The Lost Legions of Varus (Timeline Documentary) | The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest | Roman History
Autor: Luiz_Alex007 | Publicado: 2017-03-13T17:51:00-11:00






Firstly, I liked this documentary that I randomly found on Youtube, I really did. But, after spending nearly an hour watching it, I ended up writing down a critique. I think there was too much focus on the battle and neither on the occurrences that lead to it and followed it. Mainly, I think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that a single man shaped modern Europe so much and that without this battle history would be so radically different.

Secondly, I know that it's important for a documentary to try and engage the public with the subject addressed. But calling the Battle of the Teutoburg the origin of the rift between Europe sounded very over dramatic and overplayed to me. I think it overlooks many factors and, quite frankly, does obfuscate other important historical occurrences.

Implying that the weight of future European history on that battle really sounded exaggerated to me. Conflicts and divides are much more complex than what a simple battle may cause and are part of human nature. It's not like there weren't conflicts before the battle. Neither it's like the Romans never crossed the Rhine again. Nor Romanizing that part of Germania would be guaranteed without the defeat. Furthermore, if the Romans succeed, it might not change history that much.

The roman legions actually pushed forwards in punitive expeditions to avenge the lost Legios instead of just going there to bury the dead. Germanicus, the roman general in charge of the expedition, dealt several defeats upon the Germanic tribes. I remember reading several articles that imply Tiberius chose to retreat Germanicus from Germania due to political reasons, not allowing Germanicus to fully push his advantage. At least that is what I remember while reading about Calligula, Germanicus' son and successor to Tiberius.

Tiberius seems to have feared the popularity and power that Germanicus' could gain from conquering a new province like that. Specially, a province which had proved difficult to conquer before. This sort of behavior might have been passed down from then on. Tiberius pulled Germanicus out and thus thrown away the possible conquest of Germania. With Calligula and his successors, the Imperium faced much more internal strife and so just didn't put much effort in seeing through with that. Again, the fear of suffering a big defeat might have played a part in these decisions. But I do not believe that it was the main factor.

Still, although true that the Romans didn't push further, There were more reasons than just a single lost battle. Of course, we may never know what would have happened if there was no defeat, thus forever changing history. But Roman wasn't any more hurt by that loss than by every other combined nor than other big losses of the past and future to the Teutoburg. Neither was the history buried forever and forgotten. After all, the didn't necessarily ignore losses and their historians were the one who wrote about it. The romans were quite good at using infamous defeats as political and morale boosters as well.

I would say that the main reasons why the Imperium receded at the Rhine were the same as why they didn't push towards Scotland and over the Danube. It simply didn't seem very efficient and cost effective. Holding natural borders seemed easier than pushing forwards and having to colonize land. To an extent, the defeat at the Teutoburg probably played part in it, maybe a big one.

But the Imperium Romanum also reached a territorial extent so big that they would have had trouble advancing much further anyway. To that, the documentary did mention but then partially ignored. To conquer more land had become increasingly difficult for the Empire.

The lands beyond the already conquered would become exponentially more expensive to conquer and hold. Even today such an Empire would have trouble. So, the Roman's technology and systems weren't really ready. The findings suggest that they could have advanced further. But who knows how much more?

I doubt it would be enough to Romanize the whole of Europe, much less the world. Therefore, the "rift in Europe" would probably be positioned elsewhere. Maybe near the Elba river, maybe towards contemporaneous Russia. It's impossible to say if there wouldn't be a similar timeline, just with slightly different characters. Even if Rome had taken Germania, it wouldn't guarantee that the divide wouldn't happen.

Another factor that impeded Roman expansion was the same that ultimately contributed to their downfall, their inner politics. The internal politics produced a scenario of inner competition that gave birth to great leaders. But it also weakened their own power and lead to awful leaders as well as internal bickering that weakened their power.

For many Romans might have seemed simpler to compete against other Romans for land than expand towards new land. So, without resolve for bigger extents, and the fear of suffering similar losses of the Battle of the Teutoburg. It might have seemed like a fruitless effort or simply a hard task. Like I said before, I believe Tiberius was the one who mainly threw away the possibility of advancing further. After that, no other Emperor took the task upon themselves and instead the Imperium declined.

To be fair, I see that it may be possible to envision a world where the Roman expansion on Germania and Britannia succeded. That could embolden and strengthen the Imperium for many years to come. But that in itself would require a completely different scenario, if not a different Empire. Even then, I would expect this hypothetical Empire, oh so similar to the Roman, to reach the same problem that I mentioned before and becoming unable to further advance.

Finally, Augustus had other priorities and achievements during his lifetime, he expanded the Imperium and conquered lands in several different regions. I find a bit hard to believe that Octavian was "brought to his knees" so easily. I would say that the defeat was a shame and showed the flaws of the Roman approach to many things as well as military tradition. It probably shocked the Romans and their winning streak. I also see it as a big show of the flaws in their models.

But I wonder if Augustus was so weak minded at this part of his life. Suetonius, the historian who have attributed the infamous phrase "Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions" also wasn't alive at the time to know the exact reactions of Octavian. Suetonius was born in 69 CE, Augustus died in 14 CE, the Teutoburg Ambush happened in around 9 CE. It could be a slight dramatization. Maybe Suetonius just changed a bit of the story. Still, historians also suggest that, by the end of his life, Augustus had become quite easily manipulated by his wife and inebriated by his own achievements, titles and the flattery of others.

Conclusively, I think it's a bit of disservice from a documentary to overplay a single battle to that extent, ignoring the prior and post events. The main ones being that Germanicus didn't simply bury the fallen roman, he made sure to kill those who had inflicted losses upon the Imperium. The mentioned rift wasn't born out of one battle and there were further Roman expeditions in Germania. Of course, the battle is of big historical importance and I find it deeply interesting. But I believe that there should be a balance on how the documentary approach it.

Still, I enjoyed the documentary. I do enjoy documentaries quite a lot and even more when they are about subjects which I find somewhat related to my daily life and/or important historical events. It's also good to see different views on the same subjects.