Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest

message: Is that some sort of joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.161.27 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. More like a slogan or catch-phrase.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Herman the German?

message: Removed:
:According to Robert Graves in I, Claudius, the centurion Cassius Chaerea (future Praetorian Guard prefect and assassin of Caligula) led less than one hundred Roman survivors from the forest back to Roman lines.
because Robert Graves, as far as I can tell, simply invented the story. This could be put back into a section on fictional portrayals of the battle, but blending admittedly-fictional and ostensibly-factual material like this just does the reader a disservice. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Graves

message: I made a smaller change, since the war did _not_ end with this battle. In fact the opposite happened, the most violent phase started a few years later. If someone would be poised in doing the review and rectify my typos and the grammar, I'd translate the German entry, which is (due to the importance of this event in the modern German history) very well worked out.
My user page can be found in the German Wikipedia, named Dragoon. Unfortunately an accounts is valid only for one language or is there a special way to log in when working on a different account?
Regards--84.189.163.129 15:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translator needed

message: 12/13/05   Removed the phrase "inexperienced in battle" in the opening paragraph concerning Varus. HammarbySwede 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Inexperienced in battle"

message: From (1899) "The Great Battles of All Nations". New York: Peter Fenelon Collier & Son. Edited by Archibald Wilberforce. Volume 1, pages 134-146.  The copyright has expired, so here's the whole chapter. Looks like this is most of Chapter 5 of The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, although this text is from a different book.  (SEWilco 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Battles of All Nations 

message: Rather than accussing me of I don't know what like a common troll I'd like User:Matthead to discuss his edits. I'd like him to explain to me why the german translation should be included when it concerns a battle between Germanic (not German) tribes and the roman empire fought before the appearance of the German, let alone modern standard german , language. I understand if a German translation is included in the Teutoburg forest article, but not in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article. Defend your point of view Matthead or I will go to the authorities.Rex 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. The article makes that role more than clear already. There is no need for it being in the lead.Rex 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German name bias 

message: This article concerns a battle between the Romans and various Germanic tribes in the Teutoburg Forest. There were no Germans nor was there German, let alone Standard High German, at the time. I am aware of the role this battle (or rather the stories around it) played in German nationalism, but do not think this validates the inclusion of German translations of the battle. This article already has various sections in which the battles inpact on the Germans is explained the German translations in the intro are surplus and unnecesary.Rex 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the removal of the German terms. In fact I think they should be bolded. Just as the Germanicized popular name Hermann is relevant at Arminius, much of the relevance of the modern context for the battle is predicated on the modern Germans - regardless of your personal feelings about them. - WeniWidiWiki 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article covers more than just the the historical battle. It also covers the historical effect of the battle on the peoples who later became Germans, the significance on the German romanticist movement in Germany and abroad, the modern excavation and archaeology of the historic site (in Germany) as well as modern portrayals in popular culture. If anything, the article is very skewed toward the Imperium Romanum. - WeniWidiWiki 15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, too, as per WeniWidiWiki.-- Matthead discuß!     O       23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as per WeniWidiWiki's reasoning. :bloodofox: 11:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as per WeniWidiWiki's reasoning. CyrilleDunant 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, German language is relevant to the article.--Caranorn 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, German language is relevant and including the relevant terms helps searchers. (SEWilco 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Suggestion Set the sentence within ref/ref html to place it less conspicuously in the existing Notes section. --Wetman 02:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose, pro linguistic diversity - it has a direct and indirect relevance to this article --Sushi Leone 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: comment, this is exclusively about the personal feelings of Rex. I don't recall having a similar discussion with anyone else. I couldn't imagine a proposal to, say, remove the dāśarājñá (or, for that matter, a Hindi or Punjabi gloss) from Battle of the Ten Kings on the grounds that its presence constitutes Indian nationalism. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: oppose, mr. rex would not only like to sever the german dialects from it's related neighbours but also germany from its history beyond 1871, as, according to him, it did not exist. all the more, the battle took place in what's now modern germany and most if not all of the tribes involved are ancestors to german people of today. i also support the arguments of weniwidiwiki.Sundar1 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: Removal of German translation from intro.  

