Читать книгу The Defeat of Varus and the German Frontier Policy of Augustus - H. V. Canter - Страница 4

Table of Contents

Historians and other writers in discussing the defeat of Varus, and its bearing upon the subsequent history of Rome and Germany, are almost united in the belief that Augustus, until the events of the year 9 A. D., had in view the complete subjugation of Germany as far as the river Elbe. Gardthausen[1] unhesitatingly predicates the emperor’s intention in the following words: “er wollte das Land östlich vom Rhein und nördlich von der Donau mit seinem Reiche vereinigen, um ihm eine bessere Grenze zu geben.” Mommsen everywhere expresses the traditional view. In discussing Drusus’ command of the year 13 B. C. against the Germans he says:[2] “Drusus ... übernahm bei Augustus Rückkehr nach Italien (741) die Verwaltung von Gallien und den Oberbefehl gegen die Germanen, deren Unterwerfung jetzt ernstlich in das Auge gefasst ward.” Further on[3] Drusus’ successor, Tiberius, is represented as having succeeded in making this subjugation: “weit und breit zwischen Rhein und Elbe zeigten sich die römischen Truppen, und als Tiberius die Forderung stellte, dass sämmtliche Gaue die römische Herrschaft förmlich anzuerkennen hätten ... fügten sie sich ohne Ausnahme.” Again, Mommsen[4] calls Arminius the leader in the conflict of despair over the lost national independence, and speaks[5] of the campaign of the year 16 A. D. as the last which the Romans waged in order to subdue Germany and to transfer the boundary from the Rhine to the Elbe. Delbrück’s position on the question is unequivocal[6]. So is that of Schiller.[7] Hübner[8] voices the surprising belief that Augustus in his effort to subdue Germany was merely following in the steps of Julius Caesar! Koepp[9] hazards the same view, and says that not only was the shortening of the Rhine boundary planned by Caesar, but that this plan was to have been carried into execution after the overthrow of the Getae; that nothing but more pressing duties prevented Caesar’s heir, for thirty years after Gaul’s subjugation, from pushing the boundary beyond the Rhine; that the settling of the Ubii on the left bank of the Rhine by Agrippa (19 B. C.) was not a backward step from that taken in crossing the Rhine in 37 B. C., but a mere confession that only in this way could Rome protect the Ubii from the attack of their neighbors.

Seeck[10] and many others assert that not only was Germany subdued by Rome, but that Roman administration was actually set up in the new province.[11] This is stated by Knoke as follows:[12] “Das germanische Gebiet konnte bis zur Elbe als unterworfen gelten ... Römische Verwaltung und Gerichtsbarkeit waren eingeführt, die Deutschen zu Heeresfolge und Tribut gezwungen ... nach menschlichem Ermessen musste für das deutsche Volk die Zeit gekommen sein, wo es auf immer der Herrschaft Roms verfallen war.” However, there is no general agreement as to when Augustus conceived the plan of conquering Germany. Hertzberg[13] believes it doubtful whether he had any such intention at the time of Lollius’ defeat (16 B. C.): “Ob er wirklich schon jetzt die Eroberung Deutschlands bestimmt ins Auge gefasst hat, ist uns—wir wiederholen es—freilich zweifelhaft.” Abraham’s conclusion is that as late even as 10 B. C. Augustus had no further purpose than to secure the Rhine boundary, but that later he had larger ambitions which were fully realized: “Später indessen hat Augustus wirklich Deutschland bis zur Elbe ... zur Provinz machen wollen, und vor der Niederlage des Varus sah er die Unterwerfung Norddeutschlands für vollendet an.”[14] Many believe that an effort was made on Augustus’ part to shorten the Rhine-Danube boundary, and they regard this as tantamount to an attempt to subjugate Germany.[15] The campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius in particular are usually cited as proofs of Rome’s purpose with respect to Germany. So by Pelham[16]: “Nor can we doubt that the object of the campaigns carried on beyond the Rhine by Augustus’ two stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius (13 B.C.-6 A.D.), had for their object the extension of Roman rule up to that [the Elbe] river.” Occasionally, however, more caution is shown in discussing Rome’s policy. So Abbott[17]: “To the north the frontier policy of Augustus was, at the outset, less clearly determined. For a time the Romans seem to have intended making the Elbe the line between them and the Germans.” Ferrero, although he devotes a chapter of his well-known work[18] to the “Conquest of Germania,” concedes, nevertheless, that Augustus was opposed to expansion by conquest, and that the first fifteen years of his rule unmistakably contradict such a policy[19]: “he had persistently avoided hazardous adventures beyond the frontiers of the empire and had found a thousand pretexts to deceive the impatience and ambition of the people.” We may observe also that Eduard Meyer’s view[20] is not wholly in harmony with the commonly accepted one. He objects to the assertion frequently made that the victory of Arminius preserved the individuality of the German nation: “Wenn wir ... die Frage aufwerfen, wie es gekommen ist, dass den romanischen Völkern germanische zur Seite stehen, dass ich hier deutsch zu Ihnen rede und nicht in einer romanischen Sprache, so wird einer vorurteilslose Erwägung nicht die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald nennen dürfen.” And although he insists on the necessity resting upon Augustus to war against the Germans in order to preserve Gaul, to maintain peace, and to secure a shorter and more distant frontier at the Elbe, he makes it clear that the war was in no sense prompted by the desire for imperial expansion[21]: “aber auch dieser Krieg ist durchaus nur als Grenzkrieg geführt worden, nicht als ein Reichskrieg an der Art wie Cäsar seinen Geten- und Partherkrieg geplant hatte.”

