Talk:Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)

Capitalization

Can't find this exact phrase in many RS, so I assume it's a WP:NDESC descriptive title, in which case the capitalization should be, "Early imperial campaigns in Germania". (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I figured it'd be capitalized the same way we would referring to "the Roman Empire" as opposed to "an empire" ("Early [Roman] Imperial campaigns into Germania") SpartaN (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Status query

What's the status of your review Sturmvogel 66. If you wish to abandon the review it is best to say so rather than leave it hanging. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also willing to take this up if Sturm is busy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges it's looking that way if you feel up to it still SpartaN (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations N

Discussion

• He accompanied Varus, who was in Germania with the Legions XVII, XVIII, and XIX to finish the conquest of Germania. needs a citation.
• Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History 2, 109, 5; Cassius Dio, Roman History 55, 28, 6–7 the link no longer sends it where it is supposed to go I believe, move adding a both to the Biblio for standardization, and fix the link for Velleius Paterculus, probably best to the Penelope UChicago site.

I probably forgot to cite Arminius accompanying Varus because I just assumed it was obvious in order for him to carry out the "betrayal" in the first place. Is fixed now. Also added primary sources to bibliography. SpartaN (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

• I've made some edits, feel free to revert them.
• Tensions between the Germanic tribes and the Romans began as early as 17 BC A strict date of 17 BC is not supported in the body or by some other source, suggest changing to 17/16 BC
• with Clades Lolliana, suggest with the Clades Lolliana
• the tribes Sicambri, Usipetes, and Tencteri suggest the Sicambri, Usipetes, and Tencteri tribes.
• he was celebrated as being the Roman who traveled farthest east suggest removing being for being somewhat awkward, or else as being to for being, if you'd prefer that.
• who was an ally of Rome and leader of the Cherusci. suggest an erstwhile ally of Rome and leader of the Cherusci.
• Roman expansion into Germania Magna had stopped as a result suggest removing had
• The Roman Empire would launch no other major incursion into Germany until Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180) during the Marcomannic Wars.[2] suggest moving this in its entirety to the aftermath section.

Background

• In 27 BC, Augustus assumed power hard to put an explanation of Augustus' power in a few words, but suggest something to the effect of him being the first emperor; it isn't perfectly correct, but it meets WP:SS.
• punitive expeditions to punish intruders suggest punitive expeditions against incursions.
• improvements including those to the Roman road network in 20 BC by Agrippa were made suggest improvments were made to the infrastructure, including those to the Roman road network in 20 BC by Aggripa.

Campaigns of Drusus

• including:
• Argentoratum (Strasburg, France)
• Moguntiacum (Mainz, Germany)
• Castra Vetera (Xanten, Germany)

suggest changing to including Argentoratum (Strasburg, France), Moguntiacum (Mainz, Germany), and Castra Vetera (Xanten, Germany)

Drusus first saw action following an incursion by the Sicambri and the Usipetes into Gaul. He repelled the attack and then launched a retaliatory attack across the Rhine. suggest Drusus first saw action following an incursion by the Sicambri and the Usipetes into Gaul, which he repelled before launching a retaliatory attack across the Rhine.

and then returned to Rome. As he had done before, Drusus returned to Rome at the end of the campaign season seems somewhat superfluous, perhaps and then returned to Rom, as he had done before at the end of the campaign season

'conquering with difficulty the territory traversed and defeating the forces that attacked him only after considerable bloodshed' is there a particular reason for using single quotes here? To establish that it is paraphrased?

I've done all the other prose suggestions but this and the 40,000 men figure to Aftermath. Going to check who that is a paraphrase or quote of and get back to you. SpartaN (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Campaigns of Tiberius, Ahenobarbus and Vinicius

• but Cassiodorus writing in the 6th century AD asserts that all Germans living between the Elbe and the Rhine had submitted to Roman power this seems like it should be and Cassiodorus more than but Cassiodorus
• The military situation in Germany was very different from what was suggested by imperial propaganda suggest However, the military situation in Germany was very different from what was suggested by imperial propaganda
• In 3 BC, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the commander in Germany, whom Augustus appointed 3 years before (6 BC), suggest Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was appointed as the commander in Germany by Augustus in 6 BC, and three years later, in 3 BC,
• Under his command were constructed causeways suggest Under his command causeways were constructed
• The elite of the Cherusci tribe came to be special friends suggest changing special friends to close allies
• he called the attack off and concluded peace with Maroboduus who is he here? Augustus? Tiberius? Should specify.

