Talk:Arminius

Steinhuder Meer
In the year 16 Arminius was defeated by the Romans in a battle between Weser river and lake "Steinhuder Meer" - is it this what was meant by "Steinhunder"? --Reinhard 15:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Very likely - Google gives several hits for this, however most german. And it also gives several sites where Steinhuder Meer is spelled Steinhunder Meer. andy 15:51 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The name of the lake is "Steinhuder Meer". Steinhude is a small town, and Steinhuder is the genetive form, meaning "of" or "belonging to". Cosal 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Hermann
Curious why Jacob Hermann doesn't get his own page with a disambiguation, rather than having them both on the same page under Arminius. Laura Scudder 02:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ?? He does have his own page - Jacobus Arminius. I clarified by pruning it to a topline disambig, which is what we usually do for "less-likely" ambiguities. Stan 03:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be a pain, and I know I'm late to the game here, but Jacobus Arminius founded an entire system of theological thought. Is he really a "less-likely"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ngram is misleading because of the bias towards Christian discussions, but this page has had more than twice as many edits and typically more than 10× the traffic and only 9k of this page's 2.6 million pageviews involved anyone being annoyed they weren't getting the theologian and clicking over to the dab page. Even though the other guy should be linked directly in the dab, he's the much less notable one pending a huge wave of conversions to Dutch Protestantism in the English-speaking world. — Llywelyn II   10:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Segimer
I removed "Sygmyrgth", introduced by this edit, as I consider it a joke. --Matthead 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Arminius
The article treated the name "Arminius" as if there was a broad consensus about its meaning. This isn't the case. Some maintain that "Arminius" is a corruption of "Armenius" (suggesting that Arminius, during his time as a Roman auxiliary soldier, fought in Armenia), whilst others believe that it might be the name of the Patrician Roman family he was presumably associated with whilst in Roman service (a common practice). There is even a popular theory that Arminius is in fact the historical character behind Siegfried in the Nibelungenlied (an epic poem of around 1200) and other heroic poetry, both German and Norse. His name, then, would be something similar to Siegfried (especially since his uncle was called Segestes and his father, Segimer). So I guess there should be some discussion of the whole enigma of his name in the article. --Helmold 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * German Wikipedia has a whole section about it.
 * Indeed, and en: could benefit from a translation. The version given here is utterly wrong. The gist of what de: says is as follows:
 * Germanic personal names were never the names of deities, even assuming there was in fact a deity named "Irmin". Which is not at all likely - it is probably just a misreading of Odin's epithet jǫrmun "The Exalted" (cf. irmingot "Great God" in the Lay of Hildebrand). Male Germanic personal names were generally a composite of two terms (de: has e.g. "Gernot", from ger "spear" and not "danger", meaning roughly "spear in [times of] need").
 * What is as certain as it gets is that "Arminius" is 100% Latin, with no possible connection to his original name. Two possible meanings are "azurite-eyed" (a Roman term for azurite was armenium, "mineral from Armenia") - his brother's Roman name Flavus means "the blond one", after all -, or "adopted by gens Arminia". The latter seems more plausible, since the eye-color-name would be highly poetical. But the gens is not well-attested either. (If he had fought in Armenia - which as far as anyone can tell he didn't - it would have been Armeniacus or similar.)
 * "Hermann" is a Late Medieval/Early Modern coining, a rough translation of Tacitus' dux belli: Heer "army/host" + Mann "man", giving "man with an army". Luther may have invented it; he certainly popularized it, which helps to exclude the alternate and equally possible interpretation "man who is part of an army".
 * The only theory that does hold some water is that his original name was "Siegfried" - or rather, the ancient version thereof (Segifred/Sigifrid IIRC). The hypothesized Nibelungen connection nonwithstanding, personal names starting with "Se/i(g)-" were apparently a family tradition of his paternal lineage, which was common among those peoples. Also, it was not usual to name a child the same as a still-living ancestor. Lastly, there are several "Se/i(g)-" names attested for his male relations, but "Se/igifre/id" (though not uncommon at that time it seems) is not among them. Far from proof - and proof is impossible in this case - but it is certainly a strong contender. Similar names are also possible though, it is because of the suggestive Nibelungen connection that "Se/igifre/id" has attracted the most interest while similar alternatives are generally neglected.
 * So we can be fairly certain about three things:
 * his name followed the usual two-word composite scheme for Germanic male personal names
 * the first 3 letters were "Se/i(g)-", as per family tradition
 * his name was not Segestes, Segimer, or anything else borne by a still-living male relative.
 * But that is all that can be said, and probably it will not be possible to say anything beyond that. Just as likely as "Segifred" are for example "Segibald", "Segibert" and "Segiward".
 * In such cases I usually do what a proper scientist does: if nothing can be verified, tell 'em a nice story about what can be falsified. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * german=herman=arman. back than they still remembered that the origin of germanic peoples is caucasus or armenia.89.205.2.27 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone versed in this topic, I thought I would take the initiative to collate all these theories into the article. It mentioned two only, and felt terrible empty and sparse. I think it is at 90% now, and looks great. Let me know what you think. Cheers. HeinrichMueller (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's sad that this was all removed, but obviously we need reliable sources for it. — Llywelyn II   10:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Separately, the Cherusci page had this aside
 * (known in modern German as "Hermann der Cherusker", although his actual Germanic name was more likely Erminaz )

