03-22-2004, 10:40 PM
Hi Dan,<br>
Into the fray again, shall we? (btw, I gather you did not read the article in Der Spiegel yourself, did you? Judging from the difference of opinion between their and your view..).<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is no doubt some kind of battle/skirmish took place at Kalkriese but where do you get this "at the cost of thousands of Roman lives" bit?<hr> Where do I get it? Wrong question. You should ask; where do all experts get it, and even the critics who don't doubt it.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you've walked the terrain, or even only looked at the relatively accurate reconstruction in the Nat. Geo article, you would know that the only way "thousands" of casualties could have been inflicted on the Romans is if their column was atacked all along its length, NOT by only a so-called "ambush" at the very head of the column.<hr> Sure I walked the terrain, and as I'm reading the sources correctly, the column was attacked on all sides. It is just that the column attempted to break through that 'choking point'. Who says the damage was done by an ambush at the head of the column? Surely not. The ambush was the attack of the whole column, the roughly walled 'choking point' was the problem because the Romans meant to fight their was out through that point (because the swamp to the north barred that route). Some numbers got throught that point, if we read the diverging trails correctly, but it meat the end of the Roman force as one effective army.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the best case scenario, ignoring the fact that the Romans had scouts and a vanguard, the legionaries probably marched four abreast on a forest track, and simple arithmatic would show that less than a thousand Romans (probably closer to half that), could have even "fit" in the area where the artifacts where found. <hr> You forget this was a demoralised army, under attack for days and in awful weather. The slopes must have been muddy with rain-soaked earth and swollen streams. i doubt very much that a neat column, even if they started out that way, would have survived the first attack from the wooded flanks for very long. Bloody panic does that to a formation.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The archaeologists who developed this ridiculous scenario have absolutely no concept of ancient warfare, but despertately tried to concoct something that suggested the Varus battle, to assure future funding, and now, a multi-million Euro museum.<hr> And I suppose you were there. may I suggest you treat a profession which you so obviously have not studied for, with a little bit more respect? <br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>They seem to imagine thousands of men in their long thin column (as it could only be), obligingly marching into a meat grinder to be killed four at a time as each file entered the "ambush site". This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. <hr> Well, I can't comment on what you have heard, but with the terrain as it is/was, do you suggest they had any other option? Even with room for ten or twenty, at the 'choking point' there would have been not much room for another choice. And mind you, no-one said this is where all 20.000 died, this was just one of the main points of a battle which lasted for days over a lot of ground.<br>
<br>
Dan, you seem to be the only one who even sees one fortification, and even then, could this not have been simply the site of the army of germanicus in 15/16 AD? We know they were at the battle-site, we know the buried the remains, so they must have stayed there for some time. The mule may as well belong to the second army, as may the post-holes and your 'fortification'. In no way does it cancel out the likelyhood of Kalkriese being (part of) the Varus battle site.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Into the fray again, shall we? (btw, I gather you did not read the article in Der Spiegel yourself, did you? Judging from the difference of opinion between their and your view..).<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is no doubt some kind of battle/skirmish took place at Kalkriese but where do you get this "at the cost of thousands of Roman lives" bit?<hr> Where do I get it? Wrong question. You should ask; where do all experts get it, and even the critics who don't doubt it.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you've walked the terrain, or even only looked at the relatively accurate reconstruction in the Nat. Geo article, you would know that the only way "thousands" of casualties could have been inflicted on the Romans is if their column was atacked all along its length, NOT by only a so-called "ambush" at the very head of the column.<hr> Sure I walked the terrain, and as I'm reading the sources correctly, the column was attacked on all sides. It is just that the column attempted to break through that 'choking point'. Who says the damage was done by an ambush at the head of the column? Surely not. The ambush was the attack of the whole column, the roughly walled 'choking point' was the problem because the Romans meant to fight their was out through that point (because the swamp to the north barred that route). Some numbers got throught that point, if we read the diverging trails correctly, but it meat the end of the Roman force as one effective army.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the best case scenario, ignoring the fact that the Romans had scouts and a vanguard, the legionaries probably marched four abreast on a forest track, and simple arithmatic would show that less than a thousand Romans (probably closer to half that), could have even "fit" in the area where the artifacts where found. <hr> You forget this was a demoralised army, under attack for days and in awful weather. The slopes must have been muddy with rain-soaked earth and swollen streams. i doubt very much that a neat column, even if they started out that way, would have survived the first attack from the wooded flanks for very long. Bloody panic does that to a formation.<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The archaeologists who developed this ridiculous scenario have absolutely no concept of ancient warfare, but despertately tried to concoct something that suggested the Varus battle, to assure future funding, and now, a multi-million Euro museum.<hr> And I suppose you were there. may I suggest you treat a profession which you so obviously have not studied for, with a little bit more respect? <br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>They seem to imagine thousands of men in their long thin column (as it could only be), obligingly marching into a meat grinder to be killed four at a time as each file entered the "ambush site". This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. <hr> Well, I can't comment on what you have heard, but with the terrain as it is/was, do you suggest they had any other option? Even with room for ten or twenty, at the 'choking point' there would have been not much room for another choice. And mind you, no-one said this is where all 20.000 died, this was just one of the main points of a battle which lasted for days over a lot of ground.<br>
<br>
Dan, you seem to be the only one who even sees one fortification, and even then, could this not have been simply the site of the army of germanicus in 15/16 AD? We know they were at the battle-site, we know the buried the remains, so they must have stayed there for some time. The mule may as well belong to the second army, as may the post-holes and your 'fortification'. In no way does it cancel out the likelyhood of Kalkriese being (part of) the Varus battle site.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
