very first discoveries of spin Bleien had the visiting of the Varus Battle hypothesis 9 AD AD to Angrivarierwall hypothesis 16th can bring, because there are among all the relevant ancient sources bellum Germanicum only one site, highlighting the Schleudererexplizit: Tacitus, Annals II, 20 - But not the Varus Battle. The passage reads: "Sensit dux impar comminuspugnam remotisque paulum legionibus funditores libritoresque excuteretela et proturbare hostem iubet" noted Germanicus, as unlike the melee and was therefore took the legions back a bit to command the slingers and throw shooters, their floors to and send to expel the enemy from the Wall .
This translation fits in perfectly with the description of the fighting around the Angrivarierwall in Tacitus, when one weeds out his two errors, namely (1) the claim that the Angrivarierwall was built as a dividing line against the Cherusci and (2) Weser was still in the vicinity been. These errors are not about mistakes, but conscious manipulation to Germanicus to make it look better to admit as Tiberius and the glaring failure of this commander against Arminius not have to.
Then read Tacitus II, 19/20 like an exact description of the topography Kalkriese . The legions are then east on the return march of the allegedly lossless victorious battle of Idistaviso derWeser and want to return to their ships on the river Ems (19) "people and the nobles, old and young men rushed suddenly to the Roman marching column, and brought her into confusion . Finally she picks a battlefield, the of ... Forest and was surrounded in which a narrow, marshy area was [Niewedder Valley] . Also, to the forest area ran a deep bog [Great Moor, in the North] , only one side of the Angrivarier had increased by a large dam ... . Here, the Germanic infantry went into position, the cavalry was in nearby clearings coverage to the Roman legions as they were marched into the forest to fall in denRücken. (20) Those Romans, which was assigned to the level ground, easily broke into the forest, whereas the others had to storm the mound had, just as if a Walls were approaching, hurt by the heavy blows from above. (Here the slingers now come into play, above). At the top of his Praetorian cohorts Germanicus conquered the wall and made his assault on the forest, where senior man against man. The enemy had in the back of the marsh, the Romans ... the mountains. Both parts had to necessarily maintain their position, they could rely only on their manly courage and hope for salvation only by a victory. "
Most researchers now suspect the Angrivarierwall rightly so as well as the" Herakles east-grove "of the Idistaviso Weser, because Tacitus twice "the river" can be incorporated into the text, which he certainly several times before the called Weser said. Another error is in Tacitus's claim that the Wall Angrivarier had built a charm against Cherusci. That would have taken a very long and very high dam! In fact used the Angrivarier this as an excuse against Germanicus and Stertinius after they had already done with the Cherusci common cause against the Romans: They had tried everything, from the Cherusci delineate how one can see from the dam, etc.! The generals were in fact happy that they let the Angrivarier pull safely to the great losses in the Ems Kalkriese: (22) "As they were unconditional, they received their pardon for all crimes."
In fact, the Romans were only moderately like this could so but to save face. Tacitus deliberately and with help Germanicus further than radiant hero because of failure to represent the line. In contrast Tiberius is portrayed as the evil, Germanicus not begrudge his success and why it called back to Rome. In fact, he had long since realized that the war was unwinnable. But he knew from his many years of operations in Germania, the conditions there more closely and much better than its predecessor Augustus.
While Wolters as a recognized archaeologist and sound ester Varusschlacht Kalkriese-in-the-critics Angrivarierwall recognize, but offers the Longi Pontes as a solution, then this is certainly the fact that he twice mentioned the river (Weser) in Tacitus than face value, rather than a forgery of the writer takes. Otherwise he would probably have noticed that leave the Wilbers-Rost returns to ditch as Germanic Schanz work easily refuted from the Tacitus describing the Angrivarierwall: (21) "late in the day moved Germanicus a legion of battle; to dig trenches around a camp . The remaining saturated until the onset of darkness in the blood of the enemy. The battle of the cavalry remained undecided. In Kalkriese thus had a bearing gap is found, order to verify the hypothesis of Angrivarierwall; of the giant limestone that danger was recognized, so they turned it into flight, a Germanic Schanz work, but for which there never is a role model.
can better texts and archaeological finds do not fit together!
can
Unfortunately, the early commitment to the Kalkrieser at the Battle of Varus in 9 AD and the main critic of the Wolters Pontes Longi not now take seriously the Varus battle and Pontes-Longi-hypotheses Angrivarierwall hypothesis in more detail with the to take motion.
Sincerely, Prof. Dr. SG Schoppe
0 comments:
Post a Comment