Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest

Herman the German?

Is that some sort of joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.161.27 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No. More like a slogan or catch-phrase.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rome Total War

Added a reference to Rome Total war in the fiction section. It is re-playble by Roman Forces but soldier numbers are less than real numbers.

Removal

Looked up the "scholar" an amateur archaeologist with a metal detector -- but apparently the book resulting from his work is a good read -- and removed the ridiculous sentence about showing the Romans they weren't invincible. The statue was just built by a guy who thought it would be a great memorial -- out of pro German, not anti Roman Empire, fervor.JHK

Robert Graves

Removed:

According to Robert Graves in I, Claudius, the centurion Cassius Chaerea (future Praetorian Guard prefect and assassin of Caligula) led less than one hundred Roman survivors from the forest back to Roman lines.

because Robert Graves, as far as I can tell, simply invented the story. This could be put back into a section on fictional portrayals of the battle, but blending admittedly-fictional and ostensibly-factual material like this just does the reader a disservice. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Translator needed

I made a smaller change, since the war did _not_ end with this battle. In fact the opposite happened, the most violent phase started a few years later. If someone would be poised in doing the review and rectify my typos and the grammar, I'd translate the German entry, which is (due to the importance of this event in the modern German history) very well worked out. My user page can be found in the German Wikipedia, named Dragoon. Unfortunately an accounts is valid only for one language or is there a special way to log in when working on a different account?

Regards--84.189.163.129 15:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (Dragoon on de.wikipedia.org)

Dragoon - Bringing in info from the German article is a great idea. With each language in wikipedia, you have to create an account. I've done so with Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Russian and Latin so I know it's the only way.SimonATL

"Inexperienced in battle"

12/13/05 Removed the phrase "inexperienced in battle" in the opening paragraph concerning Varus. HammarbySwede 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Film projects

I added the film project "Legiones Redde" in external links which depicts the battle. I'm a fan of this production but I don't know personally the people who made it. It contains a few historical errors but not too many (i.e. the design of the Roman standard) and the confrontation between Arminius and Varus before he commits suicide was clearly done for drama, but other than that the events and scenes remain pretty close to history.

If anyone knows of any other films projects with depictions of the battle, please post them in external links.

Overemphasis of importance

As I recall (I can't find my copy at the moment), Peter Heather's recent book on the fall of Rome argues that the importance of the battle in preventing Roman conquest of Germania has been overstated. His theory was that it is no coincidence that the limits of Roman conquest in northern Europe closely followed the line between the La Tène and Jastorf material cultures: the area of the former was developed, densely populated, and wealthy enough to be worth conquering, while the area of the latter was relatively poor, thinly populated, and generally not worth the effort. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who overstated, Tacitus, 19th century Germans or recent historians? The Romans went pretty far elsewhere - they had to, as expansion was part of their concept, they needed to conquer land to pay their legions. Northern Germany might have been not very attractive, but access to the Baltic Sea as the major source for amber surely would have been worth an effort. The conquistadores didn't shy away from the Amazonas jungle in their quest for gold either. Shortly after the battle, the Romans started to built walls which developed into the Limes Germanicus. This effort took two centuries - would they have done that to protect themselves from a relatively poor, thinly populated area? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The latter two, I think. They did indeed expand far elsewhere, but into lands that could produce enough plunder and slaves to offset the cost of conquest—which Germany, in the pre-Roman Iron Age, could not. The Baltic shores might have been a attractive target, but the lands between them and the Rhine were not—just as Arabia Felix might have been worth the trouble of conquering it, but the intervening desert was not.

As for fortifications, well, the Sahara was even poorer and more thinly populated, yet the Romans fortified its edges as well, and probably for much the same reason: to prevent incursions by the natives, who might not have been an existential threat to the empire, but could still cause damage.

Anyway, I'm working from memory here; I'll have to find my copy of the book and reread the specifics and supporting arguments. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Economics is not the prime reason for conquering. Desire to control other people is. Economics is a reason why empires choose where to contract, in a pinch - AG, Stockport, UK.

cutting trees was enough for them, the arguments to conquer england show the option to build "villas" (profitable agriculture through slavery) was an important criterion. cutting trees has for example also been a prime motivation in imperial england fighting scotland. perhaps the lust to control people is behind all that anyhow.24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Poor, thinly populated" is a stereotype. In fact the Romans imported all kinds of agricultural products (grain, pigs, honey). The logical consequence would be "Why should you pay for them if you can plunder the country?"

New excavations in the Harz revealed another Roman battlesite (200 AD), so maybe the reason for conquering was the desire to control the mineral sources located in Germanic territory.82.113.106.57 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Whatever may be the truth about the Rhine being logistically better, then that is the result of much later calculations. The Romans didn't see it that way and they simply thoght, that the wider the buffer the better. As has been stated, it's in empires' nature to grow and the first (and only) willing retreat by the Romans was when Hadrian gave up Mesopotamia. He'd in fact come to the sensible conclusion that the empire was overstretched. That doesn't make him any less of an imperialist - his reign shows that. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Great Battles of All Nations

From (1899) "The Great Battles of All Nations". New York: Peter Fenelon Collier & Son. Edited by Archibald Wilberforce. Volume 1, pages 134-146. The copyright has expired, so here's the whole chapter. Looks like this is most of Chapter 5 of The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, although this text is from a different book. (SEWilco 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

The victory of Arminius over the Roman legions

A.D. 9

In the first years of the present era the resources of Rome were boundless; her might was regarded as invincible, her sway was immense. Among those aware of her gigantic power was a German chieftain. His name was Arminius. At the time half of his country was occupied by Roman garrisons. He, however, was familiar with the Roman language and civilization; he had served in the Roman armies; he had been admitted to the Roman citizenship, and raised to the rank of the equestrian order. It was part of the subtle policy of Rome to confer rank and privileges on the youth of the leading families in the nations which she wished to enslave. Among other young German chieftains, Arminius and his brother, who were the heads of the noblest house in the tribe of the Cherusci, had been selected as fit objects for the exercise of his insidious system. Roman refinements and dignities succeeded in denationalizing the brother, who assumed the Roman name of Flavius, and adhered to Rome throughout all her wars against his country. Arminius remained unbought by honors or wealth, uncorrupted by refinement or luxury. He aspired to and obtained from Roman enmity a higher title than ever could have been given him by Roman favor. It is in the page of Rome's greatest historian that his name has come down to us with the proud addition of "Liberator haud dubie Germaniae."

Often must the young chieftain, while meditating the exploit which has thus immortalized him, have anxiously revolved in his mind the fate of the many great men who had been crushed in the attempt which he was about to renew the attempt to stay the chariot wheels of triumphant Rome. Could he hope to succeed where Hannibal and Mithradate had perished? What had been the doom of Viriathus ? and what warning against vain valor was written on the desolate site where Numantia once had flourished? Nor was a caution wanting in scenes nearer home and more recent times. The Gauls had fruitlessly struggled for eight years against Caesar ; and the gallant Vercingetorix, who in the last year of the war had roused all his countrymen to insurrection, who had cut off Roman detachments, and brought Caesar himself to the extreme of peril at Alesia--he, too, had finally succumbed, had been led captive in Caesar's triumph, and had then been butchered in cold blood in a Roman dungeon.

It was true that Rome was no longer the great military republic which for so many ages had shattered the kingdoms of the world. Her system of government was changed ; and, after a century of revolution and civil war, she had placed herself under the despotism of a single ruler. But the discipline of her troops was yet unimpaired, and her warlike spirit seemed unabated. The first year of the empire had been signalized by conquests as valuable as any gained by the republic in a corresponding period. It is a great fallacy, though apparently sanctioned by great authorities, to suppose that the foreign policy pursued by Augustus was pacific; he certainly recommended such a policy to his successors (incertum metu an per invidiam, Tac., Ann., i. 11), but he himself, until Arminius broke his spirit, had followed a very different course. Besides his Spanish wars, his generals, in a series of generally aggressive campaigns, had extended the Roman frontier from the Alps to the Danube, and had reduced into subjection the large and important countries that now form the territories of all Austria south of that river, and of East Switzerland, Lower Wirtemberg, Bavaria, the Valtelline and the Tyrol. While the progress of the Roman arms thus pressed the Germans from the south, still more formidable inroads had been made by the imperial legions on the west. Roman armies, moving from the province of Gaul, established a chain of fortresses along the right as well as the left bank of the Rhine, and, in a series of victorious campaigns, advanced their eagles as far as the Elbe, which now seemed added to the list of vassal rivers, to the Nile, the Rhine, the Rhone, the Danube, the Tagus, the Seine, and many more, that acknowledged the supremacy of the Tiber. Roman fleets also, sailing from the harbors of Gaul along the German coasts and up the estuaries, cooperated with the land forces of the empire, and seemed to display, even more decisively than her armies, her overwhelming superiority over the rude Germanic tribes. Throughout the territory thus invaded, the Romans had, with their usual military skill, established fortified posts; and a powerful army of occupation was kept on foot, ready to move instantly on any spot where any popular outbreak might be attempted.

