Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 159

Thread: What are the Cimbri?

  1. #91
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Thanks Gamegeek for the ideas about Germani. Obviously the word has changed its meaning over time a bit like Kelt/Celt. Am I close to the mark? Would the Cimbri likely have been identiified by a Mediteranean person as Keltoi at one time, then later as Germani? Perhaps even they saw themselves as part iof that group we call Celts?

    This possible process of "Germanisation" is fascinating to me. I see aspects of it in the Anglicisation of Britain and I would interested to se if there is an early wave of groups seen as Celtic becoming groups identifying as Germanic.

    Nice tree. Is the scrambled bit because they give British a thick trunk and Gaulish a thin trunk, and make it the ancestor of Irish, rather than a common ancestor to all the Celtic tongues? IIRC Gallic was the La tene lingua franca but surely there are regional variations across the massive Celtic world, even in the first onrush of the Iron Age, with modern descendents fronds of those twigs.
    From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan

    Jatte lambasts Calico Rat

  2. #92
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    GG, we will take this in the internal when my exam is over. I would very much like to see the argument why the Cimbrii, assuming they originated in Jutland, are assumed to be Celts. Could you, Joe or Jasper, point me to where you deduct that the population of Jutland was Celtic?

    But for public purpose, suffice it to say that in Denmark they, presuming they originated here, are seen as Germanic, but that as they sojourned through Europe they gathered up locals, from individuals to whole tribes, who decided to follow them, while other decided to go home again, pretty much jumbling their ethnicity as such. The same thing happened to the migrations 500 years later and Viking armies when they went on conquest.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  3. #93
    Member Member geala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phalanx300 View Post
    Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming? Oh well, we should probably get on topic.

    ...
    Hehehe, do you think I have to get rid of my ability to interpret historical events only because my own country was involved? Very strange. That Germany was guilty more than other nations is of course interpretation, that of some of the most senior German scolars. If you look at the events and the prior history (for example the decision of the emperor and the military to start war in the year 1912) closely, it's a reasonable interpretation.

    But you and Macilrille are of course right, it's really off topic (albeit very interesting). Unfortunately I 've already offered my opinion about the Cimbri (= Germanic), so I have to keep my mouth shut.
    Last edited by geala; 05-21-2010 at 10:34.
    The queen commands and we'll obey
    Over the Hills and far away.
    (perhaps from an English Traditional, about 1700 AD)

    Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit:
    Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth!
    (later chorus -containing a wrong regimental name for the Bayreuth-Dragoner (DR Nr. 5) - of the "Hohenfriedberger Marsch", reminiscense of a battle in 1745 AD, to the music perhaps of an earlier cuirassier march)

  4. #94
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    GG, we will take this in the internal when my exam is over. I would very much like to see the argument why the Cimbrii, assuming they originated in Jutland, are assumed to be Celts. Could you, Joe or Jasper, point me to where you deduct that the population of Jutland was Celtic?

    But for public purpose, suffice it to say that in Denmark they, presuming they originated here, are seen as Germanic, but that as they sojourned through Europe they gathered up locals, from individuals to whole tribes, who decided to follow them, while other decided to go home again, pretty much jumbling their ethnicity as such. The same thing happened to the migrations 500 years later and Viking armies when they went on conquest.
    At the very least, their material culture more closely resembles that of the Celts than that of the Jastorf. We also find that the Cimbri have lots of Celtic names - such as Boiorix (funny, a Cimbric leader who appears to be called "king of the Boii" - though perhaps it's better translated as "king of warriors/strikers"), as well as Gaesorix and Lugius. This could represent a Celtic elite of sorts, but it would also fit with the Belgae claiming to be from over the Rhine - with the celtic Ingaevones who were not Cimbri or Teutones migrating west of the Rhine - either as a result of the large Germanic migrations to jutland that resulted after the Cimbric migration, or at the same time due to the same event that triggered the Cimbric migration.

    Joe can probably explain this much better, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops
    Nice tree. Is the scrambled bit because they give British a thick trunk and Gaulish a thin trunk, and make it the ancestor of Irish, rather than a common ancestor to all the Celtic tongues? IIRC Gallic was the La tene lingua franca but surely there are regional variations across the massive Celtic world, even in the first onrush of the Iron Age, with modern descendents fronds of those twigs.
    As I said, it garbles the Celtic language family, but does a good job on most of the others.

    Gaulish was not the La Tene lingua franca - though it and a pair of similar sisters constituted the most spoken Celtic tongues. At this time, the language of the Britons, Gauls, and Boii was similar, but there were of course regional variations. The Irish and Celtiberians spoke q-celtic languages, very different from the p-Celtic languages of the Gauls, Boii, and Britons. The common ancestor to all Celtic tongues is Proto-Celtic. There was a proto-celtic dictionary easy to find online for a while, IIRC from the University of Wales, but I can't find it anymore.
    Last edited by gamegeek2; 05-22-2010 at 04:43.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  5. #95

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    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."
    I don't agree that the Ingaevones were a "Celtitc" grouping, and the Lugiones as far as I know while still up for debate the majority consider them "Germanic".

