Teutoberg Forest AD9: The Destruction of Varus & His Legions

[caldrail]

Aaargh! I hate the word 'romanization'! It conjures up images of people being brainwashed. No, they weren't. The Romans never turned barbarians into Romans. They offered roman culture, they encouraged its adoption, they even kept those who chose not to conform to the sidelines, but never did they force anyone to do as the Romans (though I suspect they handed out a fair few lectures)

 

That the Gauls had adopted Roman culture wholesale is not disputed. The proportion of natives that remained 'ethnic' would be much smaller than other regions. Bear in mind that a certain amount of cultural colonisation had already taken place before Caesar campaied there. Southern Gaul was far more pro-Roman than many realise and bear in mind that Caesar was able to bring gaulish allies to the battlefield, however unreliable or inffectual they m,ay have been.

 

Knowledge of classical works does not identify you as a member of a social elite. It may help, in that it suggests you have an education, but then the Romans employed educated slaves as teachers and entertainers too. I would suspect that many members of the ruling elite were somewhat less educated than some of their peers.

 

Perhaps more to the point, we must realise that Rome was a conquest state. The elite of AD9 may have looked well upon education as a mark of sophistication, but it was far from the essential quality. As far as Augustus was concerned, the ability to generate tax revenue was more important than knowing some poetry, especially in a society whose politicians were also military commanders by default.

 

The ida that sophistication was the ideal of the elite is also distorting the picture. We have for instance a mention of Saterninus as 'the odure of the senate'. Although that doesn't specify education exactly, it isn't hard to speculate that he was less sophiscated than some found tolerable. Bear in mind that status in Roman society wasn't based on knowledge, but primarily wealth as indeed it always had been.

 

Second was military credibility. This too had always been a feature of political life in Rome. There are tales of senators ripping open toga's and pointing at war wounds to passionately demonstrate that they had fought and risked all for Rome.

 

The idea that education was a marker of social status is therefore not entirely correct when dealing witht he Romans. Since the Romn education system was geared tward debate and oratory skills rather than knowledge, we have a clear indicator that the Romans preferred to leave the business of learning to those they kept 'below stairs' for that very purpose.

[Centurion-Macro]

Aaargh! I hate the word 'romanization'! It conjures up images of people being brainwashed. No, they weren't. The Romans never turned barbarians into Romans. They offered roman culture, they encouraged its adoption, they even kept those who chose not to conform to the sidelines, but never did they force anyone to do as the Romans (though I suspect they handed out a fair few lectures)

Could you call an invasion 'offering' and 'encouraging' Roman culture?

 

The Romans did implement Romanization. The whole fact that the Roman Empire existed was because the subjected people in many areas became like Romans. It wasn't only the men in Rome who acted like Romans...

[caldrail]

Aaargh! I hate the word 'romanization'! It conjures up images of people being brainwashed. No, they weren't. The Romans never turned barbarians into Romans. They offered roman culture, they encouraged its adoption, they even kept those who chose not to conform to the sidelines, but never did they force anyone to do as the Romans (though I suspect they handed out a fair few lectures)

Could you call an invasion 'offering' and 'encouraging' Roman culture?

 

The Romans did implement Romanization. The whole fact that the Roman Empire existed was because the subjected people in many areas became like Romans. It wasn't only the men in Rome who acted like Romans...

 

Nope. they didn't, and it's important you realise that, because the arguement of the last few postshas been about the extent to which the Gauls adopted Roman culture as opposed to those regions that didn't do so. The idea that the Roman Empire was a uniform society throughout is a fallacy, a misconception. Palmyra for instance was famed for its mix of cultural influences despite being part of the empire, most of the time at least. One can hardly claim the Judaeans were being romanised either. All the Romans required of them, as indeed all they required of any subject people, was that they obeyed laws and paid taxes.

 

Could I call an invasion an 'offering ' or 'encouragement' toward culture? No, of course not, but you have to look closer at the motives for the conquest in the first place. We're used to the concept of invasion and inclusion into a monolithic state. It might be said we do so in the light of the ideological struggle that we call the Twentieth Century. Rome did not export such an ideology. It was concerned primarily about security and profit. Territory meant very little back then since it was mostly wilderness anyway, unlike today where we own and value areas of land intensively.

