After reading the synopsis I'd like to make a few critical comments especially concercing the end.

But a first minor points.

„The scene then flashes back six years, with Publius Quinctilius Varus, recently returned from his governorship in Syria, attending an early morning audience with the Emperor Caesar Augustus."
You just can’t say „recently returned". Varus was 7-6 b.C. gouvernor of the province Syria (leg. Aug. pr.pr. Prov. Syriae) and was 7 a.C.sent to Germania. So after a quite busy career he did not holt any office for more than 10 years!

„The Emperor comissions Varus with the governorship of the new province of Germania, recently conquered by Drusus and Tiberius."
I doubt whether Germania Magna ever was a province. Varus had a quite different imperium - he was a kind of „hyper"-gouverneur - acting a commander of the whole Rhine-Army and as superior magistratus for all the 3 provinces of Gaull (including the later Germania inferior and Germania superior). But probably I’m mistaken.

„Erminameraz encounters his father-in-law Segestes (*Seugastiz). There has been a fued between them ever since Erminameraz secretly married his daughter Thusnelda (*Thurazhilda) - It’s quite unlikely that they married that early - but that has already been discussed elsewhere.

„When Varus punishes a village for the death of a Roman tax collector by crucifying its men, Erminameraz decides it is time to act."
Isn’t this a bit - good guy fights bad empire, because he can’t stand it now longer? Would not an ‘Erminameraz’, who fights for personal aims as well, be a bit more convincing? An ‘Erminameraz’ for excample, who wants to be the first man among the cherusci nobles (a small scale princeps), and feels himself entitled to roman support (because of his services). Who starts to consider rebellion (or treason if you like), when he has to learn that Varus either prefers Segestes, or just acts according the old roman tradition „divide et impera".

„Erminameraz then meets Varus with his unit of auxiliaries and offers to guide them through the deep forest of the Teutoburger Wald on their way to crush the reported small rebel band."
According to Cassius Dio 56.19.4-5 the traitors (Arminius und Segestes) leave Varus, who is already on the march, to gather the allied forces. After they’ve massacred the roman troops scattered in the country, they attack Varus - who is already deep in the forest.

But all this are really minor details compared with the end of the film.

„With their commanders dead, the last remaining Roman soldiers decide to make a last stand around the eagles. One by one they fall until two of the three eagle standards is captured, with their standard bearers fighting to the last. The third remaining standard bearer decides that his eagle won't fall into enemy hands, and makes a break for the nearby swamp with a group of young warriors in hot pursuit. Before they can catch him, however, he wades out into the bog and sinks below the surface, taking the eagle standard with him."

Sorry Tim, but this is pretty heroic. The sinking aquilifer and his flag - that’s just much drama. Okay - Florus confirms this scene (Signa et aquilas duas adhuc barbari possident, tertiam signifer, prius quam in manus hostium veniret, evolsit mersamque intra baltei sui latebras gerens in cruenta palude sic latuit. Florus II 30/38 - Bellum Germanicum) but unfortunately did the Romans win all the lost eagles back (the eagle of the 19th legion was discovered 15 a.C. in the land of the Bructeri, another one 16 a.C. in the land of the Marsi and the last one 41 a.C. in the land of the Chauci). So which one was lost in the bog?

Moreover - the ancient sources contradict the picture of the heroic last stand around the eagles.
According to Velleius Paterculus only one of the ‘prefects of camp’ meets an heroic end, while the other, Ceionus, offers surrender (t e praefectis castrorum duobus quam clarum exemplum L. Eggius, tam turpe Ceionus prodidit, qui, cum longe maximam partem absumpsisset acies, auctor deditionis supplicio quam proelio mori maluit.) and Numonius Vala, another high-ranked officer, deserts his comrades and tries in vain to escape together with the (auxilliary?) horse (At Vala Numonius, legatus Vari, cetera quietus ac probus, diri auctor exempli, spoliatum equite peditem relinquens fuga cum alis Rhenum petere ingressus est. Quod factum eius fortuna ulta est; non enim desertis superfuit, sed desertor occidit.)
Cassius Dio draws an even more drab picture of the roman „last stand" (Cassius Dio 56 22.1). Unfortunately I’ve got only a german version of the greek text - but I’d translate it aproximately like that: After it became public (hat Varus had committed suicide) none of the rest, even if he still had the strength, resisted any longer (mass suicide because it was impossible to escape).