    Beginning with J.Caesar we have the known(to the Romans) "Celtic" peoples of Volcae Tectosages, Boii, and Helvetii living within the geographical area that by your definition should label them as Germani, yet they are not. These people still retain their "Celtic" ethnic tag, not the Germani one. One the other side we have the Germani cisrhenani and by using the geographical model they should be called Belgae, Gauls or something other then Germani, yet Caesar refers to them as Germani.
    Moving on to Tacitus you have other tribes by the geographic model your using the Contini and Osi should be Germani, yet they are labled as non-Germanic. If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani. He distinguishes those who do and those who don't.
    But I believe in Tacitus these sentences go entirely against your geographic model:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus-"Germania"
    As for the nations of Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am unsure whether I should assign them to the Germani or the Sarmations. To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation;....46,1
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus-"Germania"
    The Veneti have taken a great many customs from the Sarmatians, for in plundering forays they roam through all the forests and hills that rise between the Peucini and Fenni. Still, they are more properly classsed as Germani, because they have fixed homes and have shields and take pleasure in moving fast by foot: all these things are at odds with the Sarmatians, who live..... 46.2
    Now how can one claim that the Romans used the term Germani for geographical people when there is Caesar and Tacitus saying things that don't widely fit into this model. The Bastarnae aren't even near the region.
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Tacitus talks of language and culture when classifying the Germani in the above quotes, not of geography. Caesar talks of geography at the beginning and then refines it more.

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    At the very least, their material culture more closely resembles that of the Celts than that of the Jastorf.
    Where can I read about this? Is your source Freibe?

  6. #96
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    This should really be in the internal, and I will elaborate more after the exam, but if material culture = ethnicity, how much of the world today would be labelled American? How large would the Roman Empire be in 150 AD? Would the heavy influence of Rome in the RIA make the inhabitants of Denmark then Romans?
    Or me for that matter, my name (Palle) is derived from Roman Paullus and has been used in Denmark since at least GIA; see what I mean? I will get back to you guys, and I will try to get in touch with the absolute leading expert on CIA in Denmark. And the lenghty debate does actually belong in Internal.
    No Cimbrii faction anyway, so yeah...
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  7. #97
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Macirille
    This should really be in the internal
    Agreed, but there are some severe misconceptions here that need addressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    Where can I read about this? Is your source Freibe?
    Again, speak to Joe/cmacq about this. He knows more about the Ingaevones' culture in the EB time period than I do. He can almost certainly better explain this. Though, IIRC the Belgae purportedly came from over the Rhine, from Germania, and that has something to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    Now how can one claim that the Romans used the term Germani for geographical people when there is Caesar and Tacitus saying things that don't widely fit into this model.
    As a generalization, they used it to refer to people in a certain geographic area - East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. There are certainly other boundaries of general "Germania" - such as the Carpathian mountains and the Sarmatian steppe (you wouldn't classify Dacians as Germani).

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    The Bastarnae aren't even near the region.
    Not to nitpick, but:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation
    he says they are like Germani, not that they are Germani.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    Tacitus talks of language and culture when classifying the Germani in the above quotes, not of geography. Caesar talks of geography at the beginning and then refines it more.
    The word language doesn't seem to be in your above quotes. However, he does indeed talk about language. For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacotus
    But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    From the Gallic language spoken by the Gothinians, and from that of Pannonia by the Osians, it is manifest that neither of these people are Germans; as it is also from their bearing to pay tribute.
    So, he says that the Osians both are and aren't Germani. What's with that? However, we do know that the Araviscians were Celts. So thus, we can infer than the Osians were Celts as well - and yet they were Germani. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani.
    WTF? The Germani did not all speak the same language. Tacitus even says this himself. Assuming Tacitus is correct, and the Osians, who were Germani but shared the same language as the Celtic Aravisci, the Germani can't have all spoken the same language - because we have the Suebi speaking a Proto-Germanic language (I think we agree on that) and the Osians speaking a Celtic tongue. Unless, of course, you're saying that the Aravisci spoke Proto-Germanic, or the Suebi spoke a Celtic tongue?

    Also, we have this from Tacitus (stipulating that he is correct):

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    Upon the right of the Suevian Sea the Aestyan nations reside, who use the same customs and attire with the Suevians; their language more resembles that of Britain.
    What I can agree on is that the Germani shared a relatively similar material culture and methods of fighting - largely on foot, with shield and several spears for both throwing and melee, and that ethnicity does not equal material culture (though we can often infer something about ethnicity via material culture).

