(no subject)
History is a funny thing.
Specifically, at the moment, the elements of history which people choose to deem important or memorable. I've ranted before about the fickle nature of elevating famous losers- point in case: Napoleon. I'd say with confidence that at least 90 percent of the people who consider him a great general couldn't name a single one of his victories off the top of their head.
The revival of interest in the classical period at the end of the 19th century led every major european nation to identify with famous heroes of its antiquity, as proof of thier glorious traditions.
Queen Victoria claimed Boadicea (the famous anti-roman celtic queen) as her namesake.
France revived the memory of Vercingetorax as the champion of a purely native French culture. Also against the Romans, interestingly.
By coincidence, the Italian leftists of the century made a new hero out of Sparticus, the famous roman slave-turned-rebel general. Again, against the Romans.
The Germans elevated some anti-roman rebel named Hermann, but who cares about him?
People feel more heroic when they represent themselves as the underdog; a fact which has remained true throughout history. And Rome, as the greatest of all the Western Empires- and in my opinion, greatest of all the world's empires of antiquity, makes for a fitting villain in the forum of popular opinion. By the time of becoming an Empire, Rome had conquered so much of the world that 1 in every 4 human beings on the planet were ruled by Rome.
1 in 4.
The famous Legions had won a string of victories peerless in history by that point. The only army that had defeated a roman army for hundreds of years were other roman armies. The image, and belief was of complete invincibility.
People love underdogs.
Which is why I find it strange that perhaps the most decisive, and important wins ever scored by an underdog is so little known. Tribal warriors, outnumbered, facing a veteran, professional army, and not only defeating, but annihilating the seemingly invincible.
But the names Teutoburger Wald, Arminius, and Cherusci are all but unknown.
So, in order to explain why Europe, and thus the modern world, is in the shape it is, pull up a chair, because I'm gonna history-rant again.
Rome had already beaten the germanic tribes decisively. A string of lobsided victories by professional soldiers against ill equipped tribal warriors, virtually identical to the conquests which took place over all of Europe, northern africa, and the middle east. Twelve standing Legions were kept in the field at all time, to continually expand the Roman empire.
Enter 'Arminius'. The latinized name of a germanic noble of the Cherusci tribe. His real name may have been anything from Irmin, to Rrminaz, modernized to 'Hermann' in the renaissance.
After the conquest of the germanic tribes, Arminius served as the commander of german auxiliary troops for the Romans, apparently making such an impression on the Romans in battle that they made him a minor noble within the Empire. He returns to Germania and begins a plan to revolt against the Romans. this, again, is nothing unique in the history of Rome. Rebellions flared up (such as the Dacian rebellion in which Arminius had won his reputation fighting FOR Rome), and were put down, and thereafter became tax paying roman provinces, fueling further and further conquests.
The Romans always won these revolts.
The revolts had never been anything more than a brief glitch in the Romanizing of conquered territories. Once a subject people's will had been crushed, armed resistance (and thus independance) was firmly over.
This revolt was even more unlikely given the fact that the germanic tribes fought each other just as vigorously as they fought the Romans. But uniting a few of the local tribes, Arminius arranged a suprisingly cunning and intricate plan. Fortifications were built along a chosen road, through difficult country, and the roman legions- three in number, were lured along a chosen path to supress an alleged rebellion further inland. The battle of Teutoburger Wald is often described as an ambush, and this is certainly how it began. But after four days of continuous fighting, in which the three most battle hardened legions in the Empire were attacked by warriors whom they had routinely beaten, and whom they even outnumbered, the end result was clear: not only had a roman army lost, it had been annihilated.
Less than ten percent of the northern armies escaped across the Rhine.
One quarter of Rome's total troops were dead.
It was a disaster even greater than the losses to Hannibal, hundreds of years before.
Face-saving campaigns were organized on a vast scale to reconquer Germania, but Teutoburger Wald was the turning point. Arminius would lead several more battles against Roman generals, and would prevail in few, and lose in a few more. But Rome would never again occupy the lands east of the Rhine. The nation of conquerors which had outdistanced Alexander the Great, decided to build defenses along the Rhine, and leave Germania alone.
As a result, the german language and culture would grow with the influence- but not the domination of latin. The english language exists because the germanic people were never wholly latinized. The legend of Siegfried the dragon slayer grew out of stories of Arminius.. right down to the treachery of other germans murdering him, once the Romans had retired behind thier walls for good.
Without this battle taking place, the world is drastically different. Does Rome exhaust itself and fall? what would advanced civilization growing in Germany a millenia earlier have created? Does Rome continue to expand into modern Poland and Russia?
And now- because the Nazis trumpeted the legend of Hermann as such a prominent part of thier nationalism, schoolchildren in Germany are getting history books that don't even mention this battle.
I wrote before of the Furor Teutonicus, the combination of civilized disdain and dread for the stubborn fearlessness in the face of superiority. One of the greatest lines in Ridley Scott's Gladiator was "A people should know when they're conquered," answered by, "Would you? Would I?"
The Teutoburger Wald battle is the highest example of this. If insanity is defined as 'Repeating the same actions, and expecting a different result', then courage must be defined as 'Never failing to try again'. Because it may not be the first, or second, or fifth charge which succeeds. But if you quit after the first, it is gueranteed you will lose. The line between blind stubbornness, and courageous determiniation lies in hitting the wall repeatedly with a hammer, rather than your head.
It makes me a bit sick to think that the modern world is so afraid of upsetting the mediocre, that examples of the truly exceptional are allowed to be forgotten.