clades Variana , as "Varus defeat") suffered in the second half of the year 9 AD, three Roman legions including auxiliary troops and entourage under Publius Quinctilius Varus in Germania devastating defeat against a Germanic army under the leadership of Arminius ("Hermann"), a Cheruscan prince .in the Varus Battle (also battle in the Teutoburg Forest or Hermannsschlacht , referred to by Roman writers as
The battle, in which one eighth of the entire army of the Roman Empire was destroyed, ushered in the end of Roman efforts to turn the areas on the right bank of the Rhine from Germania to the Elbe ( Fluvius Albis ) into a province of the Roman Empire ( Augustan Teutonic Wars ). It is therefore one of the most important events in the history of the Romans in Germania and the development of Germania .
Various locations in East Westphalia , North Germany and the Netherlands are believed to be the location of the battle . Intensive archaeological excavations have been carried out in the Kalkriese region in the Wiehengebirge in Osnabrücker Land since the late 1980s , which made the site a favorite in the discussion as a site of the Varus Battle, although the location was initially considered so likely that it was to be erected on site of a museum came. In recent years, however, doubts have been expressed again about the view that part of the battle took place in Kalkriese. The Hermannsdenkmal near Detmold in the Teutoburg Forest is a reminder of the Varus Battle.
After the conquest of Gaul by Caesar (. 58 BC -... 51 BC) began four decades later under Augustus , the Roman campaigns in the area east of the Rhine. Augustus' step-sons Drusus and Tiberius led 15 BC A campaign against the Raetians and Vindeliker . Drusus, who then took over command of the legions on the Rhine, led in the years 12 BC. Until his death in 9 BC. Extensive exploratory expeditions east of the Rhine, during which he reached the Elbe and Saale . The Roman fleet was able to support the operations from the Rhine via the Drusus Canal , the Lacus Flevo , the Wadden Sea and the North Sea . The Drusus campaigns raised the question of what goals the Roman Empire pursued in Germania. The answers about the scope of the Roman campaigns range from defending Gaul to expanding across the Elbe. Research in recent years has suggested that it was less about gaining land and more about gaining prestige and deterrence. In Germania the fame was to be acquired that would enable the warlord, in the public eye, to rule the Roman Empire. According to this point of view, Germania only played the role of materies gloriae , an object that was suitable for the military qualification of the successor. Accordingly, the Germans could not be seen as a real threat to the Romans.
The Romans set up a number of fortified camps in particular on the Rhine ( Rhenus ), Lahn ( Laugona ), Lippe ( Lippia ), Ems ( Amisia ) and the North Sea and tried to win allies among the tribes. On January 1, 7 BC Tiberius celebrated a triumph over the Teutons. A year later, for dynastic reasons, Tiberius went into a self-chosen exile in Rhodes . Further successes in pacifying the country were achieved by Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and after Tiberius' return in AD 4. As a threat, in the area now under Drusus presented Bohemia displaced Marcomanni under their rulers Maroboduus . In Year 4 Tiberius came in the wake of immensum bellum in Germania, among threw the cananefates , Chattuarier and Brukterer and led his army up on the Weser . The major attack planned in 6 against Marbod by twelve legions under Tiberius and Gaius Sentius Saturninus had to be canceled because of the Illyrian uprising (6-9 AD) that broke out in Pannonia and Dalmatia at the same time . Publius Quinctilius Varus was appointed as the new commander on the Rhine in 7 AD .
The contemporary news received today gives only a brief account of the event of the defeat of the legions of Varus. These include Ovid ( Tristia III, 12, 45-48), Manilius ( Astronomica I, 896-903) and Strabo ( Geographica VII, 1, 4). Velleius Paterculus describes the events very briefly in AD 30 ( Historiae Romanae II, 117–119). The battle is also mentioned by other authors, such as Seneca ( Epistulae morales , Letter 47), Frontinus ( lists of wars ) and Suetonius . The more detailed reports on the Varus Battle come from Tacitus at the beginning of the second century ( Annals ) and from Cassius Dio at the beginning of the third century (Roman history) .
The literary tradition offers only the exclusively Roman view of the event. All representations emphasize that the attack on the Roman troops came as a complete surprise and that it was an ambush by the Teutons. All authors see the cause of the defeat primarily in the personal failure of the varus.
Velleius Paterculus was a witness and participant in the war in Germania. Velleius justifies the shortness of his descriptions with a planned larger historical work about the Germanic Wars, which however was no longer written. The historian provides information on the behavior of the Roman officers and provides precise information on military matters and the strength of the army. Velleius sharply criticizes Varus and describes him as the one primarily responsible for the defeat, "who had more courage to die than to fight". The hapless general Varus becomes a scapegoat and is deliberately set in contrast to the victorious Tiberius .
Tacitus sees the freedom of the Teutons as an important reason for the defeat of Varus and praises Arminius for attacking Rome "in the prime of the empire". He does not describe the Varus Battle itself, but he does describe the campaigns of Germanicus , who returned to the battlefield six years after the defeat. Tacitus writes that the battlefield is to be found in the saltus Teutoburgiensis , which is said to have been not far from the “extreme Brukterians”.
Cassius Dio provides the most detailed description of the battle and is the only source for many details. Dio's report dates from the beginning of the 3rd century, but Dio had very reliable and timely sources. His portrayal of what happened is therefore mostly classified as reliable. Tacitus and Cassius Dio, for their part, presumably used different (now all lost) historical works as sources; In addition to Pliny the Elder (whose bella Germaniae apparently used Tacitus in 20 books and who is explicitly referred to by Tacitus as Germanicorum bellorum scriptor , `` historian of the Germanic Wars ''), for example the libri belli Germanici or the Historiae of Aufidius Bassus .
The work of Florus , who wrote at the beginning of the 2nd century (history of all wars that have been waged in 700 years) provides a representation that is the only one in the course of events that deviates from other sources. According to his version, the Romans were not attacked on the march, but the Germanic tribes attacked the camp when Varus, unsuspecting, held court in the camp. However, today's historians consider the presentation to be unreliable, since the mere idea that the Teutons had taken a camp defended by three legions is considered rather improbable.
Geographical descriptions of the battlefield, which was characterized by a cold, damp climate, dense forests and boggy subsoil, are generally viewed in research as topical ideas of the Romans for northern countries, which the authors used by means of an e-phrase . Other depictions of battles that followed the Varus defeat, such as the Caecina battle , may have been modeled by ancient historians. If one follows this assumption, nothing more can be said about the battle than the mere fact of the Roman defeat and the fall of the three legions in Germania.
For a long time the only archaeological - epigraphic evidence of the battle, which did not contribute anything to the question of the location or to the knowledge of the course of the battle, is the so-called " Caelius Stone ", which is now in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn . This tombstone was found in the Birten district of Xanten and was erected for the Roman centurion Marcus Caelius , who died in the war of Varus ( bello Variano ) . The life-size portrait on it shows the Roman officer in full uniform between two of his freedmen . The inscription carved below this depiction shows that the body of Caelius could not be recovered.
The Roman governor Varus
The Roman historian Cassius Dio wrote in the 3rd century about the situation of the Romans on site and the misjudgments allegedly made by Varus:
“The Romans owned some parts of this country, but not a contiguous area, but as they had just conquered it by chance […] Their soldiers moved into their winter quarters here, cities were founded and the barbarians adapted to the Roman way of life, visited the markets and held peaceful meetings. To be sure, they had not forgotten the customs of their fathers, their innate nature, their independent way of life, and the power of their weapons. As long as they gradually and carefully relearned, the change in their way of life was not difficult for them - they did not even feel the change. But when Quinctilius Varus took over the supreme command of Germania and wanted to transform them too quickly by regulating their circumstances by virtue of his official authority, also giving them regulations like those who were subject to them and, in particular, collecting tribute from them as from subjects, their patience came to an end. "
The report of Cassius Dio is supported by the archaeological evidence of the settlement Waldgirmes near Gießen . The complex seems to be one of the places that Dio writes about the establishment of markets and cities in Germania on the right bank of the Rhine. No later than 4 v. A multi-phase fortification layer arose there. It wasn't a fortification camp, but a city in its founding phase. Waldgirmes is considered the first discovered example of a Roman city foundation in the interior of Germania. The high proportion of local ceramics in the Waldgirmes find area documents the relationship with the local population.
The production of ceramics in the Haltern warehouse is evidence of a market place. There was an unusually large number of buildings in Haltern that could accommodate people who also performed civilian administrative tasks. In view of the numerous archaeological findings in Germania on the right bank of the Rhine, research now predominantly assumes a Roman rule from 8/7 BC. Chr. From. Before 9 AD, Germania was not only "almost" but also de jure already transferred to the status of a province and was considered pacified. The Roman rule was not administratively enforced in all parts of Germania. Varus probably had the express task of building up the administration and collecting taxes.
The criticism of Varus for having pushed provincialization too vigorously and for having provoked the resistance of the Germanic peoples through jurisdiction and taxes take up Rome's usual explanation of the understanding of rebellion movements and stem from the later Varus-critical tradition. Arminius accused the Romans of greed (avaritia) , cruelty (crudelitas) and arrogance (superbia) .
Arminius as an opponent of Varus
Varus' opponent was Arminius, a prince of the Cherusci, who had possibly come to Rome as a child or as a hostage in his youth and had been trained there as a Roman officer . He was considered a reliable ally , was elevated to the Roman knighthood , served as commander of the auxiliary troops and had a good knowledge of the Roman military. Unlike his brother Flavus , who always remained loyal to Rome, Arminius turned against Roman supremacy.