Vast, however, and admirably organized as the fabric of Roman power appeared on the frontiers and in the provinces, there was rottenness at the core. In Rome's unceasing hostilities with foreign foes, and still more in her long series of desolating civil wars, the free middle classes of Italy had almost wholly disappeared. Above the position which they had occupied, an oligarchy of wealth had reared itself; beneath that position, a degraded mass of poverty and misery was fermenting. Slaves, the chance sweepings of every conquered country, shoals of Africans, Sardinians, Asiatics, Illyrians, and others, made up the bulk of the population of the Italian peninsula. The foulest profligacy of manners was general in all ranks. In universal weariness of revolution and civil war, and in consciousness of being too debased for self-government, the nation had submitted itself to the absolute authority of Augustus. Adulation was now the chief function of the senate; and the gifts of genius and accomplishments of art were devoted to the elaboration of eloquently false panegyrics upon the prince and his favorite courtiers. With bitter indignation must the German chieftain have beheld all this and contrasted with it the rough worth of his own countrymen: their bravery, their fidelity to their word, their manly independence of spirit, their love of their national free institutions, and their loathing of every pollution and meanness. Above all, he must have thought of the domestic virtues that hallowed a German home; of the respect there shown to the female character, and of the pure affection by which that respect was repaid. His soul must have burned within him at the contemplation of such a race yielding to these debased Italians.

Still, to persuade the Germans to combine, in spite of their frequent feuds among themselves, in one sudden outbreak against Rome; to keep the scheme concealed from the Romans until the hour for action arrived; and then, without possessing a single walled town, without military stores, without training, to teach his insurgent countrymen to defeat veteran armies and storm fortifications, seemed so perilous an enterprise that probably Arminius would have receded form it had not a stronger feeling even than patriotism urged him on. Among the Germans of high rank who had most readily submitted to the invaders, and become zealous partisans of Roman authority, was a chieftain named Segestes. His daughter, Thusnelda, was pre-eminent among the noble maidens of Germany. Arminius had sought her hand in marriage; but Sugestes, who probably discerned the young chief's disaffection to Rome, forbade his suit, and stove to preclude all communication between him and his dagger. Thusnelda, however, sympathized far more with the heroic spirit of her lover than with the time-serving policy of her father. An elopement baffled the precautions of Segestes, who, disappointed in his hope of preventing the marriage, accused Arminius before the Roman governor of having carried off his daughter, and of planning treason against Rome.

Thus assailed, and dreading to see his bride torn from him by the officials of the foreign oppressor, Arminius delayed no longer, but bent all his energies to organize and execute a general insurrection of the great mass of is countrymen, who hitherto had submitted in sullen hatred to the Roman dominion.

A change of governors had recently taken place, which, while it materially favored the ultimate success of the insurgents, served, by the immediate aggravation of the Roman oppressions which it produced, to make the native population more universally eager to take arms. Tiberius, who was afterward emperor, had recently been recalled from the command in Germany, and sent into Pannonia to put down a dangerous revolt which had broken out against the Romans in that province. The German patriots were thus delivered from the stern supervision of one of the most suspicious of mankind, and were also relieved from having to contend against the high military talents of a veteran commander, who thoroughly understood their national character, and also the nature of the country, which he himself had principally subdued. In the room of Tiberius, Augustus sent into Germany Quintilius Varus, who had lately returned from the proconsulate of Syria. Varus was a true representative of the higher classes of the Romans, among whom a general taste for literature, a keen susceptibility to all intellectual gratifications, a minute acquaintance with the principles and practice of their own national jurisprudence, a careful training in the schools of the rhetoricians, and a fondness for either partaking in or watching the intellectual strife of forensic oratory, had become generally diffused, without, however, having humanized the old Roman spirit of cruel indifference for human feelings and human sufferings, and without acting as the least checks on unprincipled avarice and ambition, or on habitual and gross profligacy. Accustomed to govern the depraved and debased natives of Syria, a country where courage in man and virtue in woman had for centuries been unknown, Varus thought that he might gratify his licentious and rapacious passions with equal impunity among the high-minded sons and pure-spirited daughters of Germany. When the general of an army sets the example of outrages of this description, he is soon faithfully imitated by his officers, and surpassed by his still more brutal soldiery. The Romans now habitually indulged in those violations of the sanctity of the domestic shrine and those insults upon honor and modesty, by which far less gallant spirits than those of our Teutonic ancestors have often been maddened into insurrection.

Arminius found among the other German chiefs many who sympathized with him in his indignation at their country's abasement, and many whom private wrongs had stung yet more deeply. There was little difficulty in collecting bold leaders for an attack on the oppressors, and little fear of the population not rising readily at those leaders' call. But to declare open war against Rome, and to encounter Varus's army in a pitched battle, would have been merely rushing upon certain destruction. Varus had three legions under him, a force which, after allowing for detachments, cannot be estimated at less than fourteen thousand Roman infantry. He had also eight or nine hundred Roman cavalry, and at least an equal number of horse and foot sent from the allied states or raised among those provincials who had not received the Roman franchise.

It was not merely the number but the quality of this force that made them formidable; and, however contemptible Varus might be as a general, Arminius well knew how admirably the Roman armies were organized and officered, and how perfectly the legionaries understood every maneuver and every duty which the varying emergencies of a stricken field might require. Stratagem was, therefore, indispensable; and it was necessary to blind Varus to their schemes until a favorable opportunity should arrive for striking a decisive blow.

For this purpose, the German confederates frequented the headquarters of Varus, which seem to have been near the center of the modern country of Westphalia, where the Roman general conducted himself with all the arrogant security of the governor of a perfectly submissive province. There Varus gratified at once his vanity, his rhetorical tastes and his avarice, by holding courts, to which he summoned the Germans for the settlement of all their disputes, while a bar of Roman advocates attended to argue the cases before the tribunal of Varus, who did not omit the opportunity of exacting court-fees and accepting bribes. Varus trusted implicitly to the respect which the Germans pretended to pay to his abilities as a judge, and to the interest which they affected to take in the forensic eloquence of their conquerors. Meanwhile, a succession of heavy rains rendered the country more difficult for the operations of regular troops, and Arminius, seeing that the new infatuation of Varus was complete, secretly directed the tribes near the Weser and the Ems to take up arms in open revolt against the Romans. This was represented to Varus as an occasion which required his prompt attendance at the spot; but he was kept in studied ignorance of its being part of a concerted national rising; and he still looked on Arminius as his submissive vassal, whose aid he might rely on in facilitating the march of his troops against the rebels, and in extinguishing the local disturbance. He therefore set his army in motion, and marched eastward in a line parallel to the course of the Lippe. For some distance his route lay along a level plain; but on arriving at the tract between the curve of the upper part of that stream and the sources of the Ems, the country assumes a very different character; and here, in the territory of the modern little principality of Lippe, it was that Arminius had fixed the scene of his enterprise.

A woody and hilly region intervenes between the heads of the two rivers, and forms the watershed of their streams. This region still retains the name (Teutobergenwald = Teutobergiensis saltus) which it bore in the days of Arminius. The nature of the ground has probably also remained unaltered. The eastern part of it, round Detmold, the modern capital of the principality of Lippe, is described by a modern German scholar, Dr. Plate, as being a "tableland intersected by numerous deep and narrow valleys, which in some places form small plains, surrounded by steep mountains and rocks, and only accessible by narrow defiles. All the valleys are traversed by rapid streams, shallow in the dry season, but subject to sudden swellings in autumn and winter. The vast forests which cover the summits and slopes of the hills consist chiefly of oak; there is little underwood, and both men and horse would move with ease in the forests if the ground were not broken by gullies, or rendered impracticable by fallen trees." This is the district to which Varus is supposed to have marched; and Dr. Plate adds, that "the names of several localities on and near that spot seem to indicate that a great battle has once been fought there. We find the names 'das Winnefeld' (the field of victory), 'die Knochenbahn' (the bone-lane), 'die Knochenleke' (the bone-brook), 'der Mordkessel' (the kettle of slaughter), and others."

Contrary to the usual strict principles of Roman discipline, Varus had suffered his army to be accompanied and impeded by an immense train of baggage-wagons and by a rabble of camp followers, as if his troops had been merely changing their quarters in a friendly country. When the long array quitted the firm, level ground, and began to wind its way among the woods, the marshes, and the ravines, the difficulties of the march, even without the intervention of an armed foe, became fearfully apparent. In many places the soil, sodden with rain, was impracticable for cavalry, and even for infantry, until trees had been felled and a rude causeway formed through the morass.

The duties of the engineer were familiar to all who served in the Roman armies. But the crowd and confusion of the columns embarrassed the working parties of the soldiery, and in the midst of their toil and disorder the word was suddenly passed through their ranks that the rearguard was attacked by the barbarians. Varus resolved on pressing forward; but for a heavy discharge of missiles from the woods on either flank taught him how serious was the peril, and he saw his best men falling round him without the opportunity of retaliation; for his light-armed auxiliaries, who were principally of Germanic race, now rapidly deserted, and it was impossible to deploy the legionaries on such broken ground for a charge against the enemy. Choosing one of the most open and firm spots which the could force their way to, the Romans halted for the night; and, faithful to their national discipline and tactics, formed their camp, amid the harassing attacks of the rapidly thronging foes, with the elaborate toil and systematic skill, the traces of which are impressed permanently on the soil of so many European countries, attesting the presence in the olden time of the imperial eagles.