    I'll have more on this later.
    Last edited by gamegeek2; 05-23-2010 at 23:55.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  8. #98

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Again, speak to Joe/cmacq about this. He knows more about the Ingaevones' culture in the EB time period than I do. He can almost certainly better explain this. Though, IIRC the Belgae purportedly came from over the Rhine, from Germania, and that has something to do with it.
    I'm thinking Kuhn, but this is also a time frame issue as well which I should have spoken of.
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    As a generalization, they used it to refer to people in a certain geographic area - East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. There are certainly other boundaries of general "Germania" - such as the Carpathian mountains and the Sarmatian steppe (you wouldn't classify Dacians as Germani).
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Not to nitpick, but:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation
    he says they are like Germani, not that they are Germani.
    What do you think Tacitus meant and the end of that paragraph when he says "debased by mixed marriages, they are starting to look like Sarmatians".? He is talking of one group beginning to look like another group, and the two groups mentioned in this paragraph are Germani and Sarmatians. So I'm very confident that he is calling the Bastarnae Germani.
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    The word language doesn't seem to be in your above quotes. However, he does indeed talk about language. For example:
    Tacitus does say the "Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation;....46,1" here is the link to where I put this down:
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2493091

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacotus
    But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    From the Gallic language spoken by the Gothinians, and from that of Pannonia by the Osians, it is manifest that neither of these people are Germans; as it is also from their bearing to pay tribute.
    So, he says that the Osians both are and aren't Germani. What's with that? However, we do know that the Araviscians were Celts. So thus, we can infer than the Osians were Celts as well - and yet they were Germani. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
    When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani.
    WTF? The Germani did not all speak the same language. Tacitus even says this himself. Assuming Tacitus is correct, and the Osians, who were Germani but shared the same language as the Celtic Aravisci, the Germani can't have all spoken the same language - because we have the Suebi speaking a Proto-Germanic language (I think we agree on that) and the Osians speaking a Celtic tongue. Unless, of course, you're saying that the Aravisci spoke Proto-Germanic, or the Suebi spoke a Celtic tongue?
    I should have been more detailed here, as of course there were different dialects and culture. What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani. I don't believe there to be a point at this time to debate the North Sea Group, though it is an interesting topic, but for this discussion it has no relevance.
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Also, we have this from Tacitus (stipulating that he is correct):

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    Upon the right of the Suevian Sea the Aestyan nations reside, who use the same customs and attire with the Suevians; their language more resembles that of Britain.
    What I can agree on is that the Germani shared a relatively similar material culture and methods of fighting - largely on foot, with shield and several spears for both throwing and melee, and that ethnicity does not equal material culture (though we can often infer something about ethnicity via material culture).

    I'll have more on this later.
    Having a "British" language is unlikely, a Germanic or Baltic is most probable. Glesum is a Germanic word, but there are many variables in this situation. While he does say the language is different he still considers the culture similar/same as the Suebi(Suevi,Swabians).

    I just don't agree(along with Dr.Dobesch, Dr. Drinkwater, Dr.Liebeschuetz and there are many others)that the term Germani is a geographical term, even if as you say its a generalization. Tacitus' book "Germania" is of the geographical area known to the Romans as Germania. He distinguishes between those he calls Germani and those of other groups, all within this area called Germania. They knew of Celtic tribes(and others) within your defined borders but they did not call them Germani. They also called peoples living outside of your defined borders Germani. I guess we will just have to disagree.
    Last edited by Frostwulf; 05-25-2010 at 12:44. Reason: did't finish with Aestii

  9. #99
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani
    Again, we have this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
    But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.
    IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    Glesum is a Germanic word, but there are many variables in this situation.
    Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)

    According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.
    Last edited by gamegeek2; 05-25-2010 at 20:00.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  10. #100

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani
    Again, we have this:
    When I said the above quote, it was in relation to the North Sea group(Ingaevones) having a "Germanic" culture by the time of the meeting with the Romans. This is talking of the Frisians, Saxons and others in this group, not of the Osi, Boii or others that are considered "Celtic".
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."
    Tacitus also says the Osi were non-Germanic in 43.1 and he was basing this on language. Here is what I wrote in my post above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus.
    Again Bruhn and Lund think the term tribe of the Germani was wrong, they say it was a tribe of Germania. But most seem to say that Germanorum natio should not have been in the text, that it being there was a mistake. Therefore when he says Germanic tribe, that is in error.
    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2
    Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)

    According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.
    I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras. As for the rest of what your saying, it could very well be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus-"Germania"
    This is the end of Suebia. As for the nations of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am unsure whether I should assign them to the Germani or the Sarmatians. 46.1
    Why should he be unsure? If the term Germani was a geographical term as you say, both the Veneti and Fenni should be classified as "Germani". Yet Tacitus is unsure. He then goes on to talk of why they should be properly classified as Germani, because of customs, shields etc., nothing of of geography.
    You have the Boii, Contini, Helvetii,Aravisci,Volcae Tectosages and others living within the geographical area you describe, yet they are called "Celts" by the Romans. By your definition they should be called Germani. You also have others the Romans call Germani(Vangiones, Eburones, Condrusi, etc.) living outside the geographical boundaries you describe, should they not be called "Celts" or something else by the Romans?

