This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!  (Read 1416 times)

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« on: May 16, 2021, 01:46:32 AM »
Greetings!

Are barbarian tribes in your campaigns highly skilled in ambushes and guerilla warfare? I was thinking about that as I watched this clip of the Barbarians program and recalled that such tactics--even when not performed on the same scale as at the Tuetoburg Forest--always presented distinct problems and hazards for Roman Legions. The music soundtrack here in the program is performed by the folk band Heilung--a band of musicians devoted to historically-inspired folk music of ancient Germania and Nordic culture.

I also thought it was interesting how on one hand, so many of the Germanic barbarians are unamoured--and conversely, the Roman's standardized heavy armour here, doesn't seem to help the Legionnaires very much. The Roman Legionnaires are cut down like so much helpless sheep.

Savage tribes of barbarians in the campaign--even when facing a more modern, and advanced opponent--are certainly not helpless, with their defeat a foregone conclusion. While the Romans in our historical examples achieved many victories in Germania, and other, similar rugged terrain, like the Danube region, they also experienced a great deal of difficulty in making a lot of enduring progress.

Such cultural as well as environmental dynamics are worthwhile in considering various political developments in the campaign, as well, of course, in inspiring many different kinds of adventure scenarios throughout a savage, mysterious barbarian frontier!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2021, 07:34:53 PM »
Greetings!

Dense forests full of savage barbarian tribes definitely serve as an obstacle for even large, advanced societies.

Do you have conflicts between civilized kingdoms and barbarian tribes in your campaigns?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

bat

  • A bottle in front of me..
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
    • Ancient Vaults & Eldritch Secrets
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2021, 11:25:22 AM »
I am making a deep forest situation in my Through Sunken Lands game in which vicious apefolk live deep in the forest and let no one pass through with the exception of very few, most trespassers are eaten. The apefolk carefully monitor the edges of the forest and they make disturbing calls to each other from the forest to communicate and to frighten off others. In combat they use the forest to their advantage as much as possible, with simple traps and obstacles used to kill, slow and intimidate any who would violate their forest.
Ancient Vaults & Eldritch Secrets

Sans la colère. Sans la haine. Et sans la pitié.

Jag är inte en människa. Det här är bara en dröm, och snart vaknar jag.


Running: Barbarians of Lemuria, Black Sword Hack
Playing: AD&D 1st Edition.

Greentongue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2021, 01:32:20 PM »
"Gorilla" warfare at its finest.
The environment can be the best weapon as long as the players don't feel you are intentionally giving them a hard time. 
Not all players have been in rough country to understand its dangers.

robertliguori

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • r
  • Posts: 85
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2021, 03:23:40 PM »
It depends on the time-scale.

In the short term, knowledge of the terrain and the ability to strike-and-fade, target your opponent's vulnerable baggage train, and similarly make being a smaller and less mighty force quite tenable in resisting a greater one.

In the long term, your enemy can just send in heavily defended woodcutters, and attrit away your environment bit by bit.

And in the medium term, a moderately-leveled wizard doing a bombing run of Fireballs on a dry autumn night can do a lot of damage to your forest home.  Now, if your barbarian tribe also has a strong druidic tradition, they have a much better chance of countering this, and also of making the ambushes even scarier, with wild-shaped druids being really amazing scouts...but a single druid allied with the incoming army could also go in as a heavily-advanced scout after the first major losses were taken, scout out the barbarian's defenses, and if they note any hidden settlements in their own prolonged scouting, making sure to report back via Message or Dream spells as to their exactly location, so when operation Fireball From Above starts, these settlements get hit first and hardest.

Basically, magic is a tactical element like terrain knowledge or numbers, and in most D&D worlds, the ability to marshall an actual army of fighting-men is pretty congruent with raising a few specialist casters.  So, you should take into consideration who's got what magics, and what kind of magic-users just make certain historic tactics or strategies doomed on their face.

Tantavalist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 60
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2021, 04:29:43 PM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2021, 05:05:23 PM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.
This all makes some sense...

And then you remember that you're playing 5e where the rapier is the ultimate weapon for all melee situations since (almost) all PCs except Barbarians dump Str and pump Dex these days.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2021, 02:22:45 AM »
Guerilla warfare is good when you have terrain advantage, but generally showing Germans as some savage barbarians vs civilisation is I think gross overexaggeration.
They may be way behind Rome in this day and age, but still were overall quite civilised people able to produce various tools of warcraft, including armor, and Roman legionnaries were not full clad either.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2021, 09:56:47 PM »
I am making a deep forest situation in my Through Sunken Lands game in which vicious apefolk live deep in the forest and let no one pass through with the exception of very few, most trespassers are eaten. The apefolk carefully monitor the edges of the forest and they make disturbing calls to each other from the forest to communicate and to frighten off others. In combat they use the forest to their advantage as much as possible, with simple traps and obstacles used to kill, slow and intimidate any who would violate their forest.

Greetings!

Hey my friend! Carnivorous Ape Folk! I love that! All them weird sounds they make!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2021, 10:38:50 AM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.