Regardless of whether Varus hurt the sense of honor of the Germanic tribes through his clumsy tactics or whether the usual Roman behavior towards other peoples was already capable of provoking this resistance, Germania was definitely from the Velleius after a war of conquest and a " great uprising " Paterculus reported not fully captured and still potentially endangered. The uprising was carried out by the Cheruscans under the leadership of Arminius and Segimer. Arminius also succeeded in convincing the Martians , Chatti , Angrivarians and Brukterer tribes to form an alliance. He was also able to make the weak points of Roman military technology - and also of his own tactics - clear to the Germanic tribes. Arminius was considered a table companion of Varus and lulled him into the belief that he was a loyal ally of Rome. He was so convincing that Varus didn't even take Prince Segestes' warning seriously that Arminius was planning treason.
The ancient historian Dieter Timpe emphasizes Arminius' role as the leader of regular, Roman-trained Cheruscan auxiliary troops, who probably fought together with the tribal warriors in the uprising. The archaeologist Heiko Steuer also sees a possible change in the interpretation: “The 'freedom fighters' become the rebellious Roman military”.
Course of the battle
According to Cassius Dio, the starting point of the fateful move was the Weser in the Cheruscan region. But the news of a supposedly small regional uprising caused Varus to take a detour through an area largely unknown to the Romans. In rough terrain, Arminius and his conspirators had preceded, allegedly to bring in allies. The marching on Varus got caught in an ambush carefully planned by Arminius.
It is assumed that the armed forces comprised the three legions XVII , XVIII , XIX , three Alen (cavalry units) and six cohorts with a total of 15,000 to 20,000 soldiers, plus 4,000 to 5,000 riding, draft and pack animals, of which 15 to Must have been 20 km long.
Cassius Dio gives the year 9 for the battle, Suetonius the year 10. Historians such as Theodor Mommsen suspect that "the last march of Varus was apparently the march back from summer to winter camp". Summer or autumn is generally assumed to be the season.
The most detailed account of the battle comes from the Roman historian Cassius Dio, written some 200 years after the event. The description of the battle itself contains rhetorical elements, but the differentiated description of the terrain formation is seen as evidence that it is not just a mere collection of topoi , but that real news is the basis. Ancient historical research is based on the reliability of Dio's information. Dio reports to Varus without the one-sided accusations that are usual in the other sources. In his report it says:
“Because the mountains were full of ravines and bumps, and the trees were so dense and oversized that the Romans, even before the enemy attacked them, struggled to cut down the trees where necessary, to pave roads and dams to build.
And when there was rain and storm, they dispersed even further. But the ground, having become slippery around the roots and tree stumps, made her quite unsteady when walking, and the tops of the trees, broken off and fallen, confused her.
[…] [There] the Teutons suddenly surrounded them from everywhere through the thicket at the same time, because they knew the paths, and they shot at first from a distance, but then, when no one resisted, but many were wounded, they went on her.
It was impossible 1. to march in any order […], 2. it was difficult for them to rally together, and flock for flock were always fewer than the attackers, […]
Therefore, they easily enclosed the Romans and made them down so that Varus and the most respected, for fear of being captured or killed - for they were already wounded - decided to do a terrible but necessary act. They killed themselves.
When this became known, no one resisted any more, even if they were still strong, but some followed their leader, others threw away their weapons and left themselves to whoever wanted to kill them. Because nobody could escape, no matter how much they wanted to. "
All sources cite the topographical conditions as decisive for the course and outcome of the fighting. These are characterized by confusing forest areas, swamps and bog soils. After that, the Romans had no way of defending themselves. When Arminius and his allies attacked, the surprised legions, who dragged themselves over a long distance with their entourage, failed to form a combat formation. In addition, heavy storms and rainfalls are reported for the first and third days. The Romans fought not only against Germanic warriors, but also against the renegade Germanic auxiliary troops. In the course of the fighting, the Germanic peoples gained advantages through their better knowledge of the terrain. The Romans, on the other hand, were less trained for one-on-one combat and probably couldn't cope with the conditions, not least because of their heavy armor. Nevertheless, during the fighting, the Romans managed to temporarily reach open terrain and set up camp on a wooded hill. The entourage was reduced by incinerating items that were not urgently needed. But it was apparently inevitable to continue on the confusing forest paths again. Only now do the Germanic attacks seem to have started again and the Romans after Dio have suffered their heaviest losses. The fighting lasted a total of three days. According to a controversial passage from Cassius Dio, the fighting may have dragged on until the “fourth day”. Varus killed himself together with high officers to avoid captivity. Apparently the soldiers tried in vain to bury the general. Velleius gives the Roman losses with a total of three legions, three ales and six cohorts. At the time of the attack, at least five legions were in Germania on the right bank of the Rhine. The two legions that Asprenas commanded had successfully returned to the Lower Rhine and stabilized their position there. It is unclear to what extent these troops were involved in combat operations.
The head of Varus was sent to the Marcomann king Marbod in his bohemian residence as part of an alliance offer . However, Marbod refused the advance and sent the trophy to the Varus family in Rome. In view of the defeat, Emperor Augustus is said to have exclaimed:
Quintili Vare, legiones redde!
"Quinctilius Varus, give back the legions!"
The deep despair and depression of Augustus corresponded to the rules of mourning expected by the public. Augustus had the severed head buried in the mausoleum intended for the emperor himself , an honor reserved only for extremely deserving members of the Roman upper class. The defeated legions were not set up again after the disaster, unique in Roman military history. There was no symbolic ostracism to present a main culprit to the public. Only during the high treason trials under Emperor Tiberius and after the family left the leadership of the empire did the negative image of Varus emerge.
Impact of the Roman defeat
After the Varus defeat there was a "westward offensive" by the Teutons, in the course of which they conquered almost all of the forts. The attempt to forge a broad alliance against Rome with the Marcomanni settling in Bohemia failed because Marbod refused the contract offer. In addition, there was a dispute among the Germanic tribes after the battle. At the head of the Rome-friendly party stood Segestes. With the help of Germanicus he was able to bring his daughter Thusnelda, who had been "kidnapped" by Arminius and who was pregnant by him, back under his control. He handed them over to Germanicus, who had them arrested in Ravenna . The fact that Arminius was able to defeat Marbod in 19 may be due to the fact that the Semnones and Lombards had passed over to him from his sphere of influence . However, he failed when trying to expand his position of power with the Cheruscans. An offer by the Chattenfürst Adgandestrius to kill Arminius with poison was rejected by Rome. The process illustrates the internal Germanic rivalries. In the year 21 Arminius was murdered by relatives. According to Tacitus, his pursuit of kingship played the decisive role.
Campaigns of Tiberius and Germanicus
The catastrophic defeat of the year 9 AD had a short-term almost complete retreat of Rome to the starting positions before the offensive of 12 BC. As a result. The loss of three legions, six cohorts and three ales went hand in hand with the destruction of Roman forts between the Rhine and Weser and meant the temporary abandonment of all ambitions that went beyond this. Fortresses, mines and branches such as Waldgirmes were abandoned and even destroyed as planned. Fears in Rome were not confirmed, however, that the Germans could cross the Rhine and the Gallic tribes use the situation for an uprising. To avoid unrest in the city of Rome, Augustus had guards posted everywhere. Gauls and Teutons were expelled from the city and the Germanic bodyguard was deported to an island.
The Varus Battle in no way meant the end of the Roman military presence in Germania, rather Augustus pursued an offensive concept even afterwards. As late as 9 or 10 AD, Lucius Nonius Asprenas was able to contribute to the liberation of the trapped troops of the Aliso camp, which cannot be safely located . The three lost Varus legions were replaced immediately (without, however, taking up the old names as 17th, 18th and 19th legions again) and the total number of Rhine legions increased from six to eight. The fleet was also used again. Augustus reports in the Res Gestae (26) as follows: “ Gallias et Hispanias provincias, item Germaniam, qua includit Oceanus a Gadibus ad ostium Albis fluminis, pacavi. ”(German:“ The Gaulish and Spanish provinces and also Germania, as far as the ocean [they] includes from Gades to the mouth of the Elbe, I have pacified. ”) This sentence by the Princeps does not reveal any thoughts of retreat or resignation. The Varus defeat was even kept secret in the official parlance of the Res Gestae , Augustus' report of deeds. Rather, the sentence is shaped by the princeps' imperial pride in conquering such a far-reaching ocean frontier. It also shows that Augustus did not give up the claim to Germania until his death.
After the defeat of Varus, Tiberius was again entrusted by Augustus with command in Germania. However, in 10 AD he could not make up his mind to cross the Rhine. Whether his great reluctance immediately after the Varus Battle speaks against a plan for the immediate reconquest of the area between the Elbe and the Rhine or whether it merely reflects wise caution, is very controversial in research. In the following years, however, Tiberius crossed the Rhine several times and penetrated deeper inland. After all, according to contemporary witness Velleius Paterculus, he returned to the winter camp covered with fame.
The success of these Tiberius campaigns is assessed differently in later ancient sources and in modern research than by Velleius. There were no military conflicts after Dio, as the Romans, for fear, did not advance far from the Rhine. In research, too, Velleius' representation of the campaigns is questioned, as Velleius tended to clearly overestimate the achievements of Tiberius. In addition, no traces of military roads or signs of charcoal layers have been discovered, as would have been expected if large areas of settlements had been burned down. However, there is no doubt that Tiberius led his troops across the Rhine. However, the sparse sources do not reveal what Tiberius did and achieved in Germania during the three years.
