View Full Version : Sweboz EB 1.0 comments
Just began a Sweboz campaign and noticed that this faction doesn't seem to be that much completed. Probably you guys already know most of the stuff, that I will tell you now, but nevertheless I think constructive critic is always usefull. (sorry, but I'll probably misspell the in game region, town or unit names, but I really hope that you will know what I mean)
1. the music theme of the Sweboz-campaign doesn't fit at all to the Sweboz or ancient Germans (some elements within the theme do, f.e. horns or drums, but the main theme is made up by a Didgeridoo - at least it very much sounds like this) I think Australian Aborigines have nothing to do with ancient Germans, it would be the same if you guys made American native music the main theme of the EB-Rome campaign! I found it so much disturbing, that I had to turn off the music. A theme which was more inspired by f.e. modern "Viking metal" (not exactly like Viking metal, no E-guitars and modern adaptions, but should have f.e. deep male voices, battle-screams, drums, horns, lurs, a mix between a glorifying and sad musical undertone ...), would really fit!
2. the Sweboz large trading port upgrade (don't know the exact name..) uses the image of the eastern faction ports, instead of using the Celtic one, which should be used.
3. there is only one place available to build ships, which is Scandinavia.It's unhistoric and unjustified, because in ancient times German coast-tribes already sailed around in the North Sea and Baltic Sea and they even did acts of piracy and used their ships to settle new lands. (How do you guys think, that Germans were able to settle Frisian islands and Heligoland in the North Sea without ships? The Frisians were one of the oldest known tribes: they were first mentioned by Pytheas of Massilia 325 B.C.) SO at least Gáwjám~Habukoz really needs to be a another place of Germanic homeland with the ability to build ships. (I even would include the modern Danish peninsula, Gáwjám~Kimbroz in game I think)
4. the Sweboz victory conditions need to include Gáwjám~Gotanoz (the small island Gotland south of Scandinavia), because it's also Sweboz homeland in game, but doesn't have to be conquered or even raided, unlike all the other Sweboz homeland territories in game, which is strange.
I also have some comments about a special unit, but I don't have time for this now, so I will complete this post the next days.
Ok, that's it for now from my side. I really hope, that you take my comments for serious and aren't offended in any way. Still I very much admire the work of EB.
so long
Strategos Alexandros
01-05-2008, 18:37
1. The Sweboz music was made using ancient celtic instruments.
2. Not all factions have completed building pictures.
3. This was probably the only place with sufficent harbours for fleets of ships rather than just raiding parties.
4. I don't know, I'm not a team member.
A theme which was more inspired by f.e. modern "Viking metal"
uh-huh.
Puupertti Ruma
01-05-2008, 20:36
To the 1st:
That is not a digeridoo but an ancient celtic instrument (like Alexandros said), that resembles a horn. More information about the barbarian music themes, especially the awesome "Prehistoric Music Ireland" can be found here. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87523)
I my self think the music is Awesome and way more fitting than "viking metal". I mean, why to take inspiration from something that takes the inspiration from the very thing you are trying to depict.
About the 4th:
The Gawjam Gotanoz was a VC for Sweboz in 0.80 (or 0.7.4, not sure actually) and it was also needed for the "uniter of tribes" quest/trait. Pure speculation: Maybe it was axed as a VC purely from gameplay reason's as Gotaland is an island and Sweboz can get fleets only in scandinavia and that makes conquering Gotaland irritating.
Cadwalader
01-05-2008, 21:14
Here in Norway, I know "lurs" were used in battle. Lots of them have been found in Denmark, dating back to the bronze age, so I'm sure the Sweboz could've used them. Wikipedia has a nice page on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lur
I believe I have heard or read that it was used even into the age of gunpowder. I know a legend about an invasion attempt by Sweden, using Scottish mercenaries, were repelled because a woman saw them, and blew the lur. The men heard it, and came to stone the bastards.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
01-05-2008, 22:10
1: Music is devided up by culture, since RTW has so few culture slots, all of Europe's peoples have to be thrown in the 'barbarian' culture slot. Due to this, they have to share the same music...
2: Probably should be fixed...
3: Ships in EB represent military fleets, not commercial ships or raiding ships. Though, I think there was talk of adding a military port to another Germania town, but I don't think that ever got implemented.
4: It may have something to do with the fact nobody from the mainland ever invaded the island, but the other way around. :shrug:
1. The Sweboz music was made using ancient celtic instruments.
3. This was probably the only place with sufficent harbours for fleets of ships rather than just raiding parties.
3. why do you think that there were military fleets available in antic Scandinavia and not on the North-Sea coast? Scandinavia was famous for its navy in Viking times, but not in the ancient world and in fact England was conquered by ships setting sail from the Dutch, German, and Danish North-Sea coast, so there must have been some ship building knowledge in this area long before, while Scandinavia became famous for its ships very much later. I know nothing of a scandinavian invasion by sea in the antiquity, while the Anglo-Saxon example of the late antiquity speaks for itself. By the way, the Romas called the North Sea Mare Germanicum and not Mare Gallicum; this name wouldn't have been justified at all without a recognizebale navy force in that area, right? It's absurd to think that those primitve German ships came down all the way from Scandinavia into the North Sea instead of the much nearer Dutch, German, Danish North-Sea coastline with it's many islands and natural bays.
