In reading through the forum, I noticed a message about Arminius being the antagonist. I was a bit surprised since what I have read here seems to make that difficult to believe. I've read how the movie will go to lengths to show how superior the Romans were in technology and organization, how they brutally crushed rebellions, and so forth. After that, I suspect the audience will view Arminius as a protagonist trying to free his people from Roman tyrrany. I certainly would. More than that he and his Germans will seem to be the underdogs and the public generally loves the underdog.

Ben

Some good points Ben.

The focus of the story is, I suppose, going to be on Varus. Or rather, the focus of the action will be centred on Varus - I envisage him as the centre of the story even if he is not always the most active element in it. So, in that sense, he is the protagonist. I hope to emphasise aspects of Varus' background such as the fact he wants to prove himself as both a good administrator of the new(ish) Empire and as a noble member of an ancient noble house. The fact that his father, Sextus Quinctilius Varus, was one of the assassins of Julius Caesar and the effect of his suicide on the young Varus will also be touched on.

Arminius is the obstacle or force opposing Varus (even though Varus doesn't realise this for most of the story) and so he is, in the strictest sense, the antagonist. But Arminius is probably (IMO) the more interesting of the two characters and a lot of the story will be centred on him and his plans for an uprising.

I suppose I do want to avoid the cliched 'Braveheart'-style story of plucky and noble native people rising up against the cruel foreign oppressors. By the same token, I want to show the German side of the story and ensure that the Cherusci and their allies aren't faceless 'barbarians' who only enter the story to dart out of the forest and kill a few more Romans.

I see the first part of the film with the action alternating between Varus and Varus' troops (including a small group of legionary grunts who we will follow throughout the story) and Arminius and his tribal politics. The battle scenes may be slightly more from the Roman point of view, but we will get 'behind-the-scenes' looks at the German tactics as well.

One tricky element is going to be that Varus actually commited suicide before the battle was truly over. I intend to show the battle to the end, so there will be a longish coda where the focus is on Arminius and the two remaining major Roman characters - the centurion Marcus Caelius and the (as yet unnamed) standard bearer of the Legio XVIII. I'm still thinking of ways to keep Varus in the audience's mind in this last section, when he is quite literally dead and buried.

Anyway - no-one is really going to come out of this story looking the pure white hero and the story will be as much about Arminius as Varus.

Hope that clarifys things a little - keep in mind this is still a work in progress and I am still working most of these things out. Your thoughts and those of any others are much appreciated though, as they help me to get these elements straight in my head.

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

At this point in history (9 AD) I don't believe either side was innocent. Both were guilty of oppression/beligerence towards the other. Who attacked first? I don't know. If that could be determined it probably happened many years before. And as innocent as one nation may seem they still have their ulterior motives.
Attacking Germany was a matter of survival for the Empire. The latter knew that at any time the Germans would launch an invasion of their own.
So now the question of "Who is the protagonist?" can become complicated. And of course, you might want to take the neutral approach that others have already mentioned on the board.

Hi there
when reading about the roman-barbarian relations over these years I often thought of possible analogies with the american west or the russian steps; an expansionistic and relatively advanced society entering new land, first traders and merchants, then soldiers, and finally civilians with their colonies. An old story of cultural clashes between new comers and the people already living in a place for centuries if not more.
I imagine that the strongly ideological and expansionist society would have justified its violence in terms of destiny or cultural superiority (racism as we think of it is quite recent; the romans were not racist in the modern sense of the term.) This happened many times in history.
In the following, below, try playing a game with me: every time you read "Indian" think of "German"; i.e. make the substitution to see how far the analogy might stick.
Lets think for a moment of how for half a century Hollywood depicted the cultural clashes in the American West. Only recently (the sixties) do we hear about the Indian side of the story. But then the new ideology made the pendulum swing too far the other way and for a while we were led to believe the American Indians were pure and innocent victims. Then we find out that the wars between tribes were gruesome affairs, that in many cases tribes were arch enemies of one another with hatred running over long periods of time (not occasional arguments). Although one might like to think that the Indian violence was imbued with intensely spiritual values and not cynical ones like those of the developed and decadent european/american society, it still was violence! Things are never simple. And if one makes it seem so then either he is blinded by his preconceptions or is lying.
In any case "put your hand on your wallet."