Obviously Geocities pages aren't reliable sources even if they did still exist but it's possible this is relevant and more likely than derivation from random Etruscan words. It would need new and better sourcing for inclusion, though. — Llywelyn II   17:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"Many centuries later", "the 1500s"
The article is slightly vague in places, for example saying that "Hermann" as a name for Arminius was invented "many centuries later" - I replaced this by saying "in the Reformation period". The article also claimed that the story of Arminius was revived in the 1500s with the recovery of the histories of Tacitus by German humanists. I changed "1500s" to "sixteenth century" since technically the 1500s only span the years from 1500 up to and including 1509. 1599, you mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.22.239 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This Article is Biased
The editor of this article has manipulated my research. I wrote down on this article a long time before that "He [Arminius]was ultimately unsuccessful in creating a united German front against the Empire, and was heavily defeated by Iulius Caesarius Claudianus Germanicus in subsequent Roman punitive operations (Tacitus, Annals 2.22, Suetonius, Caligula 1.4)." This is true, look for yourself.

Professor Goldsworthy stated, "Earlier in the same year Tiberius had refused an offer by a Cheruscan nobleman to assassinate the war leader, declaring that Rome did not employ such dishonorable methods. Clearly the victories of Germanicus were considered sufficient vengeance for Teutoberg Wald and the German leader was no longer felt to be a threat, since other Roman wars--notably that against Jugurtha--had been concluded by similar acts of treachery.  Power was always precarious amongst the tribal peoples and perhaps Tiberius simply trusted to this fact to remove Arminius in due course, as in fact occurred." Goldsworthy is a reknowned military historian of Rome and I would trust his judgment over the biased editor of this article.

From a non-biased perspective, Rome did succeed in one way. They secured Gaul from the threat of a united Germany which was successfully maintained through military action and diplomacy. As I state in the article, which is supported by evidence, that the security of Gaul by acquiring a strong frontier in Germany was the primary concern of Augustus; and in this objective the Romans were successful. I may be wrong, and I challenge the editor to dissprove me with actual sources that Rome did have the intention of completely conquering Germania either before or after the battle of Teutoberg Forest.

Goldsworthy says that Roman casualties for the victory at the Weser River were light, but also notes that Tacitus does not give any precise figures. I was wondering where in your research you determined that both sides suffered heavily. Tacitus says "It was a great victory and without bloodshed to us. From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies, while there were found amid the plunder the chains which the Germans had brought with them for the Romans, as though the issue were certain. The soldiers on the battle field hailed Tiberius as Imperator, and raised a mound on which arms were piled in the style of a trophy, with the names of the conquered tribes inscribed beneath them." (2.18)