To the 1st:
That is not a digeridoo but an ancient celtic instrument (like Alexandros said), that resembles a horn. More information about the barbarian music themes, especially the awesome "Prehistoric Music Ireland" can be found here. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87523)
I my self think the music is Awesome and way more fitting than "viking metal". I mean, why to take inspiration from something that takes the inspiration from the very thing you are trying to depict.
About the 4th:
The Gawjam Gotanoz was a VC for Sweboz in 0.80 (or 0.7.4, not sure actually) and it was also needed for the "uniter of tribes" quest/trait. Pure speculation: Maybe it was axed as a VC purely from gameplay reason's as Gotaland is an island and Sweboz can get fleets only in scandinavia and that makes conquering Gotaland irritating.
1. didn't know that an antic celtic instrument sounds that much like a Didgeridoo. seems to be crazy but true. Viking Metal was just an example (perhaps a bad one) nothing else. But still the Sweboz music theme is disturbing and I can't believe that people of that time actualy listened to that kind of monotonous music. There is probably no evidence at all of how antic music of the so called "Barbarians" sounded like and I really find it hard to believe that it sounded like in EB. (Don't take this as offense) More variation and a melody can't be wrong I think: I mean war drums and pipes were pretty easy to play and had great effect on morale, but for sure they used more variation and melody.
4. so fix the problem with the Sweboz military ports - make another one available and there is no prob with Gotland as a winning condition :2thumbsup:
1: Music is devided up by culture, since RTW has so few culture slots, all of Europe's peoples have to be thrown in the 'barbarian' culture slot. Due to this, they have to share the same music...
3: Ships in EB represent military fleets, not commercial ships or raiding ships. Though, I think there was talk of adding a military port to another Germania town, but I don't think that ever got implemented.
4: It may have something to do with the fact nobody from the mainland ever invaded the island, but the other way around. :shrug:
1. didn't know that I have to hear the same music when playing Celts. Like I said, this is my first EB campaign and I started with Sweboz. I hope u guys modify the music, not only because I really can't bear to listen to it, while playing several hours, but for some of the reasons above.
3. see my answer above to strategos alexandros
4. that's not true. Gotland was conquered by the Swedish (Svear) in the early middle age.
CaesarAugustus
01-06-2008, 02:44
Any examples of "Viking Metal"? :inquisitive:
Alexander the Adequate
01-06-2008, 03:07
I'm not horribly knowledgeable, but about the music, even if you find it satanic and untolerable, i don't think that the additions you suggested (pipes, drums) have any evidence to go on, which i think would be blasphemous in EB. The Celtic air instrument used now, however, we know that they used for sure (or the Celts used anyway). So i think until evidence comes up that pipes and drums were a common element in european music, they would not put them in. (However, i am not a team member and this could all be bollocks.)
unreal_uk
01-06-2008, 03:56
First glaring fact to add - Sweboz is not 'Germans' as RTW had it! They don't represent all the Germanic tribes under one banner!
Tellos Athenaios
01-06-2008, 04:11
4. the Sweboz victory conditions need to include Gáwjám~Gotanoz (the small island Gotland south of Scandinavia), because it's also Sweboz homeland in game, but doesn't have to be conquered or even raided, unlike all the other Sweboz homeland territories in game, which is strange.
As for 4) that's got something to do with preventing the Vanilla VC's from being triggered IIRC. Gawjam~Gotanoz, is in fact, nothing less than capital of Vanilla Latium! (Roma is located in the internal province of Latium2. ~;))
pezhetairoi
01-06-2008, 11:15
The music sounded incredibly barbaric the first time I heard it, and I actually modded it out of the descr_sounds. But after a week or two I put it back in and it was much more palatable. For some people it's an acquired taste. Take five, give it time, and see what happens then.
So i think until evidence comes up that pipes and drums were a common element in european music, they would not put them in.
Forget the pipes, this was just an example that quite primitve instruments can be used to greater effect than the actual EB Barbarian music theme sounds like. But for sure: horns, drums and lurs were used by ancient Germans, and it's obvious that those are probably the oldest instruments of mankind. In the later antiquity f.e. the Alemanni were famous for playing the Lyra! (this is no suggestion for including the Lyra, - because I don't know if the Lyra was already known among ancient German tribes in 270 B.C. - just wanted to show that people tend to underestimate the musical abilities of the "barbarians" in the antiquity.)
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/9641/leierlk3.jpg
out of a history book on ancient Germans, which came out 2007 and combines latest knowledge of historians and experimental archeologists
First glaring fact to add - Sweboz is not 'Germans' as RTW had it! They don't represent all the Germanic tribes under one banner!
I know. But still all Sweboz homeland provinces have to be conquered in EB except of one
As for 4) that's got something to do with preventing the Vanilla VC's from being triggered IIRC. Gawjam~Gotanoz, is in fact, nothing less than capital of Vanilla Latium! (Roma is located in the internal province of Latium2. ~;))
sorry, I don't understand cryptic modder language - I'm just a player. what's VC and IIRC?? Do I get you right that u want to tell me that it can't be changed?
The music ... Take five, give it time, and see what happens then.
will try on...~;)
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
01-06-2008, 20:01
sorry, I don't understand cryptic modder language - I'm just a player. what's VC and IIRC?? Do I get you right that u want to tell me that it can't be changed?
