Kalkriese is not the Varus battle site ?

[Antonius Lucretius]

I know one Dan Peterson who is pretty happy about this right now.... :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

I know one Dan Peterson who is pretty happy about this right now.... :lol:

I don´t see why, or maybe he would be if he would not not have read the details. His point was always that Kalkriese was no battlefield at all, but some Roman staging post at best, and that you could fit all the finds in a shoebox!

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

His point was always that Kalkriese was no battlefield at all, but some Roman staging post at best, and that you could fit all the finds in a shoebox!

Dan must wear damn big shoes!

My problem with the wall being a Roman encampment is that it would be the strangest encampment the Romans ever built - one very, very long wall and no side walls at all. That's a pretty weird way to defend a camp or outpost.

The account of Caecina's near defeat by Arminius is from Tacitus, Annals, Book I. I don't know where Dr. P. Kehne got the idea that Caecina "lost nearly the half" of his troops in that battle, because Tacitus says nothing at all about the extent of Caecina's casualties. His only mention of casualties concerns the slaughter of the Germanic warriors when Caecina was able to seize back the initiative: "(Arminius') followers were slaughtered, as long as our fury and the light of day lasted."

So far, Kalkriese remains the best candidate for the site of the last stage of the four day battle. It's unlikely to be the place where the first ambushes were launched - more likely the place where what was left of Varus' army made its last stand.

[Robert Vermaat]

So far, Kalkriese remains the best candidate for the site of the last stage of the four day battle. It's unlikely to be the place where the first ambushes were launched - more likely the place where what was left of Varus' army made its last stand.

My thoughts exactly. the only thing spooking me is that we might not know the very last details of what happened. I mean, how many survivors told the tale and where were they when the last man fell? Kalkriese seems the very best candidate for the ambush site, but what happened afterwards? I mean, a number of troops DID break through, right?

I also think the next thing to find (if ever!) are the two camps. But from the marching camp on the Ermelo heath I know how extremely difficult it can be to find one! Even a legionary camp from centuries later can be impossible to find, even when you know it's right in front of you..

[Ebusitanus]

Caesar himself recounts how during the Gallic wars when taking the fight to Aquitania, how many Iberians came to the local´s aid crossing the Pyrinees. He tells how several of those chieftains still knew how to do thing "the roman way" taught to them by Sertorious and how they build field fortifications against the roman assault.
I think that takes care of the "only romans knew how to make fortifications".
The battle was a running one and its not clear wether the few survivors taht made to the Rhine actually saw the whole deal or where men that saw the wall. Maybe they escaped before or were part of a different group (cavalry).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

or perhaps were lucky enough to have hidden from the Germans after the mopping up that followed?

There seems to have been enough equipment found with the relevant id markings to make it a very good case!

[Caius Cornelius Cethegus]

You should not forget that Germanicus' men buried the victims they found at the place of Varus first camp (Tacitus, Annales 62-1: Igitur Romanus qui aderat exercitus sextum post cladis annum trium legionum ossa, nullo noscente alienas reliquias an suorum humo tegeret, omnes ut coniunctos, ut consanguineos) (thanks to Ben Bijnsdorp for his useful site!) so one should not wonder to find bones of both men and animals in one pit.
I witnessed such a mass grave myself in a cave in Crete, where people and their animals were buried in one pit (from a much later date however, when the Cretans fought the Turks).
There is a passage in Tacitus about Caecina's dealings that made me wonder: Annales 64-3 and 64-4: Germani ob prospera indefessi, ne tum
quidem sumpta quiete, quantum aquarum circum surgentibus iugis oritur vertere in subiecta, mersaque humo et obruto quod effectum operis duplicatus militi labor. 64.4. Quadragesimum id stipendium Caecina parendi aut imperitandi habebat, secundarum ambiguarumque rerum sciens eoque interritus. Igitur futura volvens non aliud repperit quam ut hostem silvis coerceret, donec saucii quantumque gravioris agminis anteirent; nam medio montium et paludum porrigebatur planities, quae tenuem aciem pateretur. (again thanks to Ben Bijnsdorp).
This passage states that Arminius' men were able to let water flow from "mountains" to destroy the Roman walling and that the piece of land between mountain and marsh was too narrow to form a battle line. Now this could make one think about Kalkriese too.

[Robert Vermaat]

Dear brother Cethegus,

Welcome to RAT! And thanks for the source too; PUBLII CORNELII TACITI ANNALES - Ben Bijnsdorp. A laudes to you.

