Login

09-02-2004, 09:14 PM

I happened to come across a speech by a modern Marine Corps fellow who refers to Varus's defeat in Germany. He mentions that the Germans won because they knew that the new Roman weapons were heavy cavalry and archers, and that they drew the Romans into swampy woodlands where neither the cavalry or the archers could operate, thus isolating the light infantry of the Roman army and making them easy prey. He specifically refers to the success of this 'new' style of combat in Varus's victory over the Germans AD 6, 3 years before the clades. 
 
This may be me showing my ignorance, but I have no idea what he's talking about. I was unaware of any major restructuring of the Roman army to rely primarily on 'heavy' cavalry (whatever that's supposed to mean) and archers anything like near AD 9 -- there was certainly a growth in the use of cavalry over the imperial period, and after the Diocletianic reforms or into the Byzantine era I could understand what he's talking about, but Varus? 
I could just be wrong, but does anyone know what he's talking about? 
Does anyone know what victory over the Germans in 6 he's referring to, especially as regards the use of archers and heavy cavalry to win it? Or does anyone know about how the ineffectivity of cavalry and archers made Varus lose the battle? I found a bit about cavalry in Dio, but it mentions not only the Roman cavalry but the infantry as well being unable to deploy properly in the terrain. 
 
Please help me out here -- I feel like everything I know is wrong. Or everything that this fellow knows...

09-03-2004, 12:26 AM

I'm not a Roman Military expert by any means.....but 
 
The Gladius varied in length from 35-50 cm(according to Feugere)......hold a ruler out and get an idea of how short that really is. 
 
Add on top if that the Pugio dagger which from my understanding during this period was standard equipment. 
 
Plus a large very protective shield and good head and torso armor. 
 
That to me adds up to a heavy infantry, but a very good close quarter fighting one. Short swords etc will be excellent for that. 
 
I think the Varus disaster was based on tactics and surprise(if ur army is strung out for kilometers on end and not in the standard battle formation it makes for an easy ambush situation)........but yes not being able to use cavalry is a detriment for sure...

09-03-2004, 01:28 AM

I understand that it rained, the scuta got soaked, preventing their effective use.

09-03-2004, 10:28 AM

I believe the Varus command was destroyed because it was lured into a very restrictive area between a hill and a bog, in some places only 10 feet wide. The Germans prepared the attack well in advance with a wall running parallel to the path. When the attack began, the Germans opened up with everything the had, spear,javelin,sling what have you and possibly brought down a quarter of the Roman soldiers before they even jumped the wall for CQ combat. The Romans were in disarray, unable to maneuver and were encumbered with their marching gear and all of the dead and dying at their feet. They didn't have a chance and were mowed down by the Germans.As for the cavalry, true they coudn't be used but then again the tried and true open field maneuvering tactics of the legions couldn't be used either. Keep in mind Arminius knew Roman tactics and may even have had the cavalry in his pocket, after all they were probably auxiliaries and may even have been German doing their part to lead the Romans into the trap.The legion was destroyed because Arminius knew the weaknesses of Roman warfare and exploited them. The other battles that the marine spoke of in 6 may have been the previous Roman expeditions into German territory in which the Germans waged a Guerrilla war, attacking and retreating and also using the terrain to lay traps. I believe the Romans were nearly destroyed on 3 occasions during that expedition. I may be wrong here though.

Goffredo · 09-03-2004, 11:06 AM

Well the cavalry might very well have been in on the rebellion. Arminius, that organized everything, was, until the start of the battle, pretending to be on Roman sides! 
The men with him most likely changed sides too to reveal their real hearts. 
 
The story of marshes and forests making romans fight in difficulty, on the individual level, has the problem that the very same forests and marshes made things difficult for the germans too! Maybe less so, but to think the germans had it easy is foolish. Equipment heaviness it part of the truth, a factor that tallied against the romans, but I fear it doesn't really explain all that much. Its more for show! 
 
The romans lost because the very long column had been attacked and broken up with the isolated portions being kept from regaining some form of order. The battle was broken up into independent ones. 
 
Most likely the germans were NOT spread out uniformily along the roman columns but were concentrated at points so that they had enough men to overrun single roman portions and cut the column into parts. 
 
Once formation was lost, with no hope of regaining it, and with the germans doing whatever they pleased it was a matter of time the romans get ground to bits. It took three days! Ancient battles are complex things and to think the roman lost because the scuta soaked it just like saying Rome fell because of lead pipes. These are nice and fascinating parts of a GRAND picture but one you think about the sheer size of Varus' amry the more it becomes obvious to me that something more sophisticated and, in my humble opinion, more drammatic was happening.