  11. #101
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    I've conceded that it isn't entirely geographical. It also refers to a general set of customs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
    I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras.
    Yes, indeed - this is also correct. There can be multiple words with the same meaning, no?
    Last edited by gamegeek2; 05-28-2010 at 15:40.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  12. #102
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Just found this interesting site: http://igenea.com/index.php?c=43&lp=67

    Seems that genetically Celtic and Germanic peoples weren't alike, seen some people claim that just the culture was different.

  13. #103

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    I can't help but to strongly express my doubts about the scientific credibility of an commercial genetic genealogy firm, which claims to have isolated a 'specific celtic genome/genetic markup' ... from a sample of presumably just 'over 2000 saliva probes'...that's methodologically highly questionable and this site seems quite plainly aimed towards well-paying, right-leaning 'ethnic pride' advocates of every description ('germanic'/'celtic'/'jewish', ...) ...


    '...usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quaedam:opterit et pulchros fascis saevasque secures:proculcare ac ludibrio sibi habere videtur.' De rerum natura V, 1233ff.

  14. #104
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Usually claiming facts can be consideren racist by some.

    They seem to be credible.

    What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?





    Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some.
    Last edited by Phalanx300; 06-11-2010 at 19:27.

  15. #105

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    They seem to be credible.
    To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...

    What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?
    Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.

    Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.

    Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some.
    Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...

    Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.
    Last edited by Lvcretivs; 06-11-2010 at 21:26.


    '...usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quaedam:opterit et pulchros fascis saevasque secures:proculcare ac ludibrio sibi habere videtur.' De rerum natura V, 1233ff.

  16. #106
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...
    Yet certainly possible.

    Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.

    Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.
    So when someone is simply curious of his ancestors it must and should always be because of ethnic pride? Thats basicly what its coming down to here. People don't pay such high amounts of money because of that, they want to know who their ancestors are.

    Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...

    Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.
    ...? If someone wants to know of their ancestors and tests their DNA then it shows they do accept the differences between people.

  17. #107

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Yet certainly possible.
    Europe is the probably most genetically homogeneous area of all Eurasia - an relative uniformity caused by countless migrations -and its extremly farfetched and scientifically unsound to 'identify' certain genetic traits as specific for distinct, ancient 'ethnic'/cultural groups - after more than 2000 years passing by - while ignoring basic criteries of academical research (eg. representative sample size, clear definition of 'Celtic'/'Germanic' genome types, only peer-reviewed results published,...)

    I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.

    So when someone is simply curious of his ancestors it must and should always be because of ethnic pride? Thats basicly what its coming down to here. People don't pay such high amounts of money because of that, they want to know who their ancestors are.
    ...? You've must have misunderstand me - rather than to identify the most probable geographic provenance of your ancestors (which is perfectly possible and genealogically reasonable to trace ancestry/descent from a specific population) they are categorically stating an entirely hypothetic 'ethnicity'/cultural identity for your ancient relatives, which is not only completely irrelevant for 'knowing who your ancestors were' (which is in a 'ethnic'/cultural sense quite frankly impossible) but intentionally misleading and dangerous because it entices people to embrace an 'ethnic pride' mentality based on completely false assumptions about their genetic makeup and it's illusory implications for their 'ethnicity'. If people are curious about who their ancestors were, they should stick to conventional, proved genealogical methods, recognize the limited value of such genetic analyses and restrain themselves from speculating about their ancestors cultural self-identification.

    ...? If someone wants to know of their ancestors and tests their DNA then it shows they do accept the differences between people.
    ...?


    '...usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quaedam:opterit et pulchros fascis saevasque secures:proculcare ac ludibrio sibi habere videtur.' De rerum natura V, 1233ff.

  18. #108

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    While I find the use of genetics in history interesting, at this point I'm very leery of its results. I have seen several conflicting analysis of genetic testing and I think there is more to be done in this area to get things ironed out.

    On another note:
    We have in this paper elected first and foremost to focus on finds showing connections to areas east of the "Celtic world" or near the eastern boundaries of this world. It should, though, in no way be understood that we reject the idea of connections to the Celtic world, both in the east (e.g. the bronze belts, ball neck-rings) and in the west. Our objective has, however, been a different one: to show that in the late Pre-Roman Iron Age there existed a corridor of contact between Denmark and the Baltic area in the north-west and the northwestern Black Sea arca in the south-east.
    As may be seen from above, a large number of finds may be indicated as attesting connection of this kind: e.g. the non-Celtic gold torques, various types of pendants, the emergence of highly developed goldsmith's art with Hellenistic elements around the transition to the Early Roman Iron Age, the silver beakers from Mollerup, the crown neck-rings with their peculiar distribution pattern, various brooch types, certain striking similarities between the pottery in Jutland and among the Germanic cultures in East Europe, a couple of unique vessels from north Jutland, and similarities in the grave ritual of north Jutland and central Poland.
    Continuing on with the main point of this post:
    We believe that the amount and not least kind of northwest German foreign forms in East Europe attest so strong a cultural influence in a relatively limited zone that everything speaks for migration through the area by folk from Northwest Europe. In the very period when these influences were strongest, the migrations of the Cimbri, according to the historical sources, took place. Precisely which route they chose to follow before they reached the borders of the Roman Empire and the limelight of history is not known. They may have chosen the one across Poland, east of the Carpathians and the Celtic world. The west Germanic foreign elements in East Europe may be manifestations of this. The Cimbri have, however, not been the only people to use this route. The finds suggest an extremely complex body, or several waves. The time during which these migrations must have taken place is marked by major cultural and demographic changes over large parts of Europe (including the north Pontic steppes), which on the one hand may have caused, and the other been a product of, this migration.
    Last edited by Frostwulf; 06-13-2010 at 08:54.