Still more important - when you show heroic resistance till the very last and - in my opinion even worse - a kind of „moral victory": the aquilifer, who fools the enemy, and saves the sacred eagle, symbol of the armies honour and so on - you idealize this a bloody catastrophy.
A catastrophy not only for Augustus, who lost a province - but for the rank and file legionary, who lost his life. When you reproduce Florus’ old propaganda trick you renew one of the oldest lies, soldiers and civilians were always told: the crushing defeat was either due to something „superhuman" like the russian winter (Napoleon and Hitler) or the german swamps and forests, or something devilish subhuman (the stab in the back of the unbeaten army, or the traitor Arminius) but nevertheless the massacre was not due to incompetence or a most stupid strategy but was a most noble (and justified!) sacrifice (for excample: the heroic self sacrifice of the 6th army at Stalingrad, or - to quote a movie - Erol Flinn in the role of the dashing General Custer, who marches his 6th Cavalry to Little Bighorn, although he knows of the trap - to save life of the less aristocratic Infantry - I forgot the name of the film - ) Oh Gods.
And it’s always the flag! I can recall quite a lot pictures (mostly paintings) dealing with heroic ends like that. The famous american painting of Custers last stand at Little Bighorn. The french painting (and proverb probably: The Guard dies, but doesn’t surrender! or the more recent and more explicit german painting of the last man on deck of the sinking submarine, proudly brandishing the flag in the face of the advancing (victorioius) british battleship. And at the beginning of this most stupid tradition: Florus and his aquilifer!
Have mercy with the audience and think of something new!

To end less critical - when Thusnelda was 9 a.C. not even a teenager, then there’s an unfortunate lack of women in the whole story. Why not substitute „Gudameraz, Cheruscian warrior and priest" with a priestess (or female seer). Think of Veleda and the insurrection of the Batavi (female seers are mentioned several times in the ancient sources but, sorry - I don’t recall exactly where). Furthermore - Tacitus mentions that the Marsi were celebrating the festival of the Godess Tamfana - and the cult of the godess Nerthus; we all know the german godesses of fate (Nornen) et cetera. So there’s no need to fear any incredible Avalon Mists, if you’d substitute brave Gudameraz with a handsome Gudameraza.

Salve

Leon

Leon wrote:

"The scene then flashes back six years, with Publius
Quinctilius Varus, recently returned from his
governorship in Syria, attending an early morning
audience with the Emperor Caesar Augustus."

You just can’t say „recently returned". Varus was 7-6
b.C. gouvernor of the province Syria (leg. Aug. pr.pr.
Prov. Syriae) and was 7 a.C.sent to Germania. So after
a quite busy career he did not holt any office for more
than 10 years!

You're quite right. The Synopsis was written last year and I've done quite a bit of research since. It, and Scene One, will need to be revised on this point.

„The Emperor comissions Varus with the governorship
of the new province of Germania, recently conquered
by Drusus and Tiberius."

I doubt whether Germania Magna ever was a province.
Varus had a quite different imperium - he was a kind of
„hyper"-gouverneur - acting a commander of the whole
Rhine-Army and as superior magistratus for all the provinces of Gaull (including the later Germania inferior and Germania superior). But probably I’m mistaken.

Not at all, but since this is a synopsis, I'm not really going into technical detail here.

„Erminameraz encounters his father-in-law Segestes
(*Seugastiz). There has been a fued between them ever
since Erminameraz secretly married his daughter
Thusnelda (*Thurazhilda) -

It’s quite unlikely that they married that early - but that has already been discussed elsewhere.

It has, and the status of the relationship between Thusnelda and Arminius is still open to debate. Some take the Latin of our sources literally and claim that Arminius 'kidnapped' or even 'raped' her, which I don't believe squares with the evidence at all. Whether they were married or in some less formal relationship at this (or any later) stage is difficult to determine with certainty. My understanding is that she would have been a teenager at the time, so marriage is not out of the question.

„When Varus punishes a village for the death of a
Roman tax collector by crucifying its men, Erminameraz
decides it is time to act."

Isn’t this a bit - good guy fights bad empire, because he can’t stand it now longer? Would not an ‘Erminameraz’, who fights for personal aims as well, be a bit more convincing?

