A common theme in films about Antiquity and the Middle Ages is the struggle between evil invaders and a peaceful people who, led by a hero often portrayed as a man forced to take up arms because of the unbearable infamies committed by foreign oppressors, succeeds in driving out the invaders, thus recovering or maintaining its freedom. In the history of cinema, there has been no lack of directors who, sometimes with the help of political organizations or even of states, have used this narrative technique to condemn modern oppressors and invite oppressed of their time to imitate the exemplary behavior of their ancestors.
Letâs chase away the Romans, actually the French
In 1924, Die Hermannschlacht (The Battle of Hermann) by German theater director and playwright Leo König was released. The film recounts the events resulting in one of the worst defeats suffered by the ancient Romansâthe Battle of Teutoburg in 9 AD. They fought against some Germanic tribes led by the Cheruschian chief Segimer and his son Arminius. According to Roman historians (the only available ancient sources), the behavior of the Roman general Varus caused that defeat by antagonizing the Germans with his interventions in the fiscal and administrative field. After having collaborated and fought with the Romans, having become a Roman citizen, and having obtained important positions among them, Arminius considered the Romansâ behavior to be unbearable and so led their troops into a trap in which most of the soldiers were killed (the general Varus committed suicide not to fall into the hands of the enemies). The episode marked the end of the Romansâ expansionism east of the Rhine River. About ninety years after that battle a Roman historian called Arminius the âliberator of Germanyâ and wrote that the Germans celebrated him in their songs.
In the fifteenth century, German authors Germanized Arminiusâ Latin name into Hermann (literally âarmy manâ), turning him into the savior of their people and glorifying his victory over the Romans as the founding event of Germanyâs power. In 1875, four years after the coronation of the king of Prussia as emperor of Germany, a ceremony was held to certify the rebirth of German power (the Second Reich). During the ceremony, a huge statue of Arminius was unveiled near the site where the Battle of Teutoburg was believed to have taken place. Significantly, the statue was not facing south, i.e. Rome, but west in the direction of France, modern Germanyâs worst adversary, which the Prussians had defeated in 1870.
It is no coincidence that the symbolism inherent in that statue was revived during the period in which the film was conceived, produced, and presented to the public. Having defeated Germany in World War I, the victorious nations, particularly France, imposed harsh conditions on the German government that aimed to limit its economic and military power. With this goal and the aim to ensure the payment for the damages suffered in the conflict, the French and the Belgians militarily occupied the most industrialized and rich areas of Germany. The occupation of the Ruhr at the beginning of 1923 caused strong resentment in Germany towards the French and the members of the German center-left government who were considered puppets in the hands of foreigners. The occupation also strengthened the far-right nationalist movements. The situation was exacerbated by French troopsâ killing of German civilians during various riots, the blocking of economic activities in the Ruhr by the local population, the escalation of conflicts between right and left (in November 1923 Hitler attempted a coup dâĂ©tat in Munich), and a severe economic crisis with a huge inflation.
In order to have a full understanding of the movieâs goal, it must be remembered that the film was probably financed by Hugo Stinnes, an industrialist sympathizer of the nationalist right who played an active role in the fight for the Ruhr and who was among the economic backers of the âYoung German Orderâ, a paramilitary group of the extreme right. It seems that some members of this organization appeared in the film as extras. Although the directorâs political ideas are unknown, it is likely that he shared those of his sponsor.
The Battle of Hermann contains themes that clearly relate to the situation in Germany in the early 1920s. The nationalists often contrasted the representatives of the government with those who hoped for the rebirth of a strong and independent Germany. The former were portrayed as wily old politicians who only served their own interests and did not oppose the occupation of foreigners whereas the latter were depicted as the new and young forces of the motherland. The film uses a similar technique, depicting a clear generational division between those collaborating with the invaders and those wishing to oppose them. The former are middle-aged persons, while the latter are their children. Arminiusâs father, Segimer, governs under the dominion of the Romans and his wife favors the invaders to the point of pushing an orphan under her guardianship to be available to the advances of Ventidius, the local Roman commander. The girl, however, loves Sigismund, son of Segestes, who, unlike his father, wants independence from the Romans.
Obviously, there is no reference to the fact that Arminius had collaborated with the Romans and fought at their side. At the beginning of the film, Arminius is in Rome as a hostage and is eager to regain his freedom. The young man loves Tusnelda, the daughter of Segestes, but another Germanic leader, Marobod, promises to ally himself with Segestes under Roman tutelage in exchange for his marriage to Tusnelda. In order to eliminate Arminius, the two devious leaders cowardly attempt to poison him.