message: I've pulled the following bit from the lede:
"...and the following linguistically mistaken assignment of the German name Hermann to Arminius by Martin Luther created great interest in the classical figure." Diff
Please cite a source for this. - WeniWidiWiki 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they threw it back in. "Hermann" means "Man of War". Sounds like an appropriate name to me.73.220.34.167 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced sentence

message: Was he governor of Gaul or the newly established Germania ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publius Quinctilius Varus. 

message: The war actions of Germanicus are essentially mentioned twice. There is a sound impression that this section was synchronously touched by many editors. Dipa1965 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Roman Retaliation' section contains redundant information

message: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY8SwRu6dheaLnRSctQr8uOG-lAgD95399Q01
Roman battlefield discovered in northern Germany
By KAI SCHOENEBERG – Dec 15, 2008 
KALEFELD-OLDENRODE, Germany (AP) — Archaeologists say they have uncovered a third-century battlefield in northern Germany which could prove that Roman legions were fighting in the region much later than historians have long believed.
Rome's most famous incursion into the north of modern Germany came in A.D. 9, when Roman soldiers were defeated by Germanic tribesman at the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
However, the newly uncovered battlefield near Kalefeld-Oldenrode, south of Hanover, is some 200 kilometers (124 miles) northwest of the Teutoberg Forest and appears to date to between A.D. 180-260.
At a press conference Monday, archeologists said they used coins and weaponry excavated from an area 1 1/2 kilometers (one mile) long and 500 meters (1/3 of a mile) wide to date the battlefield.
Petra Loenne, an archaeologist for the state of Lower Saxony, said she and her colleagues have found 600 artifacts, including spears, arrowheads, catapult bolts and dishes at the site of a struggle that might have involved up to 1,000 Roman fighters.
Guenther Moosbauer, an expert at the University of Osnabrueck who studies Roman-German history, said he suspects the battle might have been started by a legion seeking revenge after tribesman in A.D. 235 pushed Roman troops south of the Limes Germanicus, a ring of forts that separated the empire from unconquered land to the north and east.
"We will need to take a new look at the sources," Moosbauer said. 
Ryoung122 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Battlefield discovered

message: In the article Kalkriese is definitely considered the place where the battle took place.
This theory is however heavily disputed in Germany, where there is a growing sentiment between pro- and anti-Kalriese scholars. In fact there are hardly any valuable clues that point to Kalkriese as place of the Varus battle. That a battle took place there is undisputed. It is however more probable that it was an engagement between Arminius and Germanicus during his 15/16 AD campaign which is also mentioned by Tacitus in his Annales.
Since Germanicus campaigns are well documented by Tacitus, we know that Germanicus was aware of the real place of the battle and tried to avoid this area in confrontation. The Germans on the other Hand tried to lure him into the area which Germanicus refused.
Germanicus even took an northern approach by sea and landed his troops at the mouth of river Ems where he could secure support by sea and led a successful campaign up the Ems in South-Eastern direction. Tacitus claims that Roman legions on campaign have never before been this far inside Germany in Eastern direction. Since this area is where Kalkriese is at, it is impossible that the Varus battle took place there.
Since all the findings in the Kalkriese area are probably caused by Germanicus campaign, there are no reasons to assume the Varus battle actually took place there.
The German wiki article is much more critical of the Kalkriese site than the English article which has to be changed.
Ultraferret  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.23.3 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The Angrivarians, who later formed a sub-tribe of the Saxons, lived near the river Weser (which would today roughly be the Northrhine-Westphalian region "Ostwestfalen-Lippe"). This is more than fifty kilometres east of Kalkriese. 84.143.115.229 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalkriese or not ? 