In the year 14, Germanicus , who had taken over the military command at the end of the year, began again with campaigns in Germania. The Germanicus campaigns (14 to 16 AD) were directed particularly against the Cherusci , Brukterer , Martians , Angrivarians and Chatti . Germanicus probably received an imperial acclamation in his first year . The award made under Augustus is a clear indication of his offensive approach. Immediately after Augustus' death, Germanicus succeeded in suppressing a mutiny by the Rhine legions. Then Germanicus led the army to the right bank of the Rhine in late autumn. The goal was the Germanic Martians between the Upper Lippe and the Upper Ruhr. The land was devastated within a radius of 50 Roman miles (around 75 km). On the way back, the Romans were ambushed by the Brukterer, Tubanten and Usipeter . However, they managed to prevail against the Teutons. In the years 15 and 16 there were several major battles between the Romans and Teutons with the participation of Arminius, including the battle of the Pontes longi , the battle of the Idistavisian field and the battle of the Angrivarian Wall . Germanicus managed to win back two legionary eagles and captured Thusnelda, Arminius' pregnant wife.
Burial of the fallen soldiers of the Varus army under Germanicus
The Roman historian Tacitus describes the battlefield as it was found by Germanicus in 15:
“The first camp of the Varus showed the work of three legions by its wide scope and the staking out of the main square. Then you could see on the half-collapsed wall and the low ditch the place where the already melted remains had collected. In the middle of the field lay pale bones, scattered or in piles, depending on whether they came from fugitives or from a force still resisting. Broken weapons and the skeleton of horses lay next to them, and skulls were attached to tree trunks. In groves nearby were the altars of the barbarians, where they slaughtered the tribunes and centurions of the first rank. "
The burial of the fallen of the Varus army was criticized by Tiberius. The fear of the soldiers would be increased by the sight of the slain and unburied soldiers and cripple their fighting strength. In addition, Germanicus was not allowed to deal with the burial of soldiers because of his priesthood as augur .
Germanicus is recalled and Germania on the right bank of the Rhine is renounced
Ultimately, after a few years, the Romans gave up trying to revise the consequences of the Varus Battle. The campaigns were ended by the new emperor Tiberius in the year 16, because the expenditure of people and material for the Romans was too high and an indirect control of Germania seemed to suffice. Tiberius particularly criticized the manner of waging the war and the high losses. He referred to the fights he himself waged in Germania, in which he would have achieved plura consilio quam vi (more through clever action than violence) . But other motives may also have played a role. Tiberius invoked the alleged advice of Augustus to leave the empire within its current limits (consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii). The historicity of the consilium coercendi is, however, questioned in modern research, Germanicus became a triumph de Cheruscis Chattisque et Angrivariis quaeque aliae nationes usque ad Albim colunt (About the Cherusci and Chatti as well as the Angrivarians and the other tribes that live in the area up to the Elbe ) and he himself was entrusted with a command in the east. The last legionary eagle was not returned until 30 years later under Emperor Claudius . Last survivors from the battle were freed almost 40 years later.
The "Germanic problem" which had not been resolved since Augustus came to an end with the official establishment of the two "Germanic" provinces Germania inferior and Germania superior under Emperor Domitian . Under Trajan , troops were moved from the Rhine to the Danube and the Roman Empire gained its greatest expansion through the conquest of the Dacian Empire in today's Romania and the extensive offensive in the east of the Roman Empire. Even the expansive Emperor Trajan did nothing to recapture Germania. Only this renunciation by Rome, after a century, made the Varus Battle grow in retrospect.
However, the Romans also undertook limited campaigns deep into the "free Germania" later on, as demonstrated by the findings of the Harzhorn event in 2008, which confirms statements in written sources. However, these were primarily intended to secure the frontier of the border. The last Roman campaign across the Rhine under the command of an emperor was undertaken by Gratian in 378 .
Localization of the battle
The geographical location of the battlefield has been controversial for centuries, as the written evidence of the Varus Battle does not allow precise localization.
Theories and speculations about the location of the battle
The first attempts to track down the scene were made as early as the 11th century. In his chronicle written between 1143 and 1146, Bishop Otto von Freising referred to Augsburg as the site of the Varus Battle. This localization enjoyed great popularity in the centuries that followed and was represented by scholars such as Konrad Peutinger and Conrad Celtis . Suggestions to localize the battle in the Mainz or Frankfurt area were less widespread .
With the rediscovery of the Annals of Tacitus around 1507, the question of the place received a new basis. The historian Tacitus reports an advance five years after Varus' defeat:
“Ductum inde agmen ad ultimos Bructerorum, quantumque Amisiam et Lupiam amnis inter vastatum, haud procul Teutoburgiensi saltu in quo reliquiae Vari legionumque insepultae dicebantur.”
"In one go the army went from there to the most distant Brukterern, and devastated everything between the Ems and Lippe , not far from the Teutoburg Forest , where, as they said, the remains of Varus and his legions lay unburied"
This gave rise to the term “battle in the Teutoburg Forest ”.
In 1535 Georg Spalatin suspected the place near Duisburg due to the consonance of the name Teutoburg . In further attempts at localization, Beatus Rhenanus cited the Lippe Forest , Philipp Melanchthon the Osning (now known as the Teutoburg Forest) and Kassel and Martin Luther the Harz Mountains . But since that time all attempts that were considered to be taken seriously were based on Tacitus' statement that the Saltus Teutoburgensis was "not far" from the area between the Ems and Lippe.
Historians, archaeologists, local researchers and other interested parties have developed at least 700 theories and speculations about the location of the Varus Battle since the 16th century . The prehistorian and provincial archaeologist Harald von Petrikovits bundled the multitude of possible locations geographically into larger theoretical units. The places considered most likely by experts are almost all in East Westphalia or in neighboring areas. According to Petrikovits, there are four groups of places where the battle is located:
- according to the northern theory on the northern edge of the Wiehen and Weser mountains , where the Kalkriese site is located;
- according to the north-east theory in the area of the Teutoburg Forest or between it and the Weser;
- according to the Münsterland theory in the area west or south-west of the Teutoburg Forest;
- according to the southern theory in the mountainous region southeast of the Münsterland Bay.
The archaeological finds in Kalkriese show that a Roman-Germanic conflict took place there. As early as 1885, Theodor Mommsen suspected, due to the untypical accumulation of Roman coins that the Varus Battle had taken place there. The discoveries of 162 denarii (1987) by the British major Tony Clunn and the discovery of three slingshot lead (1988), which at least prove the temporary presence of Roman troops at the site, initiated a systematic investigation of the site. Eight bone pits have recently been discovered at the site. In some, however, only the remains of an individual can be detected. There were at least nine corpses in the “Great Bone Pit”, with some bones clearly showing combat injuries. Over 4,000 pieces, mostly small objects, were found in Kalkriese. However, so far only part of the site has been excavated. Since the more recent finds at Kalkriese also show combat operations, this location became a favorite in the discussion about the location of the battle.
On the other hand, these findings are not yet sufficient to prove Kalkriese as the site of the Varus Battle, as various battles were fought in Germania Magna , including later under the Roman general Germanicus . What speaks against Kalkriese as the site of the Varus Battle is that so far neither the dishes typical of Roman soldiers, terra sigillata , nor other ceramics known to Romans have been found there. There is no epigraphic evidence of the presence of the three destroyed legions in Kalkriese . In addition, all bones and bone fragments can only be assigned to 17 individuals, which speaks against fighting on the scale of the Varus Battle. Above all, however, the archaeological findings can hardly be reconciled with the literary information. The conclusions that research draws from this are different. Klaus Bringmann sees the archaeological evidence as evidence of a presumed larger whole and speaks of a "brilliant confirmation" of the report by Cassius Dio, which is "in full accordance with the archaeological evidence of Kalkriese". According to some archaeologists, the event of the Varus disaster was much smaller than it appears in the literary sources.
Since the beginning of a serious archaeological dispute about the site of the Varus Battle, the coins found as objects that can be dated well have been the focus of interest. Theodor Mommsen had the collection of Roman coins from the Barenau estate near Kalkriese examined in 1884 and stated: “In my opinion, the coins found in and near Barenau belong to the estate of the army of the Venner Moore, which perished in AD 9 Varus. "
After the more recent archaeological finds, the new finds of coins were also subjected to a reassessment by the numismatist Frank Berger (1996). Berger, following Mommsen, agreed that the Kalkrieser-Niewedder Senke was not just a secondary theater of war, but that the Varus Battle itself had taken place. In return, he cites the amount of coins that have never been found anywhere else outside of camps or settlements. Berger and Wolfgang Schlüter are also certain about the dating of the entire holdings - in addition to the Barenau Collection, which was lost in the Second World War - from prospecting finds: 2 gold, 461 silver and 251 copper coins as well as 340 Roman coins from excavations, Berger and Wolfgang Schlüter are sure that these were dated 9 AD. To be able to fix.
As with the dispute about Kalkriese as the site of the Varus Battle itself, Berger soon received objections from Reinhard Wolters (2000) and Peter Kehne (2000). They criticized the fact that the coin finds themselves only provided a terminus post quem as a dating approach that was just as applicable to the campaigns of Germanicus. Berger admitted that the core of the assessment was not based on the coinage, but on the counterstamps on the coins, especially those of Varus ("VAR") and C. Numonius Vala ("C. VAL"). These were probably imprinted as part of donations and distributed to the troops. They cannot have been made before 7 AD. On the other hand, there are no coins in Kalkriese that were minted after 9 AD. The most common denar type is that of Augustus for his grandsons Caius and Lucius . The denar type that followed in AD 12 is no longer represented in Kalkriese. However, the routes of distribution of the freshly minted coins from the mint to the soldiers in Germania are as little known as the duration of this process. In addition, the coinage was irregular and the soldiers were often paid with old coins that were already in circulation.
