[Virgil61]

The Battle that Stopped Rome
by Peter S. Wells

In the "Battle that Stopped Rome" Professor Peter Wells brings to light discoveries in the recent find of one of the most famous and influential battles of the ancient world known as the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. This should be a welcome work, the battlefield is the most complete one of its kind ever found, located in a semi-rural area of Germany and undisturbed for two thousand years. Unfortunately rather than stating the discoveries and giving a view to all possible theories, which would have made this a seminal work, Wells misses this opportunity by embarking on an opinionated interpretation of the event. Judicious and balanced this work is not. Perhaps this is possibly explained by his area of concentration in anthropology; his writings are almost exclusively dedicated to the northern barbarians of antiquity. In spite of their victory, Wells seems somewhat defensive of the German tribes in his portrayal of the battle....

...read the full review of The Battle that stopped Rome by Peter S. Wells

[Ursus]

Excellent review.

[Virgil61]

Ursus, on Jun 26 2005, 07:09 PM, said:

Excellent review.

Thank you very much Ursus. The book was a bit of a disappointment in the last half. Of course after rereading it I've found grammatical errors and a couple of places where I cut and pasted but didn't check the sentences for clarity of thought. I'll get around to fixing them later.

[Primus Pilus]

Wonderful review Virgil. May I assume you wouldn't mind if it had its own unique page in the 'review' section of the site?

[Virgil61]

Primus Pilus, on Jun 26 2005, 07:52 PM, said:

Wonderful review Virgil. May I assume you wouldn't mind if it had its own unique page in the 'review' section of the site?

Not at all, thank you very much.

[Felix Marcellus]

I haven't read the book. But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about. You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush. I'm not an archaelologist, anthropologist or historian, but I would think that the answer to this question would be very easy for an anthropologist like Wells to figure out. By the way, I'm not taking sides on this because I don't know. I'm just offering things to think about.

If the walls were used to conceal the ambush, that would lead me to believe that the Germans left these ramparts to conduct the attack. Which would further lead me to believe there would be no dead bodies in their vicinity.

If the Romans built them, there should be a great deal of dead bodies around them because they obviously would've been attacked there.

Also, does not the manner in which the Romans and Germans build ramparts differ? If the experts that study this stuff take the time to study the manner in which both sides construct defensive fortifications this could shed light on it and mitigate the need to speculate.

I would also assume if later Romans showed up to the site of the battle they would be able to determine from the positions of the dead bodies where they were at and who was defending and who was attacking.

Now, the hole in my argument about the presence of bodies around the ramparts would be if the Germans attacked, but the Romans beat them back to the walls. Still I'd imagine one could deduce who built them from body position and other things such as the presence of equipment around the ramparts. If the Romans built them some of their personal items would be there. If the Romans attacked the wall, there would be nothing but military equipment found there and no personal stuff would be because you don't carry personal items into battle.

Has anybody done a study like this? I'm just curious.

[Primus Pilus]

Jona Lendering delves into it a bit

Livius Teutoburg

[Virgil61]

Felix Marcellus, on Jul 8 2005, 07:37 PM, said:

I haven't read the book.  But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about.  You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush.  I'm not an archaelologist, anthropologist or historian, but I would think that the answer to this question would be very easy for an anthropologist like Wells to figure out.  By the way, I'm not taking sides on this because I don't know.  I'm just offering things to think about.

If the walls were used to conceal the ambush, that would lead me to believe that the Germans left these ramparts to conduct the attack.  Which would further lead me to believe there would be no dead bodies in their vicinity. 

If the Romans built them, there should be a great deal of dead bodies around them because they obviously would've been attacked there.

Also, does not the manner in which the Romans and Germans build ramparts differ?  If the experts that study this stuff take the time to study the manner in which both sides construct defensive fortifications this could shed light on it and mitigate the need to speculate.

I would also assume if later Romans showed up to the site of the battle they would be able to determine from the positions of the dead bodies where they were at and who was defending and who was attacking. 

Now, the hole in my argument about the presence of bodies around the ramparts would be if the Germans attacked, but the Romans beat them back to the walls.  Still I'd imagine one could deduce who built them from body position and other things such as the presence of equipment around the ramparts.  If the Romans built them some of their personal items would be there.  If the Romans attacked the wall, there would be nothing but military equipment found there and no personal stuff would be because you don't carry personal items into battle.

Has anybody done a study like this?  I'm just curious.

Good questions and here's my answers and take on them.

There are no human remains surviving except for those found buried, probably by Germanicus, in two or three mass graves. I know I've read this and remembered it either from the book or from another source; apparently individual bodies left out on the field have not survived.

It's fair to say the ramparts built along the pathway are those of the ambushing unit- the Germans. The Germans, according to sources, did not immediately leave these ramparts but launched a sustained missile attack of javelins, spears and arrows first.

I'm not sure that "you don't carry personal items into battle", which normally would make sense, necessarily applies when the ambush and battlespace is measured in meters. Along an ambush route of several hundred meters I'm certain some unlucky ones were near or next to the wall, while others further away. They are carrying equipment, personal effects, baggage trains, etc., when ambushed.

I'll add that the amateur archeologist who found the site, a British Army Major, has written his story up. I haven't read it yet but aim to:

http://tinyurl.com/b6uhc

[Virgil61]

Felix Marcellus, on Jul 8 2005, 07:37 PM, said:

I haven't read the book.  But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about.  You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush. 

I need to clarify since I missed it the first time. Tacitus is the one who may have misunderstood the wall used in the ambush as the German wall, he wasn't there but relied on second hand accounts. The possibility of a Roman wall as a defensive site may still be valid but it hasn't been found. I think everyone agrees the wall along the ambush route is the German wall.

[Felix Marcellus]

Sounds good to me. It would make sense that it was the Germans' wall.

As far as finding remains goes, I understand there probably wouldnt' be much there now. I was under the impression that Romans found the site after the fight. I was just thinking that some of them would've studied the area and determined what happened.

As far as not taking personal gear into battle I base that off of today. I don't know if the Romans dropped their personals before they went into the fray. Today, in the infantry, you do drop your rucksack or leave it with your Bradley before deploying for combat. All you take with you is your chemical protective gear if applicable, Weapon, ammo, and load carrying vest. THe mess kit, needle and thread, MRE's stay behind when it's time to pull the trigger.

[Virgil61]

Felix Marcellus, on Jul 11 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

Sounds good to me. It would make sense that it was the Germans' wall.

As far as finding remains goes, I understand there probably wouldnt' be much there now. I was under the impression that Romans found the site after the fight. I was just thinking that some of them would've studied the area and determined what happened.

As far as not taking personal gear into battle I base that off of today. I don't know if the Romans dropped their personals before they went into the fray. Today, in the infantry, you do drop your rucksack or leave it with your Bradley before deploying for combat. All you take with you is your chemical protective gear if applicable, Weapon, ammo, and load carrying vest. THe mess kit, needle and thread, MRE's stay behind when it's time to pull the trigger.

Leave it with the Bradley? Mech's always had it nice. In Iraq [both times] all our gear was strapped along side the HMMWV and after consolidation, left in camp during missions.

Here's someone's recreation of a Roman on the march, and yeah, I'm sure they dropped it before going into the fray;

http://www.caerleon....tos/page17.html