The Lost Roman Legions

Hermann, the German Barbarian Who Defeated Three Roman Legions

22 Comments
Join the Conversation
Arminius or Hermann - meeg
Arminius or Hermann - meeg
Under the leadership of Hermann, the German tribesmen wiped out three Roman Legions, ending Rome's bid to conquer Germany and altering European history permanently.

Publius Quinctilius Varus

Varus, the Roman commander had taken his legions to the Teutoberg Forest region of Germany to pacify rebellious tribesmen in the vicinity. The Roman soldiers, along with as many as 5,000 servants and dependents, who were mostly women and children, were moving their summer camp near Minden to winter quarters on the Lippe River, which is just east of the Rhine River, when the attack occurred.

Arminius, the German Barbarian

The German leader, Arminius (Roman name), whose German name was Hermann, was a clever and devious general. He was a Roman-trained warrior who fooled Varus into thinking he was a friend to the Romans. Meanwhile Hermann laid his plans to betray and destroy them.

Varus underestimated the Germans, considering them to be a minor risk, few in numbers, not especially intelligent and easy to suppress. He took the wives, children and servants on the line of march along with the legions with a large baggage train following behind. Normally this is not good military practice but Varus felt that the Germans could not offer any substantial threat. After all, he had three Roman legions under his command and the Germans were outnumbered.

However once they were deep in the dark forest, Hermann and the tribesmen suddenly vanished to later reappear with more hostile German barbarian recruits. They picked off the Romans singly and in groups in a running battle that lasted at least three to five days until there were no Roman survivors left. Over 25,000 men, women, and children were killed. To hide the evidence the Germans buried the bodies in mass graves which archaeologists discovered as recently as the late 1990's.

At the end Varus and his generals took the only honorable way out when they realized that defeat was inevitable. They fell on their swords and committed suicide. Back in Rome, the Emperor Augustus wondered for months what had happened to the army and when the news finally came, he cried into the night, "Varus, give me back my legions!" The battle marked a change in Roman aspirations to conquer Germany and European history was permanently altered.

Two Vastly Different Cultures

Rome never sent troops to confront the Germans again, so that Germany was not Romanized. It was the only nation in Europe that the Roman Army failed to conquer and did not become part of the Empire. That left two vastly different cultures to dominate the western world--the Roman civilization and the German tribes.

Historians now propose that there would never have been a Franco-German problem, no Charlemagne, no Louis XIV, no Napoleon, no Kaiser Wilhelm II, no Hitler to bend and shape western European history and finally no WW II if Rome had contributed its civilizing influence to Germany's development.

The Battle of Teutoberg Forest held enormous consequences for Europe--a major turning point in European history. It's possible that WW I and WW II would never have taken place if the Roman Legions had survived the attack by the German tribes and had gone on to conquer Germany.

Hermann's Denkmal

In 1875 Germany erected a large bronze statue called "Hermann's Denkmal" to commemorate the victory. Hermann became the national hero of Germany. He was a symbol of national unity. Every school child learned the story and revered Herman as the true national hero of the Germans.

Hitler Steps Forward

The time was ripe when Hitler stepped forward in 1933. The Germans were listening. They wanted another Hermann. Hitler reminded them of the glorious defeat of the Romans, and said they could do anything if they worked together in unity. He described his plan to work with the Nazi party and teach the children how to work for his glorious dream of Germany's one thousand year future.

Diane Clover-Evans, Personal Collection

Diane Evans - I am a retired civil engineer as well as a member of Sisters in Crime and the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators.

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 4+10?
22 Comments

Comments

Sep 30, 2010 1:24 AM
Guest :
"Over 25,000 men, women, and children were killed."
As a male, I can understand killing all the males but why women and children? Many conquering armies did kill all the males in the defeated foe often including infants and children as long as they were male in order to eliminate that tribe or ethnic group, but most did not harm the women and (female) children once the males were gone. I would much rather see the males killed than the women and children if anyone had to be. Of course I admit that if I was in that army, I would fight hard to make sure it they were not the victors and I would be one of the ones being killed by them because I am a male. Even then, I would rather be us males if I knew our women and children would be safe.
Oct 3, 2010 2:51 PM
Guest :
Interesting comment that only males should be killed in wars. I have often wondered how women feel about this. Especially in those areas where a victory killed all the males in the society they conquered.