Ventidius is portrayed as a perfidious and arrogant man who mercilessly exploits the Germans and does not hesitate to carry out harsh reprisals against those who dare to oppose any of his decisions. The film also references the accusation of having designs on German women that was used to characterize the occupants of the twentieth century. In the film, the Roman commander has a Germanic girl kidnapped to satisfy his carnal desires. Arminius succeeds both in rescuing the Germanic women from the Romans and their Germanic allies and in uniting the hesitant chiefs of his people who elect him their leader. Through such unity, the Germans inflict a crushing defeat on the Romans at whose side Segestes had remained; he is symbolically killed during the battle by his son Sigismund who, equally symbolically, had not recognized his father.
To reinforce the main theme of the filmâthe liberation of the homeland can only come about through the replacement of the ruling class with young heroes who are the bearers of true Germanic values and the unity of the Germanic peopleâan instruction booklet accompanied the film. The booklet appealed to patriotism and made reference to Germanic culture by mixing various elements of Scandinavian culture: the god of war Thor, the Norms (mythical creatures charged with controlling the length of menâs lives), and the equally mythical Valkyries, immortalized by the famous German musician Richard Wagner (1813â1883) in a very famous opera (many German nationalists adored Wagner and had a considerable fascination with Germanic and Scandinavian myths).
Since many details mentioned in that booklet do not appear in the film, which had a rather low budget and was probably produced quickly as propaganda, and since it could not be assumed that all viewers had read the âinstructionsâ, the premiere of the film, which took place in a small town near the statue of Hermann/Arminius, was preceded by a speech by Paul Warnke, a nationalist intellectual, called âthe poet of the fatherlandâ by the newspapers that advertised the event. In a packed movie theater, Warnke read a poemâpublished a few days later in a newspaperâin which he recalled the unity of the Germans and the contemporary situation, comparing quite clearly the ancient Romans to the modern French. After praising Hermann and his fight against the ancient Romans, he added:
In Franceâs eternal fight against Germany, which is the struggle of lie against truth, of darkness against light, the pure sword will achieve its due victory. Then will come the day of vengeance on which we will push back the enemy from the Saar and Rhine. Then we will break the fetters of slavery and be as German and as free as our Fathers!
The spectators greeted his speech with great enthusiasm. For those who could not benefit from the poetâs introduction, the contacts between the past and the present are emphasized immediately after the title of the film with the following prologue.
In Germany the Roman scourge rules. Arbitrary despotism of a Rome lusting for conquest extended far into Germanic lands. Ruthlessly, the Roman armies of mercenaries savaged [the country], torched and looted with Gallic hatred. Hermann, the son of Cheruscan chief Segimer, is in Roman service as a hostage under the name of Arminius.
The reference to mercenaries and âGallic hatredâ does not mean that the Romans used troops from Gaul but instead highlights that the modern Gauls, i.e. the French, were present in Germany only for the money.
Various themes dear to the nationalist right, such as the dishonorable behavior of enemies who exploited Germanic women, the freedom of the Germans, the need to find unity to fight the oppression of foreigners, honor, and the sacredness of the homeland, are clearly outlined in a brief dialogue between Arminius and the Roman general Varus.
Arminius: Disgrace upon Rome! It robs a defenseless people and violates their women!
Varus: We are the victors!âWe are the power!
Arminius: A united Germany you, Rome, will never subdue!
Varus: You, too, will have to bow to my power!
Arminius: Never!!! We may be defenselessâdishonorable we are not, for ours is soil and right!
Another scene in the film emphasizes the need for a strong leader (fĂŒhrer in German) to save Germany by restoring its unity and power. The return of the victorious Arminius is greeted thus: âHail Arminius! Savior of Germany!â This need, strongly supported by the right-wing nationalists of those years, became a key component of Hitlerâs propaganda in Germanyâs subsequent and much harsher crisis in the early 1930s.
There is also no lack of an invitation to modern German women who, despite the dramatic situation, were to make their contribution to the resistance against foreigners and to preserve the honor of the homeland. As it is typical of periods of strong economic crisis characterized by the occupation of foreign troops, the number of women who prostituted themselves out of necessity was very high and a source of great dishonor for German nationalists when they sold themselves to foreign soldiers. In the film, the scene in which the blonde and beautiful Tusnelda refuses the heavy advances of the Roman commander Ventidius is commented in this way: âIf all women in the country thought like her, the cause of the Germans would be better off.â
It was not only the âpoet of the fatherlandâ who received the enthusiastic assent of the premiere audience. Numerous scenes met with thunderous applause, and the end of the film was immediately followed by a standing ovation and the singing of the German anthem. In the following days, local and regional newspapers praised the film, emphasizing its points of contact with the contemporary situation. The only newspaper to criticize the movie for its exaggerated nationalism was a newspaper of the Social Democrats, traditional opponents of the right-wing nationalists.
The death of the filmâs financier a few months after the premiere led to the dissolution of the film company, and this probably led to the non-distribution of The Battle of Hermann. The end of the French occupation in 1925 and the advent of sound films also quickly made its viewing unattractive, and the film disappeared from circulation. Fortunately for scholars, a copyâprobably confiscated by the Soviets when they conquered a part of Germany in 1945âwas discovered in 1990 in Moscow.
