Roman battlefield found deep inside Germany

[Robert]

Shovels and axes were often carried by the legionair himself. In a combat situation it is easy to lose one's pack, so finding strewn artifacts like that will be difficult to connect to actual use. A very precise mapping of the battlefield and a proper dig is the only way to even raise such a hypothesis, if for instance axes were found in conjunction with the ground traces of stakes or battlements.

[M. Demetrius]

And tools, unlike weapons, would more likely have been collected for use by someone who found them.

"Hey, look! An axe!"
"Whoa, bro, good find. Let's take it home with us."
"Good idea. And another shovel will come in handy for digging the new privy pit."
"This is our lucky day. Let's go buy a lottery ticket right away."

[Robert]

Weapon or tool alike, I believe both would be picked up if found. Conditions must have favoured things staying lost, like heavy undergrowth or very unstable, perhaps waterlogged, soil.

[jkaler48]

Perhaps tools and not hand weapons were found (so far) because in combat tools might be dropped to draw weapons but weapons would not be dropped to pick up tools. Tools used to breech earthworks and dropped to draw weapons as the breach was accomplished may have easily been covered by the spoil of or the collapse the earthworks as the Romans pushed thru the breach. Again as pointed out this is highly speculative unless future excavations provide supporting evidence.

[M. Demetrius]

I said that because I read just recently (on this thread a page back??) that there have been found large piles of weapons at groves and other Germanic sacred places, apparently given as votive offerings. A pickaxe or shovel, hammer or turf cutter would not be as likely to be put in that offering pile, imho.

Then again, if I had no sword, I might delay the donative until the battle was over, and would fight with whatever weapon was available to my hand...then give the foreign tool to my own deity, with thanks for my survival and provision of that which I needed.

[Mar]

Thorsberg
Nydam,
Illerup Adal
Vimose
...

Weapons were not the only items dumped into the bogs and seas, combs and firestarters for example were commonly sacrified.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Looks Roman to me, the axe head.

The axe head is in the same style as other axe heads found in Roman
contexts including some from the UK. (One from Cameron and one found at Newstead)
Photos here: Yahoo roman gear group

Thanks John!

[caiusbeerquitius]

I just had a talk with Prof. Dr. Ubl about this on the phone. We agreed upon that we in fact cannot be sure that Romans were involved in this fight at all. In the light of the findings from the northern bogs as well as this specific article ([url:2nedy7il]http://www.illerup.dk/documents/illerup_81.pdf[/url]) it may very well be the case that this are the remains of German tribal fighting.

After leaving Mogontiacum and crossing the Rhine his first goal was probably to secure the Roman territories east of the river, the northern part of Agri Decumates. Then attacking the Germanic settlements near modern Kassel, which is just around 100 km away from the Wetterau, the most northern tip of Rome's territories east of the Rhine. The route was used regularly by Roman armies campaigning against the Chatti since Drusus times. If the Germans had deserted their settlements as described by Herodian, Maximinus could have decided to pursue them further north. Kalefeld is around 70 km away from Kassel, so only a few day marshes.

Geography: How do we know those exact places Maximinus went to (Kassel, e.g.)?
Is this based on some sound facts / texts?
I think it is more plausible to first of all expect German tribal fighting, especially in regard of the size of the battlefield. The presence of Roman objects at the site does not necessarily imply Roman presence. However, Roman presence cannot be ruled out as well.

[Robert Vermaat]

I just had a talk with Prof. Dr. Ubl about this on the phone. We agreed upon that we in fact cannot be sure that Romans were involved in this fight at all. In the light of the findings from the northern bogs as well as this specific article ([url:2dz1r1bs]http://www.illerup.dk/documents/illerup_81.pdf[/url]) it may very well be the case that this are the remains of German tribal fighting.

Roman objects in Illerup and other bogs were the minority among Germanic objects. How many Germanic objects were found on this battlefield, and what ratio was there between Roman and Germanic objects?

I mean, before we start reasoning away any Roman presence because it does not fit our current models of expectation.....

[caiusbeerquitius]

Roman objects in Illerup and other bogs were the minority among Germanic objects.

Is that so? Why does the chief archaeologist for Illerup make a different statement, then? Have you read the article? :wink:

Additionally:
From 180 onwards larger amounts of Germanic warriors were fighting for the Roman empire. When they returned they certainly would have had Roman weapons with them as well.

I mean, before we start reasoning away any Roman presence because it does not fit our current models of expectation.....