On the morrow the Romans renewed their march, the veteran officers who served under Varus now probably directing the operations, and hoping to find the Germans drawn up to meet them, in which case they relied on their own superior discipline and tactics for such a victory as should reassure the supremacy of Rome. But Arminius was far too sage a commander to lead on his followers, with their unwieldy broadswords and inefficient defensive armor, against the Roman legionaries, fully armed with helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield, who were skilled to commence the conflict with a murderous volley of heavy javelins, hurled upon the foe when a few yards distant, and then, with their short cut-and-thrust swords, to hew their way through all opposition, preserving the utmost steadiness and coolness, and obeying each word of command in the midst of strife and slaughter with the same precision and alertness as if upon parade. Arminius suffered the Romans to march out from their camp, to form first in line for action, and then in column for marching, without the show of opposition. For some distance Varus was allowed to move on, only harassed by slight skirmishes, but struggling with difficulty through the broken ground, the toil and distress of his men being aggravated by heavy torrents of rain, which burst upon the devoted legions as if the angry gods of Germany were pouring out the vials of their wrath upon the invaders. After some little time their van approached a ridge of high woody ground, which is one of the offshoots of the great Hercynian forest, and is situated between the modern villages of Driburg and Bielefeld. Arminius had caused barricades of hewn trees to be formed here, so as to add to the natural difficulties of the passage. Fatigue and discouragement now began to betray themselves in the Roman ranks. Their line became less steady; baggage-wagons were abandoned from the impossibility of forcing them along; and, as this happened, many soldiers left their ranks and crowded round the wagons to secure the most valuable portions of their property; each was busy with his own affairs, and purposely slow in hearing the word of command from his officers. Arminius now gave the signal for a general attack. The fierce shouts of the Germans pealed through the gloom of the forests, and in thronging multitudes they assailed the flanks of the invaders, pouring in clouds of darts on the encumbered legionaries, as they struggled up the glens or floundered in the morasses, and watching every opportunity of charging through the intervals of the disjointed column, and so cutting off the communication between its several brigades. Arminius, with a chosen band of personal retainers round him, cheered on his countrymen by voice and example. He and his men aimed their weapons particularly at the horses of the Roman cavalry. The wounded animals, slipping about in the mire and their own blood, threw their riders and plunged among the ranks of the legions, disordering all round them. Varus now ordered the troops to be countermarched, in the hope of reaching the nearest Roman garrison on the Lippe. But retreat now was as impracticable as advance; and the falling back of the Romans only augmented the courage of their assailants, and caused fiercer and more frequent charges on the flanks of the disheartened army. The Roman officer who commanded the cavalry, Numonius Vala, rode off with his squadrons in the vain hope of escaping by thus abandoning his comrades. Unable to keep together, or force their way across the woods and swamps, the horsemen were overpowered in detail, and slaughtered to the last man. The Roman infantry still held together and resisted, but more through the instinct of discipline and bravery than from any home of success or escape. Varus, after being severely wounded in a charge of the Germans against his part of the column, committed suicide to avoid falling into the hands of those whom he had exasperated by his oppressions. one of the lieutenant-generals of the army fell fighting; the other surrendered to the enemy. But mercy to a fallen foe had never been a Roman virtue, and those among her legions who now laid down their arms in hope of quarter drank deep of the cup of suffering which Rome had held to the lips of many a brave but unfortunate enemy. The infuriated Germans slaughtered their oppressors with deliberate ferocity, and those prisoners who were not hewn to pieces on the spot were only preserved to perish by a more cruel death in cold blood.

The bulk of the Roman army fought steadily and stubbornly, frequently repelling the masses of the assailants, but gradually losing the compactness of their array, and becoming weaker and weaker beneath the incessant shower of darts and the reiterated assaults of the vigorous and unencumbered Germans. At last, in a series of desperate attacks, the column was pierced through and through, two of the eagles captured, ant he Roman host, which on the yester morning had marched forth in such pride and might, now broken up into confused fragments, either fell fighting beneath the overpowering numbers of the enemy, or perished in the swamps and woods in unavailing efforts at flight. Few, very few, ever saw again the left bank of the Rhine. One body of brave veterans, arraying themselves in a ring on a little mound, beat off every charge of the Germans, and prolonged their honorable resistance to the close of that dreadful day. The traces of a feeble attempt at forming a ditch and mound attested in after years the spot where the last of the Romans passed their night of suffering and despair. But on the morrow, this remnant also, worn out with hunger, wounds, and toil, was charged by the victorious Germans, and either massacred on the spot, or offered up on fearful rites at the altars of the deities of the old mythology of the North.

A gorge in the mountain ridge, through which runs the modern road between Paderborn and Pyrmont, leads from the spot where the heat of the battle raged to the Extersteine, a cluster of bold and grotesque rocks of sandstone, near which is a small sheet of water, overshadowed by a grove of aged trees. According to local tradition, this was one of the sacred groves of the ancient Germans, and it was here that the Roman captives were slain in sacrifice by the victorious warriors of Arminius.

Never was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people more instantaneous and complete. Throughout Germany the Roman garrisons were assailed and cut off; and within a few weeks after Varus had fallen, the German soil was freed from the foot of an invader.

At Rome the tidings of the battle were received with an agony of terror, the reports of which we should deem exaggerated, did they not come from Roman historians themselves. They not only tell emphatically how great was the awe which the Romans felt of the prowess of the Germans, if their various tribes could be brought to unite for a common purpose, but also they reveal how weakened and debased the population of Italy had become. Dion Cassius says (lib. lvi., sec. 23): "Then Augustus, when he heard the calamity of Varus, rent his garment, and was in great affliction for the troops he had lost, and for terror respecting the Germans and the Gauls. And his chief alarm was, that he expected them to push on against Italy and Rome; and there remained no Roman youth fit for military duty that were worth speaking of, and the allied populations that were at all serviceable had been wasted away. Yet he prepared for the emergency as well as his means allowed, and when none of the citizens of military age were willing to enlist he made them cast lots, and punished by confiscation of goods and disfranchisement every fifth man among those under thirty-five, and every tenth man of those above that age. At last, when he found that not even thus could he make many come forward, he put some of them to death. So eh made a conscription of discharged veterans and of emancipated slaves, and, collecting as large a force as he could, sent it, under Tiberius, with all speed into Germany."

Dion mentions, also, a number of terrific portents that were believed to have occurred at the time, and the narration of which is not immaterial, as it shows the state of the public mind, when such things were so believed in and so interpreted. The summits of the Alps were said to have fallen, and three columns of fire to have blazed up from them. In the Campus Martins, the temple of the war-god, from whom the founder of Rome had sprung, was struck by a thunderbolt. The nightly heavens glowed several times, as if on fire. Many comets blazed forth together; and fiery meteors, shaped like spears, and shot from the northern quarter of the sky down into the Roman camps. It was said, too, that a statue of Victory, which had stood at a place on the frontier, pointing the way toward Germany, had, of its own accord, turned round, and now pointed to Italy. These and other prodigies were believed by the multitude to accompany the slaughter of Varus's legions, and to manifest the anger of the gods against Rome. Augustus himself was not free from superstition; but on this occasion no supernatural terrors were needed to increase the alarm and grief that he felt, and which made him, even months after the news of the battle had arrived, often beat his head against the wall and exclaim, "Varus, give me back my legions." We learn this from his biographer, Suetonius; and, indeed, every ancient writer who alludes to the overthrow of Varus attests the importance of the blow against the Roman power and the bitterness with which it was felt.

The Germans did not pursue their victory beyond their own territory; but that victory secured at once and forever the independence of the Teutonic race. Rome sent, indeed, her legions again into Germany, to parade a temporary superiority, but all hopes of permanent conquests were abandoned by Augustus and his successors.

The blow which Arminius had struck never was forgotten. Roman fear disguised itself under the specious title of moderation, and the Rhine became the acknowledged boundary of the two nations until the fifth century of our era, when the Germans became the assailants, and carved with their conquering swords the provinces of imperial Rome into the kingdoms of modern Europe.

German name bias

Rather than accussing me of I don't know what like a common troll I'd like User:Matthead to discuss his edits. I'd like him to explain to me why the german translation should be included when it concerns a battle between Germanic (not German) tribes and the roman empire fought before the appearance of the German, let alone modern standard german , language. I understand if a German translation is included in the Teutoburg forest article, but not in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article. Defend your point of view Matthead or I will go to the authorities.Rex 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

nonsense, the German term is perfectly notable, already because the battle took place in Lower Saxony, and not least because of the role the battle used to play in German nationalism. dab (𒁳) 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. The article makes that role more than clear already. There is no need for it being in the lead.Rex 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Removal of German translation from intro.

