Herman the German and the battle of the Teutoburg forest



The fury of the Teutons

 

In modern popular conception the Roman army is viewed as an invincible war machine bestriding the known world like a colossus and crushing all comers usually with veritable aplomb (steady Flaxen). While it is true that the Roman professional army was a formidable force and forged a mighty empire, it did suffer a number of reverses and even catastrophic defeats. Here is just a few: Allia (387BC), Cannae (216BC), Carrhae (53BC), Teutoburg forrest (9AD) and Adrianople (324AD). With the exception of Adrianople, the Empire bounced back and continued to expand and thrive. A testament to the resilience, stoicism, toughness of the Romans and ultimately the stability of the Roman political system. 

I'm going to consider the battle of the Teutoburg forest and its central protagonist, Arminius (?Hermann). Arminius was the recipient of typical Roman Imperial policy. As a young German nobleman he was sent to Rome as a hostage. Whilst in Rome, Arminius received a liberal Roman education and was exposed to Roman culture in all its guises. What effect this would have on a rude barbarian used to simple dwellings and unsophisticated folk is hard to divine. For the Romans, the design was simple: inculcate a love and respect for the Roman way of life. Once returned to their people, these potential rulers would pacify their people from within. No doubt the majority of the folk would still live in hovels however, their leader would have rich tapestries on the walls of his Garth, partake in fine Gaulish wine and would be able to quote from Homer from memory- barbarians love this sort of shit; the incongruity couldn't be more starkly revealed. For the pragmatic Romans, this represented a far seeing policy and a subtle expression of 'Divide and Rule'. 

Like a true Roman protégé, Arminius was installed as commander of a detachment of Germans in 4AD. He seemed to have learned his Roman lessons well and was trusted implicitly by his Roman masters and more intriguingly by his people. Indeed, when the Romans decided to send three legions plus auxiliaries east of the Rhine on a punitive expedition in 9AD, Ariminus was given an important role as guide and commanded native troops. As the Romans marched through the grim dark forests full of brooding, dark oak, their Teutonic allies melted away.....Pelting rain soaked the troops and made the Roman shields heavy. And then, out of the mist, Herman's men came casting javelins. Without armour they approached swiftly through the trees. The Romans were placed in a wretched position. There was no way they could deploy in effective battle array within the confined woods and the stretched out column lacked coherent command. Each man fought as he stood against a swift and tactically flexible enemy. It seems that Arminius had learned his lessons too well. Soon the column broke into small groups and disparate desperate battles continued throughout the day. Although the survivors were able to construct a night camp they were annihilated the next day and night during their retreat. It is said the Romans lost 20,000 men during the battle. Rome had nursed a viper within its breast and suffered accordingly: 'Vae Victis,'. The Germans sacrificed many of the survivors to their powerful war god, Wotan or Woden, according to tribal source. Three military standards (Eagles) were lost to the Germans. Then, as now, the loss of military standards was considered a terrible disgrace and calamity. For many years after the battle the Emperor Augustus would wander the corridors of the palace, shouting:"Publius Quinctillius Varus", where are my Eagles". 

Aftermath

Not only was the territory east of the Rhine denuded of Roman troops but the whole of Gaul lay protected by only two legions which were content to guard the Rhine bridgeheads. When news of the defeat reached Rome there was panic amongst the populace. Hordes of marauding Teutons were expected to descend into Italy. The Roman Emperor took a more sensible approach and quickly organised troops to be sent north. The Germans never invaded Gaul. As clear heads in Rome predicted, the German barbarians decided to loot instead. The Roman colonies east of the Rhine were easy and rich pickings. Also, Herman's ultimate goal was to free his people from the Roman yolk and in this he succeeded extremely well. An invasion into Gaul would have not suited his purpose at all and would likely invite eventual defeat. It was best for him to remain behind the mighty Rhine and consolidate his power amongst the tribes. From now on the Roman empire stopped at the Rhine. Apart from a few punitive forays across the great river, the Romans would never gain a toe hold east of the Rhine. 

