Augustus returns to Germany

Was the Battle of the Teutoborg Forest really as decisive as is claimed?

The reason I ask is that way back when I first heard of it, it was still listed as very decisive but not seen as the only, or even a major, factor in why the Romans never settled Germany. The nature of the soil, which was too hard for the Roman plow, and the climate not permitting the grape/olive/wheat culture they were used to were seen as deciding. Then in 1987 the battle site was discovered and since then this one event has been seen as deciding the fate of Europe.

I've always wondered if TF was more a turning point for Augustus than for Rome. I think the younger Emperor would have wasted little time in growing hair or crying for his legions back, but would have taken more and gone to town on Arminius' head. While it was a terrible defeat, the Romans weathered others. I've heard it argued that the Romans were not so much invincible as persistent, they always came back.

What if they had? Would everything change or would it make little real difference?

Of course Teutoburg Forest was decisive. Augustus called off the Germanic conquest project. That's what defines a decisive battle - had he not, it wouldn't have been.

That said, Augustus had his hands full keeping his army up to strength. He certainly could not afford another big war of conquest (remember, by that time Germany was on file as 'conquered'). Not that he needed to worry about elections, but daggers were an option.

Assuming he had chosen to take up the cry of revenge instead of despairing (a viable policy option, I would guess, though one that sits badly with the 'Pax Augusta' party line), he probably could have taken parts of Germany. There's always the chance he might not have made it - the resources of the empire were vast, but not infinitely disposable, just as the United States, with its vast GDP, armaments industry, and gargantuan armed forces, now must call on the 42nd Highland Foot to help them out. There are other considerations at play than on a 'Risk' board.

Now, if Germany to the Elbe, say, were Romanised the long-term effects would be big. If German tribes to the Vistula were included (as they well might be), the consequences would be HUGE. There was no reasonm the Romans could not have settled germ,any, had they wanted to - Gallo-Roman agricultural techniques used in the Rhineland, Toxandria or the Batavian Islands would have worked in the Spessart and Schwarzwald valleys or the plains of Lower Saxony. I doubt it would have looked very attractive, but then, neither did Britain or the Gallia Belgica, and they worked out fine. The problem is, the factors at play (overstretch, propaganda, manpower limitations, fiscal concerns, personal inclination, family ties, policy) are so multifarious it is almost impossible to predict what would have happened.

WI Augustus sends a trusted senator to Germany, he maages to pacify and conquer the land and, ten years after, squares off against Tiberius as a contender for power? THe 'Principate' ends as a footnote as the old 'great man' pattern reasserts itself and Europe is a Chinese-speaking postcolonial mess by 2000 AD (escept nobody knows what 'AD' means).

WI Augstus redeployed the Danube legions to Germany and won there, but lost Pannonia and Moesia in a second uprising joined by the Thracians?

WI a punitive expedition is sent in, only to be lost in a second debacle, costing him the X Fretensis, XX Rapax and XV Fulminata?

Risky, expensive and dangerous even when successful. Better far to blame Varus and play up the 'mourning' angle. Augustus was many things, but not overemotional or stupid.

As for Teutoburgerwald:

- loosing three legions (1/10 of the empires forces at that time...) was a major security threat to the western provinces;

- Octavian and the later emperors, based their rule, which was infact a military dictatorship, keeping all the institutions of the republic, upon the promise of bringing peace and stability (after the late republican civil wars). Having uprisings and loosing wars was not excactly "peace and stability"...;

- the army, in lack of strong religions inside the roman empire, looked upon the legion insignas in an almost religious way. Loosing three of them (they were feviriously sought for, and in the end bought back from various tribes...) had a major impact on morale.

Teutoburger Wald was only a symptom of a rampant sickness in the Roman system of government.

The Romans made extensive use of auxilary troops from vassal states to prop up their occupation forces. Arminius himself was trained in the Roman method of fighting and served them himself. This was an advantage, in knowing their tactics and weaknesses when the time came. Varus also trusted Arminius implicitly, despite warnings that all was not as it appeared.

If the battle did not take place here, or Arminius was defeated, the Germans would find another time and place. (Even Arminius' betrayal, captivity and eventual execution did not alter the inevitable.)Rome simply did not have enough resources to be everywhere at once.

BTW it was a German tribe that eventually sacked Rome at its downfall. Visigoths under Alaric in 410. If Germany had been decisively conquered, maybe Rome would have lasted another thousand years.

Almost certainly, as a Roman province, the parts of Gaul east and west of the Rhine would not have evolved into the seperate French and German nations of modern times. There would be no Napoleon, Franco Prussian War or WW1 or2, at least under the terms we know them.

