMO the impact of the Gothic, Frankish, Burgundii, Alani, Amoricani, and Suevii invasions ultimately culminating in the Hunnic invasion would have been far more disasterous militarily for the Roman army without the Rhine wall fortifications and shattering for the roman economy

[Dr. Croccer]

Both Wagnjio and konny are absolutely correct. Rome had considerable influence beyond the Rhine, as they traded with Germanic tribes and often demanded tribute. This doesn't mean that the Germanic peoples loved the Romans. Arminius is an obvious example of Romanized Germans turning on their masters, as is Julius Civilis, a Batavian soldier in the Roman empire who started the Batavian Revolt, which was started largely because of their dsigruntlement with paying the Romans tribute.

[motiv-8]

Germanics living outside the christian world happily carried on raiding without giving a hoot about empire
or romanitas.

Yet, Germanic chieftains and kings, whether fully christianized or not, continued to adopt Roman titles in deference to the Emperor in Constantinople. Significant in personal symbology, even if the politics was mere lip-service.

THis may have been one reason, but the small germanic tribes also formed larger polities in the zone that was not directly influenced by Rome - Saxons, Danes

But look where the Saxons went...

Regarding what Dr Croccer said... The situation that developed between the stabilization of the frontier sometime in the mid or later first century and the crises that began to destabilize that frontier some centuries later was that, as konny briefly discussed, Roman material culture perforated the Germanic lands through porous borders, while a lack of martial or political authority over the region prevented real integration as in the rest of the empire. One of the results of this was the resurgence of nativist culture elements amongst the Germanic peoples on the border and slightly within it, a feeling that seems to have moved into the Gallic regions as well. We note this through archaeological changes as well as lingusitic ones -- the changes of names to more traditional rather than Roman ones, changes in kinship and familial ties, etc. When the security of the empire began to break down, these processes accelerated and, if I'm not completely off my rocker when it comes to Late Roman happenings, combined with the frequency of migrations to accelerate the so-called 'barbarization' of large swaths of the empire and then the formation of successor kingdoms in its former lands -- which brings me to the point above.

If the Germanic peoples or their leaders didn't absolutely love Rome and Roman culture, fine... I don't believe anybody claimed that they did. But in quite a few respects they were more than eager to make full use of it, to emulate it, and to attempt to carry it on further in certain respects.

A great deal of my information comes from Burns, Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C. - 400 A.D.