8 ms·

The Battle That Created Germany

146 points by dforrestwilson 9y ago

ambar123 9y ago
or battle that removed prussia from face of the earth..
venturis_voice 9y ago
A battle that catastrophic could be seen as an early precursor to the crisis of the third century, slight dents appearing in Rome's facade and armour. A stretch maybe but worth discussing.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  This was before there was a concept of Rome's invincibility, their peace with Parthia was not built on Roman success. This was just a lost battle, most noteworthy for setting up Germanicus' retrieval of the lost standards. Not comparable to the hell that was the crisis of the third century.
  - megaman22 9y ago
    The idea of Roman invincibility is sort of bizarre concept, looking at the history. Roman armies were routinely defeated and destroyed. Rome's great advantage through the Republic and early Empire was that they could absorb such losses, which would be catastrophic for most states, and keep churning out new armies.
    - jack6e 9y ago
      This is absolutely correct and I think the same thing whenever I read suggestions that Roman defeats are/were significant to its decline. Rome's major strength from the beginning was an indefatigable political will. Hannibal did not just cross the Alps, he decimated multiple Roman armies in Italy and then rampaged around the peninsula for over a decade. There is an anecdote that when Hannibal's armies approached Rome, inside the city Roman traders sold land rights to the spot on which his army camped. Much like the Russians and Americans have found in Afghanistan, it is hard to defeat an enemy that shares a common fundamental belief in its own persistence and refusal to acquiesce. Even in this story, as the article notes, after having lost three legions in an utterly decisive battle in the wilds of Germania, Emperor Tiberius' son Germanicus decided he would go back and wage more war to recover the standards. That is not the sort of political will we are used to.
seren 9y ago
Interesting I did not know the story of Arminius, and it mirrors in multiple ways the story of Vercingetorix and the battle of Alesia, that was also used in the XIXth century as a "national foundation myth", up to the erection of a giant statue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_(city) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_(city)
- gadders 9y ago
  Slightly different result though. I guess the English equivalent would be Bodicea/Boudicca.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    And the Scots possibly Calgacus at Mons Graupius: "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace." Shame that Calgacus and his speech were almost certainly invented by Tacitus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus
dreen 9y ago
I think there is another German who predates Teutoborg by about 50 years, and who really captivated me when I found out about him - Ariovistus. He was a leader of the Suebii (mentioned in TFA), who extended German rule into Gaul around the same time as Julius Caesar launched his invasion. The two men met right before an ultimate battle between the Suebii and Rome. Ariovistus's message was simple: while they are both invading Gaul, Caesar is doing so under the pretence of protecting states that are friendly to Rome, but ultimately he wants all of the Gaul to be Roman anyway, because the Romans see all of Gaul and Germany as "barbarians". So basically, he called out the Romans on what he rightfully recognised to be hypocrisy based in a false feeling of cultural superiority. Caesar beat Ariovistus the day after and proceeded to put all of Gaul under the Roman rule. And we know all this from Caesar himself: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html
- wazoox 9y ago
  It's quite probable that Caesar exaggerated the German menace to justify the invasion of Gaul. Interestingly, it's never very clear in De Bello Gallico what's the difference between Germans and Celts, but that the Celts can be civilized, and the Germans can not.
  - ocschwar 9y ago
    Caesar mixing his Celts and Germans also leads us to wonder if England really was Germanized in the 5th century with the Angle invasion, or if the east of the island was already Germanic when Caesar first visited.
    - megaman22 9y ago
      Caesar's "Germans" were almost certainly Celtic/Gallic - "Celtic" cultures and tribes stretched from Iberia in the west to Galatia (Anatolia) in the east. I'm sketchier on where the Angles/Saxons/Jutes came from before they emerged into the historical record in modern-day northwestern Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Whether they were a reconfiguration of the tribes that had been there since time immemorial, or were groups previously to the east, displaced westward as a ripple effect of the great migrations out of central Asia.
wazoox 9y ago
As said Augustus: Vare, legiones redde!
pge 9y ago
I had learned the story of the battle of teutoberg forest when studying roman history (in which it looms large as a shocking and humiliating defeat), and I was surprised when I spent some time living and working in Germany that none of my German colleagues had ever heard of Hermann or the battle (as I expected it to be a relevant date in the timeline of Germany’s formation of identity).
- a_bonobo 9y ago
  This has several reasons, I think. - Modern Germans don't really see themselves as descendants of those Germans, in the German language both are named differently. Modern Germans are 'Deutsche' - ancient Germans are 'Germanen'. English does not make this distinction. There are more annoying confusions like this, for example, the Germanic tribe of the Saxons has nothing to do with the modern state of Saxony, as the ancestors of modern Saxons spoke a different dialect. There are several breaks like this in between modern Germany and Germanic tribes which are masked by nomenclature. - German (Deutsche) Catholics distanced themselves from the 'barbaric', non-Christian Germanic tribes. - As usual, the Nazis ruined it. The battle was sometimes used for propaganda reasons by the Nazis, replacing Romans with Jews. Modern Nazis are also using it for their own purposes (replacing Romans with immigrants and the US) Edit: the battle itself isn't silenced or anything, I do remember quite a few events when the 2000 year anniversary happened, including the cover of the SPIEGEL having it (IIRC?)
  - pm90 9y ago
    Very interesting. So are the modern Germans descendents of the 'barbaric' ones? Is the distinction made only for separating the earlier pagans from the Christianized tribes? And is the distancing only for religious, or for cultural reasons as well? I mean, were the modern Germans really more 'civilized' (whatever that means) than the barbaric ones, or is it just propaganda?
    - usrusr 9y ago
