The name Arminius has become familiar to a wide public through television programmes, films and articles in popular magazines since the discovery in 1987 of the first clear archaeological evidence of the conflict known as the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. The battle, in September of the year a.d. 9, was mentioned in a number of Roman and Greek texts, and several writers described it in some detail (though their descriptions differ). According to the accounts, three Roman legions and accompanying troops — perhaps as many as 20,000 men — were virtually annihilated in an ambush in which Arminius, said to be a leader of the Cherusci people in what is now northern Germany, led his warriors against the Romans.

Following the rediscovery in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of the written accounts of Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus and Cassius Dio, intense interest in this event developed in Europe. Poems were written, pictures painted and operas composed about Arminius the Germanic hero. Since 1987, extensive excavations have been carried out at Kalkriese, north of Osnabrück in northern Germany, resulting in the recovery of quantities of weapons and military paraphernalia, coins and skeletal remains of humans and animals, all of which point to this location being the site, or one of the sites, of the battle. Through the excavations and subsequent analyses of materials, the project has become a model of ‘battlefield archaeology’.

The archaeology is not Winkler's main topic, though he refers to the discoveries and to some of the major studies of the site. His concern is with ideas about Arminius and how they have been crafted, manipulated and transformed over the past 500 years through various media, including books, posters, paintings, television and films. The author states as the focus of this book ‘historical mythmaking’, based on the early accounts and subsequent exploitation of the Arminius idea. We do not know very much about Arminius and even what we think we know is not certain. Arminius is the name given by Roman writers; we do not know what he called himself.

The book is divided into four main sections. The first examines representations of Arminius by ancient writers and modern historians, the development of the idea of Arminius as a liberator and national hero, and the appropriation of Arminius by the National Socialists in the twentieth century. The second explores portrayals of Arminius in film from 1924 onwards, in poetry and other media, building on research by W. on the reception and use of ancient history in films. The third brings the study to modern times, focusing on film, painting and teaching, as well as on the appropriation of Arminius in America. Appendices include seven documents pertaining to the topic, followed by an extensive bibliography. Throughout the text are abundant footnotes with pertinent information.

The book is very well organised, well written, nicely illustrated and a pleasure to read. It provides a comprehensive overview of ways in which the story of Arminius has been understood and transformed for many different purposes from the sixteenth century to today. It leads the reader to think about other instances of heroes of the past, some more real than others, such as Boudica, King Arthur and Robin Hood, all of whom have been used and transformed over the centuries.

Broadly, the book is about how the present relates to the past and how the past relates to the present. It is directly relevant to concerns about how archaeologists and historians present the past to the public as well as to students and colleagues. When reconstructed Roman forts or villas are built, or replica Iron Age settlements designed, or when museum displays are created to convey information about past peoples, we need to be cognizant of the implications of every decision we make. W.’s book provides an excellent series of examples that can help us to think critically about the process of presenting the past.