All this would have grave repercussions for the future of Rome and the Western world. The Germans were never Romanised and remained a fierce independent folk. They would continue to be a thorn in the side of Rome and in the 5th century AD would be responsible for dismantling the Western Roman Empire. It is interesting to speculate if Roman ambitions east of the Rhine had continued without check. History may have turned out different if the German nations had become 'civilised'. Perhaps under these circumstances the Roman Empire would have lasted another thousand years.    

It is said, by Roman writers themselves: 'That the Germans loved freedom more than life itself'. Mayhap the Romans should have taken heed.

The 'Arminius monument'

 

Life the universe and everything....

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent

 

It is hard to think that we are not the centre of the universe. For most of humanity's existence we thought exactly that. Humankind was special and so was the earth. The sun revolved around the earth and indeed the whole heavens did so too. Everything in the universe was set up for our enjoyment, life and enlightenment. And god oversaw all and provided mankind with ample bounty for he was a good god and so loved his elect creation. 

We now know better. We are just a speck in a possible infinite universe (Einstein's theories of relativity allow this). Our galaxy is one of a least a 100 billion galaxies, most receding from us at incredible speeds. Some are receding even faster that the speed of light (how so?). Our position in the cosmos is nothing special. As life forms we are like other life forms except smarter. An individual's existence is marked in just a few scant decades and then extinguished. We emerge from oblivion and meet it again all too soon. The universe, as we know it, has existed for 14 billion years and perhaps will last forever. Our place in the vast cosmos of space and time doesn't even count as a blink, a jot, or iota.  

 

                                                                         Futility

Move him into the sun—
Gently its touch awoke him once,
At home, whispering of fields half-sown.
Always it woke him, even in France,
Until this morning and this snow.
If anything might rouse him now
The kind old sun will know.

Think how it wakes the seeds,—
Woke, once, the clays of a cold star.
Are limbs, so dear-achieved, are sides,
Full-nerved—still warm—too hard to stir?
Was it for this the clay grew tall?
—O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth’s sleep at all?

by Wilfred Owen

 

O well, I don't know about you, but I'm off out for a meal and a glass of good beer.

Yea, but what is the question?

 

Liiving the Australian/New Zealand Dream?

ANZACS

Australia has always been a big draw for New Zealanders. Historically, Australian wages are higher for jobs requiring similar skills. For instance, I can earn about 20% extra by crossing the Tasman. The Aussie cost of living is also lower, although tax rates are higher. There are many advantages for being tucked away in the South Pacific, however, when your nearest neighbour is three thousand miles away transport costs for essential imports are always going to be high. And then there is the climate. The New Zealand climate varies greatly. In the far north it is sub-tropical while the southern tip of the South Island's weather is similar to that experienced in Scotland. Furthermore, due to innate geography, New Zealand weather can be unsettled. In contrast, the vast continent of Australia goes from sub-tropical to tropical. In summer it is bloody hot, everywhere. Of course no one moves to a country based on weather alone, otherwise Britain would be bereft of folk.....

But times are a changing. For the first time for many a long year there is a net influx of Kiwis from Australia to New Zealand. Contrast this with 2012 when 54,000 New Zealanders left their native shore to live the Australian dream. So what has changed?

Although New Zealanders have the right to live, work and have access to health care in Australia, they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. This was not always the case. Until 2001, Kiwis had the right to the Australian dole. However, it seemed that too many unemployed Kiwis were moving to Oz with no intention of working but instead hunkered down on the Gold Coast taking advantage of the sun, sea, beach and generous hand-outs (Bondi Bludgers). Understandably the Australian government decided enough was enough and tightened up the rules. Unfortunately for hard working Kiwis who lose their jobs in Oz, the situation can become economically precarious very quickly. With the Australian economy stalling, partly due to the downturn in the mining industry, jobs are becoming hard to find. In comparison the New Zealand economy is buoyant with a budget surplus predicted for the end of the year. Good Jobs, although not plentiful, are there if you care to look. A case in point: After 10 weeks in Australia and after numerous job applications, my son has returned to New Zealand because he could not find work. Ten days after setting foot in his adopted country he has secured three job interviews for management positions.  