message: The part dealing with the Battle of the Weser River, which says that the Romans "sustained only minor losses" is inconsistent with the actual article on the battle, which counts "heavy losses on both sides". Which is right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Retaliation 

message: dio cassius has been a governor north of the danube, i think when mommsen noticed kalkriese for him it must have been easy. also i assume 200 years later people still knew pretty well how things went , you could probably still find all the roman camp sites once you know the route .24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dio cassius 

message: The article gives the date of the battle as September 9 to September 11 , AD 9 (edit from 22:40, 10 August 2008). What's the source for this?
Some people speculate that Arminius lured Varus into the direction of an important thingplace where at some point (new moon - Sep 7? full moon - Sep 23? September equinox - Sep 25? dates from calsky.com) huge masses of tribesmen were supposed to start an uprising which would have required a major Roman force to squash it. A Germanic thing was according to Tacitus usually going for three days and so something in the vicinity of Sep 23-25 would be likely if the dates are correct. Varus of course had to start his march a few days earlier. 84.188.166.71 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the battle 

message: Hi, i "roughly" reworked the Roman retaliation section, please you corrige my english and you add "the links".I only translated the main steps from italian wiki, you find the links to italian wiki at the end of section .--Moqq (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman retaliation 

message: It has been awhile since I read this article, and the addition of losses for the Germanic tribes caught my eye. A quick look at the source cited shows that it says nothing about what casualties the tribes suffered. Accordingly, I would suggest removing the data until a supporting work can be found (not that anything other than expert speculation exists). SDL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.251.73 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanic Casualties 

message: This link (In the session 'See Also' at the bottom of the page) says all eagles in the battle of Teutoburg were taken back, but the the text of the says only 2 of 3 were found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_eagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest#Germanicus.27_campaign_against_the_Germans  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.80.97 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing eagles?

message: This is a completely non-traditional symbol in English and an unnecessary notation in any case. Unless the Military History wikiproject has decided to implement this symbology project-wide, there is no reason to have such a puzzling notation, in particular since it looks like a cross and that is presumably why it's used to indicate death in some other languages. English Wikipedia avoids using honorifics on people's names and should likewise avoid unnecessary religious symbols and phrasing, or other usages that give that appearance. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yngvadottir, you originally opposed the dagger because you thought it was a cross and had to do with Christianity. Now that you know it's essentially a "KIA" dagger, you oppose it based on other reasons. The dagger is prevalent and is used in many battle articles, and not just Roman or "Christian" ones: the battles of Thermopylae, Lake Trasimene, Cannae, Munda, Philippi,  Milvian Bridge, Samarra, Frigidus, Catalaunian Plains, Mons Lactarius, Nineveh, Roncevaux Pass, Pliska, Kleidion, The Plains of Abraham, Bunker Hill, Trafalgar, even the Battle of Stalingrad, all have the dagger. I wouldn't doubt there being hundreds of battle articles with the dagger. Also, many probably find the dagger useful once they are aware of its meaning. Otherwise, a reader would have to read perhaps the entire article to find the commander was killed, etc..--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the cross appearance is why it's used to indicate death. But probably more importantly, it's just not clear to most English-speaking readers. I understand from the response to my query at the military history project that it's a convention in heraldry; that's a field where something coming into English-language usage from foreign-language traditions is not surprising, particularly since it's a field where brevity is a tradition. But this is an encyclopedia article for English-speaking readers. If people want to know who was killed, they can look it up by finding the name. To the vast majority of readers, it's bewildering clutter that looks religious, and there is no compelling reason to have it. As such, and since the wikiproject reached no consensus on having it, I'll continue to revert its addition. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a quick look at the article's revision history will reveal that the dagger has been on this article since at least mid December 2005. So you're actually not "reverting its addition", you're actually enforcing its removal. Therefore, I will continue to revert your unilateral removal of long-standing content from this page.--Tataryn77 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, it was a deal more than a quick look, but I found it was introduced on 4 December 2005 along with a new infobox, so there's no way of knowing whether it was already in the preceding 2 infoboxes. I then removed it myself in March 2011 as a "stray cross." And it's remained gone since. I still see it as confusing and your reason for including it is not compelling. Nor does its presence in many battle articles mean it should be in all of them, and there was no consensus on the issue at the relevant wikiproject. I think you should try to get a consensus there if you see it as important. In my view the negatives outweigh the positives, and until this one editor added it to this and some other articles yesterday, no one had apparently missed it. Therefore I will remove it again from this particular article. But I won't go looking for it in other battle infoboxes. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The dagger has been on the article longer than not, if you want it removed, then there should be consensus here or on the wikiproject. I would rather the dagger be wholly used or wholly removed, individual articles should not "play by different rules than others" as it were. We should wait for other editors to put in their thoughts, then we should reach a consensus.--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they already have. Until the editor did a few articles that didn't have it, it clearly had not been missed. As I say, if you really think it's important, go get a consensus at the wikiproject. They tell me there is none; I have offered you the word (died), which is clear and therefore performs the function far better than an unclear and misleading symbol, as a way of saying what you argue readers need to know from the infobox. As I understand it from the wikiproject, articles do vary on this, so I'll return the word in lieu of the symbol. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The cross or dagger is quite widely used on wikipedia - I rewrote one article which has a Muslim sultan, who was killed in action, with a cross next to his name. It is just a convenient convention understood by many, and readily comprehended by those who may have not come across it before. As a literary convention it isn't really related to religion in it's usage and I find nothing objectionable in crosses being used to indicate the deaths of pagans, Muslims or persons of any religion or none. Urselius (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death dagger 