Nevertheless, from a careful consideration of the foregoing opinions, which have been selected merely as representative of a very large number of similar expressions, we may discover a strikingly universal belief that before the battle of the Teutoburg forest Augustus was attempting the conquest of Germany; that the disaster which overtook the legions of Varus in this battle caused him to give up his plans, and to renounce all hope of making Germany a province[22]. Most historians claim in addition that Arminius was the preserver of the German nationality, and that his victory over Varus was a turning point in the world’s history. So Seeck[23]: “Der Sieg des Armin hat es für alle Zeiten verhindert, dass auch die Germanen Bürger des Reiches wurden und so den Keim gerettet, aus dem künftig die Völkerwanderung und mit ihr eine neue Welt erwachsen sollte.” Gardthausen[24] states the same belief in still stronger terms: “Wenn wir daher jetzt, also beinahe nach 2000 Jahren, noch von einer deutschen Nation reden, wenn es noch heute eine deutsche Sprache gibt, so ist das ohne Frage, zum grossen Theile, das Verdienst des Arminius ... kurz, die Entwickelung der deutschen Geschichte und in beschränkterem Masse auch der Weltgeschichte wäre eine andere geworden, wenn Arminius nicht zur rechten Zeit den Kampf mit dem Varus aufgenommen und wenn er nicht später—was noch schwerer war—den Siegespreis der Freiheit gegen Germanicus vertheidigt hätte.” The debt of the German nation, and the world at large, to Arminius, is proclaimed again and again in monographs, remarkable as exhibitions of patriotic fervor, but at times wanting in scientific spirit and in the objective temper that should characterize estimates of historical significance.[25] Mommsen and Koepp may be cited as the most distinguished representatives of the view that the battle of the Teutoburg forest is a turning point in national destinies, an ebbing in the tide of Rome’s sway over the world, a shifting of the bounds of Roman rule from the Elbe to the Rhine and the Danube.[26] Koepp is the more guarded. He says[27], “Seit dieser Niederlage scheint Roms Macht, auf dieser Seite wenigstens, zurückzuebben, und wie ein Wendepunkt der Weltgeschichte erscheint diese Schlacht im Teutoburger Walde.” But this view has currency elsewhere than in the writings of German authors. Thomas Arnold voices it[28] with all the extravagance that characterizes rash generalizations: “The victory of Arminius deserves to be reckoned among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind; and we may regard the destruction of Quintilius Varus, and his three legions, on the bank of the Lippe, as second only in the benefits derived from it to the victory of Charles Martel at Tours over the invading host of the Mohammedans.” We find it, as one might expect, in a text of such unscientific character as that of Creasy[29], the motto for whose discussion is an epigrammatic sentence taken from the epitomator Florus, “Hac clade factum, ut imperium quod in littore oceani non steterat, in ripa Rheni fluminis staret.” And we need feel no surprise that this view is perpetuated in such a compilation as that of P. V. N. Meyers.[30] Here and there, however, are to be found writers who warn against such a sweeping generalization. So Eduard Meyer, who has been quoted above.[31] Ferrero too shows a saner historical view when he says[32]: “Historians have long been accustomed to regard the defeat of Varus as one of the ‘decisive’ battles of the world, and as an event which may be said to have changed the course of history. It is said, that if Varus had not been overthrown, Rome would have preserved her grip upon the territory from the Rhine to the Elbe and would have romanised it as she did Gaul: the prospects of a Germanic nationality and civilization would have been as impossible as those of a Celtic nationality and civilization after the defeat of Vercingetorix. Thus the defeat of Teutoburg is said to have saved Germanism even as that of Alesia was the ruin of the old Celtic nationalism. This straightforward line of argument, however, touches the sinuous course of reality only at a few points, and those far distant from one another. It is always a dangerous task, in dealing with history, to say what might have happened, in view of the considerable difficulty involved in the attempt to explain what did happen.”[33] It should be observed also that such a generalization involves the assumption that the German nation developed as it did because of its liberation from Roman influence, whereas it may properly be argued that the so-called liberation was instrumental in separating Germany for centuries from civilizing contact with Rome. For it is a fact that the early Germans made no progress whatever, left no literature, no monument, no memory of themselves until they again came into relations with that great transmitter of civilization, Rome, in the person of Rome’s new representative, Charlemagne.[34]

Now it is of course obvious that the estimate of Arminius’ achievement will depend upon the significance which impartial criticism will assign to the battle in which Varus was defeated—Arminius’ one great deed. Regarding that we propose in the present monograph to show that the ancient accounts of the battle of the Teutoburg forest are of inferior authority; that while some of them are broadly detailed, they are on the whole meager, inconsistent, and full of errors, exaggerations, and absurdities; that a striving after rhetorical effect is their peculiar characteristic;[35] that frequently what these sources say in express words is not objectively trustworthy, and still less so are the deductions made immediately from the descriptions found there, or from the delineations which the authors of the sources doubtless never intended to serve as objective pictures of reality;[36] that only the less cautious writers assert that Augustus in a spirit of imperialism sought to conquer Germany;[37] that historians who have the best standing as authorities abandon this ground and give as a reason the necessity resting on Augustus of protecting Gaul and Italy from the Germans. An effort will be made to show that Germany was never made a Roman province; that Augustus never had the intention, and never made the attempt, to conquer Germany and organize it as a province; that his operations in Germany consisted merely in making a series of demonstrations in force, in order to impress the barbarians and to facilitate the defense of the frontier by pacifying and bringing into friendly relations with Rome a wide strip of the enemy’s territory.

It is but natural, when such exaggerated estimates are current regarding the significance of the battle of the Teutoburg forest, that the leading figure on the German side, Arminius, should be elevated to a position of quite fictitious glory, and that he should have been exalted to the rank of one of the world’s greatest heroes.[38] As Koepp pertinently observes, many well-meant accounts of the Teutoburg battle have been written under mere impulse of national feeling.[39] However, that the glorification of heroes at the expense of truth finds no place in sober historical investigation is the warning given by the best trained German scholars themselves, and by none more effectively than by Koepp[40], who said to an assembly of scholars at an Arminius Jubilee celebration held at Detmold, October 22, 1908: “eher dürften wir heute unseren Helden aus der bengalischen Beleuchtung romantischer Schwärmerei in das Tageslicht geschichtlicher Betrachtung rücken, ohne uns gegen die Jubiläumsstimmung zu versündigen. Es ist ja auch Vorrecht und Pflicht der Wissenschaft, auch an festlichen Tagen der Wahrheit die Ehre zu geben.” So Fustel de Coulanges complains that in Arminius’ case historians have taken liberty with historical facts under motives of idealization[41]: “Nous désapprouvons les historiens allemands, qui ont altéré l’histoire pour créer, un Arminius legendaire et une Germanie idéale.” Finally, we may note that the same authority warns also in more general terms of historians who allow patriotic motives to exaggerate the few facts at their disposal.[42]