If the economy in Australia doesn't improve soon we might see the unprecedented movement of Aussies to our fair shore. Watch this space.

 

 

Mad, mad, world

I've been pondering again.....

Last week a young friend and colleague took a couple of days off work due to an anxiety attack. Her doctor diagnosed anxiety and depression. All this surprised me mightily as my young friend appears to have it all. She is smart, funny, gracious, endowed with a wondrous personality and dare I say it, as sexy as hell (steady Flaxen, your wife sometimes reads your blog). She has a good job, home and is married to a man who dotes on every cell in her body. She is the last person I thought to be blighted with a mental health issue. 

All this got me a thinking. When I considered my family, colleagues, friends and acquaintances, about 40% are on medication due to mental health issues, mostly depression. Admittedly this is not a valid cross section of society and the numbers are small, but perhaps this is a reasonable reflection of middle-class society?

Depression appears to be a very modern disease and the incidence has grown prodigiously over the past 50 years. An American study estimated that depression is 10 to 20 times more prevalent than 50 years ago. Why should this be the case? Are we more mentally unsound than our parents and grandparents, or is something else at work here?

Certainly our attitude toward mental illness has changed. For my father's and grandparent's generation there was a real stigma attached to mental health. My mother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia when she was 21. Her initial episode was severe necessitating a 6 month stay in a secure mental health facility. Her family was ashamed and indeed my grandmother vehemently denied that my mother had a mental health problem at all! All very strange. Today we are more accepting and no longer treat people with mental health problems as lepers. Some still need locking up though. Could it be that our parents and grandparents had the same rate of mental issues as today but were less likely to come forward for help because of societal pressure? Perhaps this is part of the explanation, but I don't think it is the whole story.

Mayhap modern life is more stressful than in times past. I don't think this the case for most folk in Western society. Our parents and grandparents lived through two horrendous world wars and still kept their sanity. How can events in our modern lives be considered more stressful than the real possibility of being shot or bombed?

Main stream psychiatry does not think that, in the past, mental disorders were under diagnosed. So perhaps the opposite is true. Are mental health issues being over diagnosed? Maybe 'normal behaviour' is being deemed pathological by some psychiatrists. Of course, normal behaviour is a spectrum disorder (surely some mistake?). Are psychiatrists moving the border in an overzealous shift to aid their diagnosis and professional pride?  

Is the mighty pharmaceutical industry to blame? This is where it gets interesting. Modern medicine is big bucks. And for every malady, real and imagined, there is a tailor designed pill. Every successful industry must sell their wares, otherwise they wouldn't be successful, would they? - strange tautology, I know.

Pharmaceutical companies aggressively promote their drugs to psychiatrists and the doctors on the front line, General Practitioners; lots of free samples and sales hype. They sponsor conferences and provide funding for professional activities. Doctors are human and like everyone else are influenced by slick professional advertising and promotion. Pharmaceutical companies can be subtle and even subliminal. These tactics work and no doubt work very well. Are doctors being persuaded and even duped to over prescribe? This is a highly complex issue. Doctors are under pressure to actively treat the patients under their care. Drugs often work and fix the underlying symptoms but they don't treat the root cause of the problem. Sorting this out is going to take time and also a lot of money. Behavioural therapy doesn't come cheap. 

Some argue that drugs might be great in the short term but in themselves exacerbate mental illness in the long term converting an acute time limited episode into a lingering chronic illness. While it is true that all drugs come with side effects the benefits should always outweigh the negatives. Medication is not always exact and individuals vary in their physiology and metabolism making therapeutic response difficult to predict. We are a long way off the golden ideal of targeted pharmaceuticals to suit everyone's unique disposition.   

I have no clear/clean answer, in this case. Complex problems have complex causes. I think we are dealing with a real phenomenon when we look at the modern increase in mental health disorders. However, the causes and the solutions are perhaps beyond our understanding and consequently our resolution. 