VC = Vietcong or victory conditions. Conditions to be met to win the game. In vanilla RTW (= the original game) VCs were identical for every faction, but as EB is much more sophisticated, it has different VCs for each faction. It is possible that somehow the game gets messed up if the AI would conquer "Latium", home of the vanilla Senate faction.
IIRC = if I recall correctly
Mouzafphaerre
01-07-2008, 00:08
.
When in doubt (with acronyms) check (http://www.acronymfinder.com). ~:)
.
Teleklos Archelaou
01-07-2008, 01:54
When someone researches and composes and performs and records a bunch of realistic (in a quality recording) ancient Germanic music and makes it available to us also we will definitely definitely look into using it too. Till then, there's nothing more realistic for the music for the factions in that culture group (the "Barbarian" one) out there - and that the folks who made it allowed us to use it is still one of the biggest coups we've had.
When someone researches and composes and performs and records a bunch of realistic (in a quality recording) ancient Germanic music and makes it available to us also we will definitely definitely look into using it too. Till then, there's nothing more realistic for the music for the factions in that culture group (the "Barbarian" one) out there - and that the folks who made it allowed us to use it is still one of the biggest coups we've had.
then most likeley there won't be any improvements ...
One question before I go on and invest time and energy in here:anyway is it desired , that people come up here with comments, suggestions and their knowledge?
Because comments like these:
uh-huh.
only show silly ignorance
then most likeley there won't be any improvements ...
One question before I go on and invest time and energy in here:anyway is it desired , that people come up here with comments, suggestions and their knowledge?
Because comments like these:
only show silly ignorance
When people completely misunderstand the ethos behind EB, as you did with your suggestion of basing our music on 'viking metal', there is a tendency amongst older members to be short with the newer ones. Additionally you spoke in a tone that was quite assertive, using words like "should" and making historic statements without backing it up with evidence, even though you showed yourself to be a new-comer to EB.
Foot
When people completely misunderstand the ethos behind EB, as you did with your suggestion of basing our music on 'viking metal', there is a tendency amongst older members to be short with the newer ones. Additionally you spoke in a tone that was quite assertive, using words like "should" and making historic statements without backing it up with evidence, even though you showed yourself to be a new-comer to EB.
Foot
Listen, Bitey Terrier
I understood EB quite well, even though I'm new.
The Viking metal-thing was just an example to express my thoughts, perhaps a bad one, which I already said, but the rest isn't that wrong I think.
(not exactly like Viking metal, no E-guitars and modern adaptions, but should have f.e. deep male voices, battle-screams, drums, horns, lurs, a mix between a glorifying and sad musical undertone ...)
All those instruments (drums, horns, lurs) were in use without any doubt and I just said that I don't believe, that the current quite simple and monotonous EB-Barbarian sound is realistic - where are your evidences or historic facts here?
What's wrong with the words "should" or "need to"? How do you formulate suggestions? And if u look up my posts - I was polite in contrary to Paullus!
The military ports: I gave good and evident arguments, but I didn't get any serious arguments back, nor did I get historic evidence presented, that scandinavia was a military port in the antiquity. I really don't think that the current Sweboz military port situation is based on hard facts. Now you may say, that I'm the one who would like to have changes and improvements and therefore it's up to me to present facts and evidences. But if you really agree to the idea of EB, you need to accept better agruments and evidences (they are hard to find about ancient Germans in early antiquity) than you have (didn't get any), needn't you? Otherwise the so called EB-ethos is nothing more than a farce.
I may be new to EB, but I'm not new to history, Bitey! You know, where history lacks the facts and sources, interpretation and own thoughts are essential for every historian and even more for experimental archeologists.
But listen, I don't want to fight in here, I just want to be taken serious when I invest time, knowledge and energy!
I'm not the bad guy in here - this role would be new to me. I'm just defending myself against Bitey Terriers ~;)
Listen, Bitey Terrier
I understood EB quite well, even though I'm new.
The Viking metal-thing was just an example to express my thoughts, perhaps a bad one, which I already said, but the rest isn't that wrong I think.
All those instruments (drums, horns, lurs) were in use without any doubt and I just said that I don't believe, that the current quite simple and monotonous EB-Barbarian sound is realistic - where are your evidences or historic facts here?
What's wrong with the words "should" or "need to"? How do you formulate suggestions? And if u look up my posts - I was polite in contrary to Paullus!
The military ports: I gave good and evident arguments, but I didn't get any serious arguments back, nor did I get historic evidence presented, that scandinavia was a military port in the antiquity. Now you may say, that I'm the one who would like to have changes and improvements and therefore it's up to me to present facts and evidences. But if you really agree to the idea of EB, you need to accept better agruments and evidences (they are hard to find about ancient Germans in early antiquity) than you have (didn't get any), needn't you? Otherwise the so called EB-ethos is nothing more than a farce.
I may be new to EB, but I'm not new to history, Bitey! You know, where history lacks the facts and sources, interpretation and own thoughts are essential.
But listen, I don't want to fight in here, I just want to be taken serious when I invest time, knowledge and energy!