      The distinction is strongly related to the habit of claiming Charlemagne as the founding myth. Makes a lot more sense as a precursor of the EU, but in the fast-forward way history is taught at school, this is usually the point where the wording shifts from "tribes who lived in the same geographic area" to "a precursor state". People who want to identify with victory over Romans to fuel a nationalistic mindset won't stop at Arminius, they also claim the legacy of various gothic etc tribes who troubled and/or continued thedying western empire.
nickik 9y ago
I honestly do not think this battle matters as much as a lot of people think. If you check where Roman culture really made a large impacts its mostly in Mediterranean climates and cultures. The less excess-able inland areas in many places have much lesser cultural impact, think of Northern Britain for example. Just in terms of impact these areas actually had lots of trade with the Romans and the people living on both sides of this 'line' were very similar.
- Someone 9y ago
  This article tells two stories; one about the actual battle and it’s archaeology and one on its impact centuries later (”But the war cries and clang of swords also echoed through the ages in other ways: as a creation myth – glorious and catastrophic at once — that later forged the German nation. […] The cult around Hermann the German peaked in 1875, when a gigantic monument of him was completed near the town of Detmold. This copper hero holds aloft a sword seven meters long and faces France, Germany’s old foe, beaten four years earlier in a war that had finally ushered in German unification”) The title, I think, only refers to the latter.
- jk2323 9y ago
  I think it was a MAJOR impact. To show that you actually can beat a super power sends a massive message. Germania at that time was actually quite similar to Afghanistan today. Tribal, violent culture, high breeding rates and no bounty to be conquered. Unlucky Romans. Unlucky Americans today?
  - pvg 9y ago
    similar to Afghanistan today. Tribal, violent culture, high breeding rates and no bounty to be conquered. That doesn't sound like a very informed comparison at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the...
    - posterboy 9y ago
      the only thing worse than a comment disagreeing without saying why is a downvote without saying what it disagrees with
jbattle 9y ago
Romans did not give up after a single loss in battle. They didn't give up after getting thrashed by the Carthiginians, nor the Parthians, nor the Gauls, nor the Germans in eastern Europe. I can't buy the argument that this one defeat forever made western Germania a no-go zone for the Romans. "Germanicus" became an honorary title given to (a lot) of Romans who fought at beat Germans over the centuries... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_(disambiguation)
- m_mueller 9y ago
  I think you are comparing two different Romes. The punic wars were for Rome's survival. The gallic wars were for Caesar's political survival, for significant gain in capital (human slaves) and to establish a buffer zone against the Germans (that were already more feared than the Celts). Back then, Rome was essentially unstoppable, you feel kinda bad for their enemies. 100 years later, Rome was well established and cozy for the elite - why risk your neck against the now battle proven Germans? Eventually this cozyness would be Rome's downfall.
alvil 9y ago
Now a similar battle is awaiting Germany. Which turns it into ashes. Modern Germans has nothing to do with those ancient heroes.
- pluma 9y ago
  What exactly are you on about?
  - gitpusher 9y ago
    Augustus was furious about the defeat, and allegedly would shout out the above phrase (translated roughly as "Varus, return [the/my] legions!") on occasion – in stark contrast to his typical, reserved demeanor.
ardit33 9y ago
It is very interesting as the Romans lost the battle because of complete lack of scouting and intelligence/information gathering. They had a disdain on it. They also had a disdain on archery as well (they considered it unmanly). They lost in similar fashion with Partha as well. Here there are some good recaps of the battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0
jk2323 9y ago
Slightly OT. I am a big Fan of the hypothesis that Siegfried (the main character of a major old German story) is Armenius. E.G. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... (PDF is free)
- posterboy 9y ago
  well, a part of the myths at best, I guess
masswerk 9y ago
Complementary reading: "A Most Dangerous Book. Tacitus's Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich" by Christopher B. Krebs (W.W. Norton & Company, NY, 2011) (German translation: "Ein gefährliches Buch. Die 'Germania' des Tacitus und die Erfindung der Deutschen"; DVA, München 2012) Especially interesting for pointing out a rather ambiguous role of early humanism (as related to the reception of the Germania) in German history.
lukasm 9y ago
It quite interesting how little land north of Rome was conquered. You can draw a line on the map where the winter average temperature goes below -5 and it will be close to the border.
wegwerfbenutzer 9y ago
As an german: No, Germany wasn't created 2.000 years ago. That kind of history telling was made by Hitler. Modern historians say Germany was created in 1871.
- groby_b 9y ago
  As a fellow German, at the very least you'll need to account for the Treaty of Verdun. (No, not that one. The other one :) From there, Louis the German received East Francia, which in many ways formed the core of what would later be Germany. From there, we certainly took a long and winding road. (The reformation settlement is probably another point worth touching upon, though) 1871 is merely the point where there was an actual administratively unified nation state called Germany. It's the first time we did that, so in that sense, sure. (Sorry. I nerd out on history. Really, it's a distraction to your main point - the whole legend of Arminius thing is a German nationalist myth. Tied to 1871 - each nation state needs a founding myth)
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  You're half-right: this battle was used as nationalist propaganda. However, while I'm sure the Nazis took it to new extremes, that usage predates them by almost a century. Remember that the nation state an accidental invention of the industrial revolution after all; pro-nation state propaganda was happening all over Europe at the time, and a lot of it is quite offensive to our modern eyes. I find it kind of frustrating that Nazis are mainly depicted as this evil that came into existence in a vacuum, or in the best case solely as a reaction to the situation in Germany after WWI. The seeds of fascism and xenophobia had been shown all over Europe long before that. I suspect Germany just got there first.
Totallyboss4 9y ago
I thought this was talking about Konninggratz, since Germany did not exist until 1870.

