Arminius the Commander

 

In all his battles against the Romans, Arminius applied the tactics that were best suited to the fewer numbers of his men, their less powerful weaponry, and the nonexistent military training and discipline of his peasant warriors. Basically he always acted according to the same principle: to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position in which he could not develop his full fighting force. That was the only way in which the Germans could hope to defeat them. He accomplished this by using various tactics that were always tailored to his methods of warfare. These are the same methods that were successfully applied during the Korean and Vietnam wars against a vastly more powerful enemy.

 

The greatest strength of the Germanic tribesmen lay in the fact that they were defending their own territory. As children of nature, they had grown up in forest, marsh and mountain. They would have been at a complete disadvantage in the open field or in siege warfare. In a powerful initial assault they could hope to break through enemy lines with their usual wedge-shaped “Boars Head” attack formation. Against the shield walls of professional armored legionnaires who were experienced in combat, however, they could achieve as little as against the moats, walls and catapults of a fortified Roman camp.

 

Arminius, who had been trained as a Roman officer, was familiar with the weaknesses of both sides; therefore he always avoided trying to overwhelm the enemy with blind fury and raw power. His methods of conducting warfare, cunning, and commensurate with battlefield conditions, clearly show that he was a master of tactics and maneuver. Independent and eclectic, he availed himself of a variety of means and methods that continue to be practiced in modern warfare to this day.

 

It is easy to recognize the following tactics used by Arminius:

 

Wearing down and demoralizing the enemy. This consists of constantly disturbing him during the march and allowing him no sleep at night in order to physically and psychologically exhaust him.

 

Fake attack, feigned flight: Deceive the enemy - trick him into reorganizing, which is disadvantageous for him. Trick him into regrouping his forces and pursuing you, in order to lead him into an ambush or terrain trap.

 

Flank Attack: When the enemy is marching in extended formation, especially in advantageous terrain, attack his unprotected flanks, preferably from thick woods or mountain cliffs. In such situations, Arminius liked to simultaneously separate the enemy vanguard, rearguard and baggage train from the main column, then surround and overwhelm them individually.

Encirclement of Isolated Elements: He did this primarily with mounted trops in rapid marches, often under cover of a fake attack.

 

Formation of Reserves: Several combat actions show that Arminius was familiar with the formation of reserve detachments. He used them in the same way as the Roman army, recalling that Ariovist was defeated by Caesar on account of his lack of reserves.

 

The Shock Value of Surprise Attack: For example, a lightning attack from ambush followed by sudden disappearance. Since primeval times, warriors have aimed for shock effect through the use of war paint, tattoos and masks. If they were able to surprise the enemy, they would so startle him that for a decisive moment, before he could collect himself, he was unable to react and so easier to subdue. Varus’ troops experienced a paralyzing shock when they were suddenly attacked by their own auxiliaries. It is doubtful that Germanic warriors used warpaint, as did the Britons. If they had done so, it would have been reported as a defining characteristic.

 

Delaying Tactic: The aim of this tactic was to bring the enemy to a halt and delay him as long as possible in order to gain time to develop rearward positions, make new preparations or organize counterattacks.

 

Exploitation of Terrain: One of Arminius’ most effective tactics was the thorough exploitation of natural terrain features and natural forces such as weather. These tactics often decided the outcome of the battle.

 

Arminius always surveyed his local surroundings with the alert eye of the outstanding strategist. For him forests and marshes as well as mountain cliffs, passes and waterways were the most reliable allies of all. He never failed to utilize them to the fullest. His warriors, intimate with nature from earliest childhood, retained their natural instincts, and they were accustomed to extreme physical exertion. They were all masters of improvisation of ambushes and traps such as hastily prepared log and earth fortresses in narrow passes, between waterways, mountain ravines and marshes. Their blockages of march routes presented dangerous obstacles to the Roman columns.

 

The Germans were adept also at erecting entanglements and engineering stone avalanches in mountain gorges and passes. On more than one occasion, Arminius won extensive militiary advanages by damming waterways.

