The fool who shaped
the world
People frequently complain about the demise of quality television documentaries, and when you see flashy, well-meant, occasionally awe-inspiring yet resolutely dumbed-down projects such as Space it is easy to see their point. However, there are good documentaries still made, and last week I was fortunate to see one interesting example on Channel 4: “The Lost Legions of Varus”, part of the Secret History series.
I say fortunate because I only found out about the programme one minute before it started — typical, really, that a thought-provoking programme should get minimal publicity while effects-laden, empty-headed crap like Son of God gets pushed relentlessly.
The subject, of course, was the loss of three legions under the command of Publius Quintilius Varus in Germany in 9 C.E. (Anyone who has seen the BBC’s I, Claudius will recall Brian Blessed as Augustus screaming in rage, “Quintilius Varus, where are my eagles?”)
Varus was tricked by Arminius (or Hermann), who although a German was a Roman citizen, into the Teutoburger Wald where the German tribes attacked Varus and his three legions — XVII, XVIII and XIX — and slaughtered them. Varus committed suicide; his head was sent by Arminius to another tribal chief who sent it to Augustus.
There were certain facets of the event which this programme brought out that I was unaware of. For one thing, Varus was no general, but a lawyer sent by Augustus to govern Germania. The idea was to romanise the region. Varus was a man fond of aquiring money and instituted taxes on the German tribes, to whom the concept was new and unwelcome. He also knew nothing of military matters.
As for Arminius, the image I had previously had of him was of a man of cunning but little more; the events brought out in the programme suggested rather a man of no small tactical ability. Varus and his legions were led deep into the forest, far from any possibility of Roman aid, and were attacked in the most difficult terrain within the forest. Walled enclosures had been built here against which the Romans would be driven.
But the most interesting aspect of the whole affair was one that had never even occurred to me. The Romans had been intent upon colonising Germany, making it part of the Roman Empire. Just how intent has recently become clear with the discovery of a Roman town in Germany, in a region where no Roman town had ever been thought to exist. The Romans thought they were there to stay.
The Varus disaster changed that. There were further military encounters with the German tribes, but all attempts to incorporate Germany into the Roman Empire ended. The northern border of the Empire was now the Rhine.
Why does this matter? Because, the programme suggested, had Germany been romanised, Europe would have been unified into one cultural entity. Because it was not romanised, there was a divide between the Roman culture of the south and the German culture of the north, a divide which persists until today and which, they suggest, has been responsible for the two World Wars.
I think that the notion that had the entire continent of Europe been romanised there would have been no major European wars is probably not true, but certainly the face of Europe would have been changed. Perhaps more than Europe.
The problem was, the programme makers were rather too timid in their vision of what the changes would have been had Quintilius Varus not lost three legions in the Teutoburger Forest. Let’s think about it for a moment, assuming that Rome succeeded in romanising the Germans and establishing an Empire over continental Europe south of the Baltic and as far east as, say, the Vistula. What would be different?
For one thing, would the Roman Empire have fallen when it did? A land border to the east would have been shorter than the northern border Rome had to defend in the real world — perhaps that shorter border would have enabled the Romans to more effectively defend their territory.
There would still have been incursions from the north by Vikings, and attacks from the east by Goths and Huns, but the shorter land border might have allowed the Romans to fend off such attacks. Perhaps it would have persisted and come into conflict with the Mongols — interesting times indeed.
One element of our world would certainly have been different. There would have been no England — at least, not in the British Isles (possibly an area to the south of Denmark would have come to be called “England”). The collapse of the Western Empire in the 400s left southern Britain open for invasion and colonisation by the Anglo-Saxons. Had Germany been romanised the Angles and Saxons would very likely have stayed put in Germany. However southern Britain would have developed thereafter, there would have been no England there; the history of the British Isles would have been completely different.
The removal of England from world history would have enormous ramifications, and not just on the immediate neighbour countries. No England means no British Empire — or, if there should be one anyway, one of a different character. This would touch the history of India, Australia, China and America. Whatever language would be spoken on the North American continent today, it would not be modern English. Perhaps a Celtic language, perhaps a form of French, or some other derivative of Latin which never developed in the real world.
Replace Quintilius Varus with an able commander and the world is completely different. Not having the world wars we know is really small potatoes compared with the other differences which would ensue. There would still be war in Europe — once the Roman Empire did fall, power struggles would be inevitable. New countries would be formed, perhaps ones we know and perhaps not (Holland, for example, may not exist). It would not necessarily be a better world all round, but it would certainly be a very different one.
© DC 2001. All rights reserved.