However, first post, first offence - please add your real name into your signature. It's a forum rule.

Don't make me come after you. You may have moved house but I still know where you live. :wink:

[Caius Cornelius Cethegus]

Sorry bro, hope to do this one properly!

I wonder what you think about my little theory - that Kalkriese might be not the Varus battlefield but the Caecina battlefield instead. Both the loss of men and loads of material and the geography described by Tacitus could make this a possibility. Don't you agree?

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Hi,
can anybody tell me which Caecina had command at the pontes longi? I find both often confused or had both some functions in gaul or germany?...

1. Gaius Silius Aulus Caecina Largus; Consul in AD 14; († 24) OR
   
2. Aulus Caecina (Severus) Suf.Consul in 1 BC

btw, Tacitus mentions (ann. I, 62?) that Caecina is in fortieth year of mil. service (in AD 15).
My question here: Which time would his military career likely have started? somewhat around 25 of age as junior tribune? So he would possibly be in his late sixties. :?

[Octavianvs]

if i remember right it was severus

[D B Campbell]

Hi,
can anybody tell me which Caecina had command at the pontes longi? I find both often confused or had both some functions in gaul or germany?...

I find it confusing, too! Silius was in command on the Upper Rhine and Caecina on the Lower (Tac., Ann. 1.31).
(Notice that Tacitus always calls them Silius and Caecina, so we can tell them apart.)

btw Sir Ronald Syme even suggested that Silius wasn't called A. Caecina Largus, but that Largus was a separate person! So it's not surprising that we're confused!

My question here: Which time would his military career likely have started? somewhat around 25 of age as junior tribune? So he would possibly be in his late sixties. :?

The gospel for this kind of thing is Werner Eck's Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen (1985).

He reckons that Caecina began his military career in 25 BC (counting back 40 years from AD 15), so he was born around 43/2 BC. That makes him late 50s rather than late 60s in AD 15.

Hope that helps.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Hope that helps.

yes, thank you. laudes :-) )

[Nerva]

Personally I find Kalkriese a bit of an enigma. I visited the museum and site last year and was struck by both the nature and quantity of the finds. Lot's of coins and items one would associate with civilians. This can easily be explained in this case as there was a large civilian baggage train, but the quantity of these items is so large in comparison to those of a strictly military nature.

For me, I would have expected far more finds of a military nature for such a significant battle fought over a relatively small area. I had the opportunity to speak with some of the archaeological staff at the site and found them very open to debate and very helpful in giving a no BS assessment of the finds so far. I have to admit though, I walked away from the site unconvinced it's where the battle took place, but then again, it's in pretty much the right place and there are no other serious contenders at the moment, so the balance of probability is that this is where the battle did take place.

One thing that often strikes me though is the standard of proof required to confirm a theory. Kalkriese for example. looking back over the various arguments put forward over the years one see's various changes and maneuvers in the burden of proof required by opposing arguments. In this case we have not discovered any smoking gun, no masses of roman bones, no masses of roman equipment that you might expect such a major battle to have deposited, but to be fair, very few other battle fields of the ancient world have either. As in most cases, it all comes down to balance of probability, and on that I must accept Kalkriese as the site for now.

By the way, I took lots of photographs:

http://www.romanarmy.ie/Kalkriese%20'07.htm

(You'll have to cut and paste the link into your browser - I'm going to have to rename the page so it does the http link correctly)

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

This can easily be explained in this case as there was a large civilian baggage train, but the quantity of these items is so large in comparison to those of a strictly military nature.

That's bothering me, too. If one assumes that Kalkriese is the point there last remnants of Varus column were finished, the opposite would be more reasonable to me. Didn't they destroy all baggage (likely most of the civilian stuff) not neccesary in the first camp?
I think the last a soldier will throw away is his weapons and so the the disproportion suggests to me that the Roman force (whoever was) fighting in Kalkriese took their weapons with them after being hard pressed but lastly were able to escape (at least from Kalkriese site), but losing most of non-military gear and having buried many of the money-bags.

EDIT:
The cease of findings behind a certain point after the Kalkriese force had been divided mustn't mean they were wiped out but they weren't pursued any longer and lost no big things anymore. On the official site of the archaelogists they state that the high density of "modern" iron material in the ground doesn't allow metall detectors to be adjusted successfully on detecting iron. http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de ... bung2.html So their gear is adjusted on detecting non-ferrous metal only.