Again, this is a synopsis, so it's quite a bit balder than the way I see this playing out. The reasons for my Erminameraz's rebellion are many. Some of them are
Braveheart-style 'good guy fights bad Empire' motivations, something implied by both Florus and Velleus who speak of Roman vices and arbitrary rule. Others are more personal and less noble - he sees leading a rebellion as a path to power and influence. There are likely to be some religious elements to his decision as well, as I want the Germanic religion to be integral to the way these people lived, not some New Age window dressing.

But all such decisions need a catalyst and the crucifixion serves as a turning point in the plot. The Synopsis may imply it is a personal turning point for Erminameraz, but my conception is more of Erminameraz seeing it as an opportune time to make his move, due to widespread ill-feeling against the Romans and a weakening of the pro-Roman faction amongst the Cherusci.

An ‘Erminameraz’ for excample, who wants to be the first man among the cherusci nobles (a small scale princeps), and feels himself entitled to roman
support (because of his services). Who starts to
consider rebellion (or treason if you like), when he has to learn that Varus either prefers Segestes, or just according the old roman tradition „divide et impera".

I will have him act for his own reasons as well as a certain 'patriotism'. I don't see him as a complete political cynic, and few people in real life act because of just one motivation, and not do I see him as a Braveheart fighting for "FREEEEDOOOOM!!" - he's something of both. As I've mentioned, his desire to be pre-eminent amongst the Cherusci is certainly going to be a major part of his motivation, though I don't see that a lack of Roman support for him is a very likely motivation, since he doesn't seem to have lacked any support from Varus. And there's nothing in the sources to indicate that Varus favoured Segestes' faction - quite the opposite in fact.

As I see it, Arminius saw that he had got about as far as he was going to get politically as a friend of the Romans, and then gambled (rightly) that he could get a lot further as their enemy.

„Erminameraz then meets Varus with his unit of
auxiliaries and offers to guide them through the deep
forest of the Teutoburger Wald on their way to crushthe reported small rebel band."

According to Cassius Dio 56.19.4-5 the traitors (Arminius und Segestes) leave Varus, who is already on the march, to gather the allied forces. After they’ve massacred the roman troops scattered in the country, they attack Varus - who is already deep in the forest.

The way I'm thinking of depicting it, Arminius, Segestes and the Cheruscian auxilia aren't with Varus as he leaves his summer base and heads back to the Lippe for the winter. They join Varus on the march, and when news comes of the small uprising they make the obvious choice as guides, scouts and vanguard since the army is to pass through Cheruscian territory. Then they take their leave, as Dio describes, supposedly to gather the general Cheruscian tribal muster in support of Varus and then the ambushes begin. The attacks on the vexillations scattered through the country are carried out by other Cheruscian warbands at around the same time as the first ambush of Varus' column.

Other reconstructions of the sequence of events are possible, of course.

But all this are really minor details compared with the
end of the film.

„With their commanders dead, the last remaining Roman
soldiers decide to make a last stand around the eagles.
One by one they fall until two of the three eagle
standards is captured, with their standard bearers
fighting to the last. The third remaining standard bearer decides that his eagle won't fall into enemy hands, and makes a break for the nearby swamp with a group of young warriors in hot pursuit. Before they can catch him, however, he wades out into the bog and sinks below the surface, taking the eagle standard with him."

Sorry Tim, but this is pretty heroic.

It's meant to be. Come on Leon, this is the climax of a tragedy!

The sinking aquilifer and his flag - that’s just much drama. Okay - Florus confirms this scene (Signa et aquilas duas adhuc barbari possident, tertiam signifer, prius quam in manus hostium veniret, evolsit mersamque intra baltei sui latebras gerens in cruenta palude sic latuit. Florus II 30/38 - Bellum Germanicum) but unfortunately did the Romans win all the lost eagles back (the eagle of the 19th legion was discovered 15 a.C. in the land of the Bructeri, another one 16 a.C. in the land of the Marsi and the last one 41 a.C. in the land of the Chauci). So which one was lost in the bog?

I'm aware that Florus' story is quite likely to be romantic fiction, and I would certainly never add an element like that to the story if it wasn't in one of my sources. But when one of my sources hands me a scene like that on a platter I'd be crazy not to use it - it makes for a suitably dramatic climax to the tragedy. In my story, the Eagle lost in the bog is that of the Eighteenth, and the epilogue details that Erminameraz has his men recover it after the battle, which is why it is later recaptured by the Romans.