  19. #109
    urk! Member bobbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tin Isles
    Posts
    3,668

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lvcretivs View Post
    Europe is the probably most genetically homogeneous area of all Eurasia - an relative uniformity caused by countless migrations -and its extremly farfetched and scientifically unsound to 'identify' certain genetic traits as specific for distinct, ancient 'ethnic'/cultural groups - after more than 2000 years passing by - while ignoring basic criteries of academical research (eg. representative sample size, clear definition of 'Celtic'/'Germanic' genome types, only peer-reviewed results published,...)

    I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.


    ...? You've must have misunderstand me - rather than to identify the most probable geographic provenance of your ancestors (which is perfectly possible and genealogically reasonable to trace ancestry/descent from a specific population) they are categorically stating an entirely hypothetic 'ethnicity'/cultural identity for your ancient relatives, which is not only completely irrelevant for 'knowing who your ancestors were' (which is in a 'ethnic'/cultural sense quite frankly impossible) but intentionally misleading and dangerous because it entices people to embrace an 'ethnic pride' mentality based on completely false assumptions about their genetic makeup and it's illusory implications for their 'ethnicity'. If people are curious about who their ancestors were, they should stick to conventional, proved genealogical methods, recognize the limited value of such genetic analyses and restrain themselves from speculating about their ancestors cultural self-identification.


    ...?
    Basically I agree 100% with what he said, there is no "celtic" or "germanic" gene, what you do get is people assigning ethnicities to regional genetic markers that have been present for millenia before said ethinicities even existed.
    At absolute best, from looking at haplogroups you can say that your ancestors have western (R1b), eastern (R1a) or vaugely southern european (I) roots and even that won't be very accurate as most can be commonly found outside europe too.


  20. #110
    Member Member geala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    I concur absolutely. The study of haplogroup dispersion is very interesting but the connection of gene with culture is, at least from Iron Age onwards, in my opinion not possible.

    What do you think of this page? http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...s_europe.shtml


    The discussion about the Cimbri as Celtic or Germanic people seems to have stopped. I had the feeling that, if it will start again, firstly a common base should be found what it a) meant for the ancient authors and b) should mean for us when we speak of Germanic or Celtic ethnicity.

    Perhaps different interpretations about it hampered the discussion? For me it would be a problem to f.e. speak of Germanic people when they do not speak a Germanic language but have a more or less Germanic material culture. The ancient authors acted not very systematically in this, as can be seen with the Germani cisrhenani who speak presumably a Celtic language. In Germany usually no longer is spoken of Germanic ethnicities or people but of Germanic cultural and speech communities.
    The queen commands and we'll obey
    Over the Hills and far away.
    (perhaps from an English Traditional, about 1700 AD)

    Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit:
    Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth!
    (later chorus -containing a wrong regimental name for the Bayreuth-Dragoner (DR Nr. 5) - of the "Hohenfriedberger Marsch", reminiscense of a battle in 1745 AD, to the music perhaps of an earlier cuirassier march)

  21. #111
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Its good to be skeptical of some so-called science predisposed and armed with extremely small and mixed sample groups. Its very easy to mask by manipulating a samples composition. For example I believe this has been knowing done by not excluding members of historic colonial populations from African studies. This to demonstrate greater genetic diversity? If not knowingly, then its due to incompetence. Yet, I digress.

    In this way, the strict classical use, Celtic ethnogenesis was centered on southwest Germania. Furthermore, within this concept there were the west and east Celts. These were similar yet discrete ethnos. The modern usurpations and perversions of the words Celt and German have certainly caused a great deal of confession, death, and pain. Overall, I stay away from the bio-gen stuff as it’s extremely flaky and filled with what may be con-arts worst of the worst. In truth, genes have very little to do with culture. As defined its learned, not inherited behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lvcretivs View Post
    I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.
    Pseudo-scientific site? Given a context, a very strange use of words? But, I believe you're repeating an effort made countless times. You simply see a tired old cat brought here from outside, not one that calls this home. Pseudo-history, maybe so? However, we attempt to weed our Pseudo-science as it seems fit, as does the world at large.
    Last edited by Ludens; 07-04-2010 at 10:50. Reason: merged posts
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  22. #112
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Frostwulf already pointed out that the Romans themselves differentiated between Germanics and Celts. And not only looking at the Rhine but as he pointed out also at culture. As the Romans pointed out Germanic tribes in Gaul and Celtic tribes in Germania.

    So it wasn't an regional assignment.


