04-17-2020, 11:34 AM
Mixing the first and second century is -indeed- an unforgivable mistake, and I bear all responsibility for it. 
I want to emphasize that I mainly focused on the Roman warfare in the first century. I used 3 conflicts that could help me out answering my statement. 1) Teutoburg Forest 2) Germanicus' campaigns in Germania 3) revolt of the Batavi.
I will now try to give decent answers to the questions asked ..
Aggressive warfare ?
I earlier stated:
-"The only alternative for the Romans to break the resistance of such people was to attack the population itself in a war of extermination. This is the reason that aggressive warfare was carried out in many "uncivilized" areas outside the borders of the empire."
A statement I based on the following:
In the absence of a settled pattern of life that the army could control and reorganize under Roman rule, peace required first that a desert be made. Thus at the conclusion of Domitan’s campaign against the Nasamones of North Africa, he reported to the Senate that the war had been won, and that the Nasamones had ceased to exist (based on Dio, 67.4.6).
-“the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them, or make them allies by selling them the idea of becoming citizens, as they had done with the Gauls, the British, and others.”
-“In short, nothing of particulalry aggressive or strange for the period. And I would say nothing that could make one think of an extermination war.”
This tactic of placing taxes on them and denying them the use of their lands, could/did encourage aggressive reactions. For example:
When Drusus brought Roman forces through Frisii lands in 12 BC and "won them over", he placed a moderate tax on them. However, a later Roman governor (Olennius) raised the requirements and exacted payment, at first decimating the herds of the Frisii, then confiscating their land, and finally taking wives and children into bondage. By AD 28 the Frisii had had enough. They hanged the Roman soldiers collecting the tax and forced the governor to flee to Flevum, which they then besieged.
Roman reaction
Propraetor Lucius Apronius summoned Roman legionaries and threw them on the Frisii, raising at once the siege of the fortress. Next, he began constructing solid roads and bridges over the neighbouring estuaries for the passage of his heavy troops (). He ordered the cavalry of the Canninefates, with all the German infantry which served with us, to take the enemy in the rear. They were defeated and according to Tacitus, nine hundred soldiers died and four hundred killed each other in Cruptorix's villa, fearing treason. Flevum was given up and the survivors fled back south.
-"Why do you think that with Germans there was "a war of extermination"? When? Which period? Who made that and for how long?"
I am not saying that there was an war of extermination going on (at least not in Germania), but to break the Germanic resistance the Romans simply had to act aggressively. Military displays of power and punitive expeditions were the way to keep the Germans under control. Germanicus' campaigns against the Germans are a good example of (t)his relatively aggressive warfare to fight off the Germans.
-“And, apart this, Germany... up to the Elbe? Today's Poland? or where?”
For the world of barbarians along the Rhine and further east, the Romans had their own name: Germania Areas on the western bank of the Rhine were incorporated into the Roman Empire and divided into several areas: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. On the other side of the Rhine there was Germania Magna, which stretched east.
Nico Roymans, a Dutch archaeologist, showed how the Romans carried out the 'restructuring' of Germania by describing three aspects of the (conquered) tribes and their behavior. In Germania Inferior, the Eburones and Atuatuci were brutally exterminated, because they resisted Roman expansion. (this mainly happened before the first century, but it is a good example of aggressive warfare). At the same time, Germanic settlers moved from Germania Magna to the other side of the Rhine to form 'new tribes' (Batavians, Ubii). Furthermore, the Romans also offered Germanic tribes the opportunity to gain social status and influence. Some tribal chiefs did so and welcomed the Romans as their new rulers, while other chieftains saw a way of gaining status and influence by resisting the Roman rule.
Conquest of Germania ?
-“I think that, especially after Teutoburgo and Tiberius and Germanicus Campaigns, Roman Legions were mainly concerned with putting in place a forward defence. There were orders not to conquer, just to keep the status quo.”
In 5 CE, Tiberius moved north from Pannonia and fought his way to the Elbe. Tiberius built several military camps east of the Rhine (forward defence). Haltern is an important example of this, because Haltern (due to its strategic location near the Lippe) quickly developed into a complex of fortified military camps with a naval port.
The existence of fortified army bases does not automatically mean that the surrounding area is controlled. Nevertheless, Augustus seems to have been convinced that Rome controlled the area between the Rhine and the Elbe, which made him able to turn his attention to other areas (the client kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa).
It remains an unanswered question whether Augustus really wanted to conquer Germania and make it a Roman province.
Possible evidence for the conquest of Germania is Waldgirmes. in Waldgirmes is a Roman settlement located. It isn't a military camp or castrum, as it doesn't have the typical layout of a Roman camp. Instead, the buildings have a non-military character, and remains of a forum and basilica have been found. The houses and kilns clearly indicate that Waldgirmes was a civil settlement. Moreover, there were references to Roman presence, such as a bronze equestrian statue of Augustus.
This may indicate that the Romans were planning to live in Germania.
Furthermore, because Julius Caesar had conquered Gaul in 10 years with a force that never exceeded 10 legions, the conquest of all of Germany must have seemed a perfectly feasible proposition (even with the downsized army of Augustus and if it were a matter of geographic depth and not of the intensity of resistance, a question answered in 9 CE).