This article concerns a battle between the Romans and various Germanic tribes in the Teutoburg Forest. There were no Germans nor was there German, let alone Standard High German, at the time. I am aware of the role this battle (or rather the stories around it) played in German nationalism, but do not think this validates the inclusion of German translations of the battle. This article already has various sections in which the battles inpact on the Germans is explained the German translations in the intro are surplus and unnecesary.Rex 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the German terms. In fact I think they should be bolded. Just as the Germanicized popular name Hermann is relevant at Arminius, much of the relevance of the modern context for the battle is predicated on the modern Germans - regardless of your personal feelings about them. - WeniWidiWiki 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My personaly feelings of Germans have nothing to do with these edits. Like I said before, the impact of the battle on German nationalism is already explained further on in the article and I do not intend to remove that. I simply want to remove the German translations from the intro. Not the article.Rex 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This article covers more than just the the historical battle. It also covers the historical effect of the battle on the peoples who later became Germans, the significance on the German romanticist movement in Germany and abroad, the modern excavation and archaeology of the historic site (in Germany) as well as modern portrayals in popular culture. If anything, the article is very skewed toward the Imperium Romanum. - WeniWidiWiki 15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The people in this battle weren't Germans. They were Germanic tribesmen. Like I said before, I do not deny its impact, but this doesn't make it deserve a German trnalsation in the lead. My previous edit to the article was a good comprimise. the current version isn't acceptable as it know claims Varrusslacht as a common alternative in English.Rex 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem? Multilingualism and an intercultural perspective have never done harm to anyone – especially not in the context of an encyclopaedia, which people read to become savvier and to learn about the world. --Sushi Leone 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, too, as per WeniWidiWiki.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as per WeniWidiWiki's reasoning. :bloodofox: 11:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as per WeniWidiWiki's reasoning. CyrilleDunant 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, German language is relevant to the article.--Caranorn 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, German language is relevant and including the relevant terms helps searchers. (SEWilco 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Suggestion Set the sentence within ref/ref html to place it less conspicuously in the existing Notes section. --Wetman 02:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, pro linguistic diversity - it has a direct and indirect relevance to this article --Sushi Leone 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

comment, this is exclusively about the personal feelings of Rex. I don't recall having a similar discussion with anyone else. I couldn't imagine a proposal to, say, remove the dāśarājñá (or, for that matter, a Hindi or Punjabi gloss) from Battle of the Ten Kings on the grounds that its presence constitutes Indian nationalism. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

oppose, mr. rex would not only like to sever the german dialects from it's related neighbours but also germany from its history beyond 1871, as, according to him, it did not exist. all the more, the battle took place in what's now modern germany and most if not all of the tribes involved are ancestors to german people of today. i also support the arguments of weniwidiwiki.Sundar1 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose German is not only relevant, it should be priority here. I am tired of the "German is not relevant to Germanic history, since Germany did not exist yet!" The same can be said of any place or people. Most nations in the world are only about 50 years old or less. Though the majority of a nation's people may be traced back hundreds or thousands of years. Only when it comes to Germans, or Germanics, Teutonics, and so on, do we say "Germany did not exist yet, German is not relevant." It is simply Germanophobia.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Major Revision of Article

Dear Community,

I'm new at this, so I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. If so, I apologize and would like to participate in the further development of this and related pages.

I'm a free-lance journalist in Berlin, specializing on this issue in light of the upcoming 2000th anniversary. I therefore have access to information faster and more fully than people not living in Germany, or speaking German, which is what most information is available in. I have therefore taken the liberty of a major update on this page, with the following major thrusts:

- The article rightly identifies Kalkriese as the site of the battle - or more exactly, of part of the battle, since it is little disputed (nothing is undisputed!) that the battle took place over a period of several days, and in a wide area. That is why I think that, even in the box, the location should be "Osnabrück County", since the fighting was spread across at least three townships in that county. More importantly, the evidence is so overwhelming that one should come right out and say that the battle took place there, and start trying to reconstruct the progress of the battle from the Roman sources in light of having found that location. I have provided an attempt to do so, and would welcome a discussion on that.

- The article as it was stuck to one of the points that is most widely rejected of all by modern historians: That the battle in and of itself ended Roman ambitions east of the Rhine. It is now generally accepted, both in light of increasing archeological evidence and of a reassessment of the sources, that this was not true, and that the undertakings of Tiberius and Germanicus over the course of the next 7 years constituted a full-fledged attempt at re-conquest. This is really the only major point where I have replaced an existing statement with a new interpretation, and I have therefore gone to a little effort to justify it in the text itself. The importance of this point is central to a reassessment of the battle in Germany, i.e., to a reacceptance, after WWII, of addrssing the issue at all, and in a "post-nationalist" manner. It is important to point out that ancient Germany was not liberated by some godlike hero who smote the evil foe with a single blow, without loss. The fact is, of course, that that description does indeed come close to the truth when describing the battle itself - but the liberation was not finally accomplished until 7 years later, after a long and bloody war, with severe losses on both sides, and several battles in which the Romans were victorious, or wich were at least inconclusive. I have therefore gone into a little more detail on the battles thereafter, although I think it is inappropriate in this article to go too far in that respect, since this is an article about this battle and not the war as a whole.

- I have tried to add those details which are directly pertenent to the battle and its immediate prelude and aftermath, such as the warning given by Segestes, or the dispatch of Varus' head to Marbod.

- i have tried to "reedit" from the point of view of grouping statements together which address the same issue; in some cases, there seemed to have been some redoubling. I hope I have not deleted anything vital in the process. I have also corrected a number of minor errors.

- I have tried to give other theories their due not by holding back on the presentation of the Kalkriese-based version (i.e., banning it to a postscript, as was the case previoiusly), but rather by adding a new section on alternative theories. I might add that such a section also exists on the German page. The most important alternative theory that should be considered is, of course, the "eastern approach" theory, favored by the Kalkriese museum folks, as opposed to the "southern approach" I favor. I feel however that it is legitimate to advance a coherent "southern-approach" theory in the article, because there is no "eastern-approach" theory of comparable coherence. I.e., if you ask them to specify what they think happened, they say, "well, we just don't know." I think that the finds of this past year have truly laid to rest any theories about the battle having proceeded beyond Kalkriese (i.e., Lendering), and that the findings of the next year will mean a complete revision of the approach scenario.

- I have tried to give a more comprehensive perspective on the "reception" of the battle in the German "nation-building" process.

I think that the debate here should concentrate on these issues - how to evaluate the new finds in the light of the sources - and stay away from such "political-correctness" debates as whether to say "German" or "Germanic".

One point I did not correct, because it was linked, was the statement that the wall at Kalkriese was made of peat. It was not, it was made of grass sods. Peat would have had to have been cut from the Great Bog, many 100 m to the north, while grass sods were available from the sandy areas immediately in front of where the wall was being built, and it is certain that this material was used.

I believe it would be sufficient to conduct a discussion of this issue on this page, and to try to adjust other, related pages to it, without having to debate there as well. Is that acceptable?

Finally: I will be opening a HP on this issue shortly, the first comprehensive page that will be in both German and English (of course, the Kalkriese Museum page is 3-lingual (with Dutch), and the movie folks in Hamburg seem to have an English version, which is currently not accessible).

With best regards

Phil Hill, Berlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philhillberlin (talk • contribs)

Unsourced sentence

I've pulled the following bit from the lede: "...and the following linguistically mistaken assignment of the German name Hermann to Arminius by Martin Luther created great interest in the classical figure." Diff Please cite a source for this. - WeniWidiWiki 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they threw it back in. "Hermann" means "Man of War". Sounds like an appropriate name to me.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Publius Quinctilius Varus.

Was he governor of Gaul or the newly established Germania ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

'Roman Retaliation' section contains redundant information

The war actions of Germanicus are essentially mentioned twice. There is a sound impression that this section was synchronously touched by many editors. Dipa1965 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New Battlefield discovered

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY8SwRu6dheaLnRSctQr8uOG-lAgD95399Q01

Roman battlefield discovered in northern Germany By KAI SCHOENEBERG – Dec 15, 2008

KALEFELD-OLDENRODE, Germany (AP) — Archaeologists say they have uncovered a third-century battlefield in northern Germany which could prove that Roman legions were fighting in the region much later than historians have long believed.

Rome's most famous incursion into the north of modern Germany came in A.D. 9, when Roman soldiers were defeated by Germanic tribesman at the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.

However, the newly uncovered battlefield near Kalefeld-Oldenrode, south of Hanover, is some 200 kilometers (124 miles) northwest of the Teutoberg Forest and appears to date to between A.D. 180-260.

At a press conference Monday, archeologists said they used coins and weaponry excavated from an area 1 1/2 kilometers (one mile) long and 500 meters (1/3 of a mile) wide to date the battlefield.

Petra Loenne, an archaeologist for the state of Lower Saxony, said she and her colleagues have found 600 artifacts, including spears, arrowheads, catapult bolts and dishes at the site of a struggle that might have involved up to 1,000 Roman fighters.