 

In addition to these tactics, Arminius was skillful in developing permanent natural strongpoints. He did this both by improving natural fortifications on mountain plateaus (such as those in the Wiehen and Weser mountain regions) or in the midst of marshes with their secret pathways. He utilized these strongpoints in transferring men, supplies and weapons as well as caring for the wounded and providing recuperation areas for exhausted troops.

 

The Romans always had to carefully study and investigate difficult geography and terrain features through informants, and they were often forced to rely on undependable reports by prisoners and deserters. Arminius on the other hand could rely not only on his personal familiarity, but also on native guides who had known every pathway since early childhood. His own staff provided him with detailed knowledge of the topographical characteristics of every area in which combat operations took place – something that is hardly imaginable for us today.

 

How else would he have been in a position to force sequences of events on the enemy at all times -- even in the most difficult situations? Arminius was nearly always successful in applying appropriate tactics in combination with correct anticipation of the ensuing battle situation. Thanks to his ability to anticipate enemy planning and reactions, he was able to make necessary preparations for forcing favorable combat situations on the enemy. This is the only way he could compensate for the Romans’ great advantages in weapons, equipment and numbers.

 

Obviously, Arminius’ communication system was well organized. It functioned superbly. In addition to local informants who immediately reported every move the Romans made, he also had a system of mounted courier relays to deliver express messages. This allowed him to maintain constant communication with distant allies, without which he could not have moved large numbers of troops.

 

For example, the Brukterer, Marser, Tubant, Usipeter, Chatten and Angrivarii tribes had to know exactly where and when to attack in order to coordinate their actions. Furthermore the other tribes could assist him only if they were certain that their own lands were not threatened during their absence. Also, campaigns and battles could not take place during harvest time.

 

Once Arminius had been advised of the approach of the Romans, and his scouts had established contact, he was able to monitor their every move thanks to constantly arriving intelligence reports of enemy activities. On the basis of these reports he could make informed decisions and take appropriate measures.

 

The Romans had excellent scouts and an extensive network of spies, but they could not rely on an extensive intelligence network, as could Arminius. In addition, he enjoyed the great benefit of intimate familiarity with the terrain. This gave him a significant advantage over the Roman invaders even though he was militarily weaker.

 

We know that Arminius also sent spies disguised as turncoats who were able to provide important information as well as spread false rumors and reports. Often that unsettled the enemy and led him to take risky measures.

 

He also used modern ploys to persuade unhappy auxiliaries or war-weary legionnaires to defect, which we would call “psychological warfare” today. He made them generous promises not unlike those made in modern warfare. For example, before the battle of Idistaviso, he attempted to weaken enemy morale by offering each deserter land, a wife and a bounty of 100 sesterces. (A legionnaire’s yearly pay amounted to 900 sesterces.) This handsome offer was directed primarily at the Germanic auxiliaries, as Tacitus reports in his Annals.

 

In urging King Marbod to attack Germanicus in the East while he engaged him in the West and North, Arminius proved himself not only an outstanding tactician but an excellent strategist as well. If Marbod had cooperated, this would have led to an enervating and divisive two front war for the Romans. They would not have been able to wage such a war for long.

 

If we compare Arminius and Germanicus as to their qualities of leadership, it is quite clear that the Cherusker was at least equal to the Roman, and probably superior in several important ways. In comparing them, it becomes clear also that Arminius’ victory was neither a fortuitous coincidence nor dishonorable betrayal that concluded with a surprising success. Rather, it was a great military accomplishment, as his subsequent leadership abilities show at Idistaviso, the Pontes Longi and the Angrivarii Wall.

 

His unbending will to victory, the difficult standards he set for himself, his iron endurance and his lightning fast reactions to the unanticipated are all evidence of his genius in commanding.

 

His rapid advance to the Rhine following the Battle of Teutoburger Forest shows that he could not be satisfied with partial success once the way was open to realize the formation of a Germanic confederation, for which he always strove.

 

It was not his fault that he failed to achieve his ultimate goal, which was unification of the leading Germanic tribes to include the Markomanni under Marbod. In the final analysis there is no doubt that despite great internal and external opposition, Arminius was a commander for whom the world’s best-trained army was ultimately no match.