The Ambush That Changed History
An amateur archaeologist discovers the field where wily Germanic warriors halted the spread of the Roman Empire
- By Fergus M. Bordewich
- Smithsonian magazine, September 2005
Mike Reagan
“This is the soil of 2,000 years ago, where we are standing now,” Susanne Wilbers-Rost was saying as a young volunteer pried a small, dark clod out of it. Wilbers-Rost, a specialist in early German archaeology, peered through wire-rimmed glasses, brushed away some earth, and handed an object to me. “You’re holding a nail from a Roman soldier’s sandal,” she said. Atrim, short-haired woman, Wilbers-Rost has worked at the site, which is ten miles north of the manufacturing city of Osnabrück, Germany, since 1990. Inch by inch, several young archaeologists under her direction are bringing to light a battlefield that was lost for almost 2,000 years, until an off-duty British Army officer stumbled across it in 1987.
The sandal nail was a minor discovery, extracted from the soil beneath an overgrown pasture at the base of Kalkriese (the word may derive from Old High German for limestone), a 350-foot-high hill in an area where uplands slope down to the north German plain. But it was further proof that one of the pivotal events in European history took place here: in A.D. 9, three crack legions of Rome’s army were caught in an ambush and annihilated. Ongoing finds—ranging from simple nails to fragments of armor and the remains of fortifications—have verified the innovative guerrilla tactics that according to accounts from the period, neutralized the Romans’ superior weaponry and discipline.
It was a defeat so catastrophic that it threatened the survival of Rome itself and halted the empire’s conquest of Germany. “This was a battle that changed the course of history,” says Peter S. Wells, a specialist in Iron Age European archaeology at the University of Minnesota and the author of The Battle That Stopped Rome. “It was one of the most devastating defeats ever suffered by the Roman Army, and its consequences were the most far-reaching. The battle led to the
creation of a militarized frontier in the middle of Europe that endured for 400 years, and it created a boundary between Germanic and Latin cultures that lasted 2,000 years.” Had Rome not been defeated, says historian Herbert W. Benario, emeritus professor of classics at EmoryUniversity, a very different Europe would have emerged. “Almost all of modern Germany as well as much of the present-day CzechRepublic would have come under Roman rule. All Europe west of the Elbe might well have remained Roman Catholic; Germans would be speaking a Romance language; the Thirty Years’ War might never have occurred, and the long, bitter conflict between the French and the Germans might never have taken place.”
Founded (at least according to legend) in 753 b.c., Rome spent its formative decades as little more than an overgrown village. But within a few hundred years, Rome had conquered much of the Italian peninsula, and by 146 b.c., had leapt into the ranks of major powers by defeating Carthage, which controlled much of the western Mediterranean. By the beginning of the Christian Era, Rome’s sway extended from Spain to Asia Minor, and from the North Sea to the Sahara. The imperial navy had turned the Mediterranean into a Roman lake, and everywhere around the rim of the empire, Rome’s defeated enemies feared her legions—or so it seemed to optimistic Romans. “Germania” (the name referred originally to a particular tribe along the Rhine), meanwhile, did not exist as a nation at all. Various Teutonic tribes lay scattered across a vast wilderness that reached from present-day Holland to Poland. The Romans knew little of this densely forested territory governed by fiercely independent chieftains. They would pay dearly for their ignorance.
There are many reasons, according to ancient historians, that the imperial Roman legate Publius Quinctilius Varus set out so confidently that September in a.d. 9. He led an estimated 15,000 seasoned legionnaires from their summer quarters on the WeserRiver, in what is now northwestern Germany, west toward permanent bases near the Rhine. They were planning to investigate reports of an uprising among local tribes. Varus, 55, was linked by marriage to the imperial family and had served as Emperor Augustus’ representative in the province of Syria (which included modern Lebanon and Israel), where he had quelled ethnic disturbances. To Augustus, he must have seemed just the man to bring Roman civilization to the barbarous” tribes of Germany.
Like his patrons in Rome, Varus thought occupying Germany would be easy. “Varus was a very good administrator, but he was not a soldier,” says Benario. “To send him out into an unconquered land and tell him to make a province of it was a huge blunder on Augustus’ part.”