I am not saying anything was wrong with this as I too think women and children should not be harmed not because I am macho or anything like that. Far from it as I am one of the rare men who actually think women are the superior sex and as such women and girls should be protected even at the expense of men.

I do wonder what women think about this. Oh I doubt any of us want anyone to be killed or harmed but if it has to happen, do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males?
Oct 5, 2010 4:07 AM
Guest :
I work in an office with 16 people. 10 are women, 6 are men and I asked them this question and almost all of them said it should only be males who are killed in wars and women need to be protected from harm. I am one of the men who strongly agrees with this. All but 3 also agreed that even if it meant more males would die to protect women, it would be worth it to protect the women.
Oct 8, 2010 6:00 AM
Guest :
It is interesting that one guest said he would liked all 25,000 of those killed in the Roman war to have been males. This did happen with Spartan.

I saw something on Wikipedia that stated:

Xerxes waited four days to attack, hoping the Greeks would disperse. Finally, on the fifth day the Persians attacked. Leonidas and his men repulsed the Persians' frontal attacks for the fifth and sixth days, killing roughly 20,000 of the enemy troops and losing about 2,500 of their own.

This would indicate that in just two days, the Spartans killed over 20 thousand Persians and I would agree with you that I too am glad all 20 thousand were males and that no females were involved. Maybe I am a macho male but I do not think women need to be in wars. It is the job of men to protect women from harm and we can see this throughout the animal world also where males often sacrifice themselves so that the females can survive. One primary example of this is the Redback spider where the male mates when it is 3 months old but it mates only once because the male always dies when mating. The female lives for about 3 years and mates many times, each time she mates, at least one male will die. LOL at least as a human male, we live a lot longer compared to the spider and we can mate many times so there are some good things about being a male.

I do often wonder how women feel about so many males being killed and that none of them were women.


George
Oct 10, 2010 6:09 AM
Guest :

"Also these 300 along with the others knew it was the males job to protect society even at the cost of their own life and although all 300 of these males knew they would die, they planned and did take what appears to have been several thousand of the enemy males with them."

Actually the Spartans took over 20 thousand Persians with them and you are right, they were all males. Spartan also lost all of its male population of military age from what I understand to be about 15 to 60 years old so there were no males there from 15 to 60 after this war.
That would be about 8 males every hour but with so many males being killed, I do wonder how there were any males left.

Of course, as a woman myself, I do agree, it is better they be all males than even one woman

Oct 10, 2010 6:11 AM
Guest :
Oh I forgot to mention that the Trojan war lasted 10 and a half years and killed over a million and a half people and if I heard right, they were all male. I do hope it was right as as I said I agree with the posters here that everyone killed in any war should be all male but that is easy coming from a woman. A million males a year and NO women sounds OK to me

Kathy
Oct 16, 2010 2:54 PM
Guest :
o--------------------m-------------------g never new this!!!
Oct 16, 2010 2:56 PM
Guest :
:-O
Oct 16, 2010 3:05 PM
Guest :
o--------------------m-------------------g never new this!!!
Oct 16, 2010 11:01 PM
Guest :
From the sounds of it, it is never good to be a male in wartime, but than again, it is never there is never a good time to be a male. I am glad I am not one.
Oct 19, 2010 5:29 AM
Guest :
For those who say it is not good to be a male, did you know that all of us started out female but something went horribly wrong and some of us became males? If this is true, males are simply a defective female so this would show the perfection is female and all of those saying women are superior are right.
Oct 25, 2010 7:31 AM
Guest :
From a woman' point of view, I find it odd that so many males would advocate the death of other males this easily but I too would rather they be male than women or kids.