A core of the problem is the dating of the coin horizons from the legionary camps on the Lippe by Konrad Kraft from 1956, which is still largely valid today. Kraft analyzed the occurrence of the most important coin series, the Lyon Altar series and the Nemausus aces in the Haltern and Oberaden camps . However, the work could not make any statements about the horizon of a site from the time of the Germanicus campaigns, because such were not known at that time. Wolters feared circular conclusions to other archaeological finds, such as the terra sigillata, for which Haltern is an important dating horizon. This also raises the question of whether Haltern can really be identical to the Aliso mentioned by Velleius . According to Berger, the end date of Haltern coincides with the dating of Kalkriese. The doubts, which are not unjustified in detail, cannot, however, call into question the conclusive coin dating based on the work of Kraft and Berger with the methodology as a whole.
The counterstamps on coins were partly interpreted differently by Kehne: He interprets “C.VAL” as Pro Caesaris Valetudine (“for Caesar's health”), to the counterstamps “AVC”, which Berger and Ulrich Werz read as AVG (ustus) , speculates Kehne AV (lus) C (aecina), whereby the abbreviation of the first name Aulus seems extremely unusual. Berger especially accused Kehne of arbitrariness of the arguments and made comparisons with the legionary camp Augsburg-Oberhausen , which has a different composition, especially for copper coins. Ultimately, his thesis is supported by the amount of more than 3000 coins found, which is unique in Northern Germany.
Humanism and reformation
In the Middle Ages the Varus Battle was of no importance. The main interest was in the history of the empire and the church. The modern reception history of the Varus Battle began with the rediscovery of the writings of Tacitus (1455 the Germania , 1507 the Annals ). However, humanists north and south of the Alps interpreted what they found in different ways. Enea Silvio Piccolomini stated that the Germans of the 15th century were much better off than the people in "old Germania". He attributed this improvement to the influence of Rome and the Roman Church and thus established the legitimacy of levies to the curia . German humanists such as Konrad Celtis and Heinrich Bebel , on the other hand, placed Tacitus' description of the Germanic peoples as loyal, justice-loving, chaste, generous, pious, sincere and freedom-loving in the foreground and ascribed these characteristics to the “German national character”. It was precisely these characteristics that were so suitable for the ideological dispute with Rome that they could be hyped up into an always existing antithesis. At the same time, they were suitable for appropriating the Varus battle as the beginning of German history.
For Ulrich von Hutten , Arminius was on a par with the greatest generals of antiquity. In 1529 he wrote the Arminius Dialogue, a fictional conversation between Arminius, Alexander the Great , Hannibal and Scipio the Elder . For Hutten, Arminius' victory over the army of Varus meant entry into German history. The Germanization "Arminius" to "Hermann" took place in the environment of Martin Luther . Luther expressed his sympathy for the Cheruscan as follows: “If I am a poet, I want to celebrate him. I have in von hertzen lib ”. By 1543 at the latest, through the rhyming poem written by Burchard Valdis about the first twelve old German kings and princes , Hermann had established himself as the “real name” of Arminius.
However, there was no general enthusiasm for Arminius in the 16th century. In the spirit of Enea Silvio Piccolomini, the Catholics were happy that they had worked their way up culturally through Christianity against the "Arminian Barbarey". But there were also critical tones among the Protestants. It was felt to be problematic that Arminius rebelled against the authorities. For example, the Luther friend and humanist Georg Spalatin , who obtained a German edition of all Roman sources relating to Arminius, wrote that Arminius had broken “faith, peace and loyalty” and seduced the Teutons into “not taking good care of their honor”.
Contrary to the zeitgeist of the 18th century, which sought the cultural roots of Germany in Greek and Roman antiquity, Justus Möser located the ideal image of human communities in his "Osnabrück History", published in 1768, not in the city-states of ancient Greece, but in the "Germanic primitive society" between Arminius and Charlemagne. Previously he had presented his title figure as a role model in his tragedy “Arminius”, written in 1749. Johann Gottfried Herder took up Möser's thoughts in his "Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Humanity" in 1774, praising the laws of the Germanic peoples and deliberately differentiating himself from Greek and Roman antiquity.
Some authors of the 18th century also saw the Varus Battle as an antithesis to the position, especially in France, that Germany was culturally incapable, politically torn and economically backward: Arminius had led a nation that had come to an agreement, had courageously faced the overpowering conqueror and him - in contrast to the French, who were defeated with Vercingetorix and the Battle of Alesia - also defeated devastatingly. Against this intellectual background, some German-speaking authors of the 18th century dedicated several operas and theatrical tragedies to Arminius, his love drama with Thusnelda and his fight against the Romans. In his “Hermann Trilogy” (“Hermann's Battle” 1769, “Hermann and the Princes” 1784, “Hermann's Death” 1787) Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock portrayed Arminius as a hero who sacrificed himself for the fatherland. He made him not only the victor against the Romans, but also the savior of German culture and language; at the same time he contributed to the spread of the term "Hermannsschlacht".
Nevertheless, the leading poets around 1800 did not get their material from the Arminius myth, but from the present or the Middle Ages. When Friedrich Schiller wanted to bring the story of a freedom hero onto the stage, he chose Wilhelm Tell, not Arminius .
From the Wars of Liberation to the founding of the Empire
The interpretation of the Varus Battle gained a new dynamic in the course of the Napoleonic occupation of Germany and the Wars of Liberation . In 1805, the writer Ernst Moritz Arndt compared Napoleon with the generals of ancient Rome and called for a “new Hermann” as savior. Like Klopstock, Johann Gottlieb Fichte claimed in 1808 that the Germans owed the German language and the preservation of the German urge for freedom. In the same year Heinrich von Kleist wrote his drama “ Die Hermannsschlacht ”, in which the Romans were an allegory of the French and the Cherusci an allegory of the Prussians. However, since the drama was initially neither printed nor performed, it did not have any immediate effect. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn , who also combined hatred of the French with the Hermann myth, described Arminius as a “people's savior” in 1810 and wanted the date of the Varus Battle to be set as a national holiday, was quite different . He wrote a fictional "Speech by Arminius to the Germans before the Teutoburg Battle", with which he sought to recruit irregulars for the Lützow Freikorps . After the Battle of the Nations near Leipzig , patriotic circles dubbed it the “New Hermann Battle ”. In the same year Arndt published a “Catechism for the German warrior and military man”, in which he let the German history begin with Arminius.
After the Congress of Vienna , Arminius was perceived as a threat by the Prussian and Austrian authorities. The fraternities that had given themselves names like “Germania”, “Arminia” or “Teutonia” were banned, Arndt's teaching license was withdrawn, and Jahn even had to go to prison. Hutten's Arminius Dialogue, translated into German by Ernst Münch in 1822, was banned in Prussia. Christian Dietrich Grabbe drew a more realistic picture of historical events than Kleist in his historical drama “ The Hermann Battle ”, which was completed in 1836 . Heinrich Heine mocked in 1844 in Caput XI of “ Germany. A winter fairy tale “the appropriation of the Varus Battle by German nationalism. Freiligrath questioned the historical continuity between Teutons and Germans over the period of the Great Migration . Immermann relativized the importance of Arminius' victory in view of the fact that Germanicus again led Roman troops to the site of the Varus Battle six years later.
A monument to the Varus Battle, on the other hand, was placed in the Walhalla , completed in 1842 , in whose northern gable frieze it is shown. Ernst von Bandel and Moritz Leopold Petri pursued the idea of building an Arminius monument for several decades. In 1838 the "Association for the Hermann Monument" was founded, and in 1841 the foundation stone was laid. Obtaining the necessary funds proved to be very difficult. The monument was only completed after the founding of the empire in 1871 ; Kaiser Wilhelm I and 30,000 spectators attended its inauguration on August 17, 1875 . In the speeches held on the occasion of the inauguration ceremony and in some inscriptions, Arminius and Wilhelm were equated. The military bands played - based on a melody by Joseph Gungl - Scheffel's song "Teutoburg Battle", which he wrote in 1848 as a "goofy song". In the course of the Franco-Prussian War and the proclamation of the Empire in 1871, Kleist's “Hermannsschlacht” began to gain acceptance among the public, after the first performance in 1860 and the subsequent productions had remained relatively unsuccessful. In 1914, messengers between the files announced the current reports of victory from the French front. The Hermannsschlacht is also the title of a painting by Friedrich Gunkel created between 1862 and 1864, which is no longer extant , and which the Bavarian King Maximilian II commissioned for the Maximilianeum in 1857 . The history painting took up the issue in the 19th and early 20th century on several occasions.
From the German Empire to the time of National Socialism
From the founding of the empire to 1945, Arminius was the foundation stone of German history in the public consciousness; 2000 years of historical continuity was not in question. This was borne by the judgments of historians. Felix Dahn wrote a song of victory after the Varus Battle in 1872 , which combines historical references with current world domination fantasies. It says there, for example: “Hail to the hero Armin. Lift him up on the shield. Show him to the immortal ancestors: Give us leaders like that, Wodan, more - and the world belongs to the Germans ”. Theodor Mommsen saw in Arminius the “liberator of Germany” and taught in his lecture “Roman Imperial History” that a German national feeling appeared for the first time in the Varus Battle. Friedrich Engels saw the Varus Battle as "one of the most decisive turning points in world history". In 1897 the Hermann Heights Monument was inaugurated in the USA on the initiative of German emigrants . During this time, numerous historical pictures were created in which Arminius was assigned an important role.
In addition, the veneration of Arminius also played a political role. The Hermannsdenkmal , completed in 1875 , for which Heinrich Heine had also donated, developed from national, democratic and nationalistic-anti-French intentions to an anti-Catholic symbol during the Kulturkampf and later to a place of pilgrimage for nationalists, racists and anti-Semites. In 1893 the “Anti-Semites of Germany” gathered at the Hermannsdenkmal and paid tribute to Arminius as “the forefather of all racially pure Germans”. At the anniversary celebration in 1909, the representative of the German Gymnastics Association said that without the Varus Battle, “the German people would soon have been infused with Roman blood”.