Guenther Moosbauer, an expert at the University of Osnabrueck who studies Roman-German history, said he suspects the battle might have been started by a legion seeking revenge after tribesman in A.D. 235 pushed Roman troops south of the Limes Germanicus, a ring of forts that separated the empire from unconquered land to the north and east.

"We will need to take a new look at the sources," Moosbauer said. Ryoung122 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield article at [[1]]. Please support or expand! :) THNX! - Elysander (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kalkriese or not ?

In the article Kalkriese is definitely considered the place where the battle took place. This theory is however heavily disputed in Germany, where there is a growing sentiment between pro- and anti-Kalriese scholars. In fact there are hardly any valuable clues that point to Kalkriese as place of the Varus battle. That a battle took place there is undisputed. It is however more probable that it was an engagement between Arminius and Germanicus during his 15/16 AD campaign which is also mentioned by Tacitus in his Annales. Since Germanicus campaigns are well documented by Tacitus, we know that Germanicus was aware of the real place of the battle and tried to avoid this area in confrontation. The Germans on the other Hand tried to lure him into the area which Germanicus refused. Germanicus even took an northern approach by sea and landed his troops at the mouth of river Ems where he could secure support by sea and led a successful campaign up the Ems in South-Eastern direction. Tacitus claims that Roman legions on campaign have never before been this far inside Germany in Eastern direction. Since this area is where Kalkriese is at, it is impossible that the Varus battle took place there. Since all the findings in the Kalkriese area are probably caused by Germanicus campaign, there are no reasons to assume the Varus battle actually took place there. The German wiki article is much more critical of the Kalkriese site than the English article which has to be changed. Ultraferret —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.23.3 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• With the immense findings at the Kalkreise location, we would have to assume that is was indeed the actual battle involving Varus. I can not recall a single battle involving Germanicus, in which 1000s of Roman legionaries died. He may have suffered casualties in his crossing of the Weser, but I have yet to see evidence of a battle involving Germanicus and Arminius' warriors that would have caused such death and chaos in such a confined area. Also, the discovery of the soldiers personal belongings, in addition to female-specific artifacts (hairpins, etc.) leads one to believe that Kalkreise is the only logical site of the battle. There is no other evidence of large Roman casualties in battles against the Germans at the time. Nathraq (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathraq get your stuff straight. Nothing points to Kalkriese as the location of the Varus battle. Read Tacitus annales which not only records the campaigns of Germanicus, but also tells of Germanicus visitation of the battlefield. The exact location of the battle was known to the Romans and must be between the rivers Lippe and Weser, respectively ca. 150 km south of Kalkriese. The campaigns further north were later in 16 AD. Tacitus records a battle at the so-called Angrivarian Wall where the Germanic tribes tried to ambush the legions and a pitched battle which ended inconclusive ensued (vgl. Tacitus , Annales II, 19 ff.). Since in Kalkriese some kind of wall structure to block the suspected path of the legionaries was found, it is very probabale that Kalkriese was the site of the Angrivarian wall.80.137.25.34 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Ultraferret

Wrong. The Angrivarians, who later formed a sub-tribe of the Saxons, lived near the river Weser (which would today roughly be the Northrhine-Westphalian region "Ostwestfalen-Lippe"). This is more than fifty kilometres east of Kalkriese. 84.143.115.229 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "As a result, Kalkriese is now perceived to be the site of part of the battle, probably its conclusive phase." is not valid any longer. Please check the current definition "The Kalkriese team of scientists still assumes that this is evidence of an event in the context of the Varus Battle.": http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/en/research/aktuelles-aus-kalkriese/ 80.146.191.153 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Newer excarvations have shown that the "Germanic wall" was partly the southern wall of a Roman camp and partly of (much later) medieval origin. (https://www.spektrum.de/news/roemisches-marschlager-statt-germanischer-hinterhalt/1505333). Actually no one can seriously confirm that this is the site of final phase of the Varus battle indeed. MfG - K. Grünitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.34.30 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Roman Retaliation

The part dealing with the Battle of the Weser River, which says that the Romans "sustained only minor losses" is inconsistent with the actual article on the battle, which counts "heavy losses on both sides". Which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

dio cassius

dio cassius has been a governor north of the danube, i think when mommsen noticed kalkriese for him it must have been easy. also i assume 200 years later people still knew pretty well how things went , you could probably still find all the roman camp sites once you know the route .24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of the battle

The article gives the date of the battle as September 9 to September 11 , AD 9 (edit from 22:40, 10 August 2008). What's the source for this?

Some people speculate that Arminius lured Varus into the direction of an important thingplace where at some point (new moon - Sep 7? full moon - Sep 23? September equinox - Sep 25? dates from calsky.com) huge masses of tribesmen were supposed to start an uprising which would have required a major Roman force to squash it. A Germanic thing was according to Tacitus usually going for three days and so something in the vicinity of Sep 23-25 would be likely if the dates are correct. Varus of course had to start his march a few days earlier. 84.188.166.71 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman retaliation

Hi, i "roughly" reworked the Roman retaliation section, please you corrige my english and you add "the links".I only translated the main steps from italian wiki, you find the links to italian wiki at the end of section .--Moqq (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit removed a large section of sourced material and replaced it with unsourced and poorly written material with bad grammar. I have reverted the majority of the addition. This is not a sandbox.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Casualties

It has been awhile since I read this article, and the addition of losses for the Germanic tribes caught my eye. A quick look at the source cited shows that it says nothing about what casualties the tribes suffered. Accordingly, I would suggest removing the data until a supporting work can be found (not that anything other than expert speculation exists). SDL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.251.73 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert to date format BC/AD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was first proposed in 2011, & from counting the opinions the result was clearly indecisive. Since the page was originally written using CE/BCE style, it stays that way. However, people have been coming along over the years since & adding their two cents as if the proposal is still active; if these new comments contributed anything to considering a change to BC/AD, it would be correct to keep this discussion open, but they only repeat the same points that come up at every debate over dating styles. (FWIW, I prefer the latter to be used in this article, but consensus & the rules are against me here.) Therefore closing this is required; there are other windmills to tilt against. -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

---

There has been a massive violation of WP:ERA in this article because no discussion or concensus was entered on the talk page. Therefore, to rectify this, I propose to edit the entire article's date format with reference to the last edit of this article with only BC/AD as the date format. If you have any objections and reasons for keeping the article with only BCE/CE as the date format, please voice them. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support use of AD/BC. The opponents of AD/BC have pre-established and bigoted perspectives. Example: Doug Weller has a sordid history of attacking and/or banning persons who disagree with him on this issue. The consensus supports use of AD/BC. 2601:243:C301:732:94A5:CC38:9841:4DAC (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this battle predates Christianity; there is no reason to use Christian dates for it. As stated in that section of the Manual of Style, CE/BCE are equally correct and commonly used in scholarship. The article has used CE/BCE for some time, and the arguments for reverting - that AD/BC are more correct and (on an editor's talkpage) that Wikipedia is prone to "creeping secularisation" - are not persuasive because the usage currently employed in the article is equally correct and could actually be seen as more appropriate to a pre-Christian event . . . and Wikipedia is secular. Accordingly, the change has been reverted by different editors. I see no reason to revert this consensus. The current usage is slightly more appropriate than the other, and both are permitted under WP:ERA. --Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, check your dates. The battle happened 9 AD.98.238.86.80 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this editor has launched a widespread campaign to convert everything to AD/BC, and in my opinion is misusing or misunderstanding WP:ERA to justify it. If a page uses both then it should be change to one or the other, it does not mean that wikipedia itself should only use one format. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per oppositions above. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Like it or not, be Christian or not, BC/AD is de facto the most common dating system in the English language. Many never saw and don't even know BCE/CE. Everybody will hopefully vote according to his/her own opinion and this issue will be resolved in a civilised manner as far as this article is concerned (for a time at least). Flamarande (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The very first edit to this article used CE. That makes CE/BCE the default for this article unless a consensus is established to change it - which has never happened. It is a massive misread of WP:ERA to say "There has been a massive violation of WP:ERA" as claimed above. There is precedent to block user accounts that focus solely or primarily on changing era notation. 78 & a close friend of 78 have been making claims that WP:ERA has been violated either without understanding WP:ERA or just neglecting to even check article history --JimWae (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The original edit used AD/BC.

I perfectly understand WP:ERA and follow its wording to the letter. Sorry if there are classicists who oppose the BCE/CE notation and see its usage in Wikipedia as rampant, but we've only ever known BC/AD. Flamarande is correct in his opinion and I respect everyone's opinion, but it has been noted by not only my two other classicist colleagues and myself, but even lecturers in universities that BCE/CE is being used in a way that confuses children who read BC/AD in their textbooks, but then BCE/CE on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.120.86 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011‎

• Support BCE/CE is confusing for most people, who are not academics, and have no interest in being drawn into a PC non issue.

BCE/CE is a common notation and the article was first set up that way. (In addition to which it is more appropriate for a topic that predates Christianity.) It's like anything else in an encyclopedia; one reads for information and learns things. I will check to see whether the first use is linked and if not provide an informational link. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

BC/AD is more common than BCE/CE. BC is appropriate for topics that predate Christianity and AD is appropriate for later topics. Most people use BC/AD without blessing themselves. It is like a door that you open to come into a room without being consciously aware of it. Those people who are upset at the idea of using a "Christian" time reference system can simply mean something else, but use the same initials. I'm sure they can come up with something.