    That there are slight differences between Germanic and Celtic people isn't something I'm doubting. Their origins are different so there should be some difference when going genetically.

  23. #113
    Member Member paullus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    always in places where its HOT
    Posts
    11,904

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    ah but usage changes over time. you could talk about germans originally in a geographic sense, and over time develop a cultural-ethnic distinction
    "The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful." -Polybios


  24. #114
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phalanx300 View Post
    Frostwulf already pointed out that the Romans themselves differentiated between Germanics and Celts. And not only looking at the Rhine but as he pointed out also at culture. As the Romans pointed out Germanic tribes in Gaul and Celtic tribes in Germania.

    So it wasn't an regional assignment.
    What Frostwulf already pointed out was that as the culture within Germania became increasing more influenced by the Swabians the Romans qualified the term by explaining the difference between what was Celtic and what Became Swabian. When Italic or Tuscian merchants first established trade with this region the Swabian ethnos had no yet formed. They may have only become aware of them by the end of the 2nd century BC. Nevertheless, by the mid 1st century BC they were well on the way to becoming the dominant (still not the only) ethnos in southwestern Germania. In the 2nd century AD the west Germanics (of whom the Swabians were one element) had converted all of southwest, while the east Germanic (of whom the Goths were one element) controlled but never converted all of southeast Germania. At this point the geographic meaning of Germania remained, but the ethnic application began to shift from east Celtic/Noric to west Germanic speaking. As for genes; I'm sure the rapid Swabian expansion out of the lower Elbe basin represents significant incorporation and conversion of native populations, be they Celtic or otherwise.

    If Frostwulf didn't point this out, I'm sorry but he was wrong. A devil can always be found in the details. If you can find a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actualy means Deutsche please present it with a good English rendering. Thanks

    In fact, I'm not at all sure what you're implying?

    OK, what the Romans actually say, is some Celts, such as the Belgae, claimed to have crossed the Rhine into Gaul. Thus they had onced lived in Germania and could be called Germans. However, they didn't actually say they were Germanic vs. Celtic. In other words the Romans didn't say the Belgae were Swabian, which is what you may thinking of as Germanic or German speaking. Its seems as time passed some Celtic tribes in Germania became more and more Swabian in culture except in speech. The Romans also removed by force or relocated most the population immediately east of, to west of the Rhine in the late 1st century BC. The Romans were directly or indirectly responsible for a lot of population change within Germania. People only make this subject more confusing than need be, by interjecting modern politics. Many are also confused by bad English translations made over 100 years ago, which have very strong Deutsches Kaiserreich political leanings.
    Last edited by cmacq; 07-07-2010 at 21:27.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  25. #115
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Thank you Cmaq, that really clarifies my thinking on the issue.

    I wonder to what extent the province buildings, religion and culture elements of M2TW engine will represent these interesting shades of culture, identity, eisen und blut.
    From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan

    Jatte lambasts Calico Rat

  26. #116
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Thank you Cmaq, that really clarifies my thinking on the issue.

    I wonder to what extent the province buildings, religion and culture elements of M2TW engine will represent these interesting shades of culture, identity, eisen und blut.
    We shall see.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  27. #117

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phalanx300
    Frostwulf already pointed out that the Romans themselves differentiated between Germanics and Celts. And not only looking at the Rhine but as he pointed out also at culture. As the Romans pointed out Germanic tribes in Gaul and Celtic tribes in Germania.

    So it wasn't an regional assignment.
    This statement is correct, the classical authors (as well as many modern) made a distinction between the two peoples based on language and culture, not on region.

    Quote Originally Posted by paullus
    ah but usage changes over time. you could talk about germans originally in a geographic sense, and over time develop a cultural-ethnic distinction
    But in this case we are talking of Romans and from what I have read Germani was not used as a geographic term. The first author who possibly recognized the term "Germani" was Poseidonius, then clearly Sallust when speaking of the Spartacus revolt. The Roman authors did not use Germani as a geographical qualifier. This is what was written which prompted me to respond:
    Quote Originally Posted by cmacq
    OK, please reread my post above, I didn't actually say they were ethnic Germanics. I slimply pointed out that they were Germanic because early on, that term was only used by Classical authors as a geographic qualifier. Therefore, greater Germania was 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube,' and those that lived there were seen as Germans. Even the most causal observer will note that the Boii, who were eastern Celts, lived 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube.' Again a cursory review will clearly demonstrate that the Celtic Boii, who were considered Germans, because they lived in greater Germania, yet they were not unique. However, on the other hand in the paper cited above, which I've looked over, some of the information, primarily outside Faux's particular field, is not well research. Nonetheless, that is not to say that Faux's theory has no merit. Overall, at this time I'm simply not at liberty to; nor do I care to offer up, much more than that.
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2444499
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2489854

    The statements that were made above were saying that "Germani"/Germanic was a geographical term, and as I pointed out in these posts:
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2492033
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2493091
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2494704
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2496601
    Germani was not a geographical qualifier as also pointed out by Dobesch, Drinkwater and Liebeschuetz.

