Ingomer

 

Following the death of Duke Sigimer, the ruler of the Cheruskans, Arminius became has natural successor. Since he spent several years in the service of the Roman army and held the rank of prefect in an auxiliary detachment, his uncle Ingomer probably had high hopes of assuming Sigimer’s rank as duke, since he was next in succession. Ingomer’s hopes vanished in the year 7 AD when Arminius returned home in response to his father’s death. He was then around 25 years old, a born soldier and popular leader, well liked and self-confident. He quickly dispelled any doubt that he might not intend to succeed his father.

 

Like everyone in his clan, Ingomer initially belonged to the pro-Roman faction. The Romans considered him, along with Segestes, one of the most reliable Cheruskan leaders. His relations with his nephew, who returned to his homeland distinguished with high Romans titles and war decorations, was without doubt cordial and heartfelt at first. Perhaps he secretly admired the cosmopolitan and well-educated son of his brother.

 

However, when Arminius assumed the initiatives of leadership and made no secret of his political intentions, Ingomer’s concerns about being Sigimers successor began to grow, and these concerns were increasingly combined with envy. It began to annoy the older man to see that the younger man was far superior to him in intelligence, education, military experience, and charisma.

 

During the Varus battle and afterwards, he remained neutral and uncommitted. Like Segestes, he wanted to keep a door open for every eventuality. Not until the year 15, when Arminius’s wife Thusnelda was kidnapped and taken as prisoner to Ravenna, and Arminius mobilized the entire country, was Ingomer unable to resist the general support for Arminius. Along with his retinue he was then obliged to declare his support and join Arminius’ followers, although he did not subordinate himself to the younger man’s command. Sooner or later, such an arrangement was bound to lead to conflict.

 

Reading between the lines of Roman sources, we learn that Ingomer was often the unruly old warhorse, while Hermann was the thoughtful and organized strategic planner who carefully considered his every move. We suspect that differences of opinion often arose, since the older man often acted in a pig-headed, self-righteous and undisciplined manner while the younger man, because of his greater competence, became exasperated and failed to show the required tact. In the conduct of war, eccentricities and rivalries among allies are never good. Both men taken alone could have been brilliant leaders and parts of an ideal leadership team. They could have been similar to the team that developed 1800 years later between the cool-headed planner Gneisenau and the impetuous “Marshall Forwards” Blücher.

 

During the Germanicus wars they fought splendidly in the vanguard of their clan, as blood-related war comrades closely dependent on one other. Nevertheless, increasing rivalries with renewed tensions repeatedly arose, and some of these rivalries involved serious tactical mistakes that resulted in heavy and unneccessary losses. This caused their relationship to deteriorate. Ingomer was greatly annoyed because he always had to play the supportive role, while Arminius increased in stature to become the idolized hero of all the Cheruskan warriors.

 

It was beneath Ingomer’s dignity to continue subordinating himself without receiving what he considered his fair share of glory.

 

By the time the problem of predominance came about between the rivals Herman and Marbod, the alienation between uncle and nephew had progressed to the point that it caused an open break combined with treachery on Ingomer’s part. With his entire retinue, he went over to the side of King Marbod. The reason for this was more than just imagined affronts to his injured pride. It was also his resentment, distrust, even hate of his nephew, who was now standing directly in the way of his lofty and sinister plans. He was determined to assist Marbod in the decisive battle. Then, with Arminius out of the picture, he was hoping, with the help of the king, to finally achieve the rank for which he strove all his life – Duke of the Cheruskans. Without Arminius, Marbod would be the most powerful ruler in Germania -- and he would be deeply obligated to Ingomer. Neither blood relationship nor battlefield ties could restrain Ingomer, a man consumed by envy, impatience and opportunism, from betraying his nephew and former war companion. Ingomer went over to the side of his rival.

 

In the inevitable fratricidal war that broke out in 17 AD, he was praised and flattered by Marbod before his entire army. The king declared that all of Arminius’s brilliant successes against Rome had in fact been gained by Ingomer, while Arminius simply clained the credit!

 

We do not know precisely how the two Cheruskans behaved in the “indecisive” final battle. Did they seek each other out on the battlefield and cross swords in chivalrous conflict, as ancient heroes traditionally did? It is more likely that they avoided such a painful encounter.

 

The battle took place somewhere in the north of present-day Bohemia. If Ingomer survived, he probably accompanied Marbod, who was no longer capable of opposing Arminius, in the retreat to his mountain fortress. For Ingomer, a return to Cheruskan territory was impossible. By his despicable game, he had totally forfeited the much-coveted title of Herzog. However, we can assume that his irreconcilable hatred, which dominated him as it did Marbod, pursued his nephew everywhere he went.

 

It is very likely that four years later he was involved, directly or indirectly, in the intrigues that led to Arminius’ murder, since we know that the young hero was killed by members of his own family. The life of Ingomer is a sad example of the utter unscrupulousness of a man who was clearly capable of the cowardly murder of his own nephew and companion in arms.

 

Dissension, the greatest evil that has traditionally afflicted the Germans, was clearly the greatest threat that faced Arminius the freedom fighter. Even though we modern Germans are quite different from our ancient forbears, we have retained in our national character a great deal of this our most negative characteristic. We have traditionally been our own worst enemy and we continue to be so to this day. Caesar, Tiberius, Richelieu, Napoleon and the victors of 1945 all realized this and were able to use it to their advantage. In every age, we have had more than our share of traitors in our midst...