Org Mobile Site
Brief description of the battle:
The Battle of the Teutonburg Forest took place in the year 9 A.D. when an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius, the son of Segimer of the Cherusci, ambushed and destroyed three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
1. Had the Roman legions manage to defeat the Germanic tribes, will it create long-lasting effect in Central Europe, Roman Empire, and perhaps the whole Europe? Was it even possible for the Roman legions to won? Or were the Romans just doing the impossible, given the fact that they venture into unknown territory, very well-known to Germanic tribes and Arminius, who in this case probably lure the Romans into the trap (initially Arminius accompanied Varus)...?
There were of course plan to again invade and attempt to crush the Germanic tribe, but these were pretty much unsuccessful, which I will quoted from Wikipedia:
Now another question:
2. Let's say no matter what the odd, the Romans did win at Teutonburg Forest. Will they eventually continue their expansion deeper into German territory?
3. If the Romans did manage to conquer the area, which is present-day German, what impact will it has to the whole Roman Empire? The Romans might after all gain access to Denmark, and the Baltic sea, not to mention natural resources in the region. Perhaps the Empire will live much longer, or...shorter?
4. And let's imagine the Empire eventually collapse too, what do you think the geopolitical situation of Europe from around 1800s to present-day look like?
The Battle of the Teutonburg Forest took place in the year 9 A.D. when an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius, the son of Segimer of the Cherusci, ambushed and destroyed three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
1. Had the Roman legions manage to defeat the Germanic tribes, will it create long-lasting effect in Central Europe, Roman Empire, and perhaps the whole Europe? Was it even possible for the Roman legions to won? Or were the Romans just doing the impossible, given the fact that they venture into unknown territory, very well-known to Germanic tribes and Arminius, who in this case probably lure the Romans into the trap (initially Arminius accompanied Varus)...?
There were of course plan to again invade and attempt to crush the Germanic tribe, but these were pretty much unsuccessful, which I will quoted from Wikipedia:
Now another question:
2. Let's say no matter what the odd, the Romans did win at Teutonburg Forest. Will they eventually continue their expansion deeper into German territory?
3. If the Romans did manage to conquer the area, which is present-day German, what impact will it has to the whole Roman Empire? The Romans might after all gain access to Denmark, and the Baltic sea, not to mention natural resources in the region. Perhaps the Empire will live much longer, or...shorter?
4. And let's imagine the Empire eventually collapse too, what do you think the geopolitical situation of Europe from around 1800s to present-day look like?
Expeditions may have been possible, but ultimately the existing urban centres essential for Romanization elsewhere were simply not present in Germania; Germanicus' repeated victories show that maintaining Roman presence there was simply not feasible.
If the Romans had won, they would most likly not have attempted to drive deeper into Germania. What I've heard it was more of a matter of making the border more easily defendible that was the goal in the first place.
Yeah, the later emperors were more focused towards maintaining borders rather than expanding them so although the Roman Empire might increase in its land, there won't be a overwhelmingly big difference.
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
Expeditions may have been possible, but ultimately the existing urban centres essential for Romanization elsewhere were simply not present in Germania; Germanicus' repeated victories show that maintaining Roman presence there was simply not feasible.
The romans had already begun to found towns in germania that should become the urban centers needed for Romanization. One of them was recently excavated near Waldgirmes. If they had been sucessful, who knows?Expeditions may have been possible, but ultimately the existing urban centres essential for Romanization elsewhere were simply not present in Germania; Germanicus' repeated victories show that maintaining Roman presence there was simply not feasible.
Cassius Dio 56.18
Originally Posted by :
The Romans were holding portions of it — not entire regions, but merely such districts as happened to have been subdued, so that no record has been made of the fact — and soldiers of theirs were wintering there and cities were being founded. The barbarians were adapting themselves to Roman ways, were becoming accustomed to hold markets, and were meeting in peaceful assemblages. They had not, however, forgotten their ancestral habits, their native manners, their old life of independence, or the power derived from arms. Hence, so long as they were unlearning these customs gradually and by the way, as one may say, under careful watching, they were not disturbed by the change in their manner of life, and were becoming different without knowing it. But when Quintilius Varus became governor of the province.....