    Quote Originally Posted by cmacq
    What Frostwulf already pointed out was that as the culture within Germania became increasing more influenced by the Swabians the Romans qualified the term by explaining the difference between what was Celtic and what Became Swabian. When Italic or Tuscian merchants first established trade with this region the Swabian ethnos had no yet formed. They may have only become aware of them by the end of the 2nd century BC. Nevertheless, by the mid 1st century BC they were well on the way to becoming the dominant (still not the only) ethnos in southwestern Germania. In the 2nd century AD the west Germanics (of whom the Swabians were one element) had converted all of southwest, while the east Germanic (of whom the Goths were one element) controlled but never converted all of southeast Germania.
    For the most part I agree with this, taking into consideration that there were Germanic speaking peoples prior to the arrival of the Suebi and Ubii.



    Quote Originally Posted by cmacq
    If Frostwulf didn't point this out, I'm sorry but he was wrong. A devil can always be found in the details. If you can find a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actualy means Deutsche please present it with a good English rendering. Thanks
    Find me a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actually means a geographical qualifier. Germania is the geographic term, Germani is the people who the Romans referred to as being a non-Celtic people. From reading Tacitus you can tell that he was using language and culture as the basis for the term Germani.
    Quote Originally Posted by cmacq
    OK, what the Romans actually say, is some Celts, such as the Belgae, claimed to have crossed the Rhine into Gaul. Thus they had onced lived in Germania and could be called Germans. However, they didn't actually say they were Germanic vs. Celtic.
    Caesar does make a "Belgae vs. Celt" in this case. Caesar from book 2,4 of the Gallic war-"This is what I discovered. Most of the Belgae were of German origin; they had crossed the Rhine long ago, driven out the Gauls they found living there and settled in that part of Gaul because its soil was fertile". He is distinguishing between Gauls and Belgae(which he also does at the beginning stating " In language, customs and laws these three peoples are quite distinct".). In book 2,4 Caesar learns that most of the Belgae are of German origin, but he continues to call them Belgae. Yet if you look at the West Bank Germans, he calls them Germans. In book 6,32 Caesar says "The Segni and Condrusi, who live between the Eborones and the Treveri but are of German origin and so count as Germans,..". Why would he persist in calling the Belgae who are "mostly of German origin" Belgae, yet differentiate with the West bank Germans? If Germani was a geographical term, then why isn't the Volcae Tectosages or the Boii considered Germani?
    Also another factor to consider is Caesar's chapter 6 "to describe the customs of the Gauls and the Germans, and the differences between the two nations". Also the Ubii who have adopted Gallic customs, these go to show it's simply not a geographical term.
    Last edited by Frostwulf; 07-13-2010 at 21:42.

  28. #118
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    Caesar does make a "Belgae vs. Celt" in this case. Caesar from book 2,4 of the Gallic war-"This is what I discovered. Most of the Belgae were of German origin; they had crossed the Rhine long ago, driven out the Gauls they found living there and settled in that part of Gaul because its soil was fertile". He is distinguishing between Gauls and Belgae(which he also does at the beginning stating " In language, customs and laws these three peoples are quite distinct".). In book 2,4 Caesar learns that most of the Belgae are of German origin, but he continues to call them Belgae. Yet if you look at the West Bank Germans, he calls them Germans. In book 6,32 Caesar says "The Segni and Condrusi, who live between the Eborones and the Treveri but are of German origin and so count as Germans,..". Why would he persist in calling the Belgae who are "mostly of German origin" Belgae, yet differentiate with the West bank Germans? If Germani was a geographical term, then why isn't the Volcae Tectosages or the Boii considered Germani?
    Also another factor to consider is Caesar's chapter 6 "to describe the customs of the Gauls and the Germans, and the differences between the two nations". Also the Ubii who have adopted Gallic customs, these go to show it's simply not a geographical term.
    I can't at this point address everything you have above. What I can tell you is you have several issues mixed and/or ill-matched. Its important to address each time frame as each culture and individual situations were not static. I will suggest that if you understand Latin and/or Greek as I do; please investigate copies of the original documents. You will find that often they don't actually say what you think. Important phases occurred before 300 BC, another between 300 and 120 BC, followed by another between 120 to 50 BC, followed by the great Romano-Germanic wars which were finally settled by about AD 90.

    However as far as the Belgae, we have long understood Caesar’s differentiation of language and custom implied the difference between Gaulish and Brythonic. This is witnessed by their respective material cultures and the simple fact the same Belgic tribes of northeast Gaul also occupied nearly all of Britain. Nonetheless, I will not address how far east of the Rhine this cultural expression extended. Its enough to say, that in fact it did. As for the Belgae, we have a good idea where they came from within Germania and when, as well as why they migrated to Gaul.