I want to avoid total fiction as much as possible, but I am still creating a fiction from my sources, which means using elements which the sources give me to create my fiction. This is an element which I've chosen to use, for obvious reasons. If I were writing a history of these events I'd be fairly sceptical of the historicity of this scene from Florus, but it lends itself so well to my fiction that I feel justified in using it, despite my scepticism.

Moreover - the ancient sources contradict the picture of the heroic last stand around the eagles. According to Velleius Paterculus only one of the ‘prefects of camp’ meets an heroic end, while the other, Ceionus, offers surrender (t e praefectis castrorum duobus quam clarum exemplum L. Eggius, tam turpe Ceionus prodidit, qui, cum longe maximam partem absumpsisset acies, auctor deditionis supplicio quam proelio mori maluit.) and Numonius Vala, another high-ranked officer, deserts his comrades and tries in vain to escape together with the (auxilliary?) horse (At Vala Numonius, legatus Vari, cetera quietus ac probus, diri auctor exempli, spoliatum equite peditem relinquens fuga cum alis Rhenum petere ingressus est. Quod fact eius fortuna ulta est; non enim desertis superfuit, sed desertor occidit.)

And that's exactly how I intend to depict it - with some commiting suicide, either by killing themselves or allowing the Germanics to kill them, others trying to escape and being hunted down and a few making a last stand alongside the prefectus Lucius Eggius. In my fiction this last stand is centred on the Eagles and will include Marcus Caelius and the surviving men of the Contubernium Fimi. If I put all this detail in the Synopsis it wouldn't be much of a synopsis.

Cassius Dio draws an even more drab picture of the
roman „last stand" (Cassius Dio 56 22.1). Unfortunately
I’ve got only a german version of the greek text - but
I’d translate it aproximately like that: After it became public (hat Varus had committed suicide) none of the rest, even if he still had the strength, resisted any longer (mass suicide because it was impossible to escape).

That's more or less what the English translation of Dio on the Background page says as well. But Velleus tells us that not all of them despaired and some of them made a last stand with Eggius, so I've chosen to depict that last stand. I'll depict those who surrendered and those who tried to escape as well, I just didn't mention them in the Synopsis.

Still more important - when you show heroic resistance
till the very last and - in my opinion even worse - a kind of „moral victory": the aquilifer, who fools the enemy, and saves the sacred eagle, symbol of the armies honour and so on - you idealize this a bloody catastrophy.

There's always a danger in any 'war movie' (and this is what 'Varus' is) of being accused of 'glorifying' or 'idealising' war. Throughout the script I want to examine the personal motivations of the people involved. Why did Augustus choose Varus? How did Varus misread the situation in Germania? What made Arminius turn from being a Roman commander to a rebel? How did the 'grunts' see this situation and what motivated them? In this final scene I want to look at what different people do in a desperate situation. What makes some of them, like Ceionus, decide to give up and surrender? What makes others despair, like Varus, and commit suicide? What makes others abandon their comrades, like Vala, and try to save their own skin? And what makes still others, like Eggius, stand and fight to the last?

Maybe Eggius (and, in my story Caelius and Fimus' boys) were brave and noble and honourable. Or maybe they simply saw there was no way out and decided to go down fighting. I don't think this is necessarily an 'idealisation'. We see examples of all of these behaviours in modern warfare and in warfare throughout history. If I were to depict all of the Romans going down fighting bravely, as perhaps the Synopsis incorrectly suggests I intended to, you'd have a point of course.

As for my use of Florus' episode with the aquilifier being an 'idealisation' - I'm establishing Lucius Sergius Facilis, the standard bearer of the Eighteenth, as a character early in the story and setting up some reasons for his devotion to the legion's Eagle. Again, I don't want this to be simply window dressing or the Roman equivalent of a modern soldier's feeling for his regiment's colours. I want to show this as a religious devotion, so that the 'Florus episode' makes sense as more than merely a piece of romantic flamboyance.

