What are the Cimbri?

[cmacq]

Coincidentally there is one other area with the same characteristic; the Cherusci, their reasons are obvious (though the written sources shows a more varied and detailed picture than the archeological evidence with the tribal aristocracy of the Cherusci splitting over it, and even Arminus eventually growing too like a sovereign for his people's liking).

Right, the Cherusci over time became Swabians.

Yet the Chauci, Teutons, and Cimbri were called Ingvaeones and not Ingvaeonic.

[geala]

The Cherusci became Swabians? That is a personal insult of all the people in northern Germany.

But honestly: Never heard of this, it's new to me (that does not mean much). The Cherusci probably settled roughly between Elbe and Weser and the Harz mountains, far north of later Swabia. As far as I know they were thought to have become a part of the Saxons in the 4th c. AD, but that can be outdated info.

[Macilrille]

Current day landscape names does not reflect ancient location- or even medieval. AFAIK the Saxons grew from the Chauci and others living N and E of the Frisians (who has been pretty stationary but ranged far from there trading- later colonising) and S of the Angles in "Anglen" in S Jutland, those two with the Jutes later raided-mercenaried in and invaded Roman Britain to form the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Meanwhile the Cherusci seem to disappear from the historical view. I do not know what became of them and have always assumed they they and other tribes of the area merged into the Franks as tribal confederations became nations, later to (migrate and) form states. I would also love the irony of the German nationalists' main hero's people becoming their main enemy :-D

[cmacq]

Sorry I mentioned the Cherusci becoming Swabian, as Caesar and Tacitus used the term, as a catch-all for the early west Germanic speaking anti-Roman and anti-Celt faction centered in the lower Elbe. However, in Caesar's generation the Cherusci were also clearly anti-Swabian. For a short period in the 1st century AD they became the leader of a confederation of tribes that included elements of the Bructeri, Marsi, Sicambri, Chauci and Chatti. We know that elements of the Bructeri, Marsi, and Sicambri latter became part of the Franconic confederation or 'Freemen.' Likewise the Chauci were incorporated into the Saxonic confederation, while elements of the Chatti later became aligned with both the Swabians and Franks.

As for the tribal name Cherusci, I've seen a proposed etymology as Xeruskōz, but there may be a good argument made for the Gaulish ‘Cei-rusco’ meaning ‘those who incite battle.’ For a number of reasons I think many of the tribes of western and southwestern Germania were converted to west Germanic speakers between the late 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. The nature of the early Swabians may be suggested by its west Germanic tribal name. Like many early Germanic tribal names Swef-/Sweb-/Swep- seems to represent both an appellation for Odin 'the sleep/death bringer,' and a functional title 'those that swoop/sweep up, up-sweepers,' or the 'usurpers.' As the leader of the Cherusci confederation used the west Germanic Irmin (another appellation for Odin) the process of acculturation seems to have been underway by the early 1st century AD.


I know much of these theories may appear to be quite a ways out of the box, but on closer examination they are not.

[geala]

Ok, I see, thank you. Nobody knows for sure what happened to the Cherusci. Mentions after the 1st c. AD might have had no actual context, they could have been just romantizising. If the Cherusci later became part of others than the Saxons, they must have moved away from their old places of settlement. Possible for the elusive old tribes but without evidence.

... I would also love the irony of the German nationalists' main hero's people becoming their main enemy :-D

That's such an unhistorical point of view, you must be joking. BTW it would be an irony which needed a very very long time to develop, about 14 centuries at least.

[cmacq]

you must be joking. BTW it would be an irony which needed a very very long time to develop, about 14 centuries at least.

I'm sure it was meant as a joke.

[Macilrille]

Yes and no I can see the irony in the 19th century national romantics hating France and worshipping Arminus as a true German, father of the German nation and whatnot- while in the meantime what had been the Cherusci had become the Franks, who again had become the hated French.
Puts rabid nationalistic antipathy a bit in perspective does it not? I am a bit of a cynic, so I love that sort of thing.
And make no mistake, I love Denmark and would risk my life for it, and I am damn proud to be Danish, and I am even somewhat right-wing. But that does not mean I hate people because they have other nationalities (apart of course from Swedes TiC) or political convictions (apart of course from Nazis and Commies, and here I am serious not TiC).

[cmacq]

Right, I also view that most of the Cherusci collapsed within the Sicambri who became the core tribe of the 'Freemen,' Confederation; the 'Franks.' It seems the Romans wanted to make the Cherusci extinct after the Varus Battle.