or battle that removed prussia from face of the earth..

A battle that catastrophic could be seen as an early precursor to the crisis of the third century, slight dents appearing in Rome's facade and armour. A stretch maybe but worth discussing.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
This was before there was a concept of Rome's invincibility, their peace with Parthia was not built on Roman success. This was just a lost battle, most noteworthy for setting up Germanicus' retrieval of the lost standards. Not comparable to the hell that was the crisis of the third century.
- megaman22 9y ago
  The idea of Roman invincibility is sort of bizarre concept, looking at the history. Roman armies were routinely defeated and destroyed. Rome's great advantage through the Republic and early Empire was that they could absorb such losses, which would be catastrophic for most states, and keep churning out new armies.
  - jack6e 9y ago
    This is absolutely correct and I think the same thing whenever I read suggestions that Roman defeats are/were significant to its decline. Rome's major strength from the beginning was an indefatigable political will. Hannibal did not just cross the Alps, he decimated multiple Roman armies in Italy and then rampaged around the peninsula for over a decade. There is an anecdote that when Hannibal's armies approached Rome, inside the city Roman traders sold land rights to the spot on which his army camped. Much like the Russians and Americans have found in Afghanistan, it is hard to defeat an enemy that shares a common fundamental belief in its own persistence and refusal to acquiesce. Even in this story, as the article notes, after having lost three legions in an utterly decisive battle in the wilds of Germania, Emperor Tiberius' son Germanicus decided he would go back and wage more war to recover the standards. That is not the sort of political will we are used to.