Rome’s imperial future was by no means foreordained. At age 35, Augustus, the first emperor, still styled himself “first citizen” in deference to lingering democratic sensibilities of the fallen RomanRepublic, whose demise—after the assassination of Caesar—had brought him to power in 27 b.c., following a century of bloody civil wars. During Augustus’ rule, Rome had grown into the largest city in the world, with a population that may have approached one million.
Related topics: Archaeology Roman Empire Germany
Tweet | Digg |
Comments (11)
I am facinated by the various accounts of the Teutoburg battle. How did Arminius organize such a force and strategy?
I think the Romans were led into an ambush and their officers were negligent. It's amazing to think that 15,000 to 20,000 "people" were strung out over such a distance in such a confined area. They were led into a topological trap and were not able to respond. To think that so many people were slaughtered in such a short period of time is overpowering. I do believe that this was an occurance that did infact change political, ethnic, cultural history. I don't think the Romans had their heart in conquering past the Rhine and took the local Germans lightly. But what might have been if this day in history had not occured.
Posted by Donald Richroath on September 27,2010 | 07:50 PM
What I am missing within this article is the the fact that arminius was taken to rome as a hostage when he was about ten years old to make shure his father would behave according to the will of the romans - he didn´t went to rome by his own will.In the story and in some of the comments I read that arminis was a traitor and he planned an infamous ambush.
It is told that Arminius was - after having been raised in Rome - was proud of beeing a roman citizen and a beeing made a roman knight but changed his mind after he returned to his homeland and saw how harshly Varus was ruling over the people he feeled were his tribesmen.
One should not forget that the romans had invaded the home of the german tribes and were trying to change it into a roman province which should pay taxes to rome.
To call Arminius a traitor would mean to call the "Boston tea party" an act of treason.
Posted by A. Stoever on July 25,2010 | 10:15 AM
As I review the history of Roman campaigns of A.D. 14, 15, and 16 by Germanicus along the Ruhr, Lahm, and Ems Rivers,
whats painfully notable are the repeated defeats, ambuses,
forced withdrawls, and surprised attacks that this very
compitant and experienced commander continued to suffer while being on constant guard and very much aware of how dangerous was his situation and his enemy. He was not the fool, and yet he could not beat the thick forest that concealed the enemy, or the decisive skill and ability of what we must accept was a trully superior German commander, trained by the Romans, well practiced at war, and dedicated to a high purpose.
Posted by ronald gagnon on January 8,2010 | 10:44 PM
Many historians have addressed themselves to the reasons the Romans set their borders on the Rhine and Danube. The consensus of opinion is that it wasn't because they lacked the ability to make incursions east and north of the rivers, which they often did over the centuries after Varus's defeat, but because they couldn't support their forces logistically once they did and never had any intention in doing so. It also should be pointed out that after AD 9, the Romans experienced their greatest successes, in Britain, Parthia, etc. And, finally, I would like to offer this: The tribes who defeated Varus became Roman allies, Roman legionnaires, even Roman citizens over the coming centuries. Germany was not born by them -- it was by others.
Posted by Mike Pellegrini on October 6,2009 | 12:43 AM
A little battle in warfare history - a huge change in (european)history!
This varus defeat, formerly in Germany teached to haven taken place somewhere in 'Teutoburg'-forests or say better wood/swamp/flood-lands then, was de facto an ambush, as the roman empire experienced many of them over latter centuries. Experiences like that were quite common, and in these acient days this was about the maximum stage of expansion of a empire affordable by roman way of life! So Arminius was lucky to set his counterstrike almost perfectly in terms of timeline: there was no furhter expansion, not in northern Europe - despite knowlegde of huge landscape toward and beyond Baltic sea, not in the South (northern Africa - e.g. no interest of the origin of river Nile!) After this varus debacle policy toward outer rims seemed to have changed radically: in northern Germany it caused a retreat westbound of river Rhine, in southern Germany a retreat southbound of river Danube, and in open flank between this natural borderlines, an artificial border - the limes!
It could be interpreted in a way this quite infamous ambush affected whole life, culture, a significant change of self-assessment of northern tribes, a first augury how the decline of this invincible empire would likely take place!