 

Even in religious terms the superstitious Romans were happy to include foreign deities., which in a sense is the opposite of romanisation. Why did they not simply insist populations worship a standard pantheon? The fact the Romans gave them latin names is not that significant. The local elite were after all part of the roman political structure and since they spoke latin, for local patronage it made sense that they should rename these faiths given the attitude the Romans had toward barbarian language.

 

That does bring up an important point. The export of latin and its insistence on use was more to do with enabling communication and political/mercantile control. Romanisation? No, since the Romans never insisted that anyone should have to learn it. However, since that language was one the dominant power spoke, it made sense that people did. In other words, the populations chose to adopt latin.

 

The strength of Roman enterprise meant their styles and fashions also dominated. Not due to some master plan - for which there is no evidence - but rather the idea that people assume the behavioural patterns of the herd that surrounds and protects them. Standard human behaviour in other words, not an active conversion policy. I agree the Romans were aware that populations could be 'seduced' by there culture and yes, they smirked mightily when it happened, but bear in mind that throughout the empire (to a greater or lesser extent) local populations retained their native culture.

 

What is an empire? it's a collection of national or regional states ruled from an external central dominant power, or the city state of Rome as we're discussing it here. Regional identities existed throughout the life of the empire aand although the inhabitants saw themselves as essentially Roman, their cultural ifluences did vary. Could you really imagine towns in Egypt looking the same as those in northwest Europe? Or the lives of the populations being exactly the same? It just doesn't work.

 

I agree on one point. Augustus instituted a system where civic development on Roman lines was arranged to be competitive, so that urban centres that impressed the senate with their works and buildings might find themselves rewarded by concessions and tax-breaks. I call that the Augustan Franchise. Was that 'Romanization'? Nope. The idea that towns might be spawned and developed to resemble little Rome's was not a cultural conversion, but a financial plan designed to cultivate profit.

 

There are anomalies of course. Hadrian had promised to rebuild Jerusalem for the Judaeans. I agree he reneged on that agreement, at least in spirit, by imposing a roman city plan instead of the regionally-acceptable rebuild. That did spark an uprising. However, this was not 'romanisation' either, but the ego of a caesar with architectural inclinations. He wanted a truly roman empire - I have no doubt of that whatsoever - but note how hated he had become by the end of his otherwise succesful rule. In fact, it might be argued that the whole idea of romanisation stems from Hadrians enclosure of the empire, establishment of permanent boundaries, and a foreign policy of 'internalism' as opposed to the proactive intervention that had previously served the Romans well.

[Melvadius]

'Technically' or possibly more correctly 'Academically', at least in recent years, 'Romanization' tends to be used in academic publications to describe the whole two-way process of cultural exchange which went on across the Roman Empire.

 

On this basis it is not as simple a description as is often mistenly portrayed in the media and less academically inclined publications.

[caldrail]

That's why I don't like it. It remains a hugely misleading term.

[Melvadius]

Only if the person using it doesn't specify what they mean or don't mean by it

[barca]

Only if the person using it doesn't specify what they mean or don't mean by it

 

 

OK, when I used the term, I didn't mean it to infer any sort cohersion on the part of the Romans, but more of an encouragement, as the subject peoples saw the benefits of adopting Roman ways. And I agree that it worked both ways, i.e. the Romans adopting some of the cultural attributes of the conquered, as in "captured Greece held Rome captive"

[caldrail]

The encouragement was toward tribal leaders who were co-opted as part of the Roman administrators. The population themselves were free to carry on being iron age folk and usually did. By coincidence I saw a Time Team special last night about Boudicca, and the archaeological remains of Venta Icenum "Marketplace of the Iceni" was a failed roman town that displayed evidence of native roundhouses next door to roman style occupation.