Prelude

• Following Tiberius's departure to Illyricum, Augustus appointed Publius Quinctilius Varus to the German command. It was assumed that the province of Germania Magna had been pacified, and so Varus had begun integrating the region into the empire. There was a risk of rebellion during the military subjugation of a province, so Augustus had to appoint an experienced officer like Varus for the job. As the main military operations were thought to be over, a brilliant military leader was not considered necessary suggest reorganizing this a bit, to Although it was assumed that the province of Germania Magna had been pacified, and Rome had begun integrating the region into the empire, there was a risk of rebellion during the military subjugation of a province. Following Tiberius's departure to Illyricum, Augustus appointed Publius Quinctilius Varus to the German command, as he was an experienced officer, but not the great military leader a serious threat would warrant.
• Arminius of the Cherusci. Arminius was considered an ally of Rome, and had fought in the Roman army before suggest Arminius, who Rome considered an ally, and who had fought in the Roman army before.
• On their way back to Xanten suggest using the Roman name Castra Vetera, as neither is really a household name.

Victory of Arminius

• Wells and Abdale suggest Historians Wells and Abdale
• Varus must have realized the severity of his situation and killed himself with his sword suggest removing must have

Campaigns of Tiberius

• However, the campaigns did, combined with Rome's alliance to the Marcommanic federation of Marbod, effectively prevent the anti-Roman Germanic coalition led by Arminius from crossing the Rhine to invade Gaul and Italy somewhat convoluted, suggest However, the campaign, combined with Rome's alliance to Maroboduus, prevented the Germanic coalition, led by Arminius, from crossing the Rhine to invade Gaul and Italy.

Campaigns of Germanicus

• or that Tiberius found it necessary to stop Roman expansion suggest changing or that to or if
• Rome handed annexed lands over to friendly chieftains and withdrew from most of Germany. They considered German lands too poor for annexation and the people too wild suggest Rome handed annexed lands over to friendly chieftains and withdrew from most of Germany, as they considered German lands too poor for annexation and the people too wild
• not to expand Rome's borders suggest rather than to expand Rome's borders

Aftermath

• Suggest mentioning the 40,000 casualties here, to avoid having to link in the infobox.

Did the bold fixes so far, I will wait for you to finish and do the other prose suggestions all at once or explain why certain ones are better as are (I am mostly just poor with word order so almost all will probably be better as you suggest). SpartaN (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@SpartaN: That is all of my suggestions. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Alright I did all the prose suggestions, attributed the quote as cited by Wells (and incidentally Abdale among others like Lindsay Powell) about the campaign of Drusus in 9 BC. The 40,000 figure appears in a couple sources as an estimate but there's no real breakdown of casualties or manpower on either side beyond the Battle of Teutoburg Forest so I'm unsure it's worth it to include in Aftermath without that (i.e. it'd be more of a standalone sentence than an explanatory paragraph). SpartaN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes following the disaster at Teutoburg, but decided to leave Germany because its land was not considered valuable? Source: Wells (2003), The Battle That Stopped Rome, pp. 206–7

Improved to Good Article status by SpartaN (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Source is offline but happy to AGF. However, in the article the statement “they considered German lands too poor for annexation” is sourced to p.204 of Wells. pp.206-7 referred to above is used to support that they that “it was too costly in economic and military resources” to go into in Germany. I guess either way the hook is sourced but could you clarify the exact sourcing of the hook.
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Interesting thorough article, well-written with good quality sourcing. Earwig shows no issues. Just a minor query around the hook sourcing but otherwise will be good to go. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I found the web link that (for me) shows a preview if you're able to see it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mc30CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206