It has been reported that Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of up to 20 million people. At the time, there was very little outcry about this. One reason there was very little outcry is something I just found out today. About 90% of this 20 million were males.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Of courses we know Hitler killed many women and children but he started out killing only males:

"The Einsatzgruppen [death-squad] officers ... could habituate their men into their new vocation as genocidal executioners through a stepwise escalation of the killing. First, by shooting primarily teenage and adult Jewish males, they would be able to acclimate themselves to mass executions without the shock of killing women, young children, and the infirm.

On July 11, 1942, the following orders went out to the police battalions: "Confidential! By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader ... all male Jews between the ages of 17 and 45 convicted as plunderers are to be shot according to martial law..

They did not have to really be plunderers, all they had to be was to be male. No one asked for evidence they were guilty, they were guilty because they had testicles. Male Jews who appeared to be between the ages of seventeen and forty-five were simply rounded up" and led away for execution

Oddly enough also, it was always other males who ordered that only the males be killed and it was males who killed them.

I wonder how difficult it was for males to kill so many others simply because they had the misfortune to be born with testicles.

I sure would not want those things dangling between my legs.. If I suddenly woke up with them, I would want to cut them off and this so called penis envy is utter nonsense as no woman I know would want one of those things attached to her.

In one blog, someone stated “I guess they know who the superior gender is and it is NOT us MALES”

They are right, it certainly is not the males.
Oct 26, 2010 1:03 PM
Guest :
For the first comment who questioned the killing of women and children, it was not 25,000 women and children as the report states: "The Roman soldiers, along with as many as 5,000 servants and dependents, who were mostly women and children' This means that over 20,000 were males as I am sure some of the 5,000 were male.but I do agree the women should not have been harmed.

As for the last comments,
In one blog, someone stated “I guess they know who the superior gender is and it is NOT us MALES”

They are right, it certainly is not the males.

Because I am a man, I would reluctantly agree
Oct 28, 2010 3:28 AM
Guest :
There are other reasons to risk only males in war. We do not use our best when we know it can be harmed. We would not use our family car in a demolition derby, we use a car we can afford to lose so why risk women in war

When we look at the chart below, we will find that males are inferiror in every one of them while girls are superior in all ares at every age. There is some improvement with males as they get older but the improvement is small. This is only one area where it shows the vast superiority of women and girls over males of all ages.

Disability Age 6–12 Age 13–17
Male Female Male Female
Learning disability 67% 33% 66% 34%
Emotional disturbance 80% 20% 77% 23%
Speech impairment 66% 34% 62% 38%
Intellectual and developmental delays 56% 44% 56% 44%
Visual impairment 57% 43% 53% 47%
Hearing impairment 56% 44% 52% 48%
Autism 83% 17% 85% 15%
Multiple disabilities 65% 35% 57% 43%
Deaf/blindness 65% 35% 57% 43%
All disabilities 67% 33% 66% 34%
Nov 1, 2010 6:18 PM
Guest :
It appears that most here assert that women are superior

I would love to see a major poll such as Gallup ask this question and it should be asked in several ways from which sex is equal and are they moderately superior to greatly superior and which is the inferior sex.

I would not be surprised of most people did say that women are superior and males are inferior and I would not be a bit surprised of more males stated this than women but since our egos are more fragile than our testicles, it has It be done so that no one would know what someone answered.
Nov 3, 2010 12:47 AM
Guest :
"since our egos are more fragile than our testicles"

I know a male's ego is very fragile but since I do not have them, I would not know how fragile testicles are but from every male I have seen it would seem they are very fragile. Still I have to wonder, how can you ego be more fragile than a pair of busted balls
Nov 4, 2010 7:15 AM
Guest :
We can say balls here? Actually, I do not see why we should not be able to use terms like this for the male anatomy. I saw a Fox News segment where a doctor was talking about testicle cancer and he told boys to: "examine your balls" and told them how to do it. He also used the word "nuts" once in this segment. Most movies use these terms often and they use terms for our penis also. Yes I said "our" as I have one too.