I'll finish with a few personal observations

As I understand it, schizophrenia is a multi-factorial disorder. Many genes are involved which add up and once a threshold has been reached, madness ensues. I'm very much aware that I have a good dose of the predisposing genes. Not enough to tip me over the edge but enough to make my thoughts interesting. Because of this I am blessed with a certain degree of creativity and an askew take on the world and life. The downside is that I can't control or turn off the cascade of random thoughts which constantly assail my mind. Sometimes this can be exhausting. I have been told that there are drugs available which will turn off or at least dampen the cacophony in my head. But if I complied I would lose something quintessential that makes me, 'me'. And this a price I am not prepared to pay. 

 

"But I like my madness. There is a thrill in it unknown to such sanity as yours"

 

 

I'm aware that I have cited no references for my assertions. If anyone is interested I am more than happy to comply. 

Bugger! Two sensible posts in a row, perhaps the new medication is starting to kick in after all. Arse.

Occum's Razor

Bloody smart arse

Time for another sensible post, I suppose.  

Occum's razor, or the law of parsimony, is simple in concept but powerful in application and is attributed to a fourteenth century scholastic monk, William of Ockham. This is not to say that William of Ockham first formulated the concept. It was certainly known to previous savants and is mentioned in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. However, for reasons which I will not divulge, the law is indelibly linked to our William. 

For all its so-called rigorous intellectual credentials it is actually rooted in the concept of 'simplicity'. The ancients and the moderns up to the 19th century often thought of nature as rather simple. And indeed the work of great scientists such as Newton (look at Newton's three laws of motion and tell me this is not so) seemed to confirm this. Simple laws seemed to underpin the universe. No one thinks this way today. Since Einstein, the rise of modern physics and modern biology, the universe appears astonishingly complex, convoluted and perhaps impossible to fully grasp with our limited intellects. A simple universe has an aesthetic that a blackboard full of differential equations can never have, unless of course you are a mathematician. 

We must be clear on one thing: Occum's postulate doesn't state that the explanation has to be 'simple' just the least complex of competing explanations. That aside, we have to ask, and ask in a hard-headed fashion, is the postulate of parsimony of any merit when we come to examine our existence? Or in other words, other things being equal, are simpler explanations generally better than more complex ones? Could it be that we are beguiled? Mayhap simplicity is no more than a theoretical virtue. Is it really self evident or a mere short cut for our lazy intellects? Elegance is not necessarily synonymous with truth.

It is to be accepted as axiomatic, that for any phenomenon there is an infinite number of explanations. Many will be intricate and complex and almost all will be incorrect. However, we must bear in mind, that as fallible humans, we are often drawn to 'simple' explanations rather than the complex mainly because they are within our intellectual grasp. An explanation of any event or phenomenon, if it has any intrinsic merit, should in some way be testable. There should be predictions which can be either validated or falsified. 'Simple' constructs are easier to validate than their more complex cousins. Or according to the musings of the Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper, they are easier to falsify. Furthermore, the more elements to an explanation the greater the probability that it will fall down due to its inherent complexity and therefore, fail to remain coherent. 

Be appraised: This but a simple foray into the topic. Blogs (such as this) do not do due justice to the topic in hand. Indeed, the topic is more complex than noted here; isn't that the ultimate irony. Arguments for and against can become very technical. However, I am more than happy to discuss and elaborate according to comment.  

Regardless, of any philosophy, as a practicing professional scientist, I have found the 'Law of Parsimony' useful in my research. Sometimes we over think to our detriment. 

And finally, here is something else to ponder. Our models of nature are imperfect and always open to review or rejection. We strive to understand nature but we always fall short. Think in terms of Newton's description of gravity. When first postulated it explained the natural world extremely well. The motions of the planets were finally mastered and understood. However, with more accurate measurements minor perturbations and inaccuracies became manifest. Einstein's theories of relativity plugged the gap. Einstein's genius works for us, now. But this may change and a new postulate might do better, if only we can find another Einstein.......

Awkward Buggers

This is the definition of bloody awkward 

Some birds are just downright awkward. They don't fly with or pander to the crowds, or the crows for that matter. They spread their wings and beat them to a metre which suits them. High fliers they are not but their speed and height is never predetermined. Flocks are not for them and they always stand out from the clouds.  