Posted by Hannes Fischer on October 4,2009 | 04:50 AM
I was riding my bike with a friend today, a student of German history and an ardent Germanophile, and somehow in our meanderings the subject of this battle came up. I said to him that I thought it was, of course, a great defeat for the Romans, but that the lessons drawn from it were often wrong. First, as the above article's title states, the victory was the result of an ambush orchestrated by a trusted Roman ally, Arminius, so what happened wasn't exactly fair. Second, the Romans' response in the years afterward reclaimed their honor, and their reputation, and essentially ended serious threats from east of the Rhine.(Read Mommsen, the great German historian; read the wiki entry on the battle, too -- I thought it was very good.) And third is what this defeat says about the Romans throughout their illustrious 1000-year history -- they always came back, until they couldn't. That wouldn't happen until 400 years after this battle occurred.
Posted by Mike Pellegrini on April 24,2009 | 10:08 PM
Being an old soldier myself I can say that discipline comes from above. During three wars I have seen some of the most disciplined troops take the easy way of doing things, things that they knew better than to do, short cuts ect. They took these "short cuts" only when they allowed by their leadership.
Althought these Roman troops were highly disciplined, it was their leadership which put them in the position that they found themselves. One must wonder, did a centurion go forward to express his concerns? Varus was a politician not a warrior. One would think that Augustus would know better than to do this. But in his defense, look how we fight wars today. Battle hardened generals are often dictated to by his countries politicans.
Posted by Kenneth Chambless on April 15,2009 | 06:31 PM
Varus must have been overconfident, out of his league as a commander and thinking he was up against a motley group of disorganized tribes. Underestimating your enemies ability and overestimating your own capabilities usually leads to disaster and defeat. Great article, I'd love to go visit the site in Europe. I've often wondered where the battle took place.
Posted by Rich Valentini on March 1,2009 | 10:39 PM
This is a fascinating piece of history that almost slipped away and doesn't receive the prominence it should. I remember first reading about this almost 30 years ago in a small entry in an enclyclopedia. One issue that has always bothered me is how these romain legions found themselves in this compromised and unwinnable situation. While the romans were not invincible, they did have a rigid approach to following rules while deployed and on the march. While Varus was a politician first and an field commander second (or more likely not at all) all roman legions had very strong and very capable professional soldiers at our equivalent of the non-commissioned officer level. The professional soldiers would simply not have allowed the deployment of soldiers discussed in the tellings of this battle here and by other sources. When roman legions were defeated (such as at Carrhae or Cannae) but it was almost always due to them being outfought and not cases where they were defeated by failure of adherence to elemental tactics. These histories I believe, but with obviously nothing more than a hunch, are missing something that explains a paradox of how three crack legions were slaughtered by failing to perhaps the most basic rule of marching by roman legions while deployed.
Posted by allan hughes on November 14,2008 | 11:34 AM
Next year, 2009 will be the 2000 anniversary of this battle. This is the original 911. 9/11/9 AD (11 September, 9) was the date of s great tragedy for Roman empire, but also a sea change in the development of Northern Europe and its offspring, 1500 years later; the Americas. People speculate on what might have been, but history is a one way river, with no regrets, no do-overs and no Mulligans. Germany the infant was born at this site in this battle. The joining together of the German tribes, to fight the Romans, was the beginning of a new stage in the history of the German peoples. From this battle we have the independence of a people, by their own hand, from Rome the conqueror, Rome the enforcer, Rome the Tax man. They proved themselves equal to the Romans in battle. They proved the Romans were not invincible. From this point on Rome began its long decline and eventual demise. Germany began its long ascent. When you see a bumper sticker that says: "Remember 9/11" ask yourself; "Which one?" 9/11/2001 or 9/11/9.
Posted by Guy K Bennett on July 29,2008 | 11:37 PM
Although it took place some 2000 years ago it is still terribly sad.I have read and re-read the few modern books on the subject and the accounts of Tacitus and Vellius Pater---?(the general) and bits of Dio. It is remarkable that a British officer found the site thro'sheer singlemindedness. All my life I've been interested in Roman history(ancient). My curiousity was sparked one day as a small boy who wandered into a dingy museum in Wales. But I deviate! I have enjoyed reading your account of the Varus disaster. There are,however,unanswered questions,perhaps will never be answered. Why,for example,is no king mentioned? After all Arminius was a Prince? What of his mother? Was his brother, Flavius, a prince too before joining the Roman army. Why did he not join his brother? The river scene seems to suggest that they never really loved one another. Perhaps in those days,however, love never came into the equation...Regards Jeff Adams
Posted by Jeff Adams on March 11,2008 | 02:41 PM