Clean up your article Justinus Magnus 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"He [Arminius]was ultimately unsuccessful in creating a united German front against the Empire, and was heavily defeated by Iulius Caesarius Claudianus Germanicus in subsequent Roman punitive operations" But he ultimately succeded in keeping the Romans out of Germany and was hailed as liberator of Germania by Tacitus. From a non-biased perspective, Rome did succeed in one way. They secured Gaul from the threat of a united Germany which was successfully maintained through military action and diplomacy." No they didn't. They failed to occupy Germania and in the next centuries Germanic tribes repeatedly invaded Gaul. The Germanic tribes were not united before the Romans came and they were not united once the Romans left. In fact the only way Germanic tribes could have been united was under a a Roman province. So your claim the Romans' goal was not to unite the Germanic tribes is obscure. If the Romans had succesfully occupied Germany, it wouldn't have taken until 1871 until a united Germany was on the map...132.231.54.1 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it did not take until 1871. Just take into account the Holy Roman Empire. Its starting point was either 800 (Charlemagne) or 936/962 (Otto I) -- as you please. At least until the Interregnum, there *was* a unified Germany. In spite, the socalled Kaiserreich which was created by Bismarck in 1871 did not include Austria, which certainly is a German state.

Austria is certainly a german state? WTF!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.208.180 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Austria "was" a German state, even Golo Mann refers to the Austrians as Danubian Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.6.226 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern descendants: family legend
Are there any modern texts that refer to descendants of Arminius/Herrman?

Legend passed down within my family states that we are the "Guardians of Herrman's grave" or something to that effect. I have confirmed that other persons with the same surname (from distant parts of the U.S.) have had the same story passed to them.

My own father claimed that he once had an old history book that clearly spells out the surname in relation to Herrman.Varingos 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This post is 8 years old so I don't know if you'll see this but my family is supposedly descended from Arminius/Hermann the Cheruscan as well. The story of our ancestry between Arminius and the Middle Ages is lost but it's what we've always been told for some reason. I'd be interested if you or anyone has ever found anything on modern descendants. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Angrivarian Wall
Can anybody tell me what is Angrivarian Wall suppose to be? I tried to find the information across the internet and can find it. And everytime someone links it here, it gets delinked. Is there any information about this mysterious place?

Edwardadrian 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cherusce Tribe
I noticed that the name of Arminius tribe, the "Cherusces" is phonetically very similar to the name of the Slovene province of "Korushka" (Kärnten). Could it be that the so called "germanic" people of that time were in fact a mixture of germanic, but also slavic tribes, who were (later) germanized? Many slavic toponyms in germanic countries would tend to support that thesis. The name of "Berlin" for example, comes from "Brlyina" (place od water sources), Dresden from Drezga - forest of a certain species of trees. The river "Lippe" (Lipa - beautiful) Some lakes. The localities ending with the suffix "au", coming from the slavic "ov". And the fact that the toponyms remained suggests that slavic people were not exterminated or chased away, but progressively germanized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

good question, though highly doubtful. The Slavs only later came into the European scene, though there has been much speculation due to Pliny the Elders account of a tribe named the Veneti and a link between them and the area of Western Poland and the Baltic states. As of yet, there is no evidence of Slavic peoples west of the Oder River at the time of Arminius.Nathraq (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite correct. More correct would be that the Slavs only later came into **the written history** of the European scene. Beyond that, the absence of evidence is by no means the same as the evidence of absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.0.197 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent observation. First of all Germania is a geographic designation. There are indications from ancient chronicles derived from the writings of Wulfstan, Ibn Ibrahim and the Leyden Papyri which indicate that the inhabitants of Germania, at the time of the Roman incursions, were members of the West Slavonic or Lekhitic, Obrodite and Polabian tribes. Another interesting observation is that the Roman legions in the north of Europe were largely comprised of Batavians whose languuage is the precursor of modern German and Dutch. The eastern Roman Empire was administered by Greeks and Greek was the administrative language there. In the North the Roman Empire was administered by Batavians who occupied Brittania under Roman auspices and attempted to conquer the regions east of the Rhine. The administrative language of the Roman Empire in the North was Batavian (Germanic). The Leyden Papyri contain references of conversations that the Batavian Princes, among them Otto, would have with travelers and merchants returning from east of the Rhine. They would refer to this territory (Germania) as the land of the Wends. The word "Wend" is the Batavian (Germanic) word for Slav. Hpw did Germania evolve into the "Holy Roman Empire"? After Mieszko's marriage to the Catholic Czech Princess Dobrava and his subsequent conversion to Catholicism, he permitted Christian priests to cross the Rhine and proselytize his subjects. As a gift, in commemoration of his conversion and marriage, the lands between the Rhine and the Elbe were placed under the authority of the Pope. The Pope was a vassal of the German (Batavian) Emperor. These (Germanic) priests crossed into Germania and brought their language and religion with them. The adoption of a language by a local population favors structural simplicity. When two language groups make contact the grammatically simpler language is favored. In the 17th century the administrative language of Berlin transitioned from Polish to German. However, the ancestral languages of the Germans were still spoken locally across Germany up until the 19th century when Bismarck, a descendant of the Obrodite Nakon, and Von Bulow, a descendant of Prince Prybyslaw, consolidated the Germnan confederation and legislated the German language as compulsory. There are documents which demonstrate that as late as 1820 the peasants and artisans in and around Hanover still used the Polabian tongue at home and in the fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.120.67 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says “He was a son of a certain Segimer, a prince of the tribe of the Cherusci. . .” (See ) Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Herman
The translation of Arminius to "Herman" is wrong