Perhaps I should clarify; the relationship we have with our fans is not equal. If we had to respond to every fan question with the pages and pages of information that we collected we would never get anything done at all. So no, we don't have to meet you guys on any equal footing when it comes to presenting evidence. If someone comes along and puts forward evidence that we feel is constructive and well-presented we will respond in kind. To be honest, your uninformed post on the Barbarian music put me off the rest of your post to begin with. We will also try to respond to requests as well, as we feel that EB is here to help. We do not have much time for new members, simply because we run a volunteer project and we cannot respond to everyone.
Teleklos has already responded to the music, as have others, but I'll shall make it clear. We cannot produce our own music, we don't have the team for it. If you can find a musical group that focuses on the recreation of ancient music who we can contact, then we will gladly look into it. Most of the Barbarian music comes from a group called Prehistoric Ireland which, through diligent research into ancient instruments and musical theory, attempt to recreate the sounds of bronze-age music. This of course is highly speculative, but if you wish to take it up with them I'm sure they will be happy to help you in that regard. As for our own, we worked with two professional composers on the scores, and are happy with the outcome. It may not sound like 'viking metal', or how you would wish it to sound, but that is hardly a fault with our history as, as you yourself mention, we must remain speculative.
Finally, my name is not Bitey Terrier. My name is Foot. We neither know each other well enough, nor are on good enough terms for you to use my self-designated nick-name in jest, harmless as it is.
Foot
Tellos Athenaios
01-07-2008, 17:22
@sdk80: as for your military port. Incidentally the Dutch and German coastal waters are not suitable of the presence of any military fleet whatsoever, even today. (Which would have been considerably worse back then, a simple comparison suffices: roughly 12 km from the North Sea coast in North Holland lies an Roman fort dating back to first century AD. But today it's next to one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.)
You'd have to travel south, towards Belgium to find waters deep enough to allow for large fleets (especially for keeping them).
Finally it's only since medieval times that *real* military vessels are used: people simply did not have a need for any military fleet whatsoever, what with every mercantile ship being equipped to fend off a pirate attack/go pirate themselves.
to make myself clear:
Sure, you don't have to do anything!
So we all have to live with the current Barbarian sound in EB... It's cool that those guys gave you the music for your mod, but just, because you became it for free and that it was a good clou for you guys, you shouldn't neglect any eligible criticism on it. That's all! Perhaps those ancient Irish music guys would even be happy if you contacted them again and asked them, if they would like to comnpose a music theme with more variation in it exclusively for this great mod..
I'm sure that you guys have almost no hard evidence on the Sweboz or ancient Germans in 270 B.C., it's obvious, because I know the sources on ancient Germans - some stuff you included is debateable, because you must have relied very much on your own interpretations, which may be wrong.
So you should be happy that people take interest and want to share knowledge, insights and ideas, instead of batten down the hatches. The claim on histroic accuracy turns out to be a farce, if you aren't open to evident arguments, where you used possible wrong interpretations yourself. This has nothing to do with equality but with intelligence, Bitey. (calm down, one last time let me call you like this :oops: )
Geoffrey S
01-07-2008, 17:42
So we all have to live with the current Barbarian sound in EB... It's cool that those guys gave you the music for your mod, but just, because you became it for free and that it was a good clou for you guys, you shouldn't neglect any eligible criticism on it. That's all! Perhaps those ancient Irish music guys would even be happy if you contacted them again and asked them, if they would like to comnpose a music theme with more variation in it exclusively for this great mod..
I don't think you realize how hard it is to acquire people who are either willing to create new music for a mod, which is a time-consuming task which requires a capable and reliable person, or donate it for free, which was indeed a coup for the team. It's either what's in there now, or nothing at all unless the EB team gets very lucky again.
I'm sure that you guys have almost no hard evidence on the Sweboz or ancient Germans in 270 B.C., it's obvious, because I know the sources on ancient Germans - some stuff you included is debateable, because you must have relied very much on your own interpretations, which may be wrong.
So you should be happy that people take interest and want to share knowledge, insights and ideas, instead of batten down the hatches. The claim on histroic accuracy turns out to be a farce, if you aren't open to evident arguments, where you used possible wrong interpretations yourself. This has nothing to do with equality but with intelligence, Bitey. (calm down, one last time let me call you like this :oops: )
I've yet to see any EB members claim that the mod is 100% historically accurate. That's impossible to achieve, as has been made clear by team members and in fact by yourself. When one leaves the hard facts, as must be done if such a wide-ranging mod is to be created, speculation becomes necessary; and in that area it becomes a matter of opinions, of which there a numerous possibilities among which the team has chosen a particular route. As a large number of topics in these forums prove, it's impossible to argue against opinions with opinions, and unless you can actually come up with hard facts which disprove the choices made by the EB team (the reasons behind which have now been illuminated) there is no obligation for them to listen to you, much less change things.
@sdk80: as for your military port. Incidentally the Dutch and German coastal waters are not suitable of the presence of any military fleet whatsoever, even today. (Which would have been considerably worse back then, a simple comparison suffices: roughly 12 km from the North Sea coast in North Holland lies an Roman fort dating back to first century AD. But today it's next to one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.)
You'd have to travel south, towards Belgium to find waters deep enough to allow for large fleets (especially for keeping them).
Finally it's only since medieval times that *real* military vessels are used: people simply did not have a need for any military fleet whatsoever, what with every mercantile ship being equipped to fend off a pirate attack/go pirate themselves.
Tellos Athenaios, thank you for taking the time and for this good answer. I really appreciate it.