    Still, I believe your understanding of the culture of southwest Germania, as Greater Germania was defined by Tacitus, dates back to the 1920s. It has been rather well established that the center of Noric Celt culture was in modern Germany north of the Danube, east of Rhine, extending well past the Main into northern Hesse and east to include all of Bohemia. The Ubii were centered on the Main, with their oppidum the largest Celtic settlement was also a major minting center. As of the 1950s this has been widely excepted, due to the fact that some of the earliest and largest Hallstatt and Latene settlements are found in this region. Regardless, I've covered all this in above postings.
    Last edited by cmacq; 07-18-2010 at 04:59.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  29. #119
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
    Find me a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actually means a geographical qualifier. Germania is the geographic term, Germani is the people who the Romans referred to as being a non-Celtic people. From reading Tacitus you can tell that he was using language and culture as the basis for the term Germani.
    As for what is called German, in the late EB era, there may be those that find Line 5, Chapter 2 of Tacitus' 'Germania,' of some interest.

    Chapter 2
    [5] ceterum Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum, quoniam qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis, evaluisse paulatim, ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox et a se ipsis invento nomine Germani vocarentur.

    My Rendering
    [5] On the other hand, the name German, is recent and newly used, whereas when those now the Tungres, somehow first crossed the Rhine and expelled the Gauls, they were called Germans, as explained a regional, not a tribal name, gradually became more popular, due to fear and success it surpassed, thus moved to this contrived name, and first began to call themselves Germans.

    By AJ Church
    [5] The name Germany, on the other hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.
    Here Tacitus didn’t say that the Tungri were the first to used the name Germani. Rather he points out that when the Tungri first crossed the Rhine into Gaul they were called Germani. Its very subtle, but he didn’t say they called themselves Germani, instead its implied the Gauls and Romans called them that. Next, he tells us these so-called Germans were also known as the Tungri. Finally, he reminds, that it was around this time, that the people east of the Rhine, the subject of his book, first began to call themselves by the contrived name; Germani. The reason Tacitus provided was because the title 'Germani' had a reputation to invoked success and fear.

    In other words, 'Germani' was actually a form of the well attested Latin 'Germane,' meaning 'real, true, original, seed,' or 'germ.' Additionally, there is a Middle English form of a Latin usage that indecates a much earlier expression. This found in the terms 'Brother-, Sister-, and Cousin-German.' This goes to the double Latin form and usage as in Germanus, which means both 'brother' and a 'younger' or 'original, elemental,' or 'less developed/evolved seed' or 'spawn.' This particular usage is referenced in Strabo's Geographica.

    The Roman military applied this term to the opposition forces situated east of the Rhine and north of the Danube because they viewed the largely Celtic tribes there as similar to those found in adjacent areas under their control, yet in a much ‘less evolved’ or ‘original’ state. Later, in the very late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD, the events behind Tacitus’ story about the name being adopted by the natives, occured.


    OK, after I issued the challenge Frostwulf didn't comply, he simply issued his own. So I've meet his challenge, its past high-time he meets my challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by cmacq View Post
    A devil can always be found in the details. If you can find a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actualy means Deutsche please present it with a good English rendering. Thanks
    Last edited by cmacq; 07-18-2010 at 08:28.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  30. #120
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: What are the Cimbri?

    Then we have this...

    Strabo, Geographica
    Book 7, chapter 1

    [2]εὐθὺς τοίνυν τὰ πέραν τοῦ Ῥήνου μετὰ τοὺς Κελτοὺς πρὸς τὴν ἕω κεκλιμένα Γερμανοὶ νέμονται, μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττοντες τοῦ Κελτικοῦ φύλου τῷ τε πλεονασμῷ τῆς ἀγριότητος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς ξανθότητος, τἆλλα δὲ παραπλήσιοι καὶ μορφαῖς καὶ ἤθεσι καὶ βίοις ὄντες, οἵους εἰρήκαμεν τοὺς Κελτούς. διὸ δὴ καί μοι δοκοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι τοῦτο αὐτοῖς θέσθαι τοὔνομα ὡς ἂν γνησίους Γαλάτας φράζειν βουλόμενοι: γνήσιοι γὰρ οἱ Γερμανοὶ κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων διάλεκτον.

    My Rendering
    [2]Therefore straightaway, after the Celts and beyond the Rhine, at first sight we turn towards the Germans who are a bit dispersed. They differ from the Celtic people, particularly because they are more savage and have greater stature, as well as lighter hair. Yet in all other ways, their appearance, customs, and habits; I must say are related to the Celts. Thus, I believe that the Romans sought to give them a name that implied they were the true Celts, because they say the Germans belong to that race.

    Hamilton
    Next after the Keltic nations come the Germans who inhabit the country to the east beyond the Rhine; and these differ but little from the Keltic race, except in their being more fierce, of a larger stature, and more ruddy in countenance; but in every other respect, their figure, their customs and manners of life, are such as we have related of the Kelts.1 The Romans therefore, I think, have very appositely applied to them the name ‘Germani,’ as signifying genuine; for in the Latin language Germani signifies genuine.
    Its important to note that Strabo wrote after Ceasar, but before Tacitus.
    Last edited by cmacq; 07-27-2010 at 20:47.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO