02-12-2009, 12:08 PM
....not "out of it for Varus" ?!
My favourite archeoligical blogspot "Archeonews" once again gave me some "enlightnment" by this link:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/254385/731/2 ... teuer.html
It leads to a review in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" where Thomas Speckmann muses on a treatise by Raimund Karl, Professor for Celtology and Archeology at University of Wales "Kelten und Germanen. Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede in der Militärorganisation" in "Krieg in der antiken Welt", herausgegeben von Gerfried mandl und Ilja Steffelbauer, Magnus Verlag. ("Celts and Germans. Similarities and Differences in Military Organisation" in "War in the Antique (Ancient ?) World".
This essay poses a big question on the myth that the "clades variani" may ultimatively have led to the failure of the Augustian plans for "Germania Libera" (= I chose this expression here to clarify) . He strives to debunk the myth that the Germanic tribes "right-of-the-Rhine" would have succeeded in resisting full fledged efforts of the Empire during the first century AD in the long run. The question would rather have been if and under which extent of efforts
they would have been able to securely control the Germans. There has been and obviuos lack of infrastructure both social and economical in those areas ( as opposed to the situation in Gaul !) , which usually necessary to "carry" such roman efforts. Romes military system would have come to its limits here.
The installment of long-enduring reign in "Germania" would have meant efforts im manpower and material or the development of an "roman infrastructure" "from the ground".
This would have been severely out of proportion to the estimated income from taxes or gain in security.
It would have been more sensible and rational to use the given local structures of "clientela" kingdoms there.
The review goes on to state that "the strong growth of population, the development of early urban infrastructure in most parts of western and central Europe, the growing hierachical development of the celtic society during the late iron age (~ "late La Tene ?) enabled to "promote" the "projection" of the Roman military system till "up to" Britain. ......" The review goes on commenting on the fall of the western roman empire and the the effects the aforementioned social structures ultimately had on the times afterwards, leading , in the end, to the medieval "feudal" system.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has read the original essay.
Greez
Simplex
Mistakes therein may be kept by the finder. :wink:
My favourite archeoligical blogspot "Archeonews" once again gave me some "enlightnment" by this link:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/254385/731/2 ... teuer.html
It leads to a review in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" where Thomas Speckmann muses on a treatise by Raimund Karl, Professor for Celtology and Archeology at University of Wales "Kelten und Germanen. Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede in der Militärorganisation" in "Krieg in der antiken Welt", herausgegeben von Gerfried mandl und Ilja Steffelbauer, Magnus Verlag. ("Celts and Germans. Similarities and Differences in Military Organisation" in "War in the Antique (Ancient ?) World".
This essay poses a big question on the myth that the "clades variani" may ultimatively have led to the failure of the Augustian plans for "Germania Libera" (= I chose this expression here to clarify) . He strives to debunk the myth that the Germanic tribes "right-of-the-Rhine" would have succeeded in resisting full fledged efforts of the Empire during the first century AD in the long run. The question would rather have been if and under which extent of efforts
they would have been able to securely control the Germans. There has been and obviuos lack of infrastructure both social and economical in those areas ( as opposed to the situation in Gaul !) , which usually necessary to "carry" such roman efforts. Romes military system would have come to its limits here.
The installment of long-enduring reign in "Germania" would have meant efforts im manpower and material or the development of an "roman infrastructure" "from the ground".
This would have been severely out of proportion to the estimated income from taxes or gain in security.
It would have been more sensible and rational to use the given local structures of "clientela" kingdoms there.
The review goes on to state that "the strong growth of population, the development of early urban infrastructure in most parts of western and central Europe, the growing hierachical development of the celtic society during the late iron age (~ "late La Tene ?) enabled to "promote" the "projection" of the Roman military system till "up to" Britain. ......" The review goes on commenting on the fall of the western roman empire and the the effects the aforementioned social structures ultimately had on the times afterwards, leading , in the end, to the medieval "feudal" system.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has read the original essay.
Greez
Simplex
Mistakes therein may be kept by the finder. :wink:
Siggi K.