The boats which you used for the Sweboz are very primitive ones, most likely based on the Hjortspring-boat type. Those kind of primitive ships don't need deep waters at all, because those aren't real military vessels in a modern sense. These "ships" can be used anywhere with great success. I don't know what other boats you included, because evidence is hard to find on that matter, but still these boats didn't need deep waters or any special natural conditions. And for game balances sake and historic accuracy admit another military port for the Sweboz on the North-Sea Coast.
I don't think you realize how hard it is to acquire people who are either willing to create new music for a mod, which is a time-consuming task which requires a capable and reliable person, or donate it for free, which was indeed a coup for the team. It's either what's in there now, or nothing at all unless the EB team gets very lucky again.
I've yet to see any EB members claim that the mod is 100% historically accurate. That's impossible to achieve, as has been made clear by team members and in fact by yourself. When one leaves the hard facts, as must be done if such a wide-ranging mod is to be created, speculation becomes necessary; and in that area it becomes a matter of opinions, of which there a numerous possibilities among which the team has chosen a particular route. As a large number of topics in these forums prove, it's impossible to argue against opinions with opinions, and unless you can actually come up with hard facts which disprove the choices made by the EB team (the reasons behind which have now been illuminated) there is no obligation for them to listen to you, much less change things.
point taken. thank you too for your patience, Geoffrey :2thumbsup:
so it's pretty much useless trying to convince you guys on a subject, which unfortunately has left almost no sources and hard facts like the ancient Germans of the Iron time, because you guys already made up your mind?
CirdanDharix
01-07-2008, 18:00
@sdk80: as for your military port. Incidentally the Dutch and German coastal waters are not suitable of the presence of any military fleet whatsoever, even today. (Which would have been considerably worse back then, a simple comparison suffices: roughly 12 km from the North Sea coast in North Holland lies an Roman fort dating back to first century AD. But today it's next to one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.)
You'd have to travel south, towards Belgium to find waters deep enough to allow for large fleets (especially for keeping them).
Finally it's only since medieval times that *real* military vessels are used: people simply did not have a need for any military fleet whatsoever, what with every mercantile ship being equipped to fend off a pirate attack/go pirate themselves.
Carthaginian warships beg to differ. The Marsala wreck, for instance, had no purpose other than serving as a light vessel in Carthage's war fleet. I supose the same is true of many ships in the ancient Mediterranean world. Things were more blurry later, in the Viking age ships might be better at raiding or at hauling large ammounts of cargo, but they could be used for both; although, supposedly Alfred the Great founded England's first permanent navy, but that might just be a myth vehiculated by pop history for all I know.
Regarding the waters of the North and Baltic seas, I wonder how Imperial germany managed to keep their navy given what you claim, especially since, the last time I checked, Dreadnaught-era battleships had a greater draught than anything afloat during antiquity, up to and including Ptolemaios Philopator's floating monstrosity. And, I must add, Rotterdam is very much on the Dutch coast...
Tellos Athenaios
01-07-2008, 19:03
Hmm I suppose I should have made myself more clear:
1) I was under the impression (EDIT: and that's probably my fault for not reading everything or sth.) we were talking about presumed (either real or imagined) lack of military ports on the Belgian-Danish stretch of North Sea coast. Granted it would've been a heck of a lot easier to maintain and store a fleet in the Baltic. But even so, in 272 BC that was one of the least developped area's in all of Europe AFAIK.
Apart from that it's worth noting that especially before, but even after the Renaissance most, if not all fleets in the North Sea were in fact composed of ships primarily designed for mercantile purposes.
(As a matter of fact the arche-type Frisian mercantile ships for the North Sea (designed for the coastal waters, for intermediate distances, and mostly for carrying relatively much cargo with very little crew), aka the Cog, did in so form or another (Tjalk) remained in use even in the 20th century. And still does, but only for the purpose of racing.)
2) I should have added to my last statement the reminder I was solely talking about the North Sea. (Actually, by my reasoning the fact that the Carthaginians among others did employ ships for the only purpose of being used during war, as opposed to the peoples living around the North-Sea would explain the limitted amount of military ports in aformentioned North-Sea regions. ~;))
3) Rotterdam is not very much on the Dutch coast. A brief, very much abbreviated and not quite as detailed, history. Following the Viking incursions during the 8th and 9th century (going as far as to sack Dorenstadt, situated on the Rhine in the middle of the Netherlands) much of the naval trade over here shifted to less vunerable places, and like cities such as Dordrecht. (Since all trade vessels were still basically the simple Cog design this did not result in very much logistical trouble at all: the Cog could easily sail up and down the river, provided you'd use the tide.)
Whether or not it is actually true the following story clearly illustrates just how vunerable the region used to be: if it had not been for the Sint Elizabeht's flood (1572 IIRC) then Amsterdam would not have become the capital of Holland at all: Dordrecht was the patron city of the Count of Holland and Amsterdam was hardly anything beyond a backwater-swamp (with some villages).
But, since the flood came the need for a more sheltred location became apparent, and hence the new importance of places like Amsterdam.