 

Leaders who agreed to become part of the Roman system were often well rewarded. Vespasian is supposed to have given Fishbourne Palace to Cogidumnus (hope I spelt that right). However, I understand the client-king system was geared toward Roman ownership. Although a tribal leader could rule without interference if he was loyal to Rome, he was obliged to hand his kingdom to Rome as an inheritance. That was the source the Iceni upsising. The king only gave half his kingdom to Rome and left the rest to his family, which was promptly requisitioned by the legions somewhat aggressively, and in the case of Boudicca's daughters, somewhat imorally.

 

The other important aspect is to understand the nature of Roman control. They based their political network on urban centres, thus they created colonies if necessary, and whilst early on an administration centre at the 'capital' of tribal areas was considered enough, by the 2nd century administration was being dispersed to better control the outlying settlements - though in fairness it's obvious the Romans had little interest in small native villages and generally didn't bother them. I suspect the natives were content with that arrangement.

 

The biggest force in persuading the natives to adopt Roman culture was not actually political control. It was commercial pressure. Roman goods must have been enormously seductive (something Tacitus alludes to) and with the availability of foreign fashions and luxuries, even on a modest scale, the temptation existed. That however does not mean the commercial sphere was directed for political control. Far from it. Roman merchants were notoriously rapacious and all the evidence suggests that personal profit - especially in a dominant culture that classes status according to material wealth - was the motivation.

 

It was therefore commerce, fashion, and luxury that created the Roman world, whilst the patricians ran it, bearing in mind they were also the social class that ran the legions too.

[barca]

The encouragement was toward tribal leaders who were co-opted as part of the Roman administrators.

 

 

What was the Arminius' motivation? Wasn't he made a Roman citizen and given a high ranking in the Roman military? Didn't he see the benefit of remaining part of the empire?

 

I also find it perplexing that the Romans changed their policy toward Germanaia, after one defeat, especially when you consider that previously military activity as led by Drusus and later Tiberius (pre-emperor) was very successful. They had actually marched as far as the River Elbe, defeating several coalitions on the way. It appears that they were well on their way to consolidating their gains and completing the conquest. It is clear that Varus committed a fatal blunder, which is something that happens; it certainly wasn't the first military blunder on the part of the Romans.

 

The humiliating defeat of the Romans to the Teutons was subsequently avenged by Marius.

 

Julius Caeser was able to systematically put down rebellions in Gaul, and even venture into Germania.

 

Germanicus had some limited success in his punitive expedition, which was ultimately inconclusive.

Edited June 2, 2011 by barca

[caldrail]

What was the Arminius' motivation?

An interesting question. Most people might simply state he wated to free Germania, but as we know, Germania was a region, not a national state or identity. My own thought was that besuides any personal dislike of the Romans, he had very much in mind to bring an alliance of tribes together to obtain a level of power he couldn't do with the Cherusci alone.

 

Of course he may well have vehemently disagreed with the taxation imposed by Rome and needed the alliance to ensure a victory against Varus, the greedy man chosen by Augustus to collect taxes, and after all personally suckered him into the ambush.

 

Wasn't he made a Roman citizen and given a high ranking in the Roman military?

Yes, he was a citizen after he left the legion and I believe achieved equestrian rank.

 

Didn't he see the benefit of remaining part of the empire?

He obviously decided that removing the Roman grip on his people was a better option. Although he had become a Roman citizen, that doesn't mean he dropped his tribal identity at the same time. Even if I changed my nationality to some foreign state, I would in all likeliehood still see myself as from the country of my birth.

 

I also find it perplexing that the Romans changed their policy toward Germanaia, after one defeat, especially when you consider that previously military activity as led by Drusus and later Tiberius (pre-emperor) was very successful. They had actually marched as far as the River Elbe, defeating several coalitions on the way. It appears that they were well on their way to consolidating their gains and completing the conquest.

The 'conquest' as you call it was actually an attempt at colonisation rather than a war against a nation state as had happened in previous centuries elsewhere. In any case, Augustus believed the scheme had already matured to the point that the natives could be successfully taxed.

 

It is clear that Varus committed a fatal blunder, which is something that happens; it certainly wasn't the first military blunder on the part of the Romans.

He was conned well and truly, wasn't he?