i can only give u this german source: http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g41007/arminius.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.6.164 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what does it matter? If you're too lazy to punctuate and even spell words correctly, what does it say about your judgement on source material?

Roman retaliation
Hi, i "roughly" reworked the Roman retaliation section, please you corrige my english and you add "the links".I only translated the main steps from italian wiki, you find the links to italian wiki at the end of section .--Moqq (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanized name of Gaius Julius Arminius
I removed the reference to Arminius being referenced as "Gaius Julius Arminius", as there is absolutely no proof of this. The referenced book that stated such had no reference to the source in which they gathered this information.Nathraq (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably whover originally put it in was making the (not unreasonable) assumption that Arminius would have taken as prenomen/nomen the names of whoever granted him citizenship. However, as you say, I have seen no direct evidence of this. 62.23.212.67 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

References?
From the wiki article:

"as son of the Cheruscan war chief Segimerus"

Where does this information come from? There is no reference.

Segimerus according to Tacitus was the brother of Segestes whose daughter Aminius married... this would make Segimerius, Arminius' uncle by marriage not his biological father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwilliamhunter (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: this was from The Annals Book 1 by Tacitus, is there perhaps another source with contrary information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwilliamhunter (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Columbia Encyclopedia (6th Ed. 2008) Arminius' wife was named Thusnelda, no source is given for this however and it does not mention Arminius' father.

The Arminius Wikipedia article also mentions once that his wife's name was Thusnelda, again no source or reference is given. The Thusnelda Wikipedia article says that Segestes was her father, it does not mention Segimerus. The Segestes Wikipedia article does not mention Segimerus and there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article for Segimerus.

According to Strabo, Geography (VII.1.4) Segimuntus (Tacitus writes this Segimundus) and Thusnelda, were the son and daughter of Segestes and Arminius was the wife of Thusnelda.

Also in The Annals Book 2 by Tacitus he mentions Arminius as the son in law of Segestes.

There is a book by Marcus Velleius Paterculus called Compendium of Roman History which mentions Arminius' father was named Sigimeri.

I find online references to there being two men named Segimerus, one Arminius' father and one Thusnelda's uncle, but I can find no credible references to back this up.

I can find no other mentions of Arminius' father.

There is a book Roman History by Cassius Dio which mentions Arminius and Segimerus but it doesn't make clear the relationship between them.

The Segimerus mentioned by Tacitus is described as a chief and the Sigimeri (mentioned by Marcus Velleius Paterculus) as a prince.

Also if the Wikipedia article about Thusnelda is right that Arminius' son's name was Thumelicus, no reference. Then this goes against what people are saying that the sons name should have had the same start as the fathers name. Where in the case of Segimerus and Segestes being brothers and Segimundus being Segestes' son, it does make sense.

Lacking further sources I can't argue this either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwilliamhunter (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnwilliamhunter (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also according to Strabo, Thumelicus was the name of Arminius' son and Segimerus had a son named Sesithacus.

I can find no further sources mentioning Segimerus or Sigimeri and the ones I can find mentioning Arminius don't mention who his father was.

I can find nowhere any mention of Segimerus being the father of Arminius except for on the internet where it is only referenced once (as far as I can find), to Marcus Velleius Paterculus' Compendium of Roman History which says his father was Sigimeri, this book is described on Wikipedia; "The text of the work, preserved in a single badly written and mutilated manuscript ... is very corrupt."