A catastrophy not only for Augustus, who lost a province - but for the rank and file legionary, who lost his life. When you reproduce Florus’ old propaganda trick you renew one of the oldest lies, soldiers and civilians were always told: the crushing defeat was either due to something „superhuman" like the russian winter (Napoleon and Hitler) or the german swamps and forests, or something devilish subhuman (the stab in the back of the unbeaten army, or the traitor Arminius) but nevertheless the massacre was not due to incompetence or a most stupid strategy but was a most noble (and justified!) sacrifice (for excample: the heroic self sacrifice of the 6th army at Stalingrad, or - to quote a movie - Erol Flinn in the role of the dashing General Custer, who marches his 6th Cavalry to Little Bighorn, although he knows of the trap - to save life of the less aristocratic Infantry - I forgot the name of the film - ) Oh Gods.

That may well have been Florus' reason for relating (or creating) the episode with the Eagle, but it isn't mine.

And it’s always the flag! I can recall quite a lot pictures (mostly paintings) dealing with heroic ends like that. The famous american painting of Custers last stand at Little Bighorn. The french painting (and proverb probably: The Guard dies, but doesn’t surrender! or the more recent and more explicit german painting of the last man on deck of the sinking submarine, proudly brandishing the flag in the face of the advancing (victorioius) british battleship. And at the beginning of this most stupid tradition: Florus and his aquilifer!

I undertstand what you're saying, though I think I've outlined my thinking on the matter enough already. But I'd also point out many acts of heroism (or foolhardiness, depending on your point of view) from accounts of modern war where men risked, or lost, their lives for the sake of a symbol of their unit. People are strange that way. So are the artworks and films you mention above art imitating life or are these acts of bravery/idiocy life imitating art?

I also strongly doubt, given the Romans' feeling about their Eagles, that at the end of the battle the aquilifiers simply handed their standards over to the Cherusci/Bructeri/Marsii etc and said 'Okay, here you go - have them.' I think a final struggle around the standards, and an attempt to keep one from the enemy, is entirely in keeping with what we know about the Roman Army.

Have mercy with the audience and think of something new!

Well, maybe if 'Varus' ever makes it to the screen you'll have to cover your eyes at that point, but I like the episode, it's in keeping with what we know about the Roman Army's attitude to their standards and it makes a suitable climax to the battle. So I think I'll leave it in. Sorry. g

To end less critical - when Thusnelda was 9 a.C. not
even a teenager, then there’s an unfortunate lack of
women in the whole story. Why not substitute
„Gudameraz, Cheruscian warrior and priest" with a
priestess (or female seer). Think of Veleda and the
insurrection of the Batavi (female seers are mentioned several times in the ancient sources but, sorry - I don’t recall exactly where). Furthermore - Tacitus mentions that the Marsi were celebrating the festival of the Godess Tamfana - and the cult of the godess Nerthus; we all know the german godesses of fate (Nornen) et cetera. So there’s no need to fear any incredible Avalon Mists, if you’d substitute brave Gudameraz with a handsome Gudameraza.

I don't know if I want to give Gudameraz a sex change (!!) but I've already been thinking along the same lines. In his Germania Tacitus writes:

More than this, they believe that there resides in women an element of holiness and a gift of prophecy; so that they do not scorn to ask their advice, or lightly disregard their replies. In the reign of Vespasian we saw Veleda long honoured by many Germans as a divinity; and even earlier they showed a similar reverence for Aurina and a number of others - a reverence untainted by servile flattery or any pretence of turning women into goddesses.
(Germania 8)

He doesn't say how much 'earlier' than Veleda this 'Aurina' was or where she came from, so I've been toying with the idea of introducing her to my story. There will also be a number of wives and mothers in the story who haven't been mentioned by history, but all 'war movies' tend to be pretty male dominated. There aren't many female characters in Saving Private Ryan for example.

Thanks again for your feedback and feel free to reply to my lengthy reply.
Cheers,

Tim O'Neill

Thanks for your detailed reply, Tim. Just a few remarks.

„If I were to depict all of the Romans going down fighting bravely, as perhaps the Synopsis incorrectly suggests I intended to, you'd have a point of course."

Okay - if there isn’t pure „Hollywood" at the end, I can probably keep my eyes open. But why is this last stand the heroic „climax of a tragedy"?

To cut it short this time - isn’t the concept „tragedy" both in art and in „life" a bit oldfashioned.