And yes, they build their nests where the fuck they like.    

Arse

Annual Appraisal

Or arse, for that matter

 

It's that time of year again: The time of the annual work appraisal. Many years ago this used to be a rather informal affair. A simple chat with the Boss and an opportunity to have a mutual moan about incompetent colleagues. The Personnel Department consisted of a dowdy, slightly dishevelled middle-aged spinster forever wandering the building with a bundle of files precariously tucked under her arm. Peggy (for it is she) always smelled slightly of ‘rubbing liniment’ and had an impressive wardrobe of long floral print skirts. Her distracted foray through the corridors of power could be followed by the paper chase of confidential folios carelessly lost. No one was sure what Peggy actually did, but what she didn't do was bother departments with staff appraisal templates.

Then something changed round about the time that 'Personnel' became 'Human Resources'. For some unaccountable reason Peggy disappeared in a cloud of shredded documents and edicts started to trickle down from HR and structured appraisal templates became foisted on harried managers and overworked employees alike. Strange jargon appeared in the dreaded document: Incentivise; holistic; pre-prepare and going forward. There was the initial shock of having to actually do some preparation for the ‘annual chat’. However, once mastered subsequent years simply involved cutting stock answers to stock questions and pasting them into the latest annual review document. Just had to make sure the year was changed at the head of the document. Everything settled down and the employment gods were appeased once again and they saw it was good. Thus we were all lulled into a fool’s paradise.......

Come hither to a few scant weeks ago when I received an email with an attached appraisal doc. I wasn't too bothered as I expected the same format that had been doled out for the past eight years. Characteristically I skipped through the email and missed two very important, but bone chilling words: 'New Format'.

As I opened the template my heart sank. Before I had even read any of the questions I noted that the document was ten pages long and composed in small font. Shit, this looked like I would have to do some serious work. As suspected, the document was well larded with barely comprehensible words and phrases. Here is just a few choice extracts together with my replies. 

I could not help but inject a little commentary which doesn’t appear in my final appraisal document (in Italics).

 

Question

•  Relates well to all kinds of people – up, down, and sideways, inside and outside the organisation
•  Builds appropriate rapport
•  Builds constructive and effective relationships
•  Uses diplomacy and tact
• Can diffuse high-tension situations comfortably

The relating to people, up, down and sideways, inside and outside the organsisation is one of my personal/personnel favourites. Reminds me of the ‘Hokey Cokey’. You can always count on HR for obscurification and verbiage.

 

Response

Relate well with most people, irrespective of their position, up, down, sideways and around about and inside out. Treat people with respect and courtesy unless shown otherwise.

Always ready to dispense a modicum of my characteristically unique sense of humour to cement good working relationships unless I’ve forgot to take my medication.

Tact and diplomacy lie at the heart of any successful interpersonal relationship. Sadly as frail human beings we don’t always behave as we should.

 

Question

•  Is cool under pressure
•  Does not become defensive or irritated when times are tough
•  Is considered mature
•  Can be counted on to hold things together during the tough times

Answer

Times are always tough. However, I can be relied upon not be defensive or irritated (who's the miserable bastard calling me defensive and irritable?) and indeed launch the offensive and take the fight to Dr Wilkins in the next office. Can I have a pointed pole to mount his head? I think it would make an attractive adornment next to the photocopier.

Always hold things together except when I don't; my maturity is self evident.

 

Question

•   Develops constructive working relationships with other team members 
•   Has a friendly manner and a positive sense of humour

 Now this is more like it. My working relationship with my colleagues is exemplarly, Dr Wilkins excepted (and Dr Jones, he's a total twat). As for a sense of humour- I don't know what to say.

 

Answer

Always available to my colleagues for advice and sage wisdom meted out with style, humour and effortless aplomb.

 

Post Appraisal

The old adage comes to mind: ‘Bollocks in, bollocks out’
 
Needless to say, I didn’t get a pay rise but at least I wasn't suspended, which just as well as I've mortgage, wife and a mistress with expensive tastes.