I'm sorry you find the date usage in the article confusing and "PC", but the issue is settled; under Wikipedia's guidelines on such matters, the first edit using either system is decisive. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• SupportBC/AD is the notation that everyone understands.BCE/CE is confusing for people who are not familiar with it. All wikipedia articles should strive to be as clear as possible for the reader. The argument about it predating Christianity is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Everything BC predates Christianity. I'm not a Christian, but if you want to try to get rid of all Christian notation, you'd have to get rid of the entire dating system. VenomousConcept (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Reasons for any change have to be specific to this article, 'I like it' isn't an acceptable reason. If anyone wants to change our guidelines, we can't do it here. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• SupportBC/AD! I strongly support the traditional dating nomenclature as it is consistent with the western calendar we all use and is a part of it's history! The attempt at creating a dating system de-facto, by simply creating texts using nomenclature is wrong on the part of "academics" who are assumed to be intellectual honest. Political correctness on the part of academics seems to be trumping reality.

The "system" is flawed on many levels:

• Confusing- The nomenclature is confusing because it repeats the same "CE" in both designations making it slower draw distinction and creating greater chance of misunderstanding.

• Historically - The Gregorian Calendar we use today uses the AD/BC standard. It was created in very secular times when the west was considered "Christendom". To change this in an attempt to obfuscate the historical origins of this calendar is not only historically inaccurate, it is intellectually dishonest!

• Insulting - Changing the system is an affront to those who may be Christian and take pride in the contributions made by Christian thinkers.

• non-existance - To my knowledge NO COMMON Era exists! One can not have a common Era without a baseline reference of significance. The reference for the Gregorian Calendar is as most everyone knows the approximate year / time of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Christian messiah and son of their God. BCE/CE attempts to obscure this reference without the creation of a new baseline. CE = common Era (so I understand) Common to what? Well its still has the same reference as BC/AD, the birth of Jesus Christ. Now, if one wanted to use a difference reference like for example The Bolshevik Revolution we could now be in the year CE. 97. Perhaps change the designation to "AR" (After Revolt).

• Lack of general consensus - When was consensus gained in any nation to make such changes? Most nations adhering to western calendars are democracies, has there been any ballots drawn?

The most common calendar used in the world in business and science is such because it is the western European calendar. Due to the immense success and achievement that has come from the west in the past few thousand years this calendar as well as a few languages and customs have traversed the world. If one had to list the achievements in science, art, culture, mathematics, medicine, music, exploration, philosophy etc... that the west has brought the world it would likely be the largest article in Wikipedia. Seemingly small changes to the Gregorian Calendar conducted in an attempt to obscure the religious origin of the western calendar is an insult to all who value western achievement and traditions; I am one of them! Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I did not even know people used BC/AD anymore. It is wrong on so many levels. For one, it specifies a religion. Which is discriminatory against others not part of that religion.

Secondly, most people, even Christians, thing that "AD" is short for "after death". Leaving 33 years of history forgotten, since we have no way to date it.

Lastly, the calendar is not even correct, according to Christian mythology. Going of all information, the Christ was born 6 years before Christ. What? How does that work?

German article, about a German hero, who practiced a German religion, opposing the Christians. No reason to keep this battle going 2,000 years later. Give us our Freedom and go back to Rome!73.220.34.167 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly support. BC/AD has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's an old long-established system, clearly understood worldwide, and does not need to be changed. By using the "religious" argument, we would also need to change 6 of the 7 days of the week that are named after gods.--Dmol (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly support - The article for the Roman Empire, Augustus, Arminius, Publius Quinctilius Varus, the Cherusci, Chauci, Chatti, Bructeri, Sicambri, Marsi tribes, Legio XVII, XVIII, and XIX, and nearly every other article linked to this one uses BC/AD. I'm not quite sure how this article has managed to be the holdout in this regard.--Tataryn (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Per WP:ERA and WP:NPOV. Contrary to what Dmol wrote, BC/AD has everything to do with religion (see the WP article: "the term anno Domini is Medieval Latin, which means in the year of the Lord, but is often translated as in the year of our Lord".) BCE/CE is the more neutral term, widely used not only by academics, but also by e.g. Jewish and Buddhist writers. I fail to see how introducing bias - a religious term referencing a cult figure at the other end of the Roman Empire, who was still in short pants at the time of these events - could be an improvement to this article. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this article originally used BCE/CE, then as per WP:ERA we should stick to that. But your rationale makes no sense. Five of the seven days of the week and four of the months of the year (six if you include July and August) are named after gods, and those of us who don't worship them have no problem using them and see no "bias" in them. BCE/CE is still the Christian dating system, still based on the same (incorrect) medieval estimate of the date of Christ's birth, which like the days of the week and the months of the year is just an arbitrary marker point to count from. I like the suggestion made by Lindybeige on Youtube to keep BC and AD, but remove any Christian association by changing what they stand for to "backwards chronology" and "ascending dates", but as he points out that wouldn't satisfy the politically correct as it doesn't force anybody else to change their behaviour. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment@Nicknack009: Coming in late here mainly as there's an editor involved here trying to change another article. It doesn't matter how the article started, the guideline says " the established era style" - ambiguous yes, but not the same as the first use of an era style. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing eagles?

This link (In the session 'See Also' at the bottom of the page) says all eagles in the battle of Teutoburg were taken back, but the the text of the says only 2 of 3 were found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest#Germanicus.27_campaign_against_the_Germans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.80.97 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Death dagger

This is a completely non-traditional symbol in English and an unnecessary notation in any case. Unless the Military History wikiproject has decided to implement this symbology project-wide, there is no reason to have such a puzzling notation, in particular since it looks like a cross and that is presumably why it's used to indicate death in some other languages. English Wikipedia avoids using honorifics on people's names and should likewise avoid unnecessary religious symbols and phrasing, or other usages that give that appearance. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, you originally opposed the dagger because you thought it was a cross and had to do with Christianity. Now that you know it's essentially a "KIA" dagger, you oppose it based on other reasons. The dagger is prevalent and is used in many battle articles, and not just Roman or "Christian" ones: the battles of Thermopylae, Lake Trasimene, Cannae, Munda, Philippi, Milvian Bridge, Samarra, Frigidus, Catalaunian Plains, Mons Lactarius, Nineveh, Roncevaux Pass, Pliska, Kleidion, The Plains of Abraham, Bunker Hill, Trafalgar, even the Battle of Stalingrad, all have the dagger. I wouldn't doubt there being hundreds of battle articles with the dagger. Also, many probably find the dagger useful once they are aware of its meaning. Otherwise, a reader would have to read perhaps the entire article to find the commander was killed, etc..--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think the cross appearance is why it's used to indicate death. But probably more importantly, it's just not clear to most English-speaking readers. I understand from the response to my query at the military history project that it's a convention in heraldry; that's a field where something coming into English-language usage from foreign-language traditions is not surprising, particularly since it's a field where brevity is a tradition. But this is an encyclopedia article for English-speaking readers. If people want to know who was killed, they can look it up by finding the name. To the vast majority of readers, it's bewildering clutter that looks religious, and there is no compelling reason to have it. As such, and since the wikiproject reached no consensus on having it, I'll continue to revert its addition. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a quick look at the article's revision history will reveal that the dagger has been on this article since at least mid December 2005. So you're actually not "reverting its addition", you're actually enforcing its removal. Therefore, I will continue to revert your unilateral removal of long-standing content from this page.--Tataryn77 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it was a deal more than a quick look, but I found it was introduced on 4 December 2005 along with a new infobox, so there's no way of knowing whether it was already in the preceding 2 infoboxes. I then removed it myself in March 2011 as a "stray cross." And it's remained gone since. I still see it as confusing and your reason for including it is not compelling. Nor does its presence in many battle articles mean it should be in all of them, and there was no consensus on the issue at the relevant wikiproject. I think you should try to get a consensus there if you see it as important. In my view the negatives outweigh the positives, and until this one editor added it to this and some other articles yesterday, no one had apparently missed it. Therefore I will remove it again from this particular article. But I won't go looking for it in other battle infoboxes. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The dagger has been on the article longer than not, if you want it removed, then there should be consensus here or on the wikiproject. I would rather the dagger be wholly used or wholly removed, individual articles should not "play by different rules than others" as it were. We should wait for other editors to put in their thoughts, then we should reach a consensus.--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe they already have. Until the editor did a few articles that didn't have it, it clearly had not been missed. As I say, if you really think it's important, go get a consensus at the wikiproject. They tell me there is none; I have offered you the word (died), which is clear and therefore performs the function far better than an unclear and misleading symbol, as a way of saying what you argue readers need to know from the infobox. As I understand it from the wikiproject, articles do vary on this, so I'll return the word in lieu of the symbol. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The cross or dagger is quite widely used on wikipedia - I rewrote one article which has a Muslim sultan, who was killed in action, with a cross next to his name. It is just a convenient convention understood by many, and readily comprehended by those who may have not come across it before. As a literary convention it isn't really related to religion in it's usage and I find nothing objectionable in crosses being used to indicate the deaths of pagans, Muslims or persons of any religion or none. Urselius (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This subject is being discussed further at the Milhist talk page and any opinions or input would be valued there. I should also like to add that there is no consensus not to add the dagger, and there is no evidence anywhere that these are a foreign language phenomena (any more than all of the English language's origins are). Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Legion names

I think it would be better if the names of the legions mentioned in this article were given in their conventional Latin forms rather than in English translation, to avoid begging any questions. There are several possible meanings for the title Valeria Victrix, for example, given to legio XX; and selecting one of them suggests a consensus that does not exist. Translating Rapax as 'Predator' is particularly unfortunate in this age of CIA-sponsored drone warfare.