seren 9y ago

Interesting I did not know the story of Arminius, and it mirrors in multiple ways the story of Vercingetorix and the battle of Alesia, that was also used in the XIXth century as a "national foundation myth", up to the erection of a giant statue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_(city) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_(city)

gadders 9y ago
Slightly different result though. I guess the English equivalent would be Bodicea/Boudicca.
- arethuza 9y ago
  And the Scots possibly Calgacus at Mons Graupius: "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace." Shame that Calgacus and his speech were almost certainly invented by Tacitus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus

dreen 9y ago

I think there is another German who predates Teutoborg by about 50 years, and who really captivated me when I found out about him - Ariovistus. He was a leader of the Suebii (mentioned in TFA), who extended German rule into Gaul around the same time as Julius Caesar launched his invasion. The two men met right before an ultimate battle between the Suebii and Rome. Ariovistus's message was simple: while they are both invading Gaul, Caesar is doing so under the pretence of protecting states that are friendly to Rome, but ultimately he wants all of the Gaul to be Roman anyway, because the Romans see all of Gaul and Germany as "barbarians". So basically, he called out the Romans on what he rightfully recognised to be hypocrisy based in a false feeling of cultural superiority. Caesar beat Ariovistus the day after and proceeded to put all of Gaul under the Roman rule. And we know all this from Caesar himself: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

wazoox 9y ago
It's quite probable that Caesar exaggerated the German menace to justify the invasion of Gaul. Interestingly, it's never very clear in De Bello Gallico what's the difference between Germans and Celts, but that the Celts can be civilized, and the Germans can not.
- ocschwar 9y ago
  Caesar mixing his Celts and Germans also leads us to wonder if England really was Germanized in the 5th century with the Angle invasion, or if the east of the island was already Germanic when Caesar first visited.
  - megaman22 9y ago
    Caesar's "Germans" were almost certainly Celtic/Gallic - "Celtic" cultures and tribes stretched from Iberia in the west to Galatia (Anatolia) in the east. I'm sketchier on where the Angles/Saxons/Jutes came from before they emerged into the historical record in modern-day northwestern Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Whether they were a reconfiguration of the tribes that had been there since time immemorial, or were groups previously to the east, displaced westward as a ripple effect of the great migrations out of central Asia.

wazoox 9y ago

As said Augustus: Vare, legiones redde!

pge 9y ago

I had learned the story of the battle of teutoberg forest when studying roman history (in which it looms large as a shocking and humiliating defeat), and I was surprised when I spent some time living and working in Germany that none of my German colleagues had ever heard of Hermann or the battle (as I expected it to be a relevant date in the timeline of Germany’s formation of identity).

a_bonobo 9y ago
This has several reasons, I think. - Modern Germans don't really see themselves as descendants of those Germans, in the German language both are named differently. Modern Germans are 'Deutsche' - ancient Germans are 'Germanen'. English does not make this distinction. There are more annoying confusions like this, for example, the Germanic tribe of the Saxons has nothing to do with the modern state of Saxony, as the ancestors of modern Saxons spoke a different dialect. There are several breaks like this in between modern Germany and Germanic tribes which are masked by nomenclature. - German (Deutsche) Catholics distanced themselves from the 'barbaric', non-Christian Germanic tribes. - As usual, the Nazis ruined it. The battle was sometimes used for propaganda reasons by the Nazis, replacing Romans with Jews. Modern Nazis are also using it for their own purposes (replacing Romans with immigrants and the US) Edit: the battle itself isn't silenced or anything, I do remember quite a few events when the 2000 year anniversary happened, including the cover of the SPIEGEL having it (IIRC?)
- pm90 9y ago
  Very interesting. So are the modern Germans descendents of the 'barbaric' ones? Is the distinction made only for separating the earlier pagans from the Christianized tribes? And is the distancing only for religious, or for cultural reasons as well? I mean, were the modern Germans really more 'civilized' (whatever that means) than the barbaric ones, or is it just propaganda?
  - usrusr 9y ago
    The distinction is strongly related to the habit of claiming Charlemagne as the founding myth. Makes a lot more sense as a precursor of the EU, but in the fast-forward way history is taught at school, this is usually the point where the wording shifts from "tribes who lived in the same geographic area" to "a precursor state". People who want to identify with victory over Romans to fuel a nationalistic mindset won't stop at Arminius, they also claim the legacy of various gothic etc tribes who troubled and/or continued thedying western empire.

nickik 9y ago

I honestly do not think this battle matters as much as a lot of people think. If you check where Roman culture really made a large impacts its mostly in Mediterranean climates and cultures. The less excess-able inland areas in many places have much lesser cultural impact, think of Northern Britain for example. Just in terms of impact these areas actually had lots of trade with the Romans and the people living on both sides of this 'line' were very similar.