If this is the only source, I must also note, using old Roman history books, even if they are in good condition, as primary sources, where the information can not be verified from other sources, is not considered academic.

As far as I can determine, this and other information in this article can not be verified.

Johnwilliamhunter (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article about Arminius says also that Arminius was the son of Segimer (lat. Segimerus) but it gives only the same one source: Velleius Paterculus 2, 118, 2 - which is far from reliable.

Johnwilliamhunter (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether that source is to be considered reliable in that instance is not up to us Wikipedians but scholarly literature, i.e. if scholarly literature considers the description of Paterculus accurate then it is good enough for us. And at least at first glance scholarly literature seems to accept Segimer as the father of Arminius (though the picture is less clear for some of the other names and relatives). See for instance:
 * Gerhard Winkler: Segimerus 1. In: Der Kleine Pauly (KlP). Band 5, Stuttgart 1975, Sp. 73.
 * Moosbauer: Die Varusschlacht. (p. 70)
 * http://books.google.de/books?id=2DfhiPXpFZsC&pg=PR26
 * http://books.google.de/books?id=GvjSxM_B_yIC&pg=PA106
 * http://books.google.de/books?id=Pao7AwAAQBAJ (chapter 3)
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/20656160
 * http://books.google.de/books?id=UTsyAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA222

--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Year of death
The article gives the year of death for Arminius as 21 CE, two years after that of Germanicus, but it seems as though current sources give the year of death as 19 CE, the same as Germanicus. Which is correct, and could the article and references be updated correspondingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.203.235 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * He died in 19CE. And fixed.HeinrichMueller (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the "Legacy" section
Parts of the "Legacy" section are poorly organised.
 * We have a sub-section called "Martin Luther" that says almost nothing about either Martin Luther (just that ML "rechristened" him "Hermann") and nothing about Armenius' legacy. The rest of that section is just alternative etymologies of Arminius, which probably should go elsewhere.  Plus, is "rechristened" really the correct term to use here?
 * Then there is the "German nationalism" section which seems to mash together a load of unrelated things without really explaining their relevance to German nationalism.
 * - An opera, that apparently became unpopular due to Napoleon, but no explanation is given, and this isn't even mentioned in its own article.
 * - By the way, the Nazis liked this opera!
 * - Also, a football team is named after him (which is relevant to German nationalism how?)
 * And finally there is the Popular Culture section, which as usual contains a mishmash of the plausibly important and utterly irrelivent. (Why are two operas in here, but a third in the "Nationalism" section?  Is one scenario in Rome Total War really important enough to mention?  How is a minor character in a novel relevent just because he happens to share the same name?)

My suggestion for improvement:
 * Scrap the "Legacy: Martin Luther" section. It has nothing to do with his legacy, and very little to do with Martin Luther.  The information there should be transfered to the "Biography" section.
 * The "Legacy: German nationalism" section should be improved. It is my understanding he wasimportant in this, but unfortunately I don't know enough ot the details to do it myself.  However, I expect the two operas mentioned in "Popular Culture" might have a place here, while the football team named after him would be better there.
 * The "Popular Culture" should be pruned of all examples of "Someone/something named after him" - it should only contain examples that actually relate to the man himself. (I'll leave otehrs to argue whether operas and video-game scenarios are equally worthy of inclusion). 109.154.117.142 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

picture renewation
on the picture - there stands someone on the steps... i think this is nonsense!

arminius was led by himself and not by someone else, or?

rm1911/meesdorfrangers

--188.118.129.232 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * it is the same style on the second picture, this time this "fette-wachtel"-ghost stands on that kuppel on the left... make sane pictures, without ANY influence - or do you want to lower the encylopaedie level? Rüdiger Müller, zSS (www.meesdorf.de)--129.70.6.13 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Law: Common Name
According to the Queen of Wiki, the Royal Wiki Law states that we must use "common name" for ALL articles. This figure's common name is "Hermann". Move to fix article title. Anyone else?73.220.34.167 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I added his German (common) name in parenthesis, as done with other articles. It looks a lot cleaner and less confusing. Though I still still think it would make more sense, and follow Wiki Law better if the article was titled "Hermann" and somewhere in the article it mentions "Herman was known as "Arminius" in Latin texts...".

