01-27-2009, 09:15 PM
Hi C.T./Christian ... Hi Robert .....
1. Many thanks for the Ilerup-link. Some other interesting papers there, too. 8)
2. The consideration, that this battle might be an "internal Germanic affair", is already there on the net.
( http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f28/muss- ... ndex5.html und the following discussion, unfortunately only in German
)
(But this does not necessarily disqualify or devalue this thought of yours :wink: )
3. Aside from what politicians or other people may need to polish their public image or what most of us may like to see as an outcome of the local prospection/excavations, right from logical aspects this point of view should be the one to start with, firsthand. After all, the findings are well inside the area that has been called "Germania Libera" --- and for good reasons so.
4. The coin-finds and the finds of other "parts of possible military use" are not necessarily a perfect logical proof of roman participation in a battle let alone a battle itself. Yes, this is "hellweg-area" (albeit not the helleweg itself, strictly speaking !) and traders and travellers may have been coming in numbers along this way in certain times. (Do we have germanic settlements already found in the vicinity of this place ??)
In other words: stray-find alert !
The coin(s), the "tent-"peg, the "Wagenkastenaufhängung" and even the hippo-sandal themselves do not give a proof perfect of a) a battle itself b) a battle under roman participation c) an exact "terminus post quem"
5. But taking the number arrow- and bolt-head-finds and their dispersion and "arrangement" on the ground into consideration now, things begin to turn a bit. IIRC we have already some battlefields from roman times with roman forces (most likely) being involved ( at least Kalkriese and Gelduba /Krefeld-Gellep at least twice) and no battlefield from these times obviously attributable to "inner-germanic" clashes, so we don't really know how "they should have looked".
We know to a certain extent, however, how a battlefield with romans involved may have looked and therefore a roman participation in a battle or "skirmish on a grand scale" ( so to speak) at the "Harzhorn" becomes much more likely this way.
BTW: the website mentioned above also cites a publication of Dietwulf Baatz : "Germanen und Katapulte: die nicht angenommen Waffe" 2007 ISBN3896464256 --- I could not verify this so far !!
The same website give an interesting albeit slightly off-topic link on slinging-ranges [ not sure, but this one may alreayd have been published on occaision of a discussion about slingers here on RAT ?!] :
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges .
Baatz has already been publishing about catapultae earlier on ( some of his stuff was IIRC published for the saalburg museum and accessible on one earler version of the museums' website, -- however : I could not find it there anymore) and has been publishing in JRMES on this subject from time to time.
Can any one submit more information on Baatz' latest publication ?
6. O.K. : 1) It looks like a battle with romans involved "prima facie" and no real weighing point against this so far IMHO.
2) There have been roman "publications" on roman expedition into "Germania Libera" after 17 A.D. -- at least twice that I surely know of Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax that would fit here. No publications on similar happenings between germanic tribes at that time -- O.K. not quite a valauble point this here :wink: . (Sincerely: would "Roman Joe Average" really be interested in such news ? I think not !)
------So, all the "image building fireworks aside" I think there is a greater probability that there is a battlefield where romans fought sometimes after 192 than not. I think this is a workable thesis to build on and, after all , there will be more excavation this year, won't there ?
And I think we may see things a bit clearer when the results of a 2009 campaign may have been published.
(Hope we have really learned the right lessons out of Kalkriese by then, ah ?!)
Greez
Simplex
1. Many thanks for the Ilerup-link. Some other interesting papers there, too. 8)
2. The consideration, that this battle might be an "internal Germanic affair", is already there on the net.
( http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f28/muss- ... ndex5.html und the following discussion, unfortunately only in German
)(But this does not necessarily disqualify or devalue this thought of yours :wink: )
3. Aside from what politicians or other people may need to polish their public image or what most of us may like to see as an outcome of the local prospection/excavations, right from logical aspects this point of view should be the one to start with, firsthand. After all, the findings are well inside the area that has been called "Germania Libera" --- and for good reasons so.
4. The coin-finds and the finds of other "parts of possible military use" are not necessarily a perfect logical proof of roman participation in a battle let alone a battle itself. Yes, this is "hellweg-area" (albeit not the helleweg itself, strictly speaking !) and traders and travellers may have been coming in numbers along this way in certain times. (Do we have germanic settlements already found in the vicinity of this place ??)
In other words: stray-find alert !
The coin(s), the "tent-"peg, the "Wagenkastenaufhängung" and even the hippo-sandal themselves do not give a proof perfect of a) a battle itself b) a battle under roman participation c) an exact "terminus post quem"
5. But taking the number arrow- and bolt-head-finds and their dispersion and "arrangement" on the ground into consideration now, things begin to turn a bit. IIRC we have already some battlefields from roman times with roman forces (most likely) being involved ( at least Kalkriese and Gelduba /Krefeld-Gellep at least twice) and no battlefield from these times obviously attributable to "inner-germanic" clashes, so we don't really know how "they should have looked".
We know to a certain extent, however, how a battlefield with romans involved may have looked and therefore a roman participation in a battle or "skirmish on a grand scale" ( so to speak) at the "Harzhorn" becomes much more likely this way.
BTW: the website mentioned above also cites a publication of Dietwulf Baatz : "Germanen und Katapulte: die nicht angenommen Waffe" 2007 ISBN3896464256 --- I could not verify this so far !!
The same website give an interesting albeit slightly off-topic link on slinging-ranges [ not sure, but this one may alreayd have been published on occaision of a discussion about slingers here on RAT ?!] :
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges .
Baatz has already been publishing about catapultae earlier on ( some of his stuff was IIRC published for the saalburg museum and accessible on one earler version of the museums' website, -- however : I could not find it there anymore) and has been publishing in JRMES on this subject from time to time.
Can any one submit more information on Baatz' latest publication ?
6. O.K. : 1) It looks like a battle with romans involved "prima facie" and no real weighing point against this so far IMHO.
2) There have been roman "publications" on roman expedition into "Germania Libera" after 17 A.D. -- at least twice that I surely know of Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax that would fit here. No publications on similar happenings between germanic tribes at that time -- O.K. not quite a valauble point this here :wink: . (Sincerely: would "Roman Joe Average" really be interested in such news ? I think not !)
------So, all the "image building fireworks aside" I think there is a greater probability that there is a battlefield where romans fought sometimes after 192 than not. I think this is a workable thesis to build on and, after all , there will be more excavation this year, won't there ?
And I think we may see things a bit clearer when the results of a 2009 campaign may have been published.
(Hope we have really learned the right lessons out of Kalkriese by then, ah ?!)
Greez
Simplex
Siggi K.