[geala]

I don't see real irony because it's not based on facts. And even when, I don't think one of the fatuous nationalists of the late 19th c. would have seen irony, cause the theories were not based on real facts, so any historical deployment was of no great importance. BTW, the French are not the descendants of the Franks alone and the Germans are not the descendants of the Teutons/antique Germans/Germanic people alone.

Arminius was used as a medium for nationalistic feelings by German humanistic scholars from the 16th c. onwards. It was the time of reformation and anti-German propaganda in Italy, so the old victory of a Cheruscan person, who had had no nationalistic Germanic feelings at all, was used against the "welsch" people from beyond the alps. Later that was transferred to the French by some scholars, especially after the first half of the 17th c., from when on France had a very aggressive attitude against the weak German states and was trying for some centuries to reach the River Rhine as the border. But there were no broad anti-French feelings, on the contrary the French were admired as Europes most distinguished people. That changed a little bit in and after the Napoleonic wars when great parts of Germany were occupied. But until the 1870s the prevalent form of German nationalism was one of unity, freedom and democracy, and it was felt as a great burden by many politicians that the obnoxious militaristic Prussia was the leader on the way to a unified German state.

[cmacq]

I think he may have meant the period between 1870 and 1970.

[Frostwulf]

Second the archaeological evidence is very clear that the Cimbric migration broke the military back of the Boii, in their homeland. This eventually caused most of the people of the tribes that composed the Boii confederation to abandon much of southwestern Germania, which was all but completed, about forty years later.

Do you consider Strabo wrong when he says the Boii repulsed the Cimbri? Or was it a mutual destruction in which the Boii could not recoup from? Something else?
What archaeological evidence are you referring to, is there a book, website, papers that can be read about this? Any information you provide would be appreciated.

[Taliferno]

Do you consider Strabo wrong when he says the Boii repulsed the Cimbri? Or was it a mutual destruction in which the Boii could not recoup from? Something else?
What archaeological evidence are you referring to, is there a book, website, papers that can be read about this? Any information you provide would be appreciated.

I dont have any references to hand but if I remember right archaeological evidence suggests that the Cimbri pierced quite far into the Boii heartlands. This is demonstrated by evidence of widespread burning and destuction occuring during the period of the cimbri migration. Although the Boii eventually defeated and repulsed the Cimbrii, they never really recovered from the damage done.

[geala]

I think he may have meant the period between 1870 and 1970.

1970? Why this date? From the 1950s there was no longer enmity between France and Germany (officially). The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Schuman (in my opinion a real hero in the best sense of the word), who had been imprisoned by the Gestapo in 1941, acted for an European community as early as 1950, a felling that was welcomed in Germany, even if it was rejected in France until 1957, perhaps for understandable reasons, as the war was over just for 5 years. Or do you mean that there were still hostile feelings in many individual people which changed after 1970?

I would say the prime time of official anti-French feelings in Germany were the years 1870 to 1945 (ok, apart from 1806 till 1815). German nationalism after the 1870s became more and more unreal and very aggressive which led sooner or later to the war. All the main nations were guilty for the outbreak of WW I but the German Empire was more guilty than the others.

[Phalanx300]

For fighting when their ally starts a war?

[athanaric]

I would say the prime time of official anti-French feelings in Germany were the years 1870 to 1945 (ok, apart from 1806 till 1815). German nationalism after the 1870s became more and more unreal and very aggressive which led sooner or later to the war.

I'm sorry to say this but the French had it coming for them (excluding the Third Reich period, of course).
Anti-French sentiment is still strong in some parts of German society (and I suspect it's the same vice versa), but it's more of a verbal thing than anything else now. The worst part of this entirely unnecessary and stupid German-French conflict is over, hopefully never to return.

but the German Empire was more guilty than the others.

That's an interpretation, and I'd venture to say it's inaccurate.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

German Empire was more guilty than the others.

It was a group of Serbian and Bosnian terrorists that assassinated Franz Ferdinand, provoking Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary, and only then does Germany enter. The war itself was in no way Germany's fault, and its magnitude was due to all the major European powers, not one nation in particular.

[Macilrille]

This thread should probably get back on topic.

The Cimbrii...

Not that I have time to participate. But it should.

[Phalanx300]

Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming? Oh well, we should probably get on topic.