   The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were.  A phalanx is not.  Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks.  I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory.  HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics.  The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces.  No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded.  This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation.   Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march.  I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.

  edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough,   but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 10:45:21 AM by oggsmash »

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2021, 10:41:21 AM »
Greetings!

Dense forests full of savage barbarian tribes definitely serve as an obstacle for even large, advanced societies.

Do you have conflicts between civilized kingdoms and barbarian tribes in your campaigns?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  Yes.  The good old picts from REH on the western border of Aquilonia,  GURPS powered hyborian adventures game I run.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2021, 11:45:24 AM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.

   The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were.  A phalanx is not.  Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks.  I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory.  HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics.  The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces.  No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded.  This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation.   Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march.  I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.

  edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough,   but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.

Greetings!

Excellent points, OGG!

Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.

Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.

Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2021, 11:55:30 AM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.

   The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were.  A phalanx is not.  Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks.  I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory.  HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics.  The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces.  No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded.  This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation.   Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march.  I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.

  edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough,   but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.

Greetings!

Excellent points, OGG!

Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.

Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.

Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  Ceasar was a whole other animal.  He NEVER would have marched his men into a forest he had no personal knowledge of, ever.   He did get ambushed often and betrayed campaigning against the Gauls however, but he was a fantastic general who placed a high value on putting the best men as centurions and a good deal of confidence in their ability to react independently.  So I can not say if he would have handled the ambush better, I can say he would have never been in the situation though.   The wooded terrain alone, as I said offers NO advantage to barbarians.  If anything it limits them to a degree because the barriers of heavy forest in anything close to even confrontations prevents surrounding a formation, and historically, that is what tended to break an ancient army (routes from being surrounded).   Tight terrain does prevent centuries from being covered on their flanks, but Roman centurions were skilled at sealing a formation if temporarily flanked.  Problem is as we are discussing, numbers and being surrounded means you get worn down and lose. 

    Varus places WAY too much trust in his German-turned-Roman "friend" in this case.   But generally barbarian ambushes of Romans on the march did not go terribly well for the barbarians.   The main reason we remember this particular situation so well is that it is an extreme outlier.  it was not close to the first time Romans were outnumbered and ambushed, it is the first time it had spectacular success.    Gauls had victories in the past as well, but they were usually in pitched battles where they did not face the cream of the crop in Roman generalship (Romans had a system that theoretically trained men of quality to lead armies, but like anything else some people are much better than others than specific things).

   I would also say the lore of barbarians being better one on one fighters is not exactly the case.   Caesars legions for example were VERY much veterans, many having survived many wounds, many battles and having absolute faith in Caesar.   They more than maybe others were also very, very serious in arms and tactics training combined with a decade(s) of actual battlefield experience.  I would put most any of those guys any day of the week in a one on one against any barbarian.   It is one of the reasons Pompey absolutely refused to allow his legions to charge Caesar when they met on the field, and attempted to have them stand and toss pilum much more than was standard Roman doctrine.  He had good reason however, as once they clashed those veteran legions rolled over Pompey.   So I would say a generalization is hard to make.  A roman soldier was a full time, every day, all day soldier.  A barbarian warrior largely had a great deal of other worries in his day to day life, but certainly could fight. 
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 12:01:04 PM by oggsmash »

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2021, 12:08:02 PM »
  I will add this however, in my games the individual barbarian is every bit the trope of a muscular, virile powerhouse that civilized men never want to confront on even terms, even the picts who are smaller in stature than the Cimmerians or South Islanders are savage warriors and still tend to be tougher, stronger, and more determined than the average soldier they may come across. 

   I do prefer the REH vision of the barbarian for RPGs.  His vision does have some connection to Roman and Greek ideas about what the Gauls and Germans were like though, as they did tend to be a bit larger and stronger than Romans and Greeks, and certainly were fierce.  The biggest problems Barbarians armies seemed to have offered Roman forces though seemed to be from the tribes that had a decent investment in cavalry.

   Fun fact, Celtic barbarians (such as the Gauls) did seem to have in some cases of "breaking" male thralls by a bit of prison style sodomy.  Given Roman proclivities played up during some of their periods, I dont know how well that worked on them; Given how the Greek scholars were somewhat shocked at how often the barbarians indulged in pederasty though,  maybe it worked?  Like I said I prefer the REH version of ancient barbarians.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 12:24:11 PM by oggsmash »

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: Barbarian Ambushes in the Dark Forests!
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2021, 12:10:25 PM »
A key aspect of Barbarian vs. Civilised people in warfare was that organised armies learned that fighting in formation gave significant advantages against an enemy who charged in a mob. That was a factor in why such armies would face larger forces of "Barbarians" and win.

In dense forest such formations are impossible, and everyone has to fight in what amounts to a mob. In addition to losing the advantages of a formation, the weapons that soldiers trained to fight in formation used were optimised for use in them. The famous combination of short sword and large shield used by a Roman Legionary isn't what you'd pick as your first choice for a one-on-one duel, but being ambushed in a forest will turn the battle into a massive series of such duels.

And this is without the fact that the Barbarians may well know the terrain better than the Civilised invaders.