I didn´t do that. But as far as the archaeological evidence goes: To say in this case Romans were present is as valid as saying Romans were not present.

it may very well be the case that this are the remains of German tribal fighting.

and

I think it is more plausible to first of all expect German tribal fighting, especially in regard of the size of the battlefield. The presence of Roman objects at the site does not necessarily imply Roman presence. However, Roman presence cannot be ruled out as well.

Is what I said.

[Robert]

Hmmm. The abundancy of catapult bolts would IMHO argue against German infighting. These things were expensive hardware. I would be much in favour of viewing this as a punitive action, a quick strike into outland to drive home a lesson; do NOT mess with us at your cost! These strikes have been documented.

[Simplex]

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

[Robert Vermaat]

Roman objects in Illerup and other bogs were the minority among Germanic objects.
Is that so? Why does the chief archaeologist for Illerup make a different statement, then? Have you read the article? :wink:

Yes I've read the article, but I've not come across any such statement. The author discusses 'only' Illerup Area A and Vimose 3, and mentions that from both sites (not just a and 3), c. 18500 objects were discovered. He does not even mention the objects found in the other bog sites. Nowhere do I come across any statement that most of the objects found in the Northern bogs were for the most part of Roman origin. To the contrary, on page 4 he states that “Roman objects occur in Barbaricum since the start of the 1st century occasionally, are not out of the ordinary” (Römische Waffen im Barbaricum gehören seit der Zeit um Christi Geburt zu seltenen, keineswegs aber ungewöhnlichen Funden).

Additionally:
From 180 onwards larger amounts of Germanic warriors were fighting for the Roman empire. When they returned they certainly would have had Roman weapons with them as well.

Of course, many ‘Roman’ objects will have been in the possession of non-Romans through service, trade, whatever. But this is not a deposit site but a battlefield. And to assume that two Germanic armies leave more Roman than Germanic objects behind (which is, as I assume, the current view so far) would be a bit odd.

I mean, before we start reasoning away any Roman presence because it does not fit our current models of expectation.....

I didn´t do that. But as far as the archaeological evidence goes: To say in this case Romans were present is as valid as saying Romans were not present.

Nope, you did not, never said so, but I was warning against the possibility that it could occur. In my opinion, if you have a site with more Roman objects than Germanic, the most logical assumption would imho not be that all the Roman objects had been imported.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Yes I've read the article, but I've not come across any such statement. The author discusses 'only' Illerup Area A and Vimose 3, and mentions that from both sites (not just a and 3), c. 18500 objects were discovered. He does not even mention the objects found in the other bog sites. Nowhere do I come across any statement that most of the objects found in the Northern bogs were for the most part of Roman origin. To the contrary, on page 4 he states that “Roman objects occur in Barbaricum since the start of the 1st century occasionally, are not out of the ordinary” (Römische Waffen im Barbaricum gehören seit der Zeit um Christi Geburt zu seltenen, keineswegs aber ungewöhnlichen Funden).

Yes, but doesn´t he state for the later periods that

Dagegen waren römische Waffen, und hier insbesondere
Schwerter, seit der Zeit um 200 n.Chr. von
entscheidender Bedeutung für jede militärische Planung
bezüglich interner Auseinandersetzungen germanischer
Gruppen und Stämme. In dieser Zeit verschwinden die
einschneidigen Hiebschwerter sowohl in den Gräbern
als auch in den Mooren aus der germanischen Bewaffnung
und werden durch zweischneidige Langschwerter
römischer Provenienz ersetzt. Es waren also die germanischen
Kriegereliten der Mitte des 2. Jh.s, die diese
römische Waffe benötigten. Ein gesicherter Zustrom
war offensichtlich von entscheidender Bedeutung. Wir
können mit großer Sicherheit postulieren, daß die Eliten
sowohl auf dem Kontinent als auch in Skandinavien
in ein effektives Handelsnetz für römische Waffen
eingebunden waren, das durch die römische Gesetzgebung
kaum zu unterbinden war.

Summary in English:

Roman swords and
Roman sword sheath accoutrements are to be found
particularly often in thèse complexes In this context,
they represent weapons of high technical value which
were absolutely necessary as the basic equipment of a
unit effective in combat. The Teutonic principes must
have been to a high degree dependent on the import of
these weapons.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I also would like to point out that the objects in the red circle are not necessarily bolt heads. They may very well be heads of light throwing spears (veruta), common in the 3rd c. CE. Are there any other pics of the bolt heads, and does someone have a pic of the arrowheads?