09-03-2004, 12:30 PM

Yes, these are all parts of the reasons that I've heard for the defeat. It's really a very interesting discussion to have, although I suspect that, like always, there isn't really 'one' answer. 
Primarily, I was concerned by the comments regarding heavy cavalry and archers having just become Rome's 'secret weapons' -- something I had never heard of. 
Please keep talking about the battle (I think it's fun, except for the whole 'violence' part), but let me focus you all with a couple of questions: 
Does anyone know anything about archers or heavy cavalry being incorporated into Varus's army in some revolutionary way which made them the primary elements of the army over, say, legionary infantry? 
Does anyone know what the author was referring to when he discussed Varus's 'victory' 3 years before which used these new 'secret weapons?' 
 
Thanks again for your help. We're trying to piece together the factual basis for some theory of warfare or other, and this guy's comments are leading me to believe that either he knows far more about Augustan-era warfare than I do, or far less.

09-03-2004, 02:52 PM

Is this speech by the Marine Officer available anywhere on line? 
 
Based upon what you have said it sounds as if the Marine is trying to make a case for the new SBCT units being fielded by the US Army. He seems to be saying that had the Romans been organized and equipped as a light and mobile army they could have won the battle. 
 
Without going too far off topic it sohould be noted that the SBCT is under a lot of fire right now (in Congress, in military think tanks, and in Iraq) as an interesting concept built around a faulty vehicle design which if implimented will cost too much (about $4 million per vehicle) been ineffective (too heavy to fly in C130's) and result in too many needless combat deaths (Armor too thin to resist RPG's.) 
 
I am no expert on the Roman Army (but this site has many and perhaps some of them will weigh in on this topic) however, in all of my addmitedly limited reading on this battle I have never heard it put forth that the Germans won because the Romans were unable to use their 'secret' weapons or that the Romans even had 'heavy' cavalry at this time. 
 
The speech by the Marine officer seems to have more to do with current military tends than with ancient Rome history. 
 
Again, if there is a copy of that speech or paper on line please pass on the link. Thanks. 
 
Narukami

Felix · 09-03-2004, 08:51 PM

Narukami: That was a very perceptive post. I agree that the picture supposedly painted by the Marine officer is quite unlike the Roman army of Varus' time. The Romans will eventually meet, and incorporate some heavily armored cavalry (the Sarmatians, ?Alani) in a couple hundred years. Archers will become an important element of Roman infantry, several hundred years later in the Eastern Empire. 
 
As for the Teotoburger battle, I would suggest that the terrain played a crucial role. Not only were the Romans not able to concentrate on the larger scale, but the minor tactics used by the legions were hampered also. A forest and swamp greatly interfere with deployment in ordered, spaced lines with ordered reserves backing them up in a controlled manner. Ancient set-piece battles were not fought in rough terrain. Instead of the usual formed cohort, you would have men fighting out of their usual position, not supported in the usual manner, and (perhaps) not knowing exactly which way to face (if being harassed from both sides of the path). Yes, the Germans would face the same issues - but the Germans were used to these conditions, and the fact that the Germans didn't rely on ordered, controlled formations probably meant they were at a relative advantage in the forest.

09-03-2004, 11:06 PM

SBCT = Stryker? 
 
Interesting and probably accurate speculation, Narukami. 
 
Rich K.

09-04-2004, 04:54 AM

It is just speculation, but I found it quite strange that the Roman Army of the Principate would be associated with 'Heavy' Cavalry. 
 
Indeed, the SBCT is being built around the Stryker. LTC. M Robel has written a very interesting report on the SBCT and why the Stryker is the wrong vehicle for the job, particularly in its current configuration. If you are interested rkmvca, I will be happy to pass it on to you out side of this forum (so as not to stray too far off topic here). 
 
And yes Felix, I agree, the terrain play a major role in the battle as did the rain, and the poor decisions made by Varus (as opposed to the rather astute ones made by Arminius). This really is a fascinating battle and there is one member of this site who is developing a film about it. Perhaps he will add a post and give us his ideas concerning any Roman 'secret weapons' and just what the Roman's had in the way of cavalry at this battle. (And what it did or did not do.) 
 
Again, if someone knows where on the net one could find this Marine's speech I would be interested in reading it to see just what point he was trying to make. 
 
Narukami

09-04-2004, 01:03 PM

Yes, in fact, very close. The speech he is making is as regards a relatively new philosophy of urban warfare, called three block warfare, where the idea is that chaos can build up quickly on the battlefield and NCO's must be trained to deal with rapidly changing situations, rather than expecting higher-level officers to jump in. He compares this to the Varus situation and makes the justifiable claim that the chaos of the battle and the inability of the low-level officers to understand and react to the situation contributed to the slaughter, although there was a lot going on. But he goes on to give a lot of details about the troop types and such which suggest to me that he may, at least in part, have been thinking of something else from much later in Roman history. 
 