At the beginning of the First World War , efforts were made to use the political myth of the Hermannsschlacht to enforce the truce policy. With reference to the battle, Kaiser Wilhelm II proclaimed: "Germany has never been conquered when it was united". Accordingly, after the defeat in 1918, Hermann offered himself as a historical parallel to the stab in the back legend . No longer as a victor, but as a martyr , who also fell victim to the Germanic discord “undefeated in war”. During the First World War, postcards were circulated with the imprint “We will fight under Hermann's mark until all our enemies are pale”.
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck predicted the world domination of the Germans in his book “The Third Reich” published in 1923 and justified this with Arminius' victory in the Varus Battle. The 50th anniversary of the inauguration of the Hermann Monument in 1925 drew 50,000 mostly anti-republican people to Detmold. The chauvinistic and revanchist accents that dominated the speeches led to the call for the national messiah to lead a new Hermann battle. In 1926, an entry in the guest book of Adolf Hitler at the Hermannsdenkmal showed that he too felt inspired by the Varus Battle. A year later, the chief ideologist of the National Socialists, Alfred Rosenberg, used Kleist's 150th birthday to collect his “Hermannschlacht” for the “movement”. No longer the Romans, but "Jews, Poles and French are today the whole brood that has felted into the body of Germania like a swarm of insects".
During the time of National Socialism , the artist Werner Peiner was commissioned to create eight tapestries for the New Reich Chancellery , which were supposed to illustrate the great battles in German history. The first carpet represented the Varus Battle. Arminius was present during National Socialism, but was not the focus. Rather, for Adolf Hitler , Rome provided the yardstick for his own empire. This appreciation also influenced his image of Hermann. For him he was the "first German unifier" who had collected the Germanic tribes, but he only succeeded in doing this because he was trained by Rome. Hermann had by the "German people to the greatest political success of these past helped," ultimately he was but failed, "and the blood of Hermannsschlacht be shed in vain." Political scientist Herfried Münkler leads the low interest of the Nazis at the Arminius-shape thereon back that “their interest was more in Germanic expansion than the defense of the“ home soil ”.” When the Allied armies advanced into Germany in 1944, it was too late to revive the Arminius cult.
The Varus Battle has had a special historical significance since the 16th century, which has shaped the judgment of historians from the 19th century until today at the latest. Theodor Mommsen described the Varus Battle as “a turning point in world history” when he gave his speech on “The Germanic Politics of Augustus” in March 1871, two months after the founding of the empire. In his celebratory speech on the 1900th anniversary of the Varus Battle, Hans Delbrück considered German history to be “particularly rich” compared to that of other nations and alluded to an assumed continuity between Germans and Germans. The ancient historian Ernst Kornemann started German history in 1922 with the Varus Battle. The Varus Battle was interpreted in older research as the national liberation struggle of the Germanic peoples or even the Germans against the Roman occupiers. This view remained prevalent for decades.
During National Socialism , Hans Erich Stier in particular dealt with the Varus Battle and Arminius in eight articles from 1933 to 1938. His essay "On the Varus Battle" from 1933 in the historical journal makes clear the emotions with which the question of the meaning of the Varus Battle was raised. In 1938 Stier published the essay "The importance of the Roman wars of aggression for Westphalia", with which he wanted to make a "contribution to the understanding of the Germanic revolution". Characteristic of the degree of idealization of the “Germanic genius” or the “most ingenious pupil of the Romans” is the question: “Why did one repeatedly feel tempted to belittle Arminius' victory in the Teutoburg Forest?” In addition to Stier and Kornemann represented the Germans Ancient historians of the 30s and 40s primarily Franz Miltner and Ernst Hohl (based on Mommsen) the view of the world-historical significance of the Varus Battle and Arminius for the “saving of the German nationality” The provincial archaeologist Friedrich Koepp stated in 1940: “Glorreicher No other people introduced themselves into history than our ancestors through this victory over the masters of the world. ”In the work published in 1905, Koepp, with reference to the lack of urban civilization and the expansion of the Germanic forests, formulated that the“ German primeval forest [... ] saved the Germans from the fate of the Gauls. "
After the Second World War, science distanced itself for some time from subjects in which the Germanic peoples or Arminius formed the center. It was not until the 1960s that the time was ripe for a renewed approach to the Varus Battle. In 1961 Otto Höfler published the treatise Siegfried, Arminius and Symbolik with an appendix on the Varus Battle.
In 1970 Dieter Timpe approached the Cheruscan in his Arminius studies on the basis of ancient sources and formulated his hypothesis that the attack on the Varus army should be seen politically as a mutiny. Timpe thus replaced the image of a freedom hero with the image of a traitor and fighter against his own troops. Its reconstruction generated controversial reactions. A little later, the Göttingen Academy of Sciences started the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde as a comprehensive explanation of the state of research on the Germanic peoples. Finally, the statements of ancient authors on the Teutons were compiled through source editions and made accessible on a scientific and critical basis.
Modern research tries to relativize the image of the Varus Battle as a "turning point in history". Reinhard Wolters made it clear in 2008 that “the Varus catastrophe was neither militarily nor politically a turning point and thus did not result in an“ epoch-making turning point ”.” Nevertheless, judgments that regard the Varus Battle as a turning point still hold up today. According to the archaeologist Peter S. Wells , the Varus Battle changed the course of world history. When the Varus Battle returned in 2000, the national liberation struggle no longer played a role. Current discussions among ancient historians and archaeologists rather deal with the site of the Varus Battle, the goals of the Roman German policy in Augustan times and whether a Roman province had already emerged in Germania on the right bank of the Rhine under the governorship of Varus.
The Varus Battle from today's perspective
Excavations of Kalkriese
With the excavations of Kalkriese from 1987 on, an intensified discussion about the place of the battle began. The first finds were presented to the public as evidence of the Varus Battle. Shortly after the first archaeological finds, an information room was opened in 1993 on a farm in the immediate vicinity of the excavation field. The place quickly met with wide acceptance in the media. In the structurally weak region, the Varus Battle is used specifically as a location advantage. Tourist and commercial marketing concepts in Kalkriese are “Varus battle should become a brand”, “Römer-Mett” or in July 2004 the appearance of the rock band Fury in the Slaughterhouse on the battlefield. As part of a project for the World Exhibition Expo 2000 , the approximately 20 hectare “Varusschlacht” museum park was created, which was supplemented in 2001 by a museum building and in 2009 by a visitor center for the “ Museum and Park Kalkriese ” in Bramsche . The Varus-Kurier , published by the Varus Society, reports regularly on the progress of the excavations in the Kalkriese region.
The Hermannsschlacht or Varusschlacht has already been adapted for the cinema three times: the first time in the years 1922 and 1923 in the context of the battle against the Ruhr as a silent film in five acts under the title The Hermannschlacht . The director was the Düsseldorf dramaturge Leo König , Adolf Bassermann played the Cheruscan prince Segestes. The film was shot not far from the Hermannsdenkmal near the Externsteinen . On February 27, 1924, this opus, which was largely perceived as nationalistic by the critics, was performed in the Lippisches Landestheater in Detmold. For a long time it was considered lost. It was only rediscovered in the Central Film Archive of the USSR in 1990 and released on DVD in 2009.
A second film adaptation of the material appeared in 1977 under the German title Hermann der Cherusker - Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald . It is a German-Italian-Yugoslav co-production that was realized in the remaining sets of other antique films in Zagreb under the direction of Ferdy Baldwins (pseudonym for Ferdinando Baldi ). Although this work had been filmed with Hans von Borsody as Hermann since 1965 , it took ten years until the German premiere of the production, known as the 'Sandalen Trashfilm', which took place on February 3, 1977.
The third implementation for the cinema was made between 1993 and 1995. Producers and authors of this version were Christian Deckert, Hartmut Kiesel, Christoph Köster, Stefan Mischer and Cornelius Völker . The Hermann Battle was filmed in the Teutoburg Forest and in the Rhineland. In addition to stage actors and hundreds of amateurs, the actors Markus Lüpertz , Tony Cragg and Alfonso Hüppi as well as the art historian Werner Spies appear as actors in this film . The Hermannsschlacht premiered in Düsseldorf in May 1995 and was released on DVD in 2005.
2000 years of the Varus Battle
2000 years after the Varus Battle, in 2009, numerous events were held to commemorate the events. From May 16 to October 25, 2009 the three exhibitions of the joint exhibition project "IMPERIUM CONFLICT MYTH." Were held in the Seestadthalle and the LWL-Römermuseum in Haltern am See , in the Museum and Park Kalkriese and in the Lippisches Landesmuseum in Detmold . 2000 Years of the Varus Battle ”. It was the largest historical special exhibition in the history of the Federal Republic. Numerous new publications on the topic were also published.
The Römermuseum Xanten in the Archaeological Park presented the special exhibition “Marcus Caelius. Death in the Varus Battle ”.
With the issue of a special stamp on June 4, 2009, the Federal Republic of Germany commemorated the Varus Battle. The stamp with a value of 0.55 euros shows part of the Hermann monument near Detmold, a bust of Emperor Augustus and the face mask of a Roman equestrian helmet.
The right-wing extremist scene used the anniversary year 2009 for xenophobic and anti-American agitation. In publications and at events, German right-wing extremists praised the Varus Battle as a beacon of a "national liberation struggle" and interpreted Arminius as a role model for a current fight against immigrants and the USA, which is known as the "new Rome".