The Romans were holding portions of it — not entire regions, but merely such districts as happened to have been subdued, so that no record has been made of the fact — and soldiers of theirs were wintering there and cities were being founded. The barbarians were adapting themselves to Roman ways, were becoming accustomed to hold markets, and were meeting in peaceful assemblages. They had not, however, forgotten their ancestral habits, their native manners, their old life of independence, or the power derived from arms. Hence, so long as they were unlearning these customs gradually and by the way, as one may say, under careful watching, they were not disturbed by the change in their manner of life, and were becoming different without knowing it. But when Quintilius Varus became governor of the province.....
Originally Posted by :
2. Let's say no matter what the odd, the Romans did win at Teutonburg Forest. Will they eventually continue their expansion deeper into German territory?
No. There's a fair bit of research now showing that, except where they butted up against the persians, the Romans ended their empire just a bit beyond the point at which the ecomonic gains from the conquered territory repaid the costs of conquest and policing. They didn't think in those terms of course but that is how it happened.2. Let's say no matter what the odd, the Romans did win at Teutonburg Forest. Will they eventually continue their expansion deeper into German territory?
And first century germany was a sparsely populated subsistence economy. Never would have been conquered.
If Romans won that battle - nothing would happen.
Same time like Teutoburg Forest were great rising into Panonia and prowinces located near Danube. Romans had to sent there half of their forces from Germania. They were crushing that rising for some years.
When Germans won battle at Teutoburg Forest, they could easy move to Galia and capture that country practically without reisistance. They didn't it because of tribal rivalisation beetwen them. SO Romans had time to finish into Panonia and move units to Germania.
If Romans won, they would stay into Germania. I have heard theory that great rising stopped Roman attemps to capture Bohemia and cental Europe but I think they were too weak to do that. Anyway they were too weak to capture more territory with units they had into Germania.
Same time like Teutoburg Forest were great rising into Panonia and prowinces located near Danube. Romans had to sent there half of their forces from Germania. They were crushing that rising for some years.
When Germans won battle at Teutoburg Forest, they could easy move to Galia and capture that country practically without reisistance. They didn't it because of tribal rivalisation beetwen them. SO Romans had time to finish into Panonia and move units to Germania.
If Romans won, they would stay into Germania. I have heard theory that great rising stopped Roman attemps to capture Bohemia and cental Europe but I think they were too weak to do that. Anyway they were too weak to capture more territory with units they had into Germania.
Originally Posted by :
[...] and were meeting in peaceful assemblages. [...]
[...] and were meeting in peaceful assemblages. [...]
The Germanic tribes (as well as the Celts) had been democratically electing their chieftains for centuries before they ever came in contact with the Romans... indeed, that is how Arminius came to fall: he became a threat to the democratic process and was overthrown, in a series of events which show a marked similarity to the process Polybius percieved amongst Greek cities.
But then again, this is Cassius Dio, a Roman. The old conquerors weren't known for their keen understanding of the people they faced
Originally Posted by KrooK:
If Romans won that battle - nothing would happen.
Same time like Teutoburg Forest were great rising into Panonia and prowinces located near Danube. Romans had to sent there half of their forces from Germania. They were crushing that rising for some years.
When Germans won battle at Teutoburg Forest, they could easy move to Galia and capture that country practically without reisistance. They didn't it because of tribal rivalisation beetwen them. SO Romans had time to finish into Panonia and move units to Germania.
If Romans won, they would stay into Germania. I have heard theory that great rising stopped Roman attemps to capture Bohemia and cental Europe but I think they were too weak to do that. Anyway they were too weak to capture more territory with units they had into Germania.
The great pannonian urpising broke out in 6 AD. At this time Tiberius had the overall command over an army of 12 legions that attacked Marbods kingdom in Boiohaemum from two directions. One group started at the Rhine in Mogontiacum, Tiberius and the second group, including the Illyrian army, in Carnuntum on the danube. When the uprising begun this attack was quickly aborted before both groups could met and made contact with the Marcomanni.If Romans won that battle - nothing would happen.
