06-09-2001, 10:25 PM
I hope someone can help me with this. In a discussion about the article on the Kalkriese battlefield, which I posted here a few days ago, one member of Germanic-L is arguing that it wasn't Cherusci tribesmen who attacked Varus but Cherusci auxiliaries. This poster is a very knowledgeable person who has researched this battle for many years but, as much as I respect her, I think she has something of a modern political agenda with this argument.<br>
<br>
The defeat of Varus has been used by modern German nationalists as a political fable for about 200 years and was certainly used by the Nazis for their perverted nationalist ends. In this view, Arminius was a noble young Aryan hero, who roused and united the tribes against the Roman aggressors and, through splendid racial purity and proto-National Socialist ardour, defeated the invaders and cleansed the Fatherland.<br>
<br>
This is, of course, pure nonsense. There was no concept of a 'German people' in Arminius' time and his army consisted of (most) of the Cherusci and a couple of their neighbouring tribes - there's no evidence it was a broad pan-tribal alliance. Iris, the poster mentioned above, goes further however. She argues that the most likely motivation for the uprising was the fact that Cheruscian auxilia serving with Arminius in Pannonia had not been paid donatives they felt were due to them. The warriors who attacked Varus, therefore, were not people determined to throw off the shackles of Roman rule, but actually mutineers and Arminius wasn't a tribal chieftain but simply a traitor to his Roman commanders. She goes further to argue that the battle wasn't a battle at all, but simply a massacre and even compares it to the civilian massacres in Rwanda and to the Holocaust.<br>
<br>
To my way of thinking, all this is bordering on politically correct revisionism. To reject the Nazi/nationalist myths of brave Aryan heroes is one thing, but to pretend the whole uprising was simply a mutiny (and that the Romans were defenceless peaceniks on a nature walk who were mugged by muderous traitorous auxiliaries) is going rather too far in the other direction.<br>
<br>
One of her arguments is that the young men of the Cherusci would <i> all</i> have been trained Roman auxiliaries who had been drilled and organised into units and were still in Roman service when they attacked Varus' column. She bases this on the fact that, after an uprising of the Cherusci against the governor Marcus Vinicius in 1-4 AD the Cherusci are reported to be a subjected people "in pace recepti". Iris says this was a technical term which meant "the 'iuventus', i.e. all young men fit for military service were disarmed first and then organized in auxiliary cohorts and posted in camps with young native nobles and Roman officers being their commanders and trained Roman field officers being their 'drill-sargeants' "<br>
<br>
Leaving aside the fact that her theory about unpaid donatives is conjecture at best, I find it strange that none of the Roman sources mention that the Cherusci attacking Varus were all trained auxiliaries. Does the term "in pace recepti" mean precisely what she says it does, or is this a slightly overdefinite interpretation?<br>
<br>
Excuse the length of the preamble to this question, but any comments or assistance will be very welcome. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
The defeat of Varus has been used by modern German nationalists as a political fable for about 200 years and was certainly used by the Nazis for their perverted nationalist ends. In this view, Arminius was a noble young Aryan hero, who roused and united the tribes against the Roman aggressors and, through splendid racial purity and proto-National Socialist ardour, defeated the invaders and cleansed the Fatherland.<br>
<br>
This is, of course, pure nonsense. There was no concept of a 'German people' in Arminius' time and his army consisted of (most) of the Cherusci and a couple of their neighbouring tribes - there's no evidence it was a broad pan-tribal alliance. Iris, the poster mentioned above, goes further however. She argues that the most likely motivation for the uprising was the fact that Cheruscian auxilia serving with Arminius in Pannonia had not been paid donatives they felt were due to them. The warriors who attacked Varus, therefore, were not people determined to throw off the shackles of Roman rule, but actually mutineers and Arminius wasn't a tribal chieftain but simply a traitor to his Roman commanders. She goes further to argue that the battle wasn't a battle at all, but simply a massacre and even compares it to the civilian massacres in Rwanda and to the Holocaust.<br>
<br>
To my way of thinking, all this is bordering on politically correct revisionism. To reject the Nazi/nationalist myths of brave Aryan heroes is one thing, but to pretend the whole uprising was simply a mutiny (and that the Romans were defenceless peaceniks on a nature walk who were mugged by muderous traitorous auxiliaries) is going rather too far in the other direction.<br>
<br>
One of her arguments is that the young men of the Cherusci would <i> all</i> have been trained Roman auxiliaries who had been drilled and organised into units and were still in Roman service when they attacked Varus' column. She bases this on the fact that, after an uprising of the Cherusci against the governor Marcus Vinicius in 1-4 AD the Cherusci are reported to be a subjected people "in pace recepti". Iris says this was a technical term which meant "the 'iuventus', i.e. all young men fit for military service were disarmed first and then organized in auxiliary cohorts and posted in camps with young native nobles and Roman officers being their commanders and trained Roman field officers being their 'drill-sargeants' "<br>
<br>
Leaving aside the fact that her theory about unpaid donatives is conjecture at best, I find it strange that none of the Roman sources mention that the Cherusci attacking Varus were all trained auxiliaries. Does the term "in pace recepti" mean precisely what she says it does, or is this a slightly overdefinite interpretation?<br>
<br>
Excuse the length of the preamble to this question, but any comments or assistance will be very welcome. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
</p><i></i>
Tim ONeill / Thiudareiks Flavius /Thiudareiks Gunthigg
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
