After King Marbod left the scene, Arminius was the most powerful and respected man in Germania. He continued his constant striving for a greater and more unified Germania, which implied a confederation of all the large tribes in northwestern Germania.
Could this former Roman military officer have been thinking like a Roman, in terms of Roman concepts? Was he thinking in terms of a future Germania Magna, as Tiberius always assumed he was thinking? Did Arminius really covet a crown? Would he not have been risking his reputation if he had striven for a crown? Didn’t he owe his victory over Marbod precisely to the fact that he was the greatly acclaimed champion of freedom, while his opponent personified subjugation?
As Tacitus admiringly attested, his power was based “solely on the love of his people,” who adored him as their liberator. However, he still met determined resistance from his domestic opponents among the influential clique of the pro-Roman aristocracy. They envied him the fame for which he had fought so hard -- fame for having saved Germania from takeover by the enemy. The vain and narrow-minded aristocracy were unable to share his soaring visions and political goals. They were afraid that Arminius would strive for the traditional royal honors and trappings and declare himself their ruler. The idea of a “people’s king” whose rule was based solely on the trust and affection of the leading tribes was intolerable for these vain and conceited circles, who feared limits on their feudal prerogatives and sinecures.
However, we have no reason to believe that Arminius intended to do this. He was all too familiar with his countrymens’ passionate love of freedom, which was so overwhelming that the tribesmen would obey even their elected army leaders only for the duration of the war. Had he been anticipating that the people -- the confederated tribes -- would directly offer him the crown some day? It is questionable whether the voice of the people could have prevailed over the strong opposition, the aristocracy. If in spite of opposition from the aristocracy, Arminius had attempted to seize power, as Marbod had done, that would have been the moment for his enemies to act.
It could well be that the pro Roman group, together with the exiles grouped around Ingomer, Segestes, and Flavus, had long ago agreed on Arminius’ liquidation and had already cast the fatal net around the young hero. Or, Rome might have undertaken other means to get rid of its most hated and dangerous enemy on German soil after Germanicus’ unsuccessful exertions to militarily overpower Arminius. Could it be that Arminius’ enemies even used Thusnelda as bait to lure him into a trap?
We know that in 21 AD, the year of Arminius’ death, a duke in the Chatten tribe, a relative of the “Sig” clan, asked Tiberius for poison in order to kill Arminius. However, the Roman emperor emphatically distanced himself from such a disgraceful undertaking: It was a glorious thing to wreak vengeance with the sword, but not with poison! Was this a rare expression of noble sentiment on the part of the emperor? This hardly seems feasible -- Tiberius was never burdened with scruples when it came to getting rid of his enemies! Did he want to make sure that his toga remained spotless while others secretly did the dirty work?
The powers of hate, envy, fear and loathing were all seeking a perpetrator to liquidate the Cheruskan. It is obvious that they finally found one.
Arminius’ early death was tragic, as has been so much in German history. All we know for certain is that he died at a murderer’s hand, through the treachery of his own kinsmen. It was not reported whether he was murdered in his sleep or poisoned or “accidentally killed” during a hunting accident. He was just 37 at the time of his death. He survived his greatest enemy Germanicus (who also died a violent death) by four years.
With Arminius’ death, the Germanic confederation soon disintegrated. The idea of unity died with the outstanding young leader. Many centuries would pass before the emergence of a new leader, who would be inspired with the idea of unity among the Germans.
One accomplishment of his did survive however – a free and independent Germania. Even Tacitus considered it tragic that “the life and works of Arminius are not fittingly revered in our own age,” he was writing almost a hundred years later. If a patriotic Roman made such an objective assessment, it has to be particularly significant!
In our own time as well, this remarkable historical figure is not granted the historical recognition he deserves. The descriptions of Arminius in German history books are quite inadequate, not at all commensurate with his remarkable achievement. And what is the attitude of young Germans today? They are taught to adore freedom fighters from distant lands while being kept in ignorance of our greatest hero.
If the sculptor Ernst von Bandel, who was inspired with the 19th Century spirit of freedom and unity, had not dedicated 37 years of his life to creating the dignified and dramatic Hermannsdenkmal (Monument to Arminius) under conditions of great personal privation, the prospects for Arminius’s remembrance would be very uncertain indeed. More than anyone else, we have Ernst von Bandel to thank for the fact that the Cheruskan freedom fighter has become living, lasting reality for the entire German nation.
Even in our own days, in which violations of self-determination and the rights of nations continue unabated, Arminius’ great accomplishment of national liberation has retained its eternal significance, for us and for the generations to come. This is true for everyone, not just us Germans!
