The clades Variana was a major Roman defeat, occurring over three days of fighting in AD 9. Three Roman legions and several units of auxiliaries were destroyed, and their commander, Publius Quinctilius Varus, died at the climax of the fighting. Suetonius said that the army paid the price for its general's temeritas and neglegentia, and many other commentators, both ancient and modern, have condemned Varus as a general ever since. This paper re-evaluates Varus’ competence as a general by re-examining the extensive literary and archaeological evidence for the clades, with reference to comparative literary evidence that shows how Roman generals usually reacted in comparable situations. It will be argued that Varus’ aggressive march towards a rumoured rebellion with a large baggage train, his re-organisation of the baggage train, his change of course westwards, and even his fatal advance into the defile at Kalkriese, were logical decisions in the context of standard Roman military responses to crisis. It is shown that Varus was hamstrung by intelligence and logistical limitations that were not peculiar to him but were systemic to the Roman army at the time. Varus’ generalship is thus contextualised as relatively competent, although uninspired.

中文翻译：

---

P. Quinctilius Varus 在 Clades Variana 的将军

这进化枝瓦里亚纳这是罗马的一次重大失败，发生在公元 9 年的三天战斗中。三个罗马军团和几个辅助部队被摧毁，他们的指挥官 Publius Quinctilius Varus 在战斗的高潮中丧生。苏埃托尼乌斯说，军队为其将军付出了代价泰莫里塔斯和疏忽，以及许多其他古代和现代评论家，从那时起就谴责韦鲁斯为将军。本文通过重新审视广泛的文学和考古证据，重新评估了韦鲁斯作为将军的能力。进化枝，参考比较文学证据，显示罗马将军通常在类似情况下的反应。有人会争辩说，韦鲁斯带着一辆大型行李列车向传闻中的叛乱进军，他对行李列车的重组，他向西改变航向，甚至他致命地进入卡尔克里塞的污点，都是合乎逻辑的决定。标准罗马军事应对危机的背景。事实表明，韦鲁斯受到智力和后勤限制的束缚，这些限制并非他独有，但对当时的罗马军队来说是系统性的。因此，韦鲁斯的将领被语境化为相对称职的，尽管没有受到启发。