- Cassius Dio : Roman History. Translated by Otto Veh , Volume 3 (= Books 44–50) and 4 (= Books 51–60), Artemis-Verlag, Zurich 1986, ISBN 3-7608-3672-0 and ISBN 3-7608-3673-9 .
- Velleius Paterculus : Roman History. Historia Romana. Translated and edited in Latin / German by Marion Giebel, Reclam, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-15-008566-7 .
- Suetonius : The most detailed ancient biography from the collection of the emperor's biographies from Caesar to Domitian . Numerous editions, for example with a German translation in: Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus: All preserved works. Magnus, Essen 2004, ISBN 3-88400-071-3 .
- Tacitus : annals. Latin / German edited by Erich Heller, 5th edition, Artemis & Winkler, Munich / Zurich 2005, ISBN 3-7608-1645-2 .
- Hans-Werner Goetz / Karl-Wilhelm Welwei : Old Germania. Extracts from ancient sources about the Germanic peoples and their relationship to the Roman Empire. 2 parts, WBG, Darmstadt 1995, ISBN 3-534-05958-1 .
- Joachim Herrmann (Ed.): Greek and Latin sources on the early history of Central Europe up to the middle of the 1st millennium a. Z. Part 1: From Homer to Plutarch (8th century BC to 1st century CE). Berlin 1988, ISBN 3-05-000348-0 ; Part 3: From Tacitus to Ausonius (2nd to 4th centuries C.E.). Berlin 1991, ISBN 3-05-000571-8 .
- Dieter Kestermann (ed.): Collection of sources for the Varus defeat. All ancient texts on the battle, in Latin, Greek, German. Horn 1992, ISBN 3-88080-063-4 .
- Lutz Walther (Ed.): Varus, Varus! Ancient texts on the battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Latin-Greek-German. Reclam, Stuttgart 2008. ISBN 978-3-15-018587-2 .
Critical reviews of the extensive specialist literature
- Peter Kehne : New, known and superfluous about the Varus Battle and the Kalkriese battlefield . In: The customer. Vol. 59, 2008, pp. 229-280.
- Dieter Timpe : The “Varus Battle” in its contexts. A critical review of the 2009 Bimillennium. In: Historische Zeitschrift. Vol. 294, 2012, pp. 593-652.
- Ernst Baltrusch , Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus Battle. History - Archeology - Legends (= Topoi. Berlin studies of the ancient world. Volume 7). de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-028250-4 . (available for a fee via De Gruyter Online)
- Boris Dreyer : Places of the Varus Catastrophe. The historical-archaeological guide. Theiss, Darmstadt 2014, ISBN 978-3-8062-2956-1 .
- Boris Dreyer: Arminius and the fall of the Varus. Why the Teutons did not become Romans. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-608-94510-2 .
- Boris Dreyer: The place where Kalkriese was found and the ancient reports on the Varus catastrophe and Caecina's army. In: Klio . Vol. 87, 2005, pp. 396-420.
- Gesa von Essen: Hermann battles. Germanic and Roman images in the literature of the 18th and 19th centuries. Wallstein, Göttingen 1998, ISBN 3-89244-312-2 .
- Mamoun Fansa (ed.): Varus battle and Germanic myth. A lecture series on the occasion of the special exhibition Kalkriese - Römer im Osnabrücker Land in Oldenburg 1993 (= Archaeological Communications from Northwest Germany. Supplement 9). 3. Edition. Isensee, Oldenburg 2001, ISBN 3-89598-235-0 .
- Joachim Harnecker : Arminius, Varus and the battlefield of Kalkriese. An introduction to the archaeological work and its results. 2nd Edition. Rasch, Bramsche 2002 ISBN 3-934005-40-3 .
- Ralf Günter Jahn: The Roman-Germanic War (9–16 AD). Dissertation. Bonn 2001.
- Yann Le Bohec: La "bataille" du Teutoburg. Lemme, Clermont-Ferrand 2013.
- Gustav Adolf Lehmann , Rainer Wiegels : Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. The Kalkriese site in the context of recent research and excavation finds. Contribution to the conference of the subject Ancient History of the University of Osnabrück and the commission "Imperium and Barbaricum" of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences in Osnabrück from June 10th to 12th, 2004. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-525-82551 -8 .
- Ralf-Peter Märtin : The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 978-3-10-050612-2 .
- Günther Moosbauer : The Varus Battle (= Beck's knowledge series. ). Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-56257-0 .
- Michel Reddé, Siegmar von Schnurbein (ed.): Alésia et la bataille du Teutoburg. Un parallèle critique des sources (= supplements to Francia. Ed. By the German Historical Institute Paris. Vol. 66). Thorbecke, Ostfildern 2008, ISBN 978-3-7995-7461-7 .
- Wolfgang Schlueter (Ed.): Romans in the Osnabrücker Land. The archaeological investigations in the Kalkrieser-Niewedder Senke. Rasch, Bramsche 1991, ISBN 3-922469-57-4 .
- Wolfgang Schlueter: Archaeological evidence of the Varus Battle? The investigations in the Kalkrieser-Niewedder Senke near Osnabrück. In: Germania . Vol. 70, 1992, pp. 307-402.
- Wolfgang Schlueter, Rainer Wiegels (eds.): Rome, Germania and the excavations of Kalkriese. International congress of the University of Osnabrück and the Landschaftsverband Osnabrücker Land e. V. from September 2nd to 5th, 1996. In: Osnabrück research on antiquity and the reception of antiquity 1. Osnabrück 1999, ISBN 3-932147-25-1 .
- Michael Sommer : The Arminius Battle. Search for traces in the Teutoburg Forest (= Kröner's pocket edition . Volume 506). Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-50601-6 .
- Peter S. Wells: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Artemis & Winkler, Düsseldorf / Zurich 2005, ISBN 3-7608-2308-4 .
- Rainer Wiegels (Ed.): The Varus Battle. Turning point in history? (= Archeology in Germany. Special issue). Theiss, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-8062-1760-5 (with contributions by Rainer Wiegels, Armin Becker, Johann-Sebastian Kühlborn, Günther Moosbauer and others).
- Rainer Wiegels, Winfried Woesler (Hrsg.): Arminius and the Varus battle. History - Myth - Literature. 3rd updated and expanded edition, Schöningh, Paderborn 2003, ISBN 3-506-79751-4 (including: Heinrich Seeba: Hermanns Kampf für Deutschlands Not ; Renate Stauf: Germanic myths and Greek myths as national identity myths ; Wolfgang Wittkowski: Arminius current: Kleist's Hermannsschlacht and Goethe's Hermann ).
- Susanne Wilbers-Rost: Interdisciplinary investigations on the Oberesch in Kalkriese. Archaeological findings and accompanying scientific studies. from Zabern. Mainz 2007, ISBN 978-3-8053-3802-8 .
- Martin M. Winkler : Arminius the liberator. Myth and ideology. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-025291-5 .
- Reinhard Wolters : Hermeneutics of Ambush. The ancient reports on the Varus catastrophe and the Kalkriese site. In: Klio. Vol. 85, 2003, pp. 131–170 (Wolters is one of the most prominent critics of the assumption that the finds near Kalkriese were related to the Varus Battle).
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. 1st, revised, updated and expanded edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-69995-5 (original edition was published in 2008: review ).
- 2000 years of the Varus Battle. Empire - Conflict - Myth. Published by LWL-Römermuseum / Museum and Park Kalkriese / Landesverband Lippe. 3 Bde., Theiss, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 3-8062-2277-0 (catalog with numerous articles by well-known researchers).
- Cassius Dio: Roman History. English translation by LacusCurtius
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History. Historia Romana. Latin text with English translation.
- Suetonius: From the collection of the emperor's biographies. Latin text. English translation.
- Cornelius Tacitus: Annales. Book 1. Latin text.
Projects / materials
- Student project Kalkriese - The location of the Varus Battle. University of Osnabrück
- Arminius / Varus. The Varus Battle in 9 AD - Information and resources on the Varus Battle and its reception in the Internet portal "Westphalian History" of the LWL Institute for Westphalian Regional History, Münster
- Varus battle in the film
- Information on the filming and cinema reception of the historical material
- Christian Dietrich Grabbe: The Hermann Battle. Digital reconstruction of the drama from 1838, Bielefeld University Library.
- Stefan Rebenich : The invention of the Germans. In: The time of December 31, 2008
- Compilation of publications and links on the Varus Battle
Extensive media coverage
- The invention of the Germans - broadcast in SWR2 Wissen on May 15, 2009
- The Varus Battle was not the end - broadcast in SWR2 Wissen on May 14, 2009
- Hans Holzhaider: The secrets of the Varus battle In: Süddeutsche from July 7, 2017 (printed edition July 8/9, 2017, p. 33: "Der Totenwald")
- Cf. for example Peter Kehne: Localization of the Varus Battle? A lot speaks against Mommsen - everything against Kalkriese. In: Lippe messages from history and regional studies. Vol. 78, 2009, pp. 135-180.
- More recent summaries of the research by Jürgen Deininger: Germaniam pacare. To the more recent discussion about the strategy of Augustus against Germania. In: Chiron . Vol. 30, 2000, pp. 749-773. Klaus-Peter Johne: The Romans on the Elbe. The Elbe river basin in the geographical view of the world and in the political consciousness of Greco-Roman antiquity. Berlin 2006.