message: I think it would be better if the names of the legions mentioned in this article were given in their conventional Latin forms rather than in English translation, to avoid begging any questions.  There are several possible meanings for the title Valeria Victrix, for example, given to legio XX; and selecting one of them suggests a consensus that does not exist.  Translating Rapax as 'Predator' is particularly unfortunate in this age of CIA-sponsored drone warfare.
Djwilms (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legion names 

message: the statement that arminius was omittied in post-war textbooks is not correct. in the source ist says that many schools omitted arminius after the war, which is not true either. i have never come across any german history book that omits the battle of the teutoburg forest. it's always been a cornerstone of german history. but i can attest to it not having been taught with the pre-war nationalistic hoopla.Sundar1 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of arminius in textbooks 

message: In 2009, a German exhibition on this battle was expected to draw  a half a million visitors -- hardly a forgotten obscurity for Germans: http://www.stern.de/panorama/wissen/mensch/ausstellung-der-superlative-der-mythos-um-die-varusschlacht-3813564.html Kdammers (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhibition 

message: Stop that nonsense. It's a clerical error by Stephen Dando-Collins. Dando's XVIII rebuilt under Nero is in fact the XXII (XXII Deioteriana in Egypt during the first jewish war and XXII Primigenia in Germania during Julius Civilis's revolt). In Latin "soldiers from the 18th" and "soldiers from the 22nd" are two tricky  similar words.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.192.150 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legio XVIII]] was not rebuilt under [[Nero]]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: This looks very similar in strategy and tactics to the Battle of Lake Trasimene two centuries earlier. Coincidence? A Rome-educated German like Arminius would have been familiar with the campaigns of Hannibal. DancesWithGrues (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake Trasimene 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308225128/http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caelius/marcus_caelius.html to http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caelius/marcus_caelius.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714211343/http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/509454.html to http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/509454.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831030318/http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de:80/projekt/start.html to http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/start.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305204303/http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/englisch/start_eng.html to http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/englisch/start_eng.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/start.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recently, editors have been reverting each other, changing AD to CE and back.  Let's solve this amicably.  My inclination is to go with AD.  The article started with AD, and Wikipedia policy on things like this is to generally stick with what-ever the original formulation was.  Is there a reason not to do this in this case?Kdammers (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to change.  Stick with AD/BC as it has been. --Dmol (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I see that I was mistaken:  The article started with CE and was changed the same day to AD. Kdammers (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Since Roman times"?  The Romans during this battle were pagans, and numbered years based on the start of Emperors' reigns.  The "AD" style wasn't invented until 500 years later, and wasn't common until well after the fall of Rome.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