SpartaN (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@SpartaN: Thanks for providing the link. It’s prompted a couple of thoughts for me. Firstly, Wells doesn’t seem to be saying the reason for the withdrawal is definitively known (“… the reasons for these decisions must have lain…”) i.e he’s making an assumption, however well founded. The hook is more definite than Wells is. Secondly, Wells’ emphasis is on the strength of the resistance being behind the reason - the poor value of the territory makes it “not worth it” because of the strength of the resistance. That’s not quite the same as just saying the land wasn’t valuable. (I notice the text you used in the article on this reflects that effort/value ratio issue.) To fix both points would you be prepared to consider an ALT1 which after “…Teutoburg” continues something along the lines of “…likely decided to leave Germany because the military effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?” although there may need to be some trimming to get it into the 200 character limit. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SpartaN and DeCausa: It's been over a month since the last comments here, have there been any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  From my point of view I’m waiting for SpartaN’s reply to my last post here. But I notice they haven’t edited Wikipedia since then, over a month ago. So I’m not quite sure what can be done. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. Given that there's really only one issue holding the nomination back, would anyone be willing to adopt this in case SpartaN doesn't return? It would be a shame if the nomination failed at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what exactly are the DYK rules on this but, subject to that, options could be (a) I propose an ALT1 hook and someone else signs it off; (b) someone else proposes an ALT1 hook and I sign it off; (c) if anyone disagrees with me on the original hook I’m happy to step away and they sign it off. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the Wells source and concur that it is saying the withdrawal was more down to the ratio of effort required to potential reward, and have boldly tweaked the copy in the article to reflect this. For what it's worth, I think ALT1 works just fine. firefly ( t · c ) 11:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I’m just going to formalize the ALT1 and let someone else add the tick and sign off:

• ALT1:... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes after the disaster at Teutoburg but likely decided to leave Germany as the effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?

DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since the reviewer has proposed a new hook, another editor will be needed to sign this off. I'm not sure though if the section linking in the bold links is allowed, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  sorry, I missed that. It’s not even necessary to link to a section of the article so I’ve taken it out of ALT1. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• As this doesn’t seem to be moving I’m going to give ALT1 the tick as original reviewer. If the DYK regulars think this is out of process because I came up nwith ALT1 then happy for it to be reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• DeCausa, there is no rush to approve, and your approval of your own hook was indeed out of process. I have reverted SL93's promotion of the nomination to prep, and with any luck a new reviewer will be around soon enough to review your ALT1. (SL93, you're welcome to review it, but that means you cannot also promote it.) I've also struck the original hook due to the issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset Sorry for mixing up who approved it. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't notice the second sentence of the approval...not sure how that happened. Sorry, again. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• DeCausa Reading through the article again, your ALT1 hook seems to be mostly verifed in the Aftermath section, but I'm not seeing any indication of it being "likely". SL93 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that’s true. Where that came from was, in the above discussion with SpartaN on the original hook, they cited Wells in support. Wells says, in relation to Tiberius’ decision to ‘give up’, that “The reason for these decisions must have lain in the Germans’ tough resistance”. I’ve taken that to mean Wells’ was inferring Tiberius’ reasoning without direct evidence (or certainty) of Tiberius’ actual reason. However, you’re right that the way the article is written is more certain. I’m ok striking the “likely” or, possibly it would be better to amend the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section to be more reflectve of Wells. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• I will leave this here for someone else to look at. It would be helpful if the nominator came back. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Given that the nominator hasn't edited since October and no one else has offered to adopt this nomination in his place, it appears that there may no longer be a path forward for the nomination. Hopefully the issues with ALT1 can be sorted out soon but if that can't happen within a reasonable timeframe the nomination should probably be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I’ve taken another look at the Wills source and it does have this unqualified sentence: “The effort Rome expanded on the campaigns was vastly out of proportion to any conceivable gain from acquiring this new territory”. (p.206) On that basis I should strike the “likely” from ALT1 which I’ve done. Someone should be able to sign this off now. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1 Good to Go. I haven't seen the reference myself, but with a big nod to User:DeCausa, the original reviewer who has adopted the nom and HAS seen the page, I see nothing incorrect with their original DYK review. A double check of sourcing as quoted above seems to have settled ALT1 as approved. Solid GA reviewer Sturmvogel 66 can be trusted to put quality forward as well. Well prepared for the mainpage. BusterD (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P1

Death of Varus

@Kansas Bear and Proffet123: While the 2003 Wells book cited throughout the article does state that Varus and other officers committed suicide (see Google Books search result), I don't think the KIA template should point to the article on suicide. If appropriate for an infobox KIA mention, I think it would look better in parentheses after "KIA". Eric ^talk 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My only concern is that the article does not state Varus committed suicide, therefore the infobox can't state that. If the information can be added, appropriately, to the article with secondary sources, then I see no problem with the infobox indicating suicide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find it down in the section on Arminius. Eric ^talk 12:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it. I searched for "suicide". Meh --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)