- Peter Kehne: Augustus and 'his' spolia opima: hopes for the triumph of Nero Claudius Drusus? In: Theodora Hantos, Gustav Adolf Lehmann (Hrsg.): Ancient historical colloquium on the occasion of the 70th birthday of Jochen Bleicken. Stuttgart 1998, pp. 187-211; Peter Kehne: Limited offensives: Drusus, Tiberius and the Germania policy in the service of the Augustan principate. In: Jörg Spielvogel (Ed.): Res Publica Reperta. On the Constitution and Society of the Roman Republic and the Early Principate. Festschrift for Jochen Bleicken on his 75th birthday. Stuttgart 2002, pp. 298-321. Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest Varus, Arminius and Roman Germania. In: Ernst Baltrusch, Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 3–21, here: p. 8 (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
- Reinhard Wolters: Varus battles - or: News about the location of the Varus battle. In: The customer . Journal of Prehistory and Early History . NF 44, 1993, pp. 167-183, here: p. 169.
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History. 2,119.1 (English)
- Velleius Paterculus, Roman History 2,119,3 (English).
- Tacitus, Annales 2.88 .
- Tacitus, Annales 1.60 .
- Bernd Manuwald: Political clumsiness or predetermined fate? Cassius Dios report on the battle of Varus. In: Gustav Adolf Lehmann, Rainer Wiegels (ed.): Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. Göttingen 2007, pp. 431-449. Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest Varus, Arminius and Roman Germania. In: Ernst Baltrusch, Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 3–21, here: p. 11 (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
- Tacitus, Annales 1.69 .
- On the possible sources, see the discussion in Ronald Syme : Tacitus. Vol. 1, Oxford 1958, p. 274 ff., As well as in Peter Michael Swan: The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 55–56 (9 BC – AD 14). Oxford 2004, p. 250 ff.
- Florus 2.34 f.
- See for example: Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 110; Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 184 f.
- Reinhard Wolters: The Romans in Germania. 5th, revised and updated edition, Munich 2006, p. 55.
- CIL 13, 08648 = ILS 2244.
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History 2,117,4. (English).
- Cassius Dio 56: 18: 1-4 (English).
- Translation after Siegmar von Schnurbein: Augustus in Germanien. In: Ernst Baltrusch, Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. De Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 135–150, here p. 137.
- Armin Becker: The Romans on the Lahn. The excavations in Waldgirmes. In: Helmuth Schneider (ed.): Hostile neighbors. Rome and the Teutons. Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 97–115. Armin Becker: Lahnau-Waldgirmes and the campaigns of Germanicus. In: Communications of the Upper Hessian History Association. Vol. 93, 2008, pp. 83-89.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 74.
- Günther Moosbauer: The Varus Battle. Munich 2009, p. 64.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 65.
- Günther Moosbauer: The Varus Battle. Munich 2009, p. 68.
- Werner Eck: Augustus and his time. Munich 2003, p. 97. Werner Eck: A Roman province. The Augustan Germania left and right of the Rhine. In: 2000 Years of the Varus Battle. Imperium (catalog for the exhibition of the Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe in Haltern am See, May 16 - October 11, 2009). Stuttgart 2009, pp. 188-195. Reinhard Wolters: Germania in the year 8 BC Chr. In: Wolfgang Schlüter, Rainer Wiegels (eds.): Rome, Germania and the excavations of Kalkriese (International Congress of the University of Osnabrück and the Landschaftsverband Osnabrücker Land eV from September 2-5, 1996). Osnabrück, pp. 591-635. Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest Varus, Arminius and Roman Germania. In: Ernst Baltrusch, Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 3–21, here: p. 8 (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
- Velleius 2,117,3f ; Florus 2,30,31; Cassius Dio 56,18,3f . See: Reinhard Wolters: Varus. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA). 2nd Edition. Volume 32, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2006, ISBN 3-11-018387-0 , pp. 81-86; here: p. 82.
- Tacitus, Annales 2,15,1 .
- Ernst Hohl : On the life story of the winner in the Teutoburg Forest. In: Historische Zeitschrift , issue 167, 1942, pp. 457–475. The hostage thesis, which is not covered by the historical sources, but initially widespread after Hohl, is viewed with skepticism by recent research (see Reinhard Wolters: Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald. Arminius, Varus and das Roman Germanien. Munich 2017, p. 91).
- Cassius Dio 56,18,5 ; 56,19,3 ; Velleius 2,118.4.
- Dieter Timpe: Arminius studies. P. 49.
- Heiko Steuer: The “völkisch” Germanic in German prehistory and early history research. In: Heinrich Beck et al. (Ed.): On the history of the equation "Germanic-German". de Gruyter. Berlin 2004, pp. 357–502, here: p. 432.
- Cassius Dio 56,18,5 (English).
- Wolfgang Schlueter: The Varus Battle. Archaeological research in Kalkriese near Osnabrück. In: Detlev Hopp, Charlotte Trümpler (ed.): The early Roman Empire in the Ruhr area. Colloquium of the Ruhrland Museum and the city archeology / monument authority in cooperation with the University of Essen. Essen 2001, pp. 17–24, here: p. 17.
- Harald von Petrikovits : clades variana. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA). 2nd Edition. Volume 5, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1984, ISBN 3-11-009635-8 , pp. 14-20; here: p. 17. The sources: Suetonius , Tiberius 17.1 and Cassius Dio 56.18.1 .
- Theodor Mommsen: Roman history. Volume The Provinces from Caesar to Diocletian. Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1885, p. 43.
- Harald von Petrikovits: clades variana. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA). 2nd Edition. Volume 5, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1984, ISBN 3-11-009635-8 , pp. 14-20; here: p. 17.
- Cassius Dio 56: 20-22 (English).
- Bernd Manuwald: Political clumsiness or predetermined fate? Cassius Dios report on the battle of Varus. In: Gustav Adolf Lehmann, Rainer Wiegels (ed.): Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. The Kalkriese site in the context of recent research and excavation findings. Göttingen 2007, pp. 431–449, here: pp. 431 and 436.
- Cf., among others, Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 102 ff., 107 f.
- Reinhard Wolters: Varus battles - or: News about the location of the Varus battle. In: The customer. Journal of Prehistory and Early History. NF 44, 1993, pp. 167-183, here: p. 169.
- Cf. for example: Strabo 1,1,17; Velleius 2,119.2 ; Tacitus, Annales 1,61,1 ; 63.1 f. : Florus 2,30,36 and Cassius Dio 56,19,5 .
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History 2,119,2 (English).
- Cassius Dio 56,20,3 .
- Cassius Dio 56,21,3f ; Tacitus, Annales 1,64,2 .
- Cassius Dio 56.20.2-21.1 .
- Cassius Dio 56,21,1 ; Tacitus, Annales 1,63,1 .
- Cassius Dio 56,21,3 (English) Cf. on this: Reinhard Wolters: Varus battles - or: News about the location of the Varus battle. In: The customer. Journal of Prehistory and Early History. NF 44, 1993, pp. 167-183, here: p. 171.
- Attempted cremation: Velleius Paterculus: Römische Geschichte 2,119.5 ; Florus 2,30,38: Exhumation of the already buried body.
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History 2,117.1 .
- Reinhard Wolters: Varus battles - or: News about the location of the Varus battle. In: The customer. Journal of Prehistory and Early History. NF 44, 1993, pp. 167-183, here: p. 170.
- Reinhard Wolters: The Romans in Germania. 5th, revised and updated edition, Munich 2006, p. 55.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 145.
- Dieter Timpe: Arminius studies. Heidelberg 1970, p. 111 ff.
- Tacitus, Annales 2.88 .
- Tacitus, Annales 2.45 .
- Suetonius, August 23 .
- Dietmar Kienast: Augustus. 3rd, reviewed and expanded edition, Darmstadt 1999, p. 374 f.
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History 2,121,1. (English).
- Dietmar Kienast: Augustus. 3rd, reviewed and expanded edition, Darmstadt 1999, p. 375.
- Cassius Dio 56,24,6 (English).
- Ralf Günther Jahn, The Roman-Germanic War. P. 195.
- Velleius Paterculus: Roman History 2,120,2 (English).
- Cassius Dio 56.25.2 .
- Peter S. Wells: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. P. 205 f .; Reinhard Wolters: Roman conquest and rulership organization. Bochum 1990, p. 228 f.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 129.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 129.
- Tacitus, Annales 1,61,2-3 .
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 131.
- Tacitus, Annales 2,26,3 .
- Tacitus, Annales 1,11 .
- Dietmar Kienast: Augustus. Princeeps and Monarch. Darmstadt 1999, p. 373 f .; Karl Christ suspects on border problems: On the Augustan German policy. In: Chiron 7, 1977, pp. 149–205, especially pp. 198 ff., With the border the Rhine is meant. Dieter Timpe thinks of the Orient: The triumph of Germanicus. Investigations into the campaigns of 14-16 AD in Germania. Bonn 1968, p. 34.
- Cassius Dio 60.8.7 .
- Tacitus, Annales 12,27,3 . See Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 116.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 208.
- Cf. current Günther Moosbauer : The forgotten Roman battle. The sensational find on the Harzhorn. Munich 2018.
- Wolfgang Schlüter: The archaeological investigations in the Kalkrieser-Niewedder sink. In: Wolfgang Schlüter (Ed.): Kalkriese - Romans in the Osnabrücker Land. Rasch-Verlag, Bramsche 1993, pp. 13–51, here: p. 14.
- Tacitus, Annales 1,60,3 .
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 153.
- Philipp Clüver: Germaniae antiquae libri tres. Suffering 1616.
- Harald von Petrikovits: 'Arminius' In: Bonner Jahrbücher. Vol. 166, 1966, pp. 175-193.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 167.
- Theodor Mommsen: The locality of the Varus battle. In: Ders .: Collected writings. Volume IV, Berlin 1906 (first published in 1885: Die Örtlichkeit der Varusschlacht. Report of the meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Berlin), pp. 200–246, here: p. 234.