   The standard Roman fighting formation, the century is formable in the woods where they were.  A phalanx is not.  Centuries were also trained to be able to split and adapt, another reason the romans beat the brakes off the Greeks.  I do agree that culturally most barbarian cultures in europe put a great deal of emphasis on individual prowess and combat glory.  HOWEVER in this case they were also deploying plans laid out by a german who FULLY understood and implemented Roman combat tactics.  The most important of which was being able to heavily outnumber and surround separated Roman forces.  No formation can indefinitely survive being surrounded.  This is what beat the Romans, severe odds at all the places battle took place, not the inability to form a formation.   Romans marched in armor and gear and were drilled endlessly on forming up on the march.  I have doubts 1 on 1 duels did them in as much as being surrounded and worn down.

  edited to add - I would agree the terrain was key to getting the Romans strung out enough,   but that sort of terrain is more detrimental to cavalry focused armies (like many Medieval forces) than infantry and small unit tactics trained as the Romans were.

Greetings!

Excellent points, OGG!

Yes, I also think that the terrain and the climate influenced the Battle of Tuetoburg, in particular. Historians note well how the area was heavily forested, with periodic open areas. The line of the Roman march also had rough, uneven terrain, also with fallen logs that the German barbarians had placed there. And, much of the time, the Romans were being deluged by a heavy rainfall, which made them miserable of course, as well as adding some weight to their mostly wooden shields, soaked by the rain. Also, struggling to walk about through the rough terrain, up and down, avoiding dense patches of grass and shrubbery and bogs. I can imagine that the rain didn't do the Romans any favours when it came to hearing commands or commentary from their comrades. Plus, the German barbarians knew the area very well, while the Romans did not. The German barbarians were able to conceal themselves en masse all along the attacking flanks, hidden amongst the shrubbery and dense trees.

Definitely a challenging environment for the Romans, which seems to have certainly added some leverage in the German barbarians favour. The breaking up of the Roman's forces line of march into smaller detachements allowed the german barbarians to surround them in brutal combat. None of that, as you noted, favoured the Roman formation tactics which would have increased the Roman's "Force Multipliers" even against greater numbers of enemies. Instead, the Romans enjoyed none of those advantages, and suffered greatly.

Also, though, Varrus was, while a skilled administrator, he was not a skilled general. I'm reminded of how Caesar dealt with the Germans, as well as Germanicus and Tiberius both after the disaster at Tuetoburg Forest. With Caesar, Tiberius, and Germanicus, all three, they fought the same German barbarians, in the same general terrain, but of course also were not being ushered along into an ambush by a traitor officer, that was greatly trusted. I think though that their superior command skills and generalship held powerful advantages over a desk monkey like Varrus.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  Ceasar was a whole other animal.  He NEVER would have marched his men into a forest he had no personal knowledge of, ever.   He did get ambushed often and betrayed campaigning against the Gauls however, but he was a fantastic general who placed a high value on putting the best men as centurions and a good deal of confidence in their ability to react independently.  So I can not say if he would have handled the ambush better, I can say he would have never been in the situation though.   The wooded terrain alone, as I said offers NO advantage to barbarians.  If anything it limits them to a degree because the barriers of heavy forest in anything close to even confrontations prevents surrounding a formation, and historically, that is what tended to break an ancient army (routes from being surrounded).   Tight terrain does prevent centuries from being covered on their flanks, but Roman centurions were skilled at sealing a formation if temporarily flanked.  Problem is as we are discussing, numbers and being surrounded means you get worn down and lose. 

    Varus places WAY too much trust in his German-turned-Roman "friend" in this case.   But generally barbarian ambushes of Romans on the march did not go terribly well for the barbarians.   The main reason we remember this particular situation so well is that it is an extreme outlier.  it was not close to the first time Romans were outnumbered and ambushed, it is the first time it had spectacular success.    Gauls had victories in the past as well, but they were usually in pitched battles where they did not face the cream of the crop in Roman generalship (Romans had a system that theoretically trained men of quality to lead armies, but like anything else some people are much better than others than specific things).

   I would also say the lore of barbarians being better one on one fighters is not exactly the case.   Caesars legions for example were VERY much veterans, many having survived many wounds, many battles and having absolute faith in Caesar.   They more than maybe others were also very, very serious in arms and tactics training combined with a decade(s) of actual battlefield experience.  I would put most any of those guys any day of the week in a one on one against any barbarian.   It is one of the reasons Pompey absolutely refused to allow his legions to charge Caesar when they met on the field, and attempted to have them stand and toss pilum much more than was standard Roman doctrine.  He had good reason however, as once they clashed those veteran legions rolled over Pompey.   So I would say a generalization is hard to make.  A roman soldier was a full time, every day, all day soldier.  A barbarian warrior largely had a great deal of other worries in his day to day life, but certainly could fight.

Greetings!

For some odd reason, it isn't popularly known that after Tuetoburg Forest Tiberius and then, Germanicus, laid waste to the entire German frontier, in battle after battle, and prosecuting deep raids into Germania, that extracted a ruthless and severe cost on the Germanic tribes. The Empire struck back, and extracted a great and terrible vengeance against the Germans, and achieved a powerful series of victories.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b