At that point the new trade-routes with the Far-East became the hottest business on the planet, and naturally everybody wanted a share. Only it was very much apparent that Cog's and similar cheap-mass-production ships would not quite cut it when you had to sail across half the globe. Bigger ships were neccessary. This created a new problem, for those bigger ships could not sail all the way to the new mercantile capital of the Netherlands, and the capital of the Netherlands was very much not the right location if you wanted to sail to the East: it litterally was oriented towards trade with the Baltic. Of course there was a solution, but the growing importance of this new trade which was far more dangerous yet also far more lucrative when it did pay off gave rise to the development of a new city. And that one (among others) was the city of Rotterdam.
Rotterdam (as a town/city rather than some village) was found, and grew in importance only after the Dutch had begun major scale enviroment-shaping projects, such as the diggin of canals, and most of all the complex structures of dikes, windmills and locks commonly referred to as 'polder'. (Though, in fact the word 'polder' is not about these things but merely indicates the land gained/maintained by it.)
4) sdk80: yes, and they are basically the odd mercantile fleet that is either confiscated or just decides to go pirate (a common thing to do around the North Sea, very common - afterwards you just sell the goods back to the previous owners ~:)). So that part is about covered by the abundant presence of mercantile ports.
In the North Sea, real navies, with the explicit and sole purpose of being a military asset were not common to the point of non-existant altogether I'd say. Mind you if you look at the landscape of modern-day Netherlands you can still see why: in Frisia the old villages were located on what is called a 'Terp'; for the sake of comparison that's basically a sand dune. Those sand dunes were the only things that did not flood every odd 6 hours or so. In other words "Habukolandam" was more like "Habuko-Sea" half the time.
1) I was under the impression we were talking about presumed (either real or imagined) lack of military ports on the Belgian-Danish stretch of North Sea coast. Granted it would've been a heck of a lot easier to maintain and store a fleet in the Baltic. But even so, in 272 BC that was one of the least developped area's in all of Europe AFAIK.
Sure it's easier to have a military fleet in the Baltic Sea and even a mercantile one, because the Baltic Sea simply isn't that rough as the North Sea, but if you don't have access to the Baltic Sea you have to live with what you have. Necessity is the mother of invention!
How do you explain it, that the Romans called the North-Sea Mare Germanicum? Large parts of the North Sea border Celtic lands like Belgium, Gaul, and Britain but still ancient German boats seem to have been more present in the North Sea than Celtic vessels, otherwise the Romans would have adressed it as Mare Gallicum. And how do you explain it, that England was conquered by Angles setting sail from Danmark, Saxons setting sail form North-Germany and let's not forget the Frisians, which also made up a large force in that decades long invasion, which set sail from Netherlands and northern Germany - without having the ability of maintaining and having a military fleet on the Dutch-German-Danish (in future I will adress it as DGD coast) North-Sea coast? How do you explain it that the Frisians already were known as a seafarer people by antic Greek and Roman writers, without a "military" (there were no real exclusive military vessels, existing vessel-types were modified for special purpuses like transport of goods, raiding, warfare) presence on sea?
The Region beeing not well developed is no argument for anything. What are you comparing? This DGD Region is one of the Regions in Europe with one of the oldest and proofed excellent seafaring traditions!
Do you guys really assume that vessels like the Hjortspringboat type came down from Scandinavia? Sorry, but this is absurd.
Apart from that it's worth noting that especially before, but even after the Renaissance most, if not all fleets in the North Sea were in fact composed of ships primarily designed for mercantile purposes.
(As a matter of fact the arche-type Frisian mercantile ships for the North Sea (designed for the coastal waters, for intermediate distances, and mostly for carrying relatively much cargo with very little crew), aka the Cog, did in so form or another (Tjalk) remained in use even in the 20th century. And still does, but only for the purpose of racing.) [...]
4) sdk80: yes, and they are basically the odd mercantile fleet that is either confiscated or just decides to go pirate (a common thing to do around the North Sea, very common - afterwards you just sell the goods back to the previous owners ~:)). So that part is about covered by the abundant presence of mercantile ports.
In the North Sea, real navies, with the explicit and sole purpose of being a military asset were not common to the point of non-existant altogether I'd say. Mind you if you look at the landscape of modern-day Netherlands you can still see why: in Frisia the old villages were located on what is called a 'Terp'; for the sake of comparison that's basically a sand dune. Those sand dunes were the only things that did not flood every odd 6 hours or so. In other words "Habukolandam" was more like "Habuko-Sea" half the time.
True. In the Middle Age the mercantile ship type dominated the North-Sea- allthough f.e. the Hanse (medieval trade union of north-German cities, for the ones, who don't know) developed armed cogs with towers, for the purpose of guarding the merchant cogs, because of the Pirate problem - so this is an example of a original mercantile ship type, which became a war ship. How do you call this modified ship type? It's still a cog for sure, but it's only purpose is war.
Now for the Pirates: Klaus Störtebeker f.e. the famous medieval North-Sea Pirate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_St%C3%B6rtebeker How do you think he was able to make a living out of piracy without the ability to maintain his pirate cog fleet? As wanted Pirate he wasn't allowed to use the big ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam and so on - no he succesfully used the small Frisian islands as friendly ports without artifical digged out and created ports of the medieval big cities. But enough of Middle Age and the development of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, land gaining and so on). Back to topic.