Without Teutoburger Wald, the Roman Empire could have included Germany and Denmark among its provinces - the frontier would be based on the Oder instead of the Rhine.

Civilising the Germans would have had a profound impact on the history of Europe. It was barbaric Germans (the Angles, Jutes and Saxons) who conquered England from Romano-Britons in the 6th century, and Danes in the 9th - what if that hadn't happened, and the Romano-British culture, defended and strengthened by King Arthur, had survived until the Norman conquest, or perhaps beyond? Britain might have avoided the worst effects of the Dark Ages.

There would never be a country called 'England'. England comes from 'Angle-land' after the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes that invaded England in Anglia, north of London. Without Germanic invasions, England and Wales would (eventually) have become one country called 'Britain', and Scotland (outside of Roman rule) would be separate as historically. After the conquest of Scotland and Ireland, by the British, Britain would become 'Great Britain'.

The people living in what is now England between the 6th and 20th centuries would be a lot more like the Welsh than they were historically, a blend of ancient Briton and Roman peoples, with the Vikings and Normans mixed in, but not the Saxons. It is even possible that Gaelic would still be the national language - although a lot of Latin, French and Norwegian words would undoubtedly have been incorporated.

Quick note: Its Germania. Germany is the modern day state. You dont speak of Caesars invasion of France either

In fact Teutoburg has always been seen as a decisive battle. Sir Edward Creasy listed it in his THE FIFTEEN DECISIVE BATTLES OF THE WORLD (1851).

Losing three legions was awkward but not dangerous. At the time of Actium Antonius had 31 legions, Octavianus between 40 and 45. Easy to raise fresh units.

Extension to the Elbe would mean a more defensible frontier line. On the other hand, Tiberius, an excellent soldier and administrator, didn't think the strategic benefit justified the cost.

Ya, that was true at the time of Octavian; but it wasn't true at the time of Augustus, who pursued a policy of demobilizing most of the legions.

Yes, but if Octavianus as Octavianus can raise over forty legions, then Octavianus as Augustus can quite easily raise another three to bring his standing army back to the previous figure of 28 or whatever it was.

Prunesquallor said:

Yes, but if Octavianus as Octavianus can raise over forty legions, then Octavianus as Augustus can quite easily raise another three to bring his standing army back to the previous figure of 28 or whatever it was.

Click to expand...

By numbers, yes, except Roman politics isn't a Risk board or Civilzation III. Augustus staked his political future on delivering peace, stability and prosperity. At several points, he had to resort to foul play (refusing earned discharges, recruiting freedmen) to 'make up the numbers' in order to avoid a draft. Raising three legions on the spot would require a dilectus in Italy, announcing to everyone who cared to listen that the Great Man had failed.

But the "peace" which Augustus had to deliver was not one of no wars (look at the campaigns in the Balkans) but one of an end to "civil" wars, no more proscriptions, no more blood feuds, no more killing of citizen by citizen. A crisis (or semi crisis) on the frontiers is only to be expected from time to time. And if the Great Man has "failed"? What are they going to do, demand a recount or a rerun of Actium?

Anyway I've always enjoyed RISK or CIVIII. More than I can say for that Avalon Hill Game about the Roman Republic.

"And if the Great Man has "failed"? What are they going to do, demand a recount or a rerun of Actium?"

Daggers in the dark, poison in the cup, perhaps some Praetorians (did they exist at the time?) can be bribed.

Remember, the Senate eventually took out Caligula and attempted to restore the Republic (they proclaimed the return of the Republic but were besieged in their buildings by the urban mob, which supported Claudius). There was a good bit of Republican feeling under Tiberius; there were lots of "treason" trials and executions under him, right? Augustus is only invincible if he is beloeved by the populace for "closing the gates of war" so to speak.

The Senate did very well under Augustus. The Praetorians existed but didn't become a significant political force till they were gathered in one barracks in the next reign.

The treason trials under Tiberius were largely the result of dynastic struggle, sweet FA to do with republicanism. The Senate didn't get rid of Caligula. That was mainly the work of a disgruntled Praetorian officer. And talk about restoring the republic I've always regarded as essentially a smoke screen for ambitious senators who would talk about it while grabbing the reins of power.

The people of Rome don't give a sparrow's fart about closing Janus's gates. A little war on the frontiers was always something to keep you interested, to relieve the boredom. Do you think enlisting an extra 15,000 men is going to cause so much anger that Augustus's in danger.

Dynastic struggle? I thought everyone who could have contested Tiberius's succession had conveniently died off over the years (or in the case of Agrippa Postumus, got killed soon after Augustus died). This excludes Claudius, who everyone at the time thought was brain-damaged.

The hit list seems to have been mainly aimed at the followers of Germanicus's family.