Same time like Teutoburg Forest were great rising into Panonia and prowinces located near Danube. Romans had to sent there half of their forces from Germania. They were crushing that rising for some years.
When Germans won battle at Teutoburg Forest, they could easy move to Galia and capture that country practically without reisistance. They didn't it because of tribal rivalisation beetwen them. SO Romans had time to finish into Panonia and move units to Germania.
If Romans won, they would stay into Germania. I have heard theory that great rising stopped Roman attemps to capture Bohemia and cental Europe but I think they were too weak to do that. Anyway they were too weak to capture more territory with units they had into Germania.
In 9 AD when Varus army was destroyed the rebellion was just surpressed:
Velleius Paterculus 2.117
Originally Posted by :
117 Scarcely had Caesar put the finishing touch upon the Pannonian and Dalmatian war, when, within five days of the completion of this task, dispatches from Germany brought the baleful news of the death of Varus, and of the slaughter of three legions, of as many divisions of cavalry, and of six cohorts — as though fortune were granting us this indulgence at least, that such a disaster should not be brought upon us when our commander was occupied by other wars. The cause of this defeat and the personality of the general require of me a brief digression.
Also Roman Gallia was completly defenceless, the two legions in Mogontiacum were still intact and immidiatly moved to the threatened northern part of the Rhine frontier, to reeinforce the single legion still there.117 Scarcely had Caesar put the finishing touch upon the Pannonian and Dalmatian war, when, within five days of the completion of this task, dispatches from Germany brought the baleful news of the death of Varus, and of the slaughter of three legions, of as many divisions of cavalry, and of six cohorts — as though fortune were granting us this indulgence at least, that such a disaster should not be brought upon us when our commander was occupied by other wars. The cause of this defeat and the personality of the general require of me a brief digression.
Nobody knows...
The Romans were already building - as Cuncatator pointed out - and there is nothing magical in the nowadays german soil which doesn't allow for large human settlements. Soft rule, many sandals and pax romana coupled with time should have done wonders...
The Romans were already building - as Cuncatator pointed out - and there is nothing magical in the nowadays german soil which doesn't allow for large human settlements. Soft rule, many sandals and pax romana coupled with time should have done wonders...
if the romans had expanded into germany if they had won the battle of teutoberg forest, then they would have probably lost to the remainder of the bulk of germanic tribes and Cisalpine and Gaul Refugees here.
The numbers of germans would have been staggering because the Goths and Huns etc would have been able to beat back the germans with combined force.
so, if the romans had won the battle of teutoberg forest, then they would have ended up with the same fate as they did in the end anyway, even if they did last maybe a year or two longer
The numbers of germans would have been staggering because the Goths and Huns etc would have been able to beat back the germans with combined force.
so, if the romans had won the battle of teutoberg forest, then they would have ended up with the same fate as they did in the end anyway, even if they did last maybe a year or two longer
Originally Posted by General Boreaus Brittanicus:
The numbers of germans would have been staggering because the Goths and Huns etc would have been able to beat back the germans with combined force.
Neither the Goths nor the Huns were there at the time to throw the Germans back from a reverse migration compare to historic directions, by the general evidence of archeology. But I am far from an expert in these fields and I could be wrong about it.The numbers of germans would have been staggering because the Goths and Huns etc would have been able to beat back the germans with combined force.
And who says Rome can't do it? They did conquer Gaul, by all means. Sure, it was more urbanized and slightly less forested, but the Romans were, you know, quite fast learners in many arts of warfare. It's not like their tactics were static; they could've adapted to forest warfare and then proceeded to genocide half the Germans out to thin out the rebels or something. Caesar did it with the Gallic people.
The thing was that there really wasn't that much of an incentive to expand any more that way at the moment, and the effort would be too much for too little gain when even Hispania wasn't completely pacified yet and the riches of Parthia close by. Besides, Augustus' word was final. He was, after all, to the Roman Empire what Washington is to the USA.
The process of conquering Germany would've differed greatly from, say, conquering Greece. There wasn't an existing level of infrastructure available for the Romans to assume control over. Building it all from scratch isn't cheap. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it if they really, really wanted to.
