Talk:Arminius

message: 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)
thread_title: Steinhuder Meer

message: 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)
replies: text: ?? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — LlywelynII 10:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacob Hermann

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Many centuries later", "the 1500s" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This Article is Biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern descendants: family legend 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Angrivarian Wall 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Cherusce Tribe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman retaliation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romanized name of Gaius Julius Arminius 

message: 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)
replies: text: He died in 19CE. And fixed.HeinrichMueller (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with the "Legacy" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  picture renewation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — LlywelynII 10:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Law: Common Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Led to the fall of Rome in 476? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hostage in Rome 

message: 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 Polybius, Historiae, iii.117 or Cannae Plutarch. Life of Crassus, 31.7. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Greatest defeat 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Man of war"