Maybe it is because I was brought up with the knowledge that women are not the weak sex, (my father taught me that women are the superior sex ) that I do not mind terms like this or any other term being used for males but I do not like movies that show disrespect for women and girls even by using slang terms for their anatomy.
Dec 17, 2010 1:43 AM
Guest :
I use to think women were inferior to males. My husband showed me that women are the superior gender. One of hundreds of reasons is the way males love to kill each other and my husband mentioned wars and that in past wars, the males only killed males. I showed him this article and he said he was glad they were all MALE. In the Civil War, 660 thousand males died but so did 60 women. (My husband said they should have protected the 60 women better even if more males died doing it and I have to agree) In our recent wars, my husband states that far too many women are killed also and we need a treaty to prevent the killing of women and children, or at least girls.

My husband said that if any army willfully kills women or girls, the winning army should kill 25 of the losing army's males for each woman they killed and it should be 50 of their males for each girl under 18 they killed. He said that would stop the willful killing of women and girls and it also would show the worth of the female gender. I can't say I disagree with him even though I know it would reduce the male population but my husband doubts that would bother too many males as males often kill each other anyway and he strongly feels women are much more superior to males anyway so society should protect women even at the cost of males. It certainly would not bother me and I am not one to argue with a male who says there if far too much strong evidence that women are superior to males.

In all fairness to young boys, perhaps they could include boys too by killing 10 adult males for each boy under say 12 that the army killed. That would show that these young boys are worth something too as long as they had not been corrupted by the adult males. I do agree with doubling the number of males killed for young girls but maybe it should be even higher for girls under 12 too, perhaps 75 or 100?

He (my husband) also said that if any male raped a woman or girl they should be stripped along with any other male that helped them or even watched without doing anything, marched through the streets with a rope tied to their balls and then hung by their balls or have a bunch of women crush their nuts and if that happened to enough males, the other males would keep their pricks in their pants. (he used the term balls or nuts and pricks because he said males who rape women do not deserve to have them called a penis or testicles) (we both told our sons in front of our daughters that if they ever raped a girl WE would cut their balls off. My husband told every boy in front of our daughters that if they touched her, my wife will cut your dick and your nuts off if my daughter does not kick your balls so hard you will spit them out first. It was funny to see each of the males grab their crotch when he told them that but to the best of our knowledge, every last one of them kept their pricks in their pants. YES I used terms such as nuts balls and pricks because males who do this do not deserve to have them called a penis and testicles still we all agree with that last comment about not using slang terms for women or girls.

It is too bad that males do like to kill each other so much but at least something like this could get them to stop killing women and children.

Papua New Guinea Women found a way to stop their males from killing each other. they performed infanticide to end tribal war but they only killed the males. Every male that was born for several years were killed and the adult males were too dumb (like most males) to figure out what was going on. I guess they did know that males are the weak sex and they thought all the males were stillborn. (yet none of the girls were)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460166,00.html

Maybe these people are right, if we kill about half the MALE population, it will stop wars or at least it will keep the males from killing women and children.
Feb 5, 2011 2:55 PM
Guest :
You kill all you're enemies in times of war when you want to make a point.
When you have no desire to rebuild adapt or establish commerce with said enemies.
when the point is terror and or to let the other nation no this is what to expect.
Its a very strong message. Why would a fighting force clothe and feed and provided shelter
To thousands of enemy non combatants. Its Rome's fault
it happened
Jun 8, 2011 11:53 PM
Guest :
"Why would a fighting force clothe and feed and provided shelter To thousands of enemy non combatants"

This is a very good reason to kill those who would be no use and more so to kill those who could later cause trouble to your own people. For us males, most of the time, this would mean all of the males would be killed but I would rather have it all the males if they would let the women live. For those who want to do ethnic cleasing and eliminate a population, one can do that without killing women and girls simply by killing all of the males including any male a woman delivers for the next year to make sure no males exist. The women and girls can be brought into any of the other cultures and within a few decades, the job will have been done without the need to harm women and girls. Only the males need to be killed off and even as a male, I would much rather see the males be killed than to have women harmed.