Goths are Germanic...
I was about to share some of my views but AntiochusIII got similiar's to mine. But I would like to see a 'what if' scenario such as Augustus who eagered to subdue Germanic tribe instead of pulling back the Roman forces, and as in question number 3: The Romans managed to make most (if not all) 'Gaul' people in France 'civilised' and integrate them into the Empire. What if same thing happened to most of Germanic people? Maybe these Germanic people can become hardy soldiers placed in front-line and used at troubling area with another foreign powers? Who knows, I'm not an expert on this but maybe you can share more of your thoughts on this?
By the way, I read that one of the fundamental long-term result of the battle is the estabelishment of 'boundary' between Latin-speaking area and Germanic-speaking area, maybe not just from this battle, but the fact remain Germania is not occupied by Romans. It'll also be interesting to know if it happened otherwise (and one of the reasons I asked question no.3 and 4)...
By the way, I read that one of the fundamental long-term result of the battle is the estabelishment of 'boundary' between Latin-speaking area and Germanic-speaking area, maybe not just from this battle, but the fact remain Germania is not occupied by Romans. It'll also be interesting to know if it happened otherwise (and one of the reasons I asked question no.3 and 4)...
I still think Rome wasn't able to conquer Germania.
Look at Roman history - Teutoburg Forest wasn't their biggest defeat. But earlier they always revenged lost legions. Good example would be Phyrrus or Hannibal.
After Teutoburg they were simply too tired of wars.
Look at Roman history - Teutoburg Forest wasn't their biggest defeat. But earlier they always revenged lost legions. Good example would be Phyrrus or Hannibal.
After Teutoburg they were simply too tired of wars.
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on:
Goths are Germanic...
...and I really was wrong about it :)Goths are Germanic...
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII, Me:
I could be wrong about it.
I suppose I meant something in the position that no Hunnic hordes were there yet to resist a migration should the Germans were driven east by the Romans or something like that.I could be wrong about it.
Tran: the hypothetical implications would be vast, I think, for Germany itself. I'm not sure about the Roman Empire, though. The Romans sort of "lost their teeth" only much later and that's probably due to the overall decline of the entire Empire and inherent flaws in the mostly static Roman system. Should Germania be in the Empire it is likely that it would've declined alongside everywhere else in the Western regions. It's not easy to judge the direction thousands of years of history will take based on one event.
In any case many of the traditional views were made that the Empire was at its "natural" limit at the time. I'm rather unconvinced considering their conquests of Britain and Dacia were done much later on, though.
Who knows? May be that silver mine in Bohemia would do the Empire some good. You know, solving deflation crisis during the 3th century and all that. When those mines ran out right before the Iberian lot found tons of precious metal in the Americas -- 15th century I think -- Europe did suffer a short if dangerous economic lapse from the lack of hard currency.
The Roman conquest in Gaul (and, basically, any place the hobnailed sandal tread) was preceded by a wave of Roman and Italian merchants, whose occasional mistreatment was usually used as a casus belli.
The question is, was that the case in ancient Germany? I'm not sure on this, because most of the evidence of cross-pollination between Roman and Germanic technology came from later, but if there were Roman merchants, there was room for Roman conquest.
The question is, was that the case in ancient Germany? I'm not sure on this, because most of the evidence of cross-pollination between Roman and Germanic technology came from later, but if there were Roman merchants, there was room for Roman conquest.
Hi guys.
My two cents is mostly in line with what AntiochusIII said. I don't think it would have mattered honestly. The Roman Empire was already starting to show cracks when Augustus took over as the first "emperor", hence why you see so many changes in the government style and how things were run. It was probably still too much for one person but it was a change for the better, at least at the time. You can see the further self-induced implosion as you move from the Principate to the Dominate, and from that the fractioning into the eastern/western empires... and then on from from there.