By the way, with the arguments about his name. I am curious why "Arminius" is the name used here. "Hermann" IS the common name. The silliness of this is evident in the article show the picture with the caption "This is Hermann's Memorial. A dedication to Arminius." And leaves no explanation as to why the monument to Arminius is called "Hermann". Same with the replica Hermann Heights Monument in New Ulm, Minnesota known as "Hermann the German".

Anyhow, my tiny fix I think does wonders. But it still should be fixed on a bigger scale. But I am afraid to touch it, because wikipedia, though encouraging open-editing and volunteer contributions, has a lot of stalkers and bullies. So I am limited to minor edits, and thankful when those stick. If anyone here has authority from Queen Wiki to change the article, I suggest it a change to "Hermann" under Wiki Law on Common Names. Thank you!73.220.34.167 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * His common name is Arminius, which is why the article is here. No idea where you might've got the idea he's more commonly known as Hermann in English, but he never has been. — Llywelyn II   10:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction
The lead section says "his influenced waned" leading into his murder. But then the main body says he was killed because he was getting too powerful. Which is it? 107.185.36.26 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

further sources on historical reception

 * http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/germanischer-schlachtenheld-arminius-er-thront-ueber-allen-a-596976.html
 * http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ibaes10/publikation/burmeister_ibaes10.pdf
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=iJ3UDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT17
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=SrEf0_yFlMQC&pg=PA123
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=QJONWvksqYAC&pg=PA241
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=ZMC1CeQT4w0C&pg=PA121
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161263, pp. 102
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/20862306
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567880

Edward Shepherd Creasy and recent edits
The article should primarily reflect current/recent scholarly knowledge of and opinion on Arminius. Older (and often outdated) scholarly reception maybe incorporated or used in a historical reception section (as primary source), but they should usually not be used as sources elsewhere and other content should not be based on them.

Based on that I think the use of Creasy for extensive illustrative quotes is not appropriate, as Creasy seems in neither a particular eminent historian (say like Gibbon or Mommsen) nor does he provide a current scholarly assessment. For the same reasons he seems even more inappropriate as a source for article regular content (other than quotes).

Arnaldo Momigliano is somewhat more recent and eminent as historian and probably ok to be used as a source here. However his assessment of Tacitus' Germania is a disputed subject and somewhat off topic in this article. That material belongs in the article on Germania (book) rather than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you are correct regarding the insertion of Momigliano's views and long quotes from Edward Shepherd Creasy. However, Creasy's book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is still widely read, and there is no rule against using older sources on historical events. In this article Creasy's book was mainly used to highlight the Roman policy of taking noble children as hostages to catalyze Romanization, and to highlight the rising social inequality in the Roman Empire at the time. This description by Creasy does not contradict "current/recent scholarly knowledge of and opinion", so there is no reason to remove it. Krakkos (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still widely read or being available online is not a sufficient for being a used source as or included here. The material of the book is about 150 years behind current research and not even the site of his famous battle was known back then. The use of such old sources (in oarticular on historic subject) is by rule of thumb usually inappropriate. The policy you've linked states that more or less as well:
 * However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.


 * Not to mention that the whole section is entitled with "ages matters". So unless you can provide some convincing evidence that Creasy still being used and recommended in and by current academia, I will remove Creasy again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Led to the fall of Rome in 476?
The second part of this statement in the summary of Arminius' life seems like an enormous stretch, to say the least:

"His victory at Teutoburg Forest would precipitate the Roman Empire's permanent strategic withdrawal from Magna Germania, and made a major contribution to the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire several centuries later."