I hate to do it but I do have the balls to admit this, that comment made "In one blog, someone stated “I guess they know who the superior gender is and it is NOT us MALES” is right. Women are many times more superior than we males are.
Jun 11, 2011 1:53 AM
Guest :
"For those who want to do ethnic cleasing and eliminate a population, one can do that without killing women and girls simply by killing all of the males "

I could not agree more and actually, if only the males are being killed, there will be very little outcry and hardly any from most of the men in our society. I have seen that it has been mostly males who have advocated that only males be killed in wars here on this comment board but I guess that is to be expected as that is the general feeling in society, to keep women safe. We see that when someone takes men and women as hostages, we want them to let the women go.

One comment asked " do women approve of protecting their gender at the expense of the males"

I would have to say yes we do approve of keeping women save even if males die. I think many others do too. In one college class I had on ethics, we were given a survey with some questions on it.

One was that if you came on the scene of an accident and there was a male and a female who had terminal injuries unless they had immediate first aide and you could do it, which would you save, the male or the female given the same set of facts, they appeared to be the same age, and they had the same life threatening injury (In short, everything about them was the same except one was a female, the other a male.

A second question was something like if we were driving down the road and we lost control of the car except for steering and we had to hit one of two groups of people, one with lets say 10 males, the other with 10 females, which group would you hit.

We had to list reasons also.

After it was all tallied, almost everyone said they would save the female in the first event. Most (about 90%) said they would hit the males in the second. In short, it would be the males who would die in both situations. More of the males (95%) in the class said they would save the woman or they would hit the males. About 80% of the women said the same thing (in short, it would be the males they let die)

The professor did say that this would be the best choice as the woman or women could be pregnant thus they could be saving two or more lives and although he was a male himself, he also indicated that women can survive injuries better than males so it was more likely the first aide would be effective but that this could not be reversed when hitting a group of people because hitting the males would still be a better choice because like it or not, males are as a whole, the more expendable gender. What he said after that did shock many of the women because he said women were the superior gender so if you can only save one, save the woman. I have always known this but it was interesting that when the class was asked to show by a raise of hands if they thought women were superior to males, almost all of the women raised their hands and it was surprising to see that half the males admitted women were superior too. Many of them seemed very reluctant to raise their hand but as a few men showed they had the balls to raise their hands, a lot of other males grew a pair of balls and raised theirs too. My husband would say the ones that did not raise their hands are pricks but I do know a lot of women who have bigger balls than a lot of males.

One man said "I too am glad women are the SUPERIOR gender and MALES are the inferior one."

I am glad too and since more people are accepting that women are superior to males, it only makes sense that it would be the males who are eliminated. Besides, males are more expendable than women in any case.
Jun 22, 2011 12:34 AM
Guest :
It is nice to see so many males who can admit that women are superior to the males. We see this throughout nature also. For example, the mosquito shows the female is superior too. The male lives for only a week while the female lives twice as long. Another interesting thing is that it is only the female that bites but only the male buzzes. It is almost as if the male buzzes to make sure the female is able to bite because the male distracts the person bitten as they are looking for the mosquito that is buzzing while she bites him. Of course, this means the male is killed most often as the female slips away. Just one more of thousands of examples in nature where the male is expendable and often the males die earlier so that the females can live longer. We also know that males are far more expendable than females in every species including humans.

We can also see so many times in nature that the females can usually outperform the males in many of the things that species does. We certainly can see that women today are outperforming males in almost every area. I think the sooner we human males can accept and acknowledge that women are superior to us males the sooner we can accept women being in control of society and this would make the world a much better place. I am one male who thinks women should be in total control over every area because women are overwhelmingly superior to males.
22 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement