New battle remnants found that depict a battle long after the Romans were supposed to have withdrawn. Would love to see pictures of the finds soon.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/05/ge...index.html

This statement mady by Mr. Stratmann, if he really made it, is simply stupid. That the Romans returned more than once to the region is no secret. Everyone who had Latin in school knows about that.

The find place in itself isn't diminished by that in its importance. There simply aren't that many well preserved battlefields that old.
Here a link to a German newspaper which is a bit more informative (for the German speaking at least).

http://www.welt.de/wams_print/article2912029/...etzel.html

My favorite statement in the article is this..."Other relics include coins depicting the late second-century Roman emperor Commodus, depicted in the Oscar-winning Hollywood epic "Gladiator" -- a film that opens with a scene of battle against a barbarian horde that scientists say appears to be largely accurate. And Loenne said her team may have only begun to scratch the surface of the forest."

Just the fact they are referencing a movie is hilarious to me.

I have an old collection of history books, a twenty volume set, described as '' non-sectarian, non-partisan,non-sectional'', assembling different articles described as ''a comprehensive and redable account of the world's history. emphasizing the most important events, and presenting these as complete narratives in the master-words of the most eminent historians''.. quite a mouthfull, don't you think?
Anyway, it is assembled by an organization which titled itself The National Alumni, with one Rossiter Johnson,LL.D as editor in chief, and Charles F. Horne Ph.D and John Rudd, LL.D, as associate editors, assisted by,'' a staff of specialists''.

Volume III covers A.D.13-409, and has an article by the famed british historian Edward Gibbon intitled: Beginning of Rome's Decline: Commodus. He mentions how Commodus ''succeeded to his father (Marcus Aurelianus), amid the acclamations of the senate and the armies; and when he ascended the throne the happy youth saw round him neither competitor to remove nor ennemies to punish...'' It all went downhill from there.

Now back to our topic; Gibbon mentions that upon the death of his father Commodus was faced with the conduct of a difficult war against the Quadi and the Marcomanni... in the wild countries beyond the Danube....
Further on he mentions how two brothers of senatorial rank from the Quintilian family, Maximus and Condianus, were put to death by Commodus, despite their '' signal victory over the Germans''.. again without any further detail.

Could this find be related?

By the way, he also goes on at length on how Commodus enjoyed styling himself as a gladiator and a reincarnation of Hercules and such, so it appears the movie script is a mix of many historically based images, reassembled as one story of a struggle between two men.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=25118

I think there's at least one other thread on RAT on this subject. It *is* a neat find, and I hope it gets properly published (without too many references to "Gladiator") in less than 10 years! But no, it really doesn't seem too likely to "rewrite history", at least the big picture.

Valete,

Matthew

Here is another article about the topic. Sorry it is also in German, but there are two nice photos.

http://www.archaeologie-online.de/nc/de/magaz...D=kalefeld

About the first German article i posted:
I remember that the print version of it had a picture of a germanic lance head. So just for you i sorted through my waste paper to recover it. Thats why it looks so crumpled. But i think it still shows clearly a typical germanic lance head.

---

 Attachment: 16.38 KB

Sirs-I have seen in a number of Roman histories that one of the basic Roman military doctrines for defending the frontier was the pre-emptive assault. They would send a Legion or two into enemy territory for a few day to conduct terror campaigns against tribes they felt were causing trouble or might cause trouble.This intimidated the tribe(s) and by burning villages,stealing cattle, destroying crops, and kidnapping the young degraded military capacity, since like all swidden agriculturlists, Germans lived very close to the substence level.The girls were taken for fun and profit as slaves, the boys were drafted into the legions as delecti (conscripts), and force to serve on a frontier far from home.Therefore, a battle this far north is not unusual, finding relics this well preserved definitely is.

A few blog posts that have a lot more information and links about the find:

http://adrianmurdoch.typepad.com/my_weblog/20...art-2.html

http://adrianmurdoch.typepad.com/my_weblog/20...odian.html

http://lostfort.blogspot.com/2008/12/those-ne...kdoor.html

http://lostfort.blogspot.com/2008/12/more-abo...field.html

http://lostfort.blogspot.com/2008/12/roman-ba...art-3.html

I must say, this is all rather ineresting!

Just read the attachments and though my comments are meaningless, would like to comment anyway!

There appears to be a presumption at this point, that the Romans were victorious in this fray.
I would question this (for what it's worth)

It seems to be presuming a bit too much, to suggest the Romans won; "Because of their superior weaponry"
I would suggest that they may have lost this scrap, because of the following;

It appears only Roman weapons wer left on the field.
If the Romans had held the field, they would have gathered their own arms at any rate.
(An orderly withdrawl is different, but cannot be classified as a victory.)

The wagon parts would indicate the romans had been hit hard.
The trail of sandal nails along the ridge reminds one of the Custer fight, or Isandlwana in the Zulu wars, and would point one would think, to unburied dead. ...killed in retreat. Sandals were tied on, and wold not regularly be lost when the dead were removed from the field, and nails would not be lost by a moving victorious force in such a quantity as to be traceable.

If the Germans Were victorious, they would remove their own weaponry at any rate, and If their weaponry had prevailed, could they have possibly regarded the Romans weapons as inferior, and not bothered with it?.... or not had time to gather it, if this defeated Roman force was thought to be the van of a larger force in close-ish proximity?

Just some thoughts.
Thank you for your time.

Richard.