467 years later? A major contribution? This isn't mentioned in the battle's own wiki page, and probably for good reason. Half a millennium is a really long time to claim that sort of connection. "If the Roman Empire had expanded it's boundaries a bit more in the first century, then almost five hundred years later it's western part likely wouldn't have collapsed" is rampart What-If speculation that really doesn't seem to have anything to do with historical cause and effect. Eqbl540 (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2nd bit is way too much. Not sure about the first - the Agri Decumates were a partial expansion into Magna Germania, lasting a couple of centuries. Some might say he did the Roman Empire a favour, reducing imperial overstretch. Anyway the ref (barely a WP:RS) only says the first bit, so I have removed the second. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hostage in Rome
There is not a single piece of historical evidence that Arminius ever in his life visited Rome. Let alone that he was taken there as a hostage and grew up in the capital of the Roman empire. These are legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.77.156.138 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hohl and Durschmied
I removed two claims about Arminius' early biography, because at least at first glance I could not confirm then in recent scholary sources on Arminius and the given sources seemed somewhat problematic. Hohl's publication on Arminius is already rather dated (over 80 years old) and was published in Nazi Germany, which raises question on historical accuracy/quality in particular on such a subject as Arminius (being a propaganda subject). Durchschmied seems ok in general, however he doesn't really seem an expert Roman history/Romans in Germany, which also isn't really the subject of his book, hence he isn't really a high quality source for biographic details on Arminius life either.

Note, since Arminius was/is subject to a lot of propaganda, urban legends and historical myths, it is particularly important to rely on high quality sources as much as possible to avoid that historical legends or speculations end up in the article as supposed historical facts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That content specifically stated that Arminius was not a "hostage", as the term is commonly used, and Hohl's work on Arminius continues to be referenced, including in Winkler's 2016 "Arminius the Liberator: Myth and Ideology", which is listed as a source and cited in the article. Durschmied is already used as a reference, in the next line from the one you removed. Would you mind explaining your removed of the content I added? Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well Hohl is at least on the surface based on what I mentioned above and I'm not aware of Arminius being described as either "pignus" or "obses" in recent scholarly work. If some recent scholarly works does so, it might be a good idea citing that rather than Hohl.
 * With regard to Durchschmied he generally ok as source, however probably not for specific biographic details which aren't found on other scholarly sources on Amerminus. Does Durschmied cite a historic source or some scholarly source on Arminius having witnessed a massacre?


 * The problem with Arminius is that very little is really known from contemporary sources and much of various stories about him was added or speculated later. Hence i removed those two claims which i did not find elsewhere in recent scholarly sources for Arminius as precautionary measure as they struck me as somewhat dubious (assuming they are not backed up by other (recent sources) sources). However I certainly haven't read all schlolarly work that there is on Arminius and if other recent scholarly sources argue the same, i'd have no objection against that content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S.: One reason why I'm particularly wary of the hostage/pledge thing is that it sounds as version of Arminius and his brother being raised as pledges in Rome (which is a widespread historic legend of sorts). This in addition with absence of that story in recent sources on Arminius that I've read leads to me to believe we need a stronger source than just Hohl, even if Winkler (being an excellent source otherwise) references him. I did a little more research in (primarily) English literature on that issue and i still can't find that info anywhere but in Winkler/Hohl. The only thing i could find, were (ahistoric) Latin descriptions of Arminius in terms of pignus and obses from the early modern era and actual historic descriptions for his nephew Italicus (being advised by emperor Claudius) but not Arminius himself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Greatest defeat
Modern historians have regarded Arminius' victory as Rome's greatest defeat. This is a strong claim, supported by only one source. It is clearly an exaggeration. In terms of numbers killed, Carrhae or Cannae are both larger defeats, while Edessa or Adrianople both had more significant implications for the integrity of the Empire. 82.13.224.134 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Declaring it "the" greatest defeat certainly sounds indeed dodgy given a few other large defeats (against Carthage, Parthians and Persians as well to various germanic tribes in late antiquity).--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

US Statue
He looks like the statue of liberty. 2600:8806:2:3700:681F:5B48:9BD9:C49A (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Man of war"
In the Section "Name" you can read the following: Hermann etymologically means "Man of War", coming from the Old High German heri meaning "war" and man meaning "person" or "man". That claim is linked to vornamen.com a site that has literally 0 sources but lots of adverts. But even worse, that site says something totaly different. Quoting the site: " heri = das Heer, der Krieger (Althochdeutsch); man = der Mann (Althochdeutsch) " Here it says heri means Heer or Krieger. Heer is Army, Krieger is Warrior. None of those words mean war. Which is why the site concludes in the passage below "Mann des Heeres, Heeresman" meaning Man of the Army or Armyman.

I have doublechecked the book cited, it says the same as the website. --Pompeius92 9:40, 18. July 2023 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pompeius92 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)