I'll see if the fellow is on the internet anywhere. As far as we can tell, only one of his speeches has been declassified, but we understand that he likes making his Varus bit in the other speeches; obviously, we don't know for sure.

Goffredo · 09-04-2004, 01:16 PM

Look at geophysical map of roman empire. There are a surprisingly large number of areas that were conquered and along the Limes that were not particularly flat! The roman army faired well there too. It seems to me that the romans kicked "germans" around quite often deep in "german" territory. The myth that the romans were hindered by forests and non flat-battle fields is, in my opinion, simply too simple to be wrong. The romans in the teutoburg lost, the germans won!, because the romans were marching and never wheeled into battle position. Hindered by the terrain that arminius chose for the ambush. How true, but exception too! Hurray for the genius of Arminius to have understood that was the only realistic option to beat 3 legions was to trick Varus into thinking there was no danger, accept dinner invitations, play along as though everything were normal while in the mean time organize with incredible ability the germans into placing themselves along the very long roman column until the various traps could go off. To think the germans always fought that way is simply not true. Maybe they learned they had little or no chance in fighting romans in picthed battles so only ambushes, guerilla or small group warfare gave them some fighting chance. But the romans delt with them successfullyl for centuries, not by defeating them on opne flat ground but by going after them even beyond the limes into forests! 
 
The germans traditionally fought in formations (ceasar describes in then even forming dense phalanxs) as any too open mob could have been easily beaten. That was the reality of ancient battles. The teutoburg never turned into a battle. Arminius understood the necessity of that.

09-04-2004, 01:21 PM

Okay, for those of you who care, I have some info on the source. The unclassified speech we have access to may not be available on the net, but you can find it through proquest if you have access. Here's the bibl. info: 
 
Charles C. Crulak. "The Three Block War: Fighting in urban areas." Vital Speeches of the Day. New York: Dec. 15, 1997. Vol. 64, Iss. 5; p. 139, 3 pages. 
 
Like I said, we found it on proquest. My wife got it through the NDU library. Have fun...

John M McDermott · 09-04-2004, 04:54 PM

The Teutoberger Wald battle was executed in the classic fashion of an ambush that we were trained to both execute and defend against at Quantico, Virginia. The Roman column was strung out for 2 miles or so in an untactical formation. A mule bell found at the battle sight was stuffed with straw to muffle it, suggesting the Roman's were aware of the possibility of ambush, but stumbled into this one, none the less. 
 
Attacked in this condition, the Roman army's doom was sealed very quickly, even though isolated pockets continued to fight on. 
 
The Germans had the high ground and even a wall to hide behind. To the Roman rear was swamp. When the attack was sprung, the Germans had only to penetrate a short distance to overrun the Romans. The army was very quickly chopped up and could then be defeated in detail at the leisure of the Germans. 
 
Did Herman study Lake Tresimene while with the Romans?

09-05-2004, 02:54 AM

If the battle took place over the span of three days and assuming that they were ambushed on the first day, wouldn't that mean that by at least the end of the first day or beginning of the second day, Varus and his legions were no longer surprised? 
 
Were there perhaps other factors leading to varus' defeat other than an ambush on the first day? Something terribly wrong must have happened over the course of the three day battle... I would think that Romans, with their legendary staying power might have been able to wear down the Germans. 
 
Varys had three legions, which was a rather large force in that time, wouldn't he be able to wheel or somehow salvage the situation? I think attributing such a massive defeat to an ambush action spanning three days would seem kind of far fetched. Perhaps Varus and his commanders were incompetent... 
 
An ambush could have meant his inevitable defeat from the start but wouldn't he have at least have seen it coming and tried to retreat in good order? From my understanding, the three legions were almost completely destroyed. Then again, the Germans could have outnumbered the Romans, but from what I've read, it was the other way around. Perhaps the Roman commanders were not incompetent and thought that they could still salvage the situation, and it did take three days of fighting. Could this mean that man for man, the Germans were better fighters in the terrain and conditions that the battle took place? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=manatrakoolmd>Manatrakoolmd</A> at: 9/5/04 5:03 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	2000 Anniversay Teutoburg Wald	Waewae the Barbarian	1	1,858	08-09-2007, 06:19 AM Last Post: caiusbeerquitius
	Questions on the Legions at Teutoburg Wald	Anonymous	19	4,620	01-15-2005, 07:05 PM Last Post: Anonymous