Cimbri, most likely Germanic. Maybe Celts went with them as they moved around but them being Celtic?

[athanaric]

Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming?

It's a path... typical German trait.

Cimbri, most likely Germanic. Maybe Celts went with them as they moved around but them being Celtic?

I think we should start over and first define some categories. If "Celtic" and "Germanic" are such ill-defined words, how about re-defining them? Or using substitutes?
Then we should discriminate between ethnic and linguistical categories.

All this "you can't really tell, because those terms are inaccurate and everybody mixed with one another" is all fine and well, and likely true, but it's practically a given and doesn't get us any further in terms of science. We need to move beyond that point.

[Phalanx300]

Well I always like to see it ethnically, otherwise it kind of hard to talk about peoples if you only look at the culture they are having.

I mean the Nervii had Celtic culture but claimed Germanic descent. How to classify them?

[Power2the1]

As brought out already, 'Germanic' means, to a Roman around Caesars time and afterward, anyone east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Celts lived there for centuries, but would be Germans if one follows Caesar's misguided terminology. There are strong indications, due to burial patterns found only in eastern and Belgian areas, that portions of the Danubian Celts came westward sometime around 250 B.C. If they were eastern originated, and came west in Belgium, then they'd have crossed the Rhine's east bank to make it to the west bank. In other words they be called Germans due to having originated from the east bank of the Rhine although they were Celts. This is most likely why the Belgae boasted of Germanic roots as they came from well beyond the eastern bank. Thank Caesar for the confusion....

[Boii]

This will be porbably most accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri
From my opinion Cimbri were germanic tribe maybe mixed with celts.

[Mediolanicus]

This will be porbably most accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.)

[Apázlinemjó]

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.)

Maybe he was joking.

[Frostwulf]

As brought out already, 'Germanic' means, to a Roman around Caesars time and afterward, anyone east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Celts lived there for centuries, but would be Germans if one follows Caesar's misguided terminology.

Not necessarily the case, you have to remember the Germani cisrhenani; the Boii and the Volcae Tectosages who were east of the Rhine were certainly considered "Celts" by the Romans. Tacitus brings up different peoples including the Bastarnae(he considers them German) which would not fit in to this situation.

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Galus and others whom he though non-"Germans". pg.60

There are strong indications, due to burial patterns found only in eastern and Belgian areas, that portions of the Danubian Celts came westward sometime around 250 B.C. If they were eastern originated, and came west in Belgium, then they'd have crossed the Rhine's east bank to make it to the west bank. In other words they be called Germans due to having originated from the east bank of the Rhine although they were Celts. This is most likely why the Belgae boasted of Germanic roots as they came from well beyond the eastern bank. Thank Caesar for the confusion....

Both Kruta and Cunliffe speak of the Champagne region where the Danubian Celts settled, not all of Belgium and certainly not north eastern Belgium.

In this survey, only those groups who lived within the areas later corresponding to the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior or in areas tangential to these provinces will be discussed. Gaul north of the Seine was the territory of the Belgae, who Caesar claimed in the distant past to have migrated to Gaul from beyond the Rhine. Belgic Gaul consisted of a mixture of peoples who were Celtic, as well as others north of the Somme who were either of mixed Celtic and Germanic character or even primarily of Germanic origin. These latter on the lower Rhine were known to Caesar as Germani Cisrhenani (west-bank Germans). Along the middle Rhine, Germanic and Gallic population groups inhabited both banks of the river, but on the upper Rhine Celtic peoples held sway and formed a bulwark against the Germans in the east. Pg.17

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.)

Generally I agree with this statement, but in this particular case I do not. Wiki did a fairly good job on this article to present both cases though there is more information that would attest to both sides not presented in the article. For me if the Cimbri did indeed come from the Denmark area, then they would be considered Germani.

[Power2the1]

[QUOTE=Frostwulf;2491400]

Not necessarily the case, you have to remember the Germani cisrhenani; the Boii and the Volcae Tectosages who were east of the Rhine were certainly considered "Celts" by the Romans. Tacitus brings up different peoples including the Bastarnae(he considers them German) which would not fit in to this situation.

You know what I mean.

