
The Battle That Created Germany - dforrestwilson
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/the-battle-that-created-germany-841255
======
dreen
I think there is another German who predates Teutoborg by about 50 years, and
who really captivated me when I found out about him - Ariovistus.

He was a leader of the Suebii (mentioned in TFA), who extended German rule
into Gaul around the same time as Julius Caesar launched his invasion. The two
men met right before an ultimate battle between the Suebii and Rome.

Ariovistus's message was simple: while they are both invading Gaul, Caesar is
doing so under the pretence of protecting states that are friendly to Rome,
but ultimately he wants all of the Gaul to be Roman anyway, because the Romans
see all of Gaul and Germany as "barbarians". So basically, he called out the
Romans on what he rightfully recognised to be hypocrisy based in a false
feeling of cultural superiority.

Caesar beat Ariovistus the day after and proceeded to put all of Gaul under
the Roman rule.

And we know all this from Caesar himself:
[http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html)

~~~
elcapitan
We also know this famous part from Caesar, describing moose without joints who
lean against trees to sleep at night:

 _There are also [animals], which are called moose. The shape of these, and
the varied color of their skins, is much like roes, but in size they surpass
them a little and are destitute of horns, and have legs without joints and
ligatures; nor do they lie down for the purpose of rest, nor, if they have
been thrown down by any accident, can they raise or lift themselves up. Trees
serve as beds to them; they lean themselves against them, and thus reclining
only slightly, they take their rest; when the huntsmen have discovered from
the footsteps of these animals whither they are accustomed to betake
themselves, they either undermine all the trees at the roots, or cut into them
so far that the upper part of the trees may appear to be left standing. When
they have leant upon them, according to their habit, they knock down by their
weight the unsupported trees, and fall down themselves along with them._

~~~
dreen
Thank you, thats brilliant

------
jbattle
Romans did not give up after a single loss in battle. They didn't give up
after getting thrashed by the Carthiginians, nor the Parthians, nor the Gauls,
nor the Germans in eastern Europe. I can't buy the argument that this one
defeat forever made western Germania a no-go zone for the Romans.

"Germanicus" became an honorary title given to (a lot) of Romans who fought at
beat Germans over the centuries...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_(disambiguation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus_\(disambiguation\))

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

------
seren
Interesting I did not know the story of Arminius, and it mirrors in multiple
ways the story of Vercingetorix and the battle of Alesia, that was also used
in the XIXth century as a "national foundation myth", up to the erection of a
giant statue.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_(city)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alesia_\(city\))

~~~
gadders
Slightly different result though.

I guess the English equivalent would be Bodicea/Boudicca.

~~~
arethuza
And the Scots possibly Calgacus at Mons Graupius:

 _" To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they
make a solitude and call it peace."_

Shame that Calgacus and his speech were almost certainly invented by Tacitus.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus)

------
nickik
I honestly do not think this battle matters as much as a lot of people think.

If you check where Roman culture really made a large impacts its mostly in
Mediterranean climates and cultures.

The less excess-able inland areas in many places have much lesser cultural
impact, think of Northern Britain for example.

Just in terms of impact these areas actually had lots of trade with the Romans
and the people living on both sides of this 'line' were very similar.

~~~
vanderZwan
The battle matters a lot in terms of it being a useful myth for propaganda
during the forming of the German nation state after its unification.

I had to learn about it in art school. Specifically, about a German artist who
criticised how eagerly post-war Germany was to forget it altogether,
pretending the monuments raised for it and the operas written about it didn't
exist. As if pretending it never happened is somehow better than remembering
that what happened was wrong.

~~~
nickik
Sure, but my point was that it did not matter so much for Rome and Roman
cultural influence.

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

~~~
boomboomsubban
This was before there was a concept of Rome's invincibility, their peace with
Parthia was not built on Roman success. This was just a lost battle, most
noteworthy for setting up Germanicus' retrieval of the lost standards. Not
comparable to the hell that was the crisis of the third century.

~~~
megaman22
The idea of Roman invincibility is sort of bizarre concept, looking at the
history. Roman armies were routinely defeated and destroyed. Rome's great
advantage through the Republic and early Empire was that they could absorb
such losses, which would be catastrophic for most states, and keep churning
out new armies.

~~~
jack6e
This is absolutely correct and I think the same thing whenever I read
suggestions that Roman defeats are/were significant to its decline. Rome's
major strength from the beginning was an indefatigable political will.
Hannibal did not just cross the Alps, he decimated multiple Roman armies _in_
Italy and then rampaged around the peninsula for over a decade. There is an
anecdote that when Hannibal's armies approached Rome, inside the city Roman
traders sold land rights to the spot on which his army camped. Much like the
Russians and Americans have found in Afghanistan, it is hard to defeat an
enemy that shares a common fundamental belief in its own persistence and
refusal to acquiesce.

Even in this story, as the article notes, after having lost three legions in
an utterly decisive battle in the wilds of Germania, Emperor Tiberius' son
Germanicus decided he would go back and wage more war to recover the
standards. That is not the sort of political will we are used to.

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

~~~
a_bonobo
This has several reasons, I think.

\- Modern Germans don't really see themselves as descendants of those Germans,
in the German language both are named differently. Modern Germans are
'Deutsche' \- ancient Germans are 'Germanen'. English does not make this
distinction. There are more annoying confusions like this, for example, the
Germanic tribe of the Saxons has nothing to do with the modern state of
Saxony, as the ancestors of modern Saxons spoke a different dialect. There are
several breaks like this in between modern Germany and Germanic tribes which
are masked by nomenclature.

\- German (Deutsche) Catholics distanced themselves from the 'barbaric', non-
Christian Germanic tribes.

\- As usual, the Nazis ruined it. The battle was sometimes used for propaganda
reasons by the Nazis, replacing Romans with Jews. Modern Nazis are also using
it for their own purposes (replacing Romans with immigrants and the US)

Edit: the battle itself isn't silenced or anything, I do remember quite a few
events when the 2000 year anniversary happened, including the cover of the
SPIEGEL having it (IIRC?)

~~~
pm90
Very interesting. So are the modern Germans descendents of the 'barbaric'
ones? Is the distinction made only for separating the earlier pagans from the
Christianized tribes? And is the distancing only for religious, or for
cultural reasons as well? I mean, were the modern Germans really more
'civilized' (whatever that means) than the barbaric ones, or is it just
propaganda?

~~~
usrusr
The distinction is strongly related to the habit of claiming Charlemagne as
the founding myth. Makes a lot more sense as a precursor of the EU, but in the
fast-forward way history is taught at school, this is usually the point where
the wording shifts from "tribes who lived in the same geographic area" to "a
precursor state".

People who want to identify with victory over Romans to fuel a nationalistic
mindset won't stop at Arminius, they also claim the legacy of various gothic
etc tribes who troubled and/or continued thedying western empire.

------
ardit33
It is very interesting as the Romans lost the battle because of complete lack
of scouting and intelligence/information gathering. They had a disdain on it.
They also had a disdain on archery as well (they considered it unmanly). They
lost in similar fashion with Partha as well.

Here there are some good recaps of the battle:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmF3VBA_RcM&t=42s)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jSjknuUG0)

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

~~~
groby_b
As a fellow German, at the _very_ least you'll need to account for the Treaty
of Verdun. (No, not that one. The other one :)

From there, Louis the German received East Francia, which in many ways formed
the core of what would later be Germany. From there, we certainly took a long
and winding road. (The reformation settlement is probably another point worth
touching upon, though)

1871 is merely the point where there was an actual administratively unified
nation state called Germany. It's the first time we did that, so in _that_
sense, sure.

(Sorry. I nerd out on history. Really, it's a distraction to your main point -
the whole legend of Arminius thing is a German nationalist myth. Tied to 1871
- each nation state needs a founding myth)

------
jk2323
Slightly OT. I am a big Fan of the hypothesis that Siegfried (the main
character of a major old German story) is Armenius. E.G.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/27701032?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
(PDF is free)

~~~
posterboy
well, a part of the myths at best, I guess

------
masswerk
Complementary reading: "A Most Dangerous Book. Tacitus's Germania from the
Roman Empire to the Third Reich" by Christopher B. Krebs (W.W. Norton &
Company, NY, 2011)

(German translation: "Ein gefährliches Buch. Die 'Germania' des Tacitus und
die Erfindung der Deutschen"; DVA, München 2012)

Especially interesting for pointing out a rather ambiguous role of early
humanism (as related to the reception of the Germania) in German history.

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

------
Totallyboss4
I thought this was talking about Konninggratz, since Germany did not exist
until 1870.

------
wazoox
As said Augustus: Vare, legiones redde!