I want to emphasize that I mainly focused on the Roman warfare in the first century. I used 3 conflicts that could help me out answering my statement. 1) Teutoburg Forest 2) Germanicus' campaigns in Germania 3) revolt of the Batavi.
I will now try to give decent answers to the questions asked ..
Aggressive warfare ?
I earlier stated:
-"The only alternative for the Romans to break the resistance of such people was to attack the population itself in a war of extermination. This is the reason that aggressive warfare was carried out in many "uncivilized" areas outside the borders of the empire."
A statement I based on the following:
In the absence of a settled pattern of life that the army could control and reorganize under Roman rule, peace required first that a desert be made. Thus at the conclusion of Domitan’s campaign against the Nasamones of North Africa, he reported to the Senate that the war had been won, and that the Nasamones had ceased to exist (based on Dio, 67.4.6).
-“the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them, or make them allies by selling them the idea of becoming citizens, as they had done with the Gauls, the British, and others.”
-“In short, nothing of particulalry aggressive or strange for the period. And I would say nothing that could make one think of an extermination war.”
This tactic of placing taxes on them and denying them the use of their lands, could/did encourage aggressive reactions. For example:
When Drusus brought Roman forces through Frisii lands in 12 BC and "won them over", he placed a moderate tax on them. However, a later Roman governor (Olennius) raised the requirements and exacted payment, at first decimating the herds of the Frisii, then confiscating their land, and finally taking wives and children into bondage. By AD 28 the Frisii had had enough. They hanged the Roman soldiers collecting the tax and forced the governor to flee to Flevum, which they then besieged.
Roman reaction
Propraetor Lucius Apronius summoned Roman legionaries and threw them on the Frisii, raising at once the siege of the fortress. Next, he began constructing solid roads and bridges over the neighbouring estuaries for the passage of his heavy troops (). He ordered the cavalry of the Canninefates, with all the German infantry which served with us, to take the enemy in the rear. They were defeated and according to Tacitus, nine hundred soldiers died and four hundred killed each other in Cruptorix's villa, fearing treason. Flevum was given up and the survivors fled back south.
-"Why do you think that with Germans there was "a war of extermination"? When? Which period? Who made that and for how long?"
I am not saying that there was an war of extermination going on (at least not in Germania), but to break the Germanic resistance the Romans simply had to act aggressively. Military displays of power and punitive expeditions were the way to keep the Germans under control. Germanicus' campaigns against the Germans are a good example of (t)his relatively aggressive warfare to fight off the Germans.
-“And, apart this, Germany... up to the Elbe? Today's Poland? or where?”
For the world of barbarians along the Rhine and further east, the Romans had their own name: Germania Areas on the western bank of the Rhine were incorporated into the Roman Empire and divided into several areas: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. On the other side of the Rhine there was Germania Magna, which stretched east.
Nico Roymans, a Dutch archaeologist, showed how the Romans carried out the 'restructuring' of Germania by describing three aspects of the (conquered) tribes and their behavior. In Germania Inferior, the Eburones and Atuatuci were brutally exterminated, because they resisted Roman expansion. (this mainly happened before the first century, but it is a good example of aggressive warfare). At the same time, Germanic settlers moved from Germania Magna to the other side of the Rhine to form 'new tribes' (Batavians, Ubii). Furthermore, the Romans also offered Germanic tribes the opportunity to gain social status and influence. Some tribal chiefs did so and welcomed the Romans as their new rulers, while other chieftains saw a way of gaining status and influence by resisting the Roman rule.
Conquest of Germania ?
-“I think that, especially after Teutoburgo and Tiberius and Germanicus Campaigns, Roman Legions were mainly concerned with putting in place a forward defence. There were orders not to conquer, just to keep the status quo.”
In 5 CE, Tiberius moved north from Pannonia and fought his way to the Elbe. Tiberius built several military camps east of the Rhine (forward defence). Haltern is an important example of this, because Haltern (due to its strategic location near the Lippe) quickly developed into a complex of fortified military camps with a naval port.
The existence of fortified army bases does not automatically mean that the surrounding area is controlled. Nevertheless, Augustus seems to have been convinced that Rome controlled the area between the Rhine and the Elbe, which made him able to turn his attention to other areas (the client kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa).
It remains an unanswered question whether Augustus really wanted to conquer Germania and make it a Roman province.
Possible evidence for the conquest of Germania is Waldgirmes. in Waldgirmes is a Roman settlement located. It isn't a military camp or castrum, as it doesn't have the typical layout of a Roman camp. Instead, the buildings have a non-military character, and remains of a forum and basilica have been found. The houses and kilns clearly indicate that Waldgirmes was a civil settlement. Moreover, there were references to Roman presence, such as a bronze equestrian statue of Augustus.
This may indicate that the Romans were planning to live in Germania.
Furthermore, because Julius Caesar had conquered Gaul in 10 years with a force that never exceeded 10 legions, the conquest of all of Germany must have seemed a perfectly feasible proposition (even with the downsized army of Augustus and if it were a matter of geographic depth and not of the intensity of resistance, a question answered in 9 CE).
Thomas Overduin
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