Tragedy (greek: tragodia) as dramatization of the ‘tragicalness’ (greek: tragike techne) is - according to classical theory a basic concept not only for drama but for life itself: the unevitable, fateful downfall of something/someone valueable, caused by it’s (or his or her) clash with other sublime values or by overwhelming powers, which necessarily leads to misery and ruin of the person (or persons) concerned. The tragic hero(es), sacrifices him(them)selves for the sake of this superior values, (which are never questioned). The case of the tragic hero causes not only compassion and sadness (because of his suffering) but because of his heroic (yet unsuccessful) fight against destiny also admiration, awe et cetera (a quite clumsy translation of Gero von Wilpert. Sachwörterbuch der Literatur. Stuttgart. 1969, page 793f)

Do you really understand the Clades Variana as tragedy in the very sense of the word?
Who would be the tragic hero? Varus? His downfall was (in my opinion) not unevitable - although he most obviously was made a scapegoat afterwards he was neither as politician nor as superior officer able to handle the situation. And what where the values Varus and the roman legions represented? After all - they where nothing but occupants! You could probably present Fimus and his mates as tragic heros. At least they had no influence on the situation, but had to obey orders. But then Varus is’nt the protagonist. And (at least) I can feel „compassion", „awe" et cetera with Fimus and the likes only if I forget about events like the „Tanfana-massacre".
Finally: why is the last stand around the eagles the climax of the tragedy? The legions are already lost when Varus ignores the warnings of Segestes and let himself get lured into „the Saltus T." Once in the trap, the Romans are butchered. The last stand is no climax but the final point of selfinflicted desaster.

One last remark: „In my story, the Eagle lost in the bog is that of the Eighteenth, and the epilogue details that Erminameraz has his men recover it after the battle, which is why it is later recaptured by the Romans."
Hm. Poor aquilifer. He went down like a true hero, to save his divine eagle from the barbarians bloodstained hands. But in vain, because - after the battle the cunning bastards dig the birdie out of the muck! If the poor fellow went to aquilifer-heaven and watched the scene, he must have felt rather stupid. (Sorry Tim, no insult intented - but it’s a bit ????)

Nevertheless - you write, that you „want the Germanic religion to be integral to the way these people lived, not some New Age window dressing." Sounds quite interessting to me.
Would probably make a more interesting, less controversial topic for the forum (if there’d be an attractive initial contribution).

Vale
Leon

Leon,
FYI, it was the US Cavalry's 7th Regiment not the 6th Regiment that fought and died at teh Little Bighorn, June 25, 1876.
As a matter of fact, the 7th and Custer did not distinguish themselves that they. Some fought courageously on that last hill, but 90% panicked and did not die "facing" the enemy. There are several excellent research books on the subject.
As for the screenplay, you have to allow the author "dramatic" license,otherwise you would have a boring documentary.

Sorry, Ed - it was of course the 7 th and not the 6 th cavallry
And it’s interesting to learn that the majority of this „civilized" soldiers panicked and fled, when attacked by „savage barbarians" - but I can’t recall any popular american movie picturing this disaster like that The end of the Hollywood 7th cavalry usually was heroic. (If I’m wrong, please let me know).

„As for the screenplay, you have to allow the author "dramatic" license,otherwise you would have a boring documentary".

You’re right here. No fiction - no film. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a „heroic last stand + hyper-heroic self sacrifice to save the flag" (sorry - the usual unsophisticated audiance will not know that much about the religious veneration of the eagles etc. - but will be reminded of todays Stars and Stripes, Red Flags and other symbols of the same kind, which, by the way, enjoy a kind of quasi religious veneration as well) as the climax of the „drama".
Sorry again - but I believe all this stories of brave soldiers fighting till their end are even more boring than most documentaries. If Tim and all the contributors try so hard (and that’s great!) to avoid the well-known cliché of the fur-coat german etc., why then revive the far worse cliché of the heroic soldiers meeting their bitter end?
Why not take your numbers as modell? 10% fighting to the end, 85% panicking and the 5% left desperatly looking for their most beloved, most superior officer, who got them all in this hopeless situation!

Ave

Leon

you both mention in this string that the latin text refers to arminius and segestes as "the traitors". So which segestes is it that is referred to here? Isnt he referred to elsewhere as trying to warn Varus of Arminius impending betrayal?