Someone 9y ago
This article tells two stories; one about the actual battle and it’s archaeology and one on its impact centuries later (”But the war cries and clang of swords also echoed through the ages in other ways: as a creation myth – glorious and catastrophic at once — that later forged the German nation. […] The cult around Hermann the German peaked in 1875, when a gigantic monument of him was completed near the town of Detmold. This copper hero holds aloft a sword seven meters long and faces France, Germany’s old foe, beaten four years earlier in a war that had finally ushered in German unification”) The title, I think, only refers to the latter.
jk2323 9y ago
I think it was a MAJOR impact. To show that you actually can beat a super power sends a massive message. Germania at that time was actually quite similar to Afghanistan today. Tribal, violent culture, high breeding rates and no bounty to be conquered. Unlucky Romans. Unlucky Americans today?
- pvg 9y ago
  similar to Afghanistan today. Tribal, violent culture, high breeding rates and no bounty to be conquered. That doesn't sound like a very informed comparison at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the...
  - posterboy 9y ago
    the only thing worse than a comment disagreeing without saying why is a downvote without saying what it disagrees with

jbattle 9y ago

Romans did not give up after a single loss in battle. They didn't give up after getting thrashed by the Carthiginians, nor the Parthians, nor the Gauls, nor the Germans in eastern Europe. I can't buy the argument that this one defeat forever made western Germania a no-go zone for the Romans. "Germanicus" became an honorary title given to (a lot) of Romans who fought at beat Germans over the centuries... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_(disambiguation)

m_mueller 9y ago
I think you are comparing two different Romes. The punic wars were for Rome's survival. The gallic wars were for Caesar's political survival, for significant gain in capital (human slaves) and to establish a buffer zone against the Germans (that were already more feared than the Celts). Back then, Rome was essentially unstoppable, you feel kinda bad for their enemies. 100 years later, Rome was well established and cozy for the elite - why risk your neck against the now battle proven Germans? Eventually this cozyness would be Rome's downfall.

alvil 9y ago

Now a similar battle is awaiting Germany. Which turns it into ashes. Modern Germans has nothing to do with those ancient heroes.

pluma 9y ago
What exactly are you on about?
- gitpusher 9y ago
  Augustus was furious about the defeat, and allegedly would shout out the above phrase (translated roughly as "Varus, return [the/my] legions!") on occasion – in stark contrast to his typical, reserved demeanor.

ardit33 9y ago

It is very interesting as the Romans lost the battle because of complete lack of scouting and intelligence/information gathering. They had a disdain on it. They also had a disdain on archery as well (they considered it unmanly). They lost in similar fashion with Partha as well. Here there are some good recaps of the battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0

jk2323 9y ago

Slightly OT. I am a big Fan of the hypothesis that Siegfried (the main character of a major old German story) is Armenius. E.G. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... (PDF is free)

posterboy 9y ago
well, a part of the myths at best, I guess

masswerk 9y ago

Complementary reading: "A Most Dangerous Book. Tacitus's Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich" by Christopher B. Krebs (W.W. Norton & Company, NY, 2011) (German translation: "Ein gefährliches Buch. Die 'Germania' des Tacitus und die Erfindung der Deutschen"; DVA, München 2012) Especially interesting for pointing out a rather ambiguous role of early humanism (as related to the reception of the Germania) in German history.

lukasm 9y ago

It quite interesting how little land north of Rome was conquered. You can draw a line on the map where the winter average temperature goes below -5 and it will be close to the border.

wegwerfbenutzer 9y ago

As an german: No, Germany wasn't created 2.000 years ago. That kind of history telling was made by Hitler. Modern historians say Germany was created in 1871.

groby_b 9y ago
As a fellow German, at the very least you'll need to account for the Treaty of Verdun. (No, not that one. The other one :) From there, Louis the German received East Francia, which in many ways formed the core of what would later be Germany. From there, we certainly took a long and winding road. (The reformation settlement is probably another point worth touching upon, though) 1871 is merely the point where there was an actual administratively unified nation state called Germany. It's the first time we did that, so in that sense, sure. (Sorry. I nerd out on history. Really, it's a distraction to your main point - the whole legend of Arminius thing is a German nationalist myth. Tied to 1871 - each nation state needs a founding myth)
vanderZwan 9y ago
You're half-right: this battle was used as nationalist propaganda. However, while I'm sure the Nazis took it to new extremes, that usage predates them by almost a century. Remember that the nation state an accidental invention of the industrial revolution after all; pro-nation state propaganda was happening all over Europe at the time, and a lot of it is quite offensive to our modern eyes. I find it kind of frustrating that Nazis are mainly depicted as this evil that came into existence in a vacuum, or in the best case solely as a reaction to the situation in Germany after WWI. The seeds of fascism and xenophobia had been shown all over Europe long before that. I suspect Germany just got there first.

Totallyboss4 9y ago

I thought this was talking about Konninggratz, since Germany did not exist until 1870.