Caesar picked and chose who he wanted to play up as the 'threat' to the civilized world. Celts who had originated and had been coming from the east bank were automatically labeled as Germans so as the Seubi came along, no doubt bringing east bank Celts and Celto-Germanic with his, they were all 'Germans' so he had a reason to give 'aid' to the Aeduoi. The oppida dwelling Germano-Celtic/Celto-Germanic tribes on the east bank were umped in with his group of 'Germans', only due to their location and nothing more but, as you brought out, further to the east still we have the Celtic Volcae hanging out as they had for centuries. So what is it Caesar, are their Celts, Germans, or both east of the Rhine and north of the Danube? This doesn't add up of course, readers who are into all this will know he certainly doesn't stick with his own geographical claims either, which calls into question some of his other claims of tribal and cultural affiliations.



From Echoes of the Ancient World The Celts Irish, Scots, Welch & Bretons by Kruta and Foreman

According to evidence found mainly in present-day Champagne, the formation of the Belgic peoples of Gaul must be bound up with the arrival, in the mid 3rd century B.C., of fairly large but disparate groups, originally from Celtic territories along the Danube, between the Erzebirge of Bohemia and the western part of the Carpathian basin. They belonged to a demographic network the density of which had become significantly lowered since the late 5th century. They founded new cemeteries which were characterized in particular by the frequency of quadrangular or circular enclosures around the graves and by the sporadic, but significant, practice of cremation in a milieu where inhumation had hitherto been the absolute rule. The newcomers brought with them object with forms unknown in the region but widespread in the Danubian zone, as well as articles of dress such s ankle-rings worn by well-to-do women, which were quite alien to local traditions. The newcomers retained some of their their customs, abandoning others to conform to local practices and, one or two generations after their arrival, formed with the native an apparently homogeneous group of populations. The peoples whom Julius Caesar found settled in Belgic Gaul sprang directly from the fusion, at the time relatively recent, of a conglomerate of Celtic speaking groups, both native and foreign.

The Belgae were part 'Danubian' Celt and part Belgian/native Celt. These were boasting of their origination beyond the Rhine in the Danubian and Carpathian territories, one could argue, and not their origination with the Jasdorf Germanic tribes who had not came close to the Rhine yet by the time these Danubian migrations occurred.

[gamegeek2]

Right, to the romans, "Germani" simply meant east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. it wasn't really an ethnolinguistic identity to them as it is to us nowadays.

[Cyclops]

What an interesting thread.

So from my woolly amateur undestanding:

There was a tribe who used the name Cimbri. They probably (like many peoples in Europe) adopted/inherited/had imposed on them some or most of the fashionable and burgeoning "Celtic" language and material culture, which we associate with La Tene material cultures.

As the "germanic" group of language/culture/tribal entities spread from what is now Jutland the Cimbri adopted/had imposed on them/returned to this cultural/linguitic identity (is there an identified material culture we can associate with "germans"? More than one? Less than one?).

Is it fair to say those termed Germani may have earlier been considered a group within the Keltoi, and later some Keltoi may have been consider groups within the Germani?

A bit like the way a 4th century CE Roman could say "oh the Franks a faction of the Germans" whereas a 1th century CE Muslim Arab might say "oh the Germans are a faction of the Franks".

[Frostwulf]

Caesar picked and chose who he wanted to play up as the 'threat' to the civilized world.

I absolutely agree with this, and also how he doesn't stick with his geographical claims. But if I remember correctly he begins in a simple statement that Germani are on the east side and then he refines this situation later on.

Celts who had originated and had been coming from the east bank were automatically labeled as Germans so as the Seubi came along, no doubt bringing east bank Celts and Celto-Germanic with his, they were all 'Germans' so he had a reason to give 'aid' to the Aeduoi. The oppida dwelling Germano-Celtic/Celto-Germanic tribes on the east bank were umped in with his group of 'Germans', only due to their location and nothing more but, as you brought out, further to the east still we have the Celtic Volcae hanging out as they had for centuries. So what is it Caesar, are their Celts, Germans, or both east of the Rhine and north of the Danube? This doesn't add up of course, readers who are into all this will know he certainly doesn't stick with his own geographical claims either, which calls into question some of his other claims of tribal and cultural affiliations.