Djwilms (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

When to list an alternative theory in the alternative theories section?

Background of my question: Some time ago I had no doubts that the site of Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was Kalkriese. But when the Oberesch wall construction was discovered, which was obviously also strafed by catapults, while on the other hand none of the antique sources for the battle mention this wall, I began to wonder if Kalkriese really is the site.

That's why I took a look on the landscapes of Germany / Magna Germania, especially regarding geology and topology. There is a lot of information on this in Wikipedia and Google Earth. With this information it was possible to draw some conclusions on the intention of the Romans in Magna Germania at the Augustean occupation, and by this also on the locations where the Romans stayed, and between which locations the Romans moved their legions, and - again under consideration of geology and topology - where there were good locations to attack Roman legions.

So I developed my own theory on the site or better, as it was a several day battle, the sites of the Teutoburg Forest Battle, and compiled the information on a website. I think meanwhile it has gained a littlebit of substance, and I would be interested what people think about it. As it is an alternative theory to the Kalkriese theory, I added a reference to my website to the alternative theories section, however it was immediately removed again, and that suprised me a littlebit.

Now I wonder, what are the criteria to list an alternative theory in the alternative theories section? Obviously it's not allowed to reference a theory which is published on a private non-commercial website, while it is allowed to reference theories which are published by publishing houses in quite expensive books. But shouldn't the alternative theories section give an overview about all existing Kalkriese-alternative theories, never mind how ridiculous (as probably my one) or substantial a theory is?

I agree generally it's not a good idea to reference private websites, but I think in the alternative theories section the link to a website describing an alternative theory is exactly that kind of information that people expect in this section, otherwise the headline of the section is misleading and people could get the impression there are only a few other theories, while there are actually a lot of them, some of them listed on the German Wikipedia:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_zum_Ort_der_Varusschlacht

My suggestion is, to use the section 'Alternative theories on the battle's location' to actually give an overview on alternative theories on the battle's location, or to make the section's headline more precise in that way, that the criteria are defined which alternative theories are considered in the section.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuelsemannM (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR - I'm sorry, but your own research doesn't belong in the article unless it is published according to our criteria at WP:RS and gains some sort of coverage. Any alternative theories that meet these criteria might be added, but probably best to bring them here first. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will check the terms. But I think these terms mean that e. g. information about the localization in Duisburg of Georg Spalatin 1535 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_zum_Ort_der_Varusschlacht#cite_note-3) or e. g. about the localization around the Alme and Möhne of Friedrich Köhler 1925 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorien_zum_Ort_der_Varusschlacht#cite_note-12) will never be added to the English Wikipedia? Regards, Martin HuelsemannM (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, to bring them HERE first (English and me, 2 different kind of things). That is of course reasonable. You think it would be useful to translate the German alternative theories section, so we could discuss wether to add a particular alternative theory? /M. HuelsemannM (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it about this? https://alisonensis.de/en/battle-of-the-teutoburg-forest/

Omission of arminius in textbooks

the statement that arminius was omittied in post-war textbooks is not correct. in the source ist says that many schools omitted arminius after the war, which is not true either. i have never come across any german history book that omits the battle of the teutoburg forest. it's always been a cornerstone of german history. but i can attest to it not having been taught with the pre-war nationalistic hoopla.Sundar1 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

How important?

"Modern historians have regarded Arminius' victory as "Rome's greatest defeat"[4] and one of the most decisive battles in history.[5][6][7][8][9][10]" I don't know if it is true that most relevant historians take this view, but in the Spiegel article cited, " Tillmann Bendikowski, author of a new book on the battle and the myth of Hermann,...[said] 'We know that this was one battle among many and that there was a range of factors behind Rome's eventual retreat to the Rhine. Everyone who needed this myth regarded it as the turning point of history. For many it remains the turning point. But it wasn't.' Kdammers (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It was regarded as a turning point in history even by contemporary Roman authors, Germanicus' failed attempt of reconquest six years later was only the acceptance of defeat. Not the least important consequence was the slow forming of great tribes like Alemanni, Franks, Goths, Vandals who during the Völkerwanderung /Migration Period invaded the western part of the Roman Empire, forming new kingdoms that were the roots of modern Europe - Spain, France, Great Britain (Angles, Jutes and Saxons). This is consensus among modern historians.

Mr Bendikowski is a historian, but the period he specialised in is the 18th - early 20th century, with an emphasis on German nationalistic tendencies. He works as an independent journalist and the context of the Spiegel-quote was promoting a book he had written. He is not exactly qualified to judge military history of Ancient Rome, his opinion on the battle is just that - his opinion. 84.143.115.229 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Theodor Mommsen, who is the key cite for this being "a turning-point in world history", was a majot historian in his day, but that was more than a hundred years ago. And it has to be taken into account that he was also writing as a militant German patriot at the height of the Wilhelmine Empire. Today we know a huge amount more both about Roman strategy in the Rhineland and Germania Magna and about the early Germanic tribes there than they did in the 1890s. It's widely accepted that the Romans changed their long-term aims in Germania after this defeat, but the battle in itself probably wasn't the only reason. Strausszek (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be regarded as Rome's greatest defeat. In terms of numbers, earlier defeats such as Trasimene and Cannae were much worse. In terms of strategy (and numbers) there were defeats in the late empire that were worse e.g. the Battle of Adrianople Dllahr (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Exhibition

In 2009, a German exhibition on this battle was expected to draw a half a million visitors -- hardly a forgotten obscurity for Germans: http://www.stern.de/panorama/wissen/mensch/ausstellung-der-superlative-der-mythos-um-die-varusschlacht-3813564.html Kdammers (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Legio XVIII was not rebuilt under Nero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop that nonsense. It's a clerical error by Stephen Dando-Collins. Dando's XVIII rebuilt under Nero is in fact the XXII (XXII Deioteriana in Egypt during the first jewish war and XXII Primigenia in Germania during Julius Civilis's revolt). In Latin "soldiers from the 18th" and "soldiers from the 22nd" are two tricky similar words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.192.150 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lake Trasimene

This looks very similar in strategy and tactics to the Battle of Lake Trasimene two centuries earlier. Coincidence? A Rome-educated German like Arminius would have been familiar with the campaigns of Hannibal. DancesWithGrues (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308225128/http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caelius/marcus_caelius.html to http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caelius/marcus_caelius.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714211343/http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/509454.html to http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/509454.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831030318/http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de:80/projekt/start.html to http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/start.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305204303/http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/englisch/start_eng.html to http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/englisch/start_eng.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/start.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