If that part is already covered up in EB by the mercantile ports it's a bad system, because the ancient German vessels were no war-ships, but transports, mercantile ships, pirate ships in one. The Hjortspring boat which you included would be able to be created and maintained everywhere on the North-Sea coast. Flooding is no problem at all. People have learned to live with it over centuries, don't you think? And actualy the DGD-coast was the base for the invasion of Britain within the late antiquity. Now we have the military port in Scandinavia, while there is no known invasion in the antiquity, which began from Scandinavia! If you accept the Hjortspring boat as ancient military boat (which it isn't!) then you even have to make military ports available everywhere in Sweboz-homeland provinces with access to the Sea.
Now for the next thing. There were ancient German boats which were used for military and raiding purposes like the Saxon style boats and the quite similiar Nydam-type boat (the very early ancestor of the famous Viking longship!!), which are dated 300 A.D.. Those are better to be accepted as military boats and they operated all over the DGD coast and they had their home-"ports" there. This is a fact and therefore a hard proof and evidence that it was possible to maintain and have a military fleet in the North-Sea. They have a unique design and were developed exclusively by the ancient Germans, since the Celtic boats or Roman boats were of completely other design and contstruction! Now you may say that those are too late for E.B., but keep in mind that there are hardly boat findings at all (because they are wooden and therefore aren't that much resistent against the curse of time. I know only of two: The Saxon Sutton-Hoo boat, which is dated even much later, but without doubt historians accept that this kind of shiptype was used for the passage from the DGD coast to England centuries before by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, and the Nydam boat, which was used by unlucky Saxons raiding the Danish arounf 300 B.C.) and only one new finding can turn the history of shipbuilding in the DGD-area upside down. Keep in mind that we also don't have that many viking boat findings, but the waters of the North Sea were full of it in the early Middle Age. So I'd make the Nydam boat type available after the Reform of the Sweboz, which takes place very late in the EB timeframe.
By the way there is a large Celtic warship included (don't recall it's name, since I just began a Celtic Aedui campaign - good work till now, I like the presentation of the Celts in EB) Do you really have proof for this one? I really doubt it very much: I only know of leather and fur boats, which were used by Celts but I'm no expert on this.
Wow finally finished. Never posted something huge like this :sweatdrop:
Geoffrey S
01-07-2008, 23:36
point taken. thank you too for your patience, Geoffrey :2thumbsup:
so it's pretty much useless trying to convince you guys on a subject, which unfortunately has left almost no sources and hard facts like the ancient Germans of the Iron time, because you guys already made up your mind?
Wouldn't claim the latter part. I have seen people convincing team members, and at the very least posts such as your last one and any possible responses are extremely interesting and quite informative for the layman with regards to this subject such as myself. It's precisely discussions such as these, if founded on substantive information so as not to become a contest of opinions, which made me interested in studying history in the first place...
Tellos Athenaios
01-08-2008, 01:39
How do you explain it, that the Romans called the North-Sea Mare Germanicum? Large parts of the North Sea border Celtic lands like Belgium, Gaul, and Britain but still ancient German boats seem to have been more present in the North Sea than Celtic vessels, otherwise the Romans would have adressed it as Mare Gallicum. And how do you explain it, that England was conquered by Angles setting sail from Danmark, Saxons setting sail form North-Germany and let's not forget the Frisians, which also made up a large force in that decades long invasion, which set sail from Netherlands and northern Germany - without having the ability of maintaining and having a military fleet on the Dutch-German-Danish (in future I will adress it as DGD coast) North-Sea coast? How do you explain it that the Frisians already were known as a seafarer people by antic Greek and Roman writers, without a "military" (there were no real exclusive military vessels, existing vessel-types were modified for special purpuses like transport of goods, raiding, warfare) presence on sea?
The Region beeing not well developed is no argument for anything. What are you comparing? This DGD Region is one of the Regions in Europe with one of the oldest and proofed excellent seafaring traditions!
Do you guys really assume that vessels like the Hjortspringboat type came down from Scandinavia? Sorry, but this is absurd.
Whoa slow down a bit. First two questions I defer to my comment regarding the design of the cog (but for the echo of the fact that the cog actually is a Frisian type of ship): I think that such invasions would have (if there you would want to speak of 'invasion': my initial thoughts would be more akin to gradual migration/settling, as the Frisians, Belgae, and other Germanic & Celtic tribe did do all the time, btw) centered around fleets made up of mercantile ships. The cogs were not paticularly well-designed for crossing the Sea (what with it not being very sea worthy, et all) but would actually have cut it for the relatively small distance (hey, they traded all the time using that vessel) and would have been the best you could get your hands on for any such thing as "(mass) migration". It was easily convertible to a floating flat. (It basically was, with the addition of a few sails, some steering mechanisms/tweaks (it was very round, so it could roll over pretty far and still recover), certain stability tweaks and a ton of cargo-space. In short: the ancient, boat equivalent to the modern mid-distance trucks.)
And as for sea-faring traditions. Well, allow me but I don't see why the military navy is a prerequisite for being renown as sea-faring peoples? Methinks that the extensive trade network the Frisians had built up on its own more than meritted their reputation; not to mention their engagement in piracy.
To repeat: mercantile vessels simply doubled as military vessels. Why? Well, mercantile versions had been around for ages, and had been competely adopted to the enviroment, allowing to sail incredibly close to the coast but also to venture into deeper waters for an intermediate stretch of time. And add to that those vesells were made for a combination of cargo-capacity, speed (required because you needed to get the most out of good weather), agiltiy, and defence against pirates (required because the north sea used to be full of them).