text: "AD" may be more common, but very few take real offense at seeing "CE" instead.  There are, however, a significant minority that actually do take offense at "AD", especially in articles dealing with specifically non-Christian subjects.  Again, all this has been debated by hundreds of editors long ago, and a WP policy was established to end these debates.  Someone who edits disruptively against WP policy will find that their threats to leave WP aren't effective.  (BTW, for full disclosure, I personally do not like the "CE" style; I wince whenever I see it in an article, and would be in favor of WP having a policy of "AD" only.  But until the unlikely day that WP policy changes, I will edit in support the WP community by supporting its established policies.)  --A D Monroe III(talk)  14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  Why are you using different IP addresses to comment multiple times? I've struck your duplicate bold comments. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD vs CE 

message: I have removed the sentence to here. I now consider that any such argument - on either side - is puffery. Theodor Mommsen was a great man, but he wrote in an age of frenetic German nationalism. 
: Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as "Rome's greatest defeat", of the early imperial period making it one of the rarest things in history, a truly decisive battle, and as "a turning-point in world history".
I also don't think it obvious that the battle had millennium-shaking effects, although this was the Teutonophile line. If there had been a province of Germania Tertia, east of the Rhine, it would have been less profitable, and more expensive than the Rhine frontier - and it is entirely possible it would have been abandoned, like Dacia, or Britain north of the Wall, by the third century at the latest.
If anybody wants to mine this for a text insertion, as suggested above, in the text, I have no objection.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should summarize the body, including the legacy of the battle. If there are RS that state the above comments on the battle require contextualization and that Mommsen's view can be simply disregarded, then please add these sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should summarize the body, true. Since the body mentions Mommsen only for his claim on the site of the battle (has anybody more recent agreed with him?), this is exactly what the sentence fails to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed sentence

message: Is this necessary, comparing two situations roughly a millennia apart?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.229.253 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that it's just one opinion - that of the author of the reference cited (Yuan Julian Chen), who is writing on the Chinese situation, and drawing a parallel with the earlier situation of the Roman frontier. In the context of this WP article, due to the way that the paragraph has been written,  I feel that it does strike a jarring note, akin to editrialising. The IP user has also added this ref to several other articles. Bahudhara (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain about the source's relevance. It states that the boder changed "from an outward-looking, expansive frontier to an inward-looking, defensive boundary". But the sections above mention both Roman punitive campaigns into Germania, and that the expansion may have been halted because the region held little economic benefit for the Romans. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: comparative perspective

message: What is it with these edits? Is this one user or several users doing this joke? It's kind of funny but I am curious as to why they are doing this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant edits saying this battle never happened  

message: I was surprised that Ralph Graves’ The Lost Eagles historical novel (1955) is not listed in the Popular Culture section. Not because it’s especially prominent (it isn’t, but that’s true for many of the other entries here), but because I believe it used to be listed here, several (10 or more?) years ago. 
Is there any reason not to include it? Jmacwiki (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost the Lost Eagles in Popular Culture section 

message: Kalkrieser Berg (Kalkriese Hill or Kalkriese Mountain) is a promontory on the north side of the Teutoburg Forest with an altitude of 158 m above sea level, named after the hamlet of Kalkriese nearby. 
The Große Moor (Great Moor or Great Bog) is the collective name of a series of moorland areas that, running north-south, present a natural, insurmountable obstacle to the troops. The southern part of the Great Moor is now called Campemoor; it is about 40 m above sea level.
Kalkrieser Berg and the south end of the moor form a natural bottleneck, only about 1.5 miles wide. Which part of this bottelneck was not wooded at that time must remain an open question. There is no evidence for the assumption that a strip only 330 feet wide was unwooded and passable.
2A02:8109:9DAA:A500:F5EC:B191:9B84:2448 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Geography