The neutral position is certainly the one I'll be trying to take Michael, though Varus will be my protagonist and Arminius my antagonist in the technical senses of the word.

Cheers.

I hope that in your film you will show 2 men and not 2 heroes or 1 hero and 1 bad. Only two men, Arminius who try to defend his tribe and varus who make his job.May be they have knows defaults but be carefull only one description is not of necessity the truth.
For Tacite Varus is a looser, and Arminius a betrayer.

Good comment Arnaud - that's exactly what I want to portray. Initially I wondered how I could make Varus a sympathetic character, but I think making him someone who is so confident of the power of Rome that he walks into a trap and who then (rather too late) fights to survive could do the trick. I want to model him on an aristocratic Army officer of the British Empire - utterly convinced that he represents all that's civilised and good. I also want to make him brave and determined, despite his faults.

Arminius is going to be a charismatic and dashing young hero - since that certainly seems to be indicated in the sources. But I want his ambition to be his dark side and the fact that he is partially Romanised to be a source of internal conflict for him. By the time the trap is sprung I also want him to have a grudging liking for Varus.

I hope I can achieve all this!

Thanks again for your comment.

not really sure of your assessment of Varus- afterall he [and his senior officers] top themseves and leave the army to its fate.

I suppose I'm wary of taking the sources condemning Varus too much at face value - he made a convenient scapegoat for what was a massive disaster. Roman officers didn't top themselves on a whim, it was usually in the face of a massive and irreversible defeat. My reading of Dio indicates that, by the time they committed suicide, the army was well and truly trapped and defeat was certain. What was also certain is that Varus and his commanders were going to be tortured and executed in nasty ways - I think I'd choose to fall on my gladius as well.

I doubt the end would have been any different if Varus, who was already severely wounded, had decided to fight it out to the last. Suicide may look like cowardice to us, but I gather noble Romans didn't see it that way.

Prior to this though Varus and his officers had done all they could to fight their way out of the trap, and there's no indication of cowardice in the sources. The fact that he was wounded also indicates that he wasn't exactly leading from behind either, though towards the end of the battle I imagine everyone would have been fighting for their lives.

I don't think a 'brave (if foolish) Varus' is too far fetched.

Salve!
I believe that Arminius was stirred by nationalism and had spent time with the Legions to gather intelligence in how they could be beaten. Varus knew law and administration - when it came to things military, he was as dumb as a box of rocks..

Ave atque vale......

That Varus was no general is very clear from the known facts and regardless of his abilities as an administrator he was lacking in other departments as well.

The initial trap was well laid and would have fooled the majority of people in Varus position but it was not very long before it became clear that something was very wrong. It didn't take being a competent general to realise that when in a trap then you don't go on further. If Varus had carried out a withdrawal he would have probably saved a proportion of his army. That his army was brave and able is demonstrated by how they survived Varus for many days despite being surrounded and being picked off. A cowardly or incompetent army would have collapsed Varus men continued until they were all killed. The centurions and men of Varus army were the real heroes.

Gaius Caecilius wrote:


That Varus was no general is very clear from the known facts and regardless of his abilities as an administrator he was lacking in other departments as well.


That Varus was more an administrator than a general was hardly surprising, since many Romans in his position were selected more for their ability to govern than to fight. He'd proven himself capable of putting down rebellions in the past (in Syria) and was backed by three experienced legions, all of which had been stationed in Germania for years. And it was their officers and senior centurions that governors like Varus relied on for military expertise - the idea that the defeat was solely due to Varus is pretty fanciful considering the wealth of highly competent experienced military advisors around him.

Simply saying 'He was no general and so they were defeated' is a bit too simple.


The initial trap was well laid and would have fooled the majority of people in Varus position but it was not very long before it became clear that something was very wrong. It didn't take being a competent general to realise that when in a trap then you don't go on further. If Varus had carried out a withdrawal he would have probably saved a proportion of his army.