- Boris Dreyer: On the course of the Varus defeat. The classification of the Kalkriese excavations. In: Rainer Wiegels, Gustav Adolf Lehmann: Roman presence in Germania, writings of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences. Göttingen 2007, pp. 363–397, here: p. 366.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 160.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 160.
- Peter Kehne, Localization of the Varus Battle? A lot speaks against Mommsen - everything against Kalkriese. In: Lippe messages from history and regional studies. Vol. 78, 2009, pp. 135-180, here: p. 160.
- Peter Kehne: Localization of the Varus Battle? A lot speaks against Mommsen - everything against Kalkriese. In: Lippe messages from history and regional studies. Vol. 78, 2009, pp. 135–180, here: p. 162.
- Klaus Bringmann: Augustus. Darmstadt 2007, p. 190 f.
- Theodor Mommsen: The locality of the Varus battle. Berlin 1884 p. 46.
- Frank Berger: Kalkriese. - 1. The Roman coins found. Mainz 1996.
- Frank Berger: Kalkriese. - 1. The Roman coins found. Mainz 1996, p. 58.
- Wolfgang Schlüter: Outlook on the research in Kalkriese. In: Frank Berger: Kalkriese. - 1. The Roman coins found. Mainz 1996 p. 60.
- Reinhard Wolters: Notes on the coin dating of late August sites. In: Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.): The found coins from Kalkriese and the early imperial coinage. Files from the scientific symposium in Kalkriese, 15. – 16. April 1999. Möhnesee 2000, pp. 81-117. Peter Kehne: On the dating of found coins from Kalkriese and on the relocation of the end date of the main camp in Haltern to the time of the Germanic Wars under Tiberius and Germanicus (10–16 AD). In: Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.): The found coins from Kalkriese and the early imperial coinage. Files from the scientific symposium in Kalkriese, 15. – 16. April 1999. Möhnesee 2000, pp. 47-79.
- Harold Mattingly , Edward A. Sydenham et al. a .: Roman Imperial Coinage . Volume 1 No. 350.
- Reinhard Wolters: The Romans in Germania. 5th, revised and updated edition, Munich 2006, p. 54.
- Konrad Kraft: The end date of the legion camp Haltern. In: Bonner Jahrbücher 155/156, 1955/56, pp. 95–111.
- David Wigg-Wolf : Dating Kalkriese: the numismatic evidence. In: Gustav Adolf Lehmann and Rainer Wiegels (eds.): Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. The Kalkriese site in the context of recent research and excavation findings. Contributions to the conference of Ancient History at the University of Osnabrück and the 'Imperium and Barbaricum' commission of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences in Osnabrück from June 10 to 12, 2004. Göttingen 2007, pp. 119–134, here: p. 120.
- Siegfried Loeschcke: Ceramic finds in Haltern. In: Mitteilungen der Altertumskommission Westfalen 5, 1909, pp. 101–322; Siegmar von Schnurbein: The undecorated Terra Sigillata from Haltern. Münster 1982.
- Frank Berger: Kalkriese. - 1. The Roman coins found. Mainz 1996, p. 58.
- David Wigg-Wolf: Dating Kalkriese: the numismatic evidence. In: Gustav Adolf Lehmann, Rainer Wiegels (ed.): Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. The Kalkriese site in the context of recent research and excavation findings. Göttingen 2007, pp. 119-134, especially pp. 120-122.
- Ulrich Werz, Frank Berger: The finds from Kalkriese: Varus, Caecina or Germanicus? In: Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.): The found coins from Kalkriese and the early imperial coinage. Files from the scientific symposium in Kalkriese, 15. – 16. April 1999. Möhnesee 2000, pp. 237-265, here: p. 241.
- Ulrich Werz, Frank Berger: The finds from Kalkriese: Varus, Caecina or Germanicus? In: Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.): The found coins from Kalkriese and the early imperial coinage. Files from the scientific symposium in Kalkriese, 15. – 16. April 1999. Möhnesee 2000, pp. 237-265, here: p. 254.
- Ulrich Werz, Frank Berger: The finds from Kalkriese: Varus, Caecina or Germanicus? In: Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.): The found coins from Kalkriese and the early imperial coinage. Files from the scientific symposium in Kalkriese, 15. – 16. April 1999. Möhnesee 2000, pp. 237-265, here: p. 255; David Wigg-Wolf: Dating Kalkriese: the numismatic evidence. In: Gustav Adolf Lehmann / Rainer Wiegels (eds.): Roman presence and rule in Germania during the Augustan period. The Kalkriese site in the context of recent research and excavation findings. Göttingen 2007, pp. 119-134, here: pp. 129 f.
- Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 286.
- Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 287.
- Martin Luther: Works, Critical [Weimar] Complete Edition, table speech 5982. Quoted from Erich Sandow: Vorläufer des Hermannsdenkmals. In: Günther Engelbert (Ed.): A Century Hermann Monument 1875–1975. Detmold 1975, p. 107.
- Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 291.
- Heinrich Heine: Germany. A winter fairy tale. Hoffmann and Campe, Hamburg 1844, page 328. Digital full-text edition in Wikisource .
- See Lippische Landesbibliothek: Bummellied und Hymne - “Scheffels Teutoburg Battle” , the song later became popular under the name of the beginning of the song “ When the Romans got naughty ”.
- Reinhard Wolters: The Romans in Germania. 5th, revised and updated edition, Munich 2006, p. 114.
- Theodor Mommsen: Roman Imperial History. Based on the lecture notes by Sebastian and Paul Hensel. Munich 1992, p. 157 f.
- Friedrich Engels: On the prehistory of the Germans. In: Karl Marx: Works [March 1875 to May 1883]. Vol. 19. Berlin 1962, pp. 425-473, here: p. 447.
- Uwe Puschner: "Hermann, the first German" or: German prince with political mandate. The Arminius myth in the 19th and 20th centuries. In: Ernst Baltrusch , Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 257–286, here: p. 267; Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 336 f.
- Gerald Funk, Matthias Pötzsch and Peter Schuster: Deutsche Nationaldenkmale 1790–1990. Gütersloh 1993 p. 64.
- Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 339.
- Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 341.
- He wrote: "Nobody talks about old warriors of the past who does not feel the duty to do the same for the future."
- quoted from Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 342.
- quoted from Ralf-Peter Märtin: The Varus Battle. Rome and the Teutons. Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 344 f.
- Herfried Münkler: The Germans and their myths. Berlin 2009, p. 179.
- Theodor Mommsen: The Germanic politics of Augustus. In: Theodor Mommsen: Speeches and essays. 2nd edition, Berlin 1905, pp. 316–343, here: p. 341.
- Ernst Kornemann: P. Quinctilius Varus. In: New Yearbooks for Classical Antiquity. Volume 25, 1922, pp. 42-62, here: p. 42.
- So the subtitle of his article: Westfälische Forschungen Volume 1, 1938, pp. 269-301. Reprinted in: Peter Funke / Gustav Adolf Lehmann (Hrsg.): Kleine Schriften. Hans Erich Stier, Meisenheim 1979, pp. 111-143.
- Westfälische Forschungen Volume 1, 1938, pp. 269–301, here: p. 271. Reprinted in: Peter Funke, Gustav Adolf Lehmann (ed.): Kleine Schriften. Hans Erich Stier, Meisenheim 1979, pp. 111-143.
- See Volker Losemann : Nationalist interpretations of the Roman-Germanic conflict. In: Rainer Wiegels / Winfried Woesler (ed.): Arminius and the Varus Battle. 3rd updated and expanded edition, Paderborn et al. 2003, pp. 419–432, here: p. 427.
- Friedrich Koepp: Varus battle and Aliso. Lectures and gossip from three decades. Münster 1940, p. 5 f.
- Friedrich Koepp: The Romans in Germany. Monographs on world history. Volume 22. 2nd revised edition, Bielefeld 1912, pp. 11 and 13.
- Dieter Timpe: Arminius studies. Heidelberg 1970, p. 49.
- Reinhard Wolters, The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 125 ff.
- Peter S. Wells: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Düsseldorf et al. 2005, p. 7.
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius, Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 198 ff .; Peter Kehne: Marketing versus science: Kalkriese and the attempt to capture the Varus Battle. In: The customer. Vol. 54, 2003, pp. 93-112.
- more detail: Wiebke Kolbe: Germanic Heroes and German Patriots: Nationalism and Gender in the Silent Film "The Hermann Battle" (1922/23). In Mischa Meyer, Simona Slanička (ed.): Antiquity and the Middle Ages in Film. Construction - documentation - projection. Cologne, Vienna 2006. pp. 215-229. - Wolfgang Müller: The Herrmann Battle. A colossal film from the Lippe forests. In Wolfgang Müller, Bernd Wiesener (Hrsg.): Battles and places of love. On the history of cinema and film in East Westphalia and Lippe. Detmold 1996. pp. 37-62.
- Information brochure for the exhibition IMPERIUM-KONFLIKT-MYTHOS
- Reinhard Wolters: The battle in the Teutoburg Forest Varus, Arminius and the Roman Germania. In: Ernst Baltrusch, Morten Hegewisch, Michael Meyer, Uwe Puschner and Christian Wendt (eds.): 2000 years of the Varus battle. History - archeology - legends. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 3–21, here: p. 3 (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
- Annotated literature addendum to research since 2008/9 with Reinhard Wolters: Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald. Arminius Varus and Roman Germania. Munich 2017, p. 211 ff.
- Special exhibitions in the LVR-RömerMuseum ( Memento from January 19, 2016 in the Internet Archive ).
- Elmar Vieregge: 2000 years of the Varus Battle. What significance does Arminius have for right-wing extremism. In: Martin HW Möllers, Robert Chr. Van Ooyen (Ed.): Yearbook Public Safety 2010/2011. - First half volume, Frankfurt am Main 2010, pp. 165–172.