Unfortunately this comes down to the ill-defined term of ethnicity. Culiffe for one states that if it comes down to a factor, that factor would be language. Others tend to go with material culture and there are a myriad of other criteria. I believe this is why for simplicity most archaeologists/historians have just come down to using grossgrupen(macro-cultures). In this particular situation they use the Roman view of ethnicity for determining who is "German" and who is "Celt".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What is now the equivalent of France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany west of the Rhine was known as Gaul (Gallia), despite the fact that Germanic and mixed Celtic and Germanic peoples lived there. Carved out of the eastern fringes of Gaul were the German provinces where Celtic and Germanic groups also lived side by side. The indigenous peoples under consideration, however, categorized their ethnic ascription on a specific tribal level, identifying themselves as belonging to a particular group and not using a collective name. In using, mainly for the sake of simplicity, the names 'Celt' or 'Gaul' (which I do interchangeably) and 'German' I am using the standard terminology of antiquity which also has an established tradition in modern archaeological and historical research. That there is a great diversity in this generalized unity is absolutely clear, and this is taken into account in many ways in the individual chapters of the book. Pg. 10-11

In her book she does go further into detail on this situation dealing with particular tribes, mainly the Ubii.
The spoiler below are also quotes that show it was not just about geography.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rome's dealings with 'the Germani' start, as with so many things, with Julius Caesar. He is usually credited with the very invention of the term: having come across the word Germani in a way which remains unknown to us, he used it to identify a distinct non-Celtic, population, made up of various tribes (gentes) living for the most part east of the Rhine. pg. 12.

"From 61 B.C. onwards, the name "Germani" began to be used to refer to non-Celtic tribes east of the Rhine, a term that probably derived from northern Gaul." pg. 35

As I put in my above post:

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Gauls and others whom he thought non-"Germans". pg.60

Caesar, Tacitus and other classical authors may not have had the training or the refinement of anthropology, but they were intelligent enough to tell that there were certain aspects of tribes(language, culture, etc. though not greatly defined) which enabled them to distinguish between "Celt" and "German". In the spoiler below is an example by Carrol of the Ubii tribe.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Matronae names of the second and third centuries also reflect both the latest Germanic language influx introduced to the area by the Ubii and the mixed Germanic and Celtic language which pre-dated the Ubian Migration. Pg.119

Traces of settlements on the Rhine at Neuwied and the mouth of the Lahn near Braubach can, on the other hand, very probably be attributed to them. Cemetery finds indicate a material culture similar to that of the Treveri, although Caesar and Tacitus group the Ubii with the Germans. The close contacts with the Treveri in the Neuwied basin on either side of the confluence of the Rhine and Moselle could explain some cultural similarity. pg.23

The persistence of ethnic traditions is also reflected in the German language of the Ubii (but also of the indigenous population or Germani cisrhenani) which continued to be spoken throughout the Roman period. Significantly, this is more recognizably detectable amongst those members of the group who did not live in an urban environment, and it is in the countryside that non-Roman names predominate over Roman names with tria nomina. It is also here in Cologne's hinterland that more traditional Germanic timber architecture survived in the context of farmsteads (see chapter 4). Pg.130

Germanic dress, in particular that worn by the Ubii, continued to be depicted well into the third century, although images of Ubian women in purely Roman clothing outnumber those in traditional costume. pg.119

German language,traditional Germanic timber architecture, German style clothing, at what point do we go from one classification of people to a mixed people? A lot of the southern Gauls were using Roman materials, are they now Romano-Celts?

I'm stating that is was more then just geography in which the classical authors classified peoples.

The Belgae were part 'Danubian' Celt and part Belgian/native Celt. These were boasting of their origination beyond the Rhine in the Danubian and Carpathian territories, one could argue, and not their origination with the Jasdorf Germanic tribes who had not came close to the Rhine yet by the time these Danubian migrations occurred.

As Kruta points out it is in the Champagne area, and the Remi could be caught up in that. But lets look at another quote:

The situation is particularly clear in Champagne, where the areas that became depopulated around the end of the 5th century BCE were gradually reoccupied, starting in the south, the Senones’ historic territory. Small groups began to arrive around 270 BCE, and founded new necropolises or reused the bruial-sites that had lain abandoned fro two centuries. They can be differentiated from indigenous inhabitants - the Remi to the north and the Senones in the south - by typically Danubian female jewellery, which is quite unusual in the region:pg.86

He uses the Remi particularly, who are the northern most part of this influx. Yes the Remi were part of the Belgae, but among the southern most part of them. Again when you go further north and north east this influx does not apply.