Would it have made a difference? I'm sure it would have. My understanding is also in line with Gurkhal's post, in that the Romans were mainly looking to secure their borders. If they'd won, they probably would have stuck to the boundaries they'd already secured as best they could. Further expansions might have been undertaken if the Roman war machine and state decided to do so, but I kinda doubt it. Resource-wise there wasn't a relatively large amount worth pushing that hard into the germanic territories to make it a worthwhile conquest.
Cheers!
My two cents is mostly in line with what AntiochusIII said. I don't think it would have mattered honestly. The Roman Empire was already starting to show cracks when Augustus took over as the first "emperor", hence why you see so many changes in the government style and how things were run. It was probably still too much for one person but it was a change for the better, at least at the time. You can see the further self-induced implosion as you move from the Principate to the Dominate, and from that the fractioning into the eastern/western empires... and then on from from there.
Would it have made a difference? I'm sure it would have. My understanding is also in line with Gurkhal's post, in that the Romans were mainly looking to secure their borders. If they'd won, they probably would have stuck to the boundaries they'd already secured as best they could. Further expansions might have been undertaken if the Roman war machine and state decided to do so, but I kinda doubt it. Resource-wise there wasn't a relatively large amount worth pushing that hard into the germanic territories to make it a worthwhile conquest.
Cheers!
Originally Posted by :
The Roman Empire was already starting to show cracks when Augustus took over as the first "emperor", hence why you see so many changes in the government style and how things were run. It was probably still too much for one person but it was a change for the better, at least at the time. You can see the further self-induced implosion as you move from the Principate to the Dominate, and from that the fractioning into the eastern/western empires... and then on from from there.
Any state whose cracks take 450 years to bring it down is in pretty robust shape The Roman Empire was already starting to show cracks when Augustus took over as the first "emperor", hence why you see so many changes in the government style and how things were run. It was probably still too much for one person but it was a change for the better, at least at the time. You can see the further self-induced implosion as you move from the Principate to the Dominate, and from that the fractioning into the eastern/western empires... and then on from from there.
Even if you regard the western and eastern empires at successor states the empire still had 280 years to run at this point. I still see this question as putting far more importance on Germany than it deserved at the time. COULD the empire have moblised sufficient forces, and adapted to irregular warfare, so as to conquer a large area of forest sparsely populated with subsistence farmers? Yes, I can't see why not. They conquered Britain after AD9, and I can't see any a priori reason why Germany would have been a more difficult proposition.
What we need to answer is why on earth the Roman empire would want to do so, given that it had been through a slightly turbulent 80 years or so, and it already occupied the totality of what the Romans, with some justification, regarded as the civilised world. What on earth would the point be of going off to die fighting some hairy barbarian in a dripping wet forest, to steal his, err, well that was there worth stealing? Nothing. They might have liked a punch up but the Romans weren't completely stupid.
Its like asking if the British Empire could have invaded Iceland. Militarily, yes. Socially and politically, no.
Good point EA, there just was no reward in conquering just to say you won it. What would they get? Some amber if they made it far enough north. The recourses just didn't seem to warrant the expenditures. They had pretty much everything they needed already and more slaves were not worth it.
The slaves from Gaul were often used as tutors and educators in Rome so they must have been a bit more than simple Barbarians. Whereas the Germans were called ferrous giants etc…so why fight giants for their timber when you have your own trees.
The slaves from Gaul were often used as tutors and educators in Rome so they must have been a bit more than simple Barbarians. Whereas the Germans were called ferrous giants etc…so why fight giants for their timber when you have your own trees.
I think Roman internal politics might have been quite different.
Had Varus not got whipped, it is still unlikely that Germany would have been subjugated in the way Gaul was -- the economic limits mentioned above are apt -- but it certainly wouldn't have been a springboard for Drusus to achieve greatness as a General.
Without this rivalry, Tiberius may have been more secure on his throne and less the tyrant. The conditions that created a Caligula may never have developed.
Had Varus not got whipped, it is still unlikely that Germany would have been subjugated in the way Gaul was -- the economic limits mentioned above are apt -- but it certainly wouldn't have been a springboard for Drusus to achieve greatness as a General.
Without this rivalry, Tiberius may have been more secure on his throne and less the tyrant. The conditions that created a Caligula may never have developed.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO