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' |
"The Germans loved freedom more than life itself" doesn't seem to have survived into the modern age. Having had their expansionist plans "restrained" twice in C20, they developed a long-term cunning plan (thanks Baldrick) to win by stealth. Brexit has upset that particular applecart and the ripples around European countries will continue for years.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Mrs Merkel has that old love of freedom in her mind, coming as she does from E Germany's Stasi?
Yes:- the freedom to do as they're told by leaders who in turn are free to tell them whatever they like. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, etc.
DeleteWhat? Do you mean?
DeleteWarfare is a fascinating subject. Despite the dubious morality of using violence to achieve personal or political aims. It remains that conflict has been used to do just that throughout recorded history.
ReplyDeleteYour article is very well done, a good read.
Thank you for the kind words, Gerald.
Delete