The possibility that Celtic groups from the Balkans may have moved westwards through Europe and settled in the west is suggested by archaeological and literary evidence. In the Marne region, for example, a new range of warrior burials accompanied by well-furnished female graves makes a sudden appearance towards the middle of the third century. New cemeteries were established and old burial sites reused. It is now that areas long abandoned are reoccupied. The implication is that new Celtic groups had moved into the Champagne region to augment the thinly scattered indigenous Celtic population. That these new settlers may have come from the Carpathian Basin is suggested by similarities in dress between the two areas, in particular the use of anklets by women, and by the prevalence of small funerary enclosures which now appear.
In southern Gaul there is also evidence suggestive of an influx of new people from the Danube region. The southern Gaulish historian Pompeius Trogus, quoted by Justinus, records that a number of the Tectosages, who were involved in the retreat from Greece, moved west eventually to settle in the vicinity of Toulouse, bringing with them treasure from the sack of Delphi which they deposited in sacred lakes. Pg.87

Both of these authors are specific in the territories(Champagne/Marne) they mention, which does not include the northern/north eastern Belgae.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In this survey, only those groups who lived within the areas later corresponding to the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior or in areas tangential to these provinces will be discussed. Gaul north of the Seine was the territory of the Belgae, who Caesar claimed in the distant past to have migrated to Gaul from beyond the Rhine. Belgic Gaul consisted of a mixture of peoples who were Celtic, as well as others north of the Somme who were either of mixed Celtic and Germanic character or even primarily of Germanic origin. These latter on the lower Rhine were known to Caesar as Germani Cisrhenani (west-bank Germans). Along the middle Rhine, Germanic and Gallic population groups inhabited both banks of the river, but on the upper Rhine Celtic peoples held sway and formed a bulwark against the Germans in the east. Pg.17

Right, to the romans, "Germani" simply meant east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. it wasn't really an ethnolinguistic identity to them as it is to us nowadays.

These guys would disagree with that:

Rome's dealings with 'the Germani' start, as with so many things, with Julius Caesar. He is usually credited with the very invention of the term: having come across the word Germani in a way which remains unknown to us, he used it to identify a distinct non-Celtic, population, made up of various tribes (gentes) living for the most part east of the Rhine. pg. 12.

"From 61 B.C. onwards, the name "Germani" began to be used to refer to non-Celtic tribes east of the Rhine, a term that probably derived from northern Gaul." pg. 35

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Gauls and others whom he thought non-"Germans". pg.60

[gamegeek2]

What an interesting thread.

So from my woolly amateur undestanding:

There was a tribe who used the name Cimbri. They probably (like many peoples in Europe) adopted/inherited/had imposed on them some or most of the fashionable and burgeoning "Celtic" language and material culture, which we associate with La Tene material cultures.

As the "germanic" group of language/culture/tribal entities spread from what is now Jutland the Cimbri adopted/had imposed on them/returned to this cultural/linguitic identity (is there an identified material culture we can associate with "germans"? More than one? Less than one?).

Is it fair to say those termed Germani may have earlier been considered a group within the Keltoi, and later some Keltoi may have been consider groups within the Germani?

A bit like the way a 4th century CE Roman could say "oh the Franks a faction of the Germans" whereas a 1th century CE Muslim Arab might say "oh the Germans are a faction of the Franks".

Germani collectively refers to all groups east of the Rhine and North of the Danube. The Baltic Lugiones were Germani, the Celtic Ingaevones were Germani, and the "Germanic" Sweboz were Germani as well. To the Romans, it was a term based on geography and not ethnolinguistic identity. It's just like "Middle Easter" - anyone who dwells within that geographic area is often called a "Middle Easterner" yet there are Persians, Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Armenians, Pashtuns, and many other ethnolinguistic groups living within the middle east - yet they are often all lumped under "Middle Easterners."

It seems that the Germanic and Baltic tribes share a common origin in the Germano-Balto-Slavic family, a branch of IndoEuropean (identified by common characteristics - http://ninitalk.files.wordpress.com/...mily20tree.jpg - this tree is good for illustrative purposes, though it seems to have garbled the Celtic family). What seems to have happened is that a group of GermanoBaltoSlavs migrated to Scandinavia and their language began to significantly differ from the GermanoBaltoSlavic parent language around 500 BC via a series of sound shifts. By this time, BaltoSlavic had become distinct from GermanoBaltoSlavic via satemization, and Baltic and BaltoSlavic tribes had spread out all over Eastern Europe - some of these tribes were the Lugiones, Venedi, Budini, and Neuri. Some of these would later develop dialects that would become Proto-Slavic, but this apparently didn't happen until well into the centuries CE.