AD vs CE

Recently, editors have been reverting each other, changing AD to CE and back. Let's solve this amicably. My inclination is to go with AD. The article started with AD, and Wikipedia policy on things like this is to generally stick with what-ever the original formulation was. Is there a reason not to do this in this case?Kdammers (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason to change. Stick with AD/BC as it has been. --Dmol (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article has been using CE/BCE, per the lengthy discussion above (closed in 2017) - I see no reason to reopen this debate. Bahudhara (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that I was mistaken: The article started with CE and was changed the same day to AD. Kdammers (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is no reason to change the traditional system that we have been using since Roman times to something that makes absolutely no sense. History is a hard enough topic for many people without changing to dates that most people don't understand. Common to what, it makes no sense. It's pretty easy to explain the approximate date of someones birth in contrast to a vague term such as common. Keep things as AD, and keep this content understandable to the greatest number of people who want to learn about this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:e402:a800:240c:8f4e:5ae9:da13 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"Since Roman times"? The Romans during this battle were pagans, and numbered years based on the start of Emperors' reigns. The "AD" style wasn't invented until 500 years later, and wasn't common until well after the fall of Rome. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Point of Order. Editors explaining which they prefer, or which readers would supposedly prefer (without evidence), or which is "better", are all a waste of time; all such arguments were rejected on thousands of articles countless times long ago. This resulted in a WP policy to cover this for any article: WP:ERAS. Per that policy, the usage of AD/BC vs CE/BCE in an article can only be changed if the subject is shown to have a significant preference of one era style, which is going to have to come from sources. If you have something like that, we're ready to hear it. Otherwise, just accept that the article is going to stay CE/BCE and move on to some useful editing elsewhere. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless writing is used that people can understand such as easily possible these pages will continue to make it difficult for most people to learn about history. For that reason WP will lose supporters, as we will be forced to do our research on other websites that are easier to understand. Many come on here to try to help make things more understandable, but Pages such as this seem to be written for the elitists, not the average person. I have donated to WP in prior years, but I will be taking my money elsewhere if articles these changes are not made to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:21F0:9466:6C0A:DCD4 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"AD" may be more common, but very few take real offense at seeing "CE" instead. There are, however, a significant minority that actually do take offense at "AD", especially in articles dealing with specifically non-Christian subjects. Again, all this has been debated by hundreds of editors long ago, and a WP policy was established to end these debates. Someone who edits disruptively against WP policy will find that their threats to leave WP aren't effective. (BTW, for full disclosure, I personally do not like the "CE" style; I wince whenever I see it in an article, and would be in favor of WP having a policy of "AD" only. But until the unlikely day that WP policy changes, I will edit in support the WP community by supporting its established policies.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A total boycott of WP may be the only option available to resolve this problem. If WP continues to make it difficult for people to learn, supporting an alternative site may be needed. It's just a date there is no need to introduce political correctness into it, if so why not do the same for each day of the week? Since most of the days are named after ancient gods If people want to make it difficult for me to study history, then something should also be done about the names of the days. A few months are also named after gods. Perhaps we should change the names of the days and months on WP too. Maybe those names offend me too. Even though it will make it more difficult to understand, since apparently making pages easier to read does not seem to matter at all here. A potential solution might be: Jan = Month 1, Feb = Month 2 etc; Monday Dow 1 (Day of week) Tuesday = Dow 2 etc. A better option might just be to keep everything easily understandable including the years, I am willing to compromise about the months and days, if the other side is willing to compromise about the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:6CFA:5828:AC5F:88D8 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you using different IP addresses to comment multiple times? I've struck your duplicate bold comments. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Eastern Roman Empire was in existence long past 525 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.65.77 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like to get bogged down into all the minutia of this. I am just appalled at this injustice as my ability to study history online is being infringed. As well as many people that I know. Someone must advocate for the common person versus the elitists in this case. If people are not able to study history it will have dire consequences for our future. Most people have limited time to study these topics, and if the articles are unreadable that just makes the situation worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:6CFA:5828:AC5F:88D8 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

---

This isn't like a chat room where an individual's threats and rants might have some sway; WP is a multi-national community. There are literally thousands of editors that have worked out under WP:ERAS; a single intolerant voice on one article's talk page cannot possibly overthrow the consensus of thousands. If WP:ERAS is ever going to change (very unlikely), it could only be done by by discussing it at WP:ERAS, not here.

Or, I suppose, if someone can actually organize a huge number of readers to protest this, please do so. WP will listen then. That number of readers would have to be in the tens of millions to be noticed, however.

Either way, this discussion on this article is a waste of time. I'm done here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency with source material is a problem with this article. 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present page 68 the date of the battle is listed as A.D. 9. That is inconsistent with some of the dates used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:21F0:9466:6C0A:DCD4 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only cringe at Wikipedia's SJW policy towards AD. Can't state a preference, so people eternally fight over it. Wikipedia is its own bubble where certain things happen which never would elsewhere. Hunter Hutchins (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why must we non-Americans be forced to see the international page use the America-centric "AD"? If the Romans could speak, they would use Ab urbe condita. SoulWanderer (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Greatest defeat is POV

Without question battle is turning-point in world history, but greatest defeat ?? Historian which write that are POV pushers. During Battle of the Teutoburg Forest Roman Empire has lost 20.000 soldiers.

• During Battle of Cannae Rome has lost 70.000-85.000 soldiers ("The loss of life on the Roman side was one of the most lethal single day's fighting in history")
• During Battle of Abritus emperor was killed. Number of soldiers killed is unknown, but in army has been 80.000 soldiers.

It is possible to find other examples, but this is enough. Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was NOT greatest Roman defeatAnalitikos (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources are basing this more on results, not just counting bodies. They say Teutoburgerwald halted all Roman expansion into central Europe, leaving a cultural divide that now defines the border of France and Germany. We just follow the sources. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In article there is no real sources for statement "Rome's greatest defeat". Adrian Murdoch is only source for that statement and he real like to use PR names for own books. I do not dispute:battle was truly decisive battle, and as a turning-point in world history which is having many sources.

Personal thinking...

From Roman perspective more important is Battle of Cape Bon (468) which has ended Western Roman Empire. From French perspective Battle of Aquae Sextiae or Battle of Vosges or Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. It is all question of perspective so I do not dispute importance of battle only words "Rome's greatest defeat".Analitikos (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Just provide "real" sources, then, and the article will be duly changed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I came here because of a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I'd suggest we take out of the lead this specific claim ("Rome's greatest defeat") and also the five footnotes following "decisive battle". The text would then say that "historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as one of the rarest things in history, a truly decisive battle, and as "a turning-point in world history"; followed still by the footnote that cites Mommsen.

The claim "Rome's greatest defeat" would be accepted by some, but not by all, as the discussion above already shows. Adrian Murdoch seems from this highly favourable review by Jona Lendering to have written a good book, but putting this claim in his title would have been a marketing decision (as Analitikos says). To the question whether Murdoch justifies the title in his text by comparing this great Roman defeat with other great Roman defeats, I don't think we know the answer yet :)

The material that I've just suggested removing from the lead could fit easily into the first paragraph of the section "Impact on Roman expansion". Or it might be better to make a new paragraph concluding that same section. It's hard to understand why five sources are necessary for the anodyne claim that this was a "decisive battle", but in a new concluding paragraph there would be room to quote from any of those sources or even from all five of them; and the quote from Mommsen, which is certainly relevant, could be repeated at that point. Andrew Dalby 11:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of Adrianople also springs to mind, since an emperor was killed, and it may have produced the fall of the West. I would downplay this; an historian called this Rome's greatest defeat; there are many other candidates. with a single footnote naming Murdoch and giving all the citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See duplicate discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Battle of the Teutoburg Forest --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Link has expired. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link via an old version of the project page. The discussion was "archived", but though the archive bot removed it from project page, it does not seem to show up in the archive. Odd. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

I have removed the sentence to here. I now consider that any such argument - on either side - is puffery. Theodor Mommsen was a great man, but he wrote in an age of frenetic German nationalism.

Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as "Rome's greatest defeat", of the early imperial period making it one of the rarest things in history, a truly decisive battle, and as "a turning-point in world history".

I also don't think it obvious that the battle had millennium-shaking effects, although this was the Teutonophile line. If there had been a province of Germania Tertia, east of the Rhine, it would have been less profitable, and more expensive than the Rhine frontier - and it is entirely possible it would have been abandoned, like Dacia, or Britain north of the Wall, by the third century at the latest.

If anybody wants to mine this for a text insertion, as suggested above, in the text, I have no objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body, including the legacy of the battle. If there are RS that state the above comments on the battle require contextualization and that Mommsen's view can be simply disregarded, then please add these sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body, true. Since the body mentions Mommsen only for his claim on the site of the battle (has anybody more recent agreed with him?), this is exactly what the sentence fails to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

comparative perspective

Is this necessary, comparing two situations roughly a millennia apart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.229.253 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that it's just one opinion - that of the author of the reference cited (Yuan Julian Chen), who is writing on the Chinese situation, and drawing a parallel with the earlier situation of the Roman frontier. In the context of this WP article, due to the way that the paragraph has been written, I feel that it does strike a jarring note, akin to editrialising. The IP user has also added this ref to several other articles. Bahudhara (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not certain about the source's relevance. It states that the boder changed "from an outward-looking, expansive frontier to an inward-looking, defensive boundary". But the sections above mention both Roman punitive campaigns into Germania, and that the expansion may have been halted because the region held little economic benefit for the Romans. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed it for being off-topic. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Constant edits saying this battle never happened

What is it with these edits? Is this one user or several users doing this joke? It's kind of funny but I am curious as to why they are doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Lost the Lost Eagles in Popular Culture section

I was surprised that Ralph Graves’ The Lost Eagles historical novel (1955) is not listed in the Popular Culture section. Not because it’s especially prominent (it isn’t, but that’s true for many of the other entries here), but because I believe it used to be listed here, several (10 or more?) years ago.

Is there any reason not to include it? Jmacwiki (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

On Geography

Kalkrieser Berg (Kalkriese Hill or Kalkriese Mountain) is a promontory on the north side of the Teutoburg Forest with an altitude of 158 m above sea level, named after the hamlet of Kalkriese nearby.

The Große Moor (Great Moor or Great Bog) is the collective name of a series of moorland areas that, running north-south, present a natural, insurmountable obstacle to the troops. The southern part of the Great Moor is now called Campemoor; it is about 40 m above sea level.

Kalkrieser Berg and the south end of the moor form a natural bottleneck, only about 1.5 miles wide. Which part of this bottelneck was not wooded at that time must remain an open question. There is no evidence for the assumption that a strip only 330 feet wide was unwooded and passable.

2A02:8109:9DAA:A500:F5EC:B191:9B84:2448 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)