Arminius and the Teutoberg Wald...a few questions...

[Anonymous]

I have a few questions concerning Arminius' arrival back in Germania and I'd appreciate your help...<br>
<br>
1) When Arminius returned home to Germania, I understood that he was in his mid-twenties. I was under the assumption that Roman military service was for at least 25 years. Was it different for foederate troops? Or for the "hostage-princes" taken by the Romans? Why did he return home at such a young age?<br>
<br>
2) I also understood that Foederate commanders lead their own "national" troops. When Arminius was "conscripted" did 200 other Cherusci warriors enlist at the same time? If not, how was he promoted in the face of another, presumably Germanic, commander?<br>
<br>
3) When Arminius returned to Germania, did the remainder of his equestrian force return with him? A man at the head of such an armed and experienced force would seem to be a formidable political force among the Cherusci.<br>
<br>
4) When he returned home, how was Arminius able to exert such political dominance over his tribe so quickly (including directing the apparantly suicidal attack on three Roman legions) despite the existance of the long-standing tribal dominance of his father and father-in-law?<br>
<br>
Thanks <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The terms of service for auxiliaries is unclear in the Agustan period. The 25 year enlistment appears in the fime of the Flavians. It is possible that Augustan auxiliaries were merely levies of client tribes that served for a specific campaign or limited period. They mave even have used their native arms and armor. Arminius was still in Roman service at the time of his defection and commanded German auxiliaries which we assumed defected with him. The term Feoderates does not appear until much later in the empire, so his troops should not be classified as such. It was common for auxiliary tribal levies to be led by their own chieftains, this probably did not change until the Flavians formalized the auxiliary unit structure and recruitment. Arminius had been awarded Roman citizenship but I'm not clear from Tacitus' writings what the award was for, valor in fighting for Rome (but what incident/battle?). I have found no details on any of his fellow auxiliaries/hostages. Evidently Arminius was already a young man of some influence since he was serving as a hostage for the good behavior of his tribe. That influence, his own personal powers of leadership and persuasion (which must have been formidable) plus the alienation of the tribes due to Varus' repressive measures must have all contributed to Arminius' successful coalition building, planning and execution of the trapping of Varus' legions. <p></p><i></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Jeff has already answered most of your questions. I would add, in relation to your last one, that it was not Arminius alone who planned the rebellion. Dio says that his father Segimerus was also involved in the plot and was present at the time of its execution. Interestingly, he does not get mentioned later in Dio's account and, unlike his brother, doesn't seem to have played a role in the resistance to Germanicus' campaign six years later, so perhaps he died sometime after 9 AD. He could even have been killed in the battle.<br>
<br>
Leadership in the western Germanic tribes in this period was quite a fluid thing - it was more a matter of influence rather than autocracy. An influential, charismatic and successful noble could win a widespread following and influence the decisions of the tribal assembly, but they didn't "rule" as such and when they couldn't convince the warriors that their course of action was best they could be ignored, as happened to Arminius at a crucial point in his battle against Caecina. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<br>
<br>
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
<br>
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Note that the terms of <em>foedus</em> and <em>foederati</em> did exist at the time and were used by contemporary authors, but that modern historiography usually reserves the latter word for late Roman allied forces. Modern works tend to use a more standardised vocabulary because it suits our modern way of thinking and love of narrow classification, using <em>socii</em> for the republican period, <em>auxilia</em> for the early imperial era and <em>foederati</em> for later centuries when such terms were used in Antiquity throughout the entire period. Saddington provides an overview of the varied vocabulary employed for the various auxiliary forces.<br>
<br>
The auxiliary forces of the Roman army comprised a variety of regular and irregular formations, some serving only for the duration of a (set of) campaigns, others for prolonged periods. The rank and file of regular auxiliary units seem at first not to have had a fixed length of duty, often literally enlisting for life. Even after the term was nominally set at twenty five years, auxiliary soldiers were regularly serving beyond that period, either voluntarily in hope of further promotion or forced to do so.<br>
<br>
Saddington, D.B., <em>The development of the Roman auxiliary forces from Caesar to Vespasian</em> (Harare 1982).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>