A withdrawal to where though? They were deep in what they had thought to be friendly country and suddenly turned into hostile territory. Where were they to withdraw to? A withdrawal to the summer base they had left would have meant several days fighting back to a position which was as far from any major Roman base as you could get, with little or no hope of relief for any portion of his force that managed to make it there in the face of continuing attacks. Sitting still was suicide. The alternative would be to try to break out of the trap and make it to the nearest large fortresses - the ones on the Lippe.

Which, judging from the Kalkriese finds, is precisely what Varus tried to do.

Where is the 'incompetence' in this? He did everything he could do in the circumstances - abandoned the encumbering baggae train, attempted counter attacks when the terrain allowed and attempted a forced break-out to the west and south. All very sensible.


That his army was brave and able is demonstrated by how they survived Varus for many days despite being surrounded and being picked off. A cowardly or incompetent army would have collapsed Varus men continued until they were all killed. The centurions and men of Varus army were the real heroes.


No arguments there, but I've often had people telling me that 'he was incompetent and that's that'. How was he incompetent?

His major mistake was believing Germania to be conquered and the tribes to be pacified. And he was not alone in that mistake - senior figures including Augustus seems to have shared his over-confidence but he was the best scapegoat for their collective error.
Cheers,

Tim O'Neill

It could be argued that this episode was the greatest disater to have hit Europe .Certainly for the Celts.
Also would we really have missed the 30years war the 100 years war,Bismark,The Kaiser and Adolph Hitler.
Many millions have died in the wars that destituted Europe most of which had the Germanic races involved.After Arminius the area just move away from civilisation back to ignorance and tribal conquest,no freedom this but the rule of the thug.

Although I share J M Cox's lamentation over the realities of evil and warfare in the world, I must question his panacea of universal German evil. Along with the faulty logic involving generalization and scapegoating, the myopic concentration of Germans as the sole perpetuators of European warfare is historically inacurate. I suggest exploring the histories of Asia, the Middle East, and the ancient world provides an unquestionable record of conquest, murder, genocide, and enslavement of peoples.

I remind my students who castigate Arabs, Muslims, and other Near Easterners through drawing negative generalities involving racial characteristics. These well meaning students fall into the error of scapegoating these people as violent by their very nature. Violence is not a racial characteristic. Warfare arises due to conditions involving organized groups in competition over valued territorial, cultural, governmental, economic, or security objectives.

Limiting the cause of warfare in Europe to Germans or Germanic peoples is philosophically simplistic and a gross oversimplification of the dynamics involved in two thousand years of history. Were the Roman Caesars Germans? What about Rome’s economic and military decline in the fourth through fifth centuries? As Rome weakened, Germanic tribes filled the vacuum in Europe. Centuries of instability resulted from the migrating Germanic, Slav, Magyar, and numerous tribal groups.

By 1500 AD the middle ages ended partly due to economic outreach and trade, the start of the Renaissance, and the development of nation states. Perhaps most significantly, the development of nation states (headed by a powerful monarch) led to intense national competition between the nations of Europe. This led to centuries of warfare over expanding empires.

Only by 1871 did Germany unite. Bismarck, who fought only one short war with France, accomplished this. You put him in the same category of infamy with the genocidal maniac Adolph Hitler. Thug rule? Germany had a parliamentary government under Bismarck and even under Kaiser Bill.

Try picking up overseas news sources like The Guardian, The Independent, Le Monde, the Irish Times, or Der Spiegel and read about American perpetuation of thug rule over smaller in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.” The body count reaches around the globe as the empire reaches for control of vital resources and strategic regions.

Mr O' Neill

Im really surprised discovering this huge amount of interest on Arminius, Varus and Teutoburg famous Battle.

I wrote a biography about Arminius. Its a Trilogy, and the first volume will appear in Europe on october 2005. Are long years working on points of view, acheologics, history...

A film is not enough. The force of this history overcomes the capability of a film about 120 minutes. You will see. I would like to speak with the creator of this web site.

My email is artur774@hotmail.com.

Artur Balder

I think that in order for this film to be more than all the other historical movies right now, like gladiator, Alexander, troy and so on it really needs to show a more real side of warfare it needs to show the fact that in the real world there are no true antagonist or protagonist, and that people find meaning in those based on there own cercumstances, both the germans and the romans were brutal and i think you can find an antagonist who is not a main charector. for example The Praefect Eggius who fought until the end in the forest unlike Varus who killed himself or Ceionius who surrendered like a coward even Numonius Vala was a coward who ran away with his callvary but was killed you can show the solider who killed himself with the third eagle to save it as a hero, or even more interstingly you could show how Marobodus the leader of the nuetral german tribe during the battle after being given the head of varus as a threat out of respect returned it to the romans showing a civilazed manner. So in all i don't really think you need Arminius to have a disposition to good or evil but him being more of a catalyst to start the train of disaster

I think that in order for this film to be more than all the other historical movies right now, like gladiator, Alexander, troy and so on it really needs to show a more real side of warfare it needs to show the fact that in the real world there are no true antagonist or protagonist, and that people find meaning in those based on there own cercumstances, both the germans and the romans were brutal and i think you can find an antagonist who is not a main charector. for example The Praefect Eggius who fought until the end in the forest unlike Varus who killed himself or Ceionius who surrendered like a coward even Numonius Vala was a coward who ran away with his callvary but was killed you can show the solider who killed himself with the third eagle to save it as a hero, or even more interstingly you could show how Marobodus the leader of the nuetral german tribe during the battle after being given the head of varus as a threat out of respect returned it to the romans showing a civilazed manner. So in all i don't really think you need Arminius to have a disposition to good or evil but him being more of a catalyst to start the train of disaster

Some brief comments..


Why is this a worthy story to tell?


The theme of a cultural clash, a advanced sucessfull society against so called "barbarians". What did they look like, what drove both?

The theme of loyality, of two brothers grown up togheter and ending as enemies for perfectly understandable reasons. Whom should I serve? A very important one for the Germanic and Roman society - see the sagas, and the roman writers - and also for our modern societies...

The theme of love between a man and a woman, tied togheter by great love indeed, which came togheter after great difficulties and lost each other tragically...


So you really have a very complex tragical story of a man embedded in a very well outlayed world, a story which has to be told..


I personally could imagine a great deal of great scenes, let's hope that somebody picks this story up.

I believe that Arminius was solely interested in becoming "King" of the Germans. He had risen as far as he could as an outsider in Rome for the young age he was but like all youths was greedy.

I think if rather revealing that "his people" turned against him and he eventually died by their hand, treachery for treachery I say.

I see him as the start of Germanic nationhood that led eventually to two world wars. His treachery to Varus not dissimilar to Hitlers treachery to Stalin. Never, ever trust a German.

His own name is forgotten by "his" people, as almost was he, until the records were found in 14C. Then suddenly the Germans have a national hero, who they still only know by his Roman name, very telling. The strength of the illiterate barbarians led to he lose of the Western Empire as I see it. No surprise in the UK that writing disappear when the ignorant Saxon coalition turns up.

No I think if it were not for the Varus episode, Rome would have got stronger, Germany would have been a better nation and civilized. Strange to think the UK could have been speaking Latin instead of its hybrid mongrel language.

No anyone who sees Arminius as a hero of nationhood, forgets a traitor, a betrayer and an egotistical young man, who ultimately caused the deaths of millions in WW2 quite an epitaph that!!

I really am not sure this is any sort of "Heroic Epic" at all. At the same time I would love to see the story unfold on the big screen. The movie should last 12 hours and have Stanley Kubric directing it, but failing that, 4 hours and directed by someone like Colin Teague. I just keep agreeing with Boris Atanassov, but there needs to more.

"...I think that in order for this film to be more than all the other historical movies right now... it really needs to show a more real side of warfare it needs to show the fact that in the real world there are no true antagonist or protagonist... "

The details of warefare would give the viewers the chills and thrills that has been associated with films like Troy and Gladiator. Most of the historical figures though would be far from the heroic.

Arminius seemed to have an understanding of Varus Quintilis and his confidants that he knew right then was the right time to strike. The Roman's actions themselves could be explained in more dramatic terms than incompetence and cowardice. Avarice is one reason, that would "sexy up" the tale for me. Eggius could be the one responsible offer who didn't know exactly what was going and trying to lead his troops to a haven somewhere, anywhere. While Marobodus not only ends up with a share of unwanted goods, he has to play go-between between the Germanic forces and the awakened Romans.