True. In the Middle Age the mercantile ship type dominated the North-Sea- allthough f.e. the Hanse (medieval trade union of north-German cities, for the ones, who don't know) developed armed cogs with towers, for the purpose of guarding the merchant cogs, because of the Pirate problem - so this is an example of a original mercantile ship type, which became a war ship. How do you call this modified ship type? It's still a cog for sure, but it's only purpose is war.
Now for the Pirates: Klaus Störtebeker f.e. the famous medieval North-Sea Pirate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_St%C3%B6rtebeker How do you think he was able to make a living out of piracy without the ability to maintain his pirate cog fleet? As wanted Pirate he wasn't allowed to use the big ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam and so on - no he succesfully used the small Frisian islands as friendly ports without artifical digged out and created ports of the medieval big cities. But enough of Middle Age and the development of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, land gaining and so on). Back to topic.
Again. He uses mercantile ships as opposed to a real military naval fleet. At times his fleet would be relatively small, at times it would be hughe. But do you think he 'owned' all of those ships? That he actually 'maintained' them?
It is absolutely not in any way comparable with the organised, centralised development of naval infrastructure - not even the very smallest levels. Note that a military port is not just about storing your ships (with the cog types it's not a big deal: you can pull them on the beach/terp and anchor them: by the time the waves will reach your precious boat they will be broken already, because of the long stretch between the beginning of the coast (or rather 'wad') and the place where you'd typically tie your boats up). A military port is also about building the fleet, about repairing it.
The repairing business would've been, again, relatively easy. Most of all because it was not at all that required: just be careful with how you sail, pay some extra attention to how you balance the cargo - and next time you reach a more wooded area you buy your timber.
But that's not exactly how you can actually build any sizable, central, state/tribe/confederation-owned fleet. You can't build a fleet without material. And in the Netherlands the material for large-scale production of fleets just isn't there: by around 1600 just about every forest that had been in any way close to populated areas, and which were sufficiently accessible (as opposed to the Biesbosch) was virtually gone IIRC.
The Netherlands has a long tradition of importing basically everything and being the middle-man. A very long tradition: the Frisians themselves were middle-men already. (Timber, btw was typically imported from Sweden. Interestingly this was one of the foundations of the lucrative trade with the Baltic. Timber and grain were imported to the Netherlands, went through the whole chains of various industries and was then in some form exported again. A most striking thing is the trade in Iron ore from Sweden to the Netherlands where it was used in the various weapon industries. Second-rate quality weaponry was then sold back to the Swedes, the best quality was either kept or sold elsewhere.)
Anyhow: I think we can agree that if, as is being done consequently, military ports are only allowed in regions which historically had the resources, the expertise and the 'location', then we should exclude the Netherlands if only for the fact that they did not have the resources, right ? Same would go for Denmark which is pretty much a copy of the Netherlands (ok, apart from what those weird humans did to it), with proper hills if you will. Or was that the other way around? ~;)
If that part is already covered up in EB by the mercantile ports it's a bad system, because the ancient German vessels were no war-ships, but transports, mercantile ships, pirate ships in one. The Hjortspring boat which you included would be able to be created and maintained everywhere on the North-Sea coast. Flooding is no problem at all. People have learned to live with it over centuries, don't you think? And actualy the DGD-coast was the base for the invasion of Britain within the late antiquity. Now we have the military port in Scandinavia, while there is no known invasion in the antiquity, which began from Scandinavia! If you accept the Hjortspring boat as ancient military boat (which it isn't!) then you even have to make military ports available everywhere in Sweboz-homeland provinces with access to the Sea.
Well, as has been pointed out:
A) For the most part that was how the local naval military was.
B) For the most part that was how the local culture was (trade first, and the rest uses what trade can spare)
C) For a substantial part the regions simply lacked the means as required for a military port of their own.
Make no mistake: nobody is saying that it is perfect. But just consider this: to properly accurately represent the way how a fleet would be raised, we'd need to have a lot of mercenary fleets in the region. Basically to simulate the fact that the peoples who had the cogs/etc (virtually every village had a few) would join the army. Just like Antigonos persuaded Agean & Kretan pirates to join his war against the Koinon Hellenon.
But does the game support this kind of mechanism? Well, not RTW... (Incidentally M2TW does, so it could feature in EB2.)
Now for the next thing. There were ancient German boats which were used for military and raiding purposes like the Saxon style boats and the quite similiar Nydam-type boat (the very early ancestor of the famous Viking longship!!), which are dated 300 A.D.. Those are better to be accepted as military boats and they operated all over the DGD coast and they had their home-"ports" there. This is a fact and therefore a hard proof and evidence that it was possible to maintain and have a military fleet in the North-Sea. They have a unique design and were developed exclusively by the ancient Germans, since the Celtic boats or Roman boats were of completely other design and contstruction! Now you may say that those are too late for E.B., but keep in mind that there are hardly boat findings at all (because they are wooden and therefore aren't that much resistent against the curse of time. I know only of two: The Saxon Sutton-Hoo boat, which is dated even much later, but without doubt historians accept that this kind of shiptype was used for the passage from the DGD coast to England centuries before by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, and the Nydam boat, which was used by unlucky Saxons raiding the Danish arounf 300 B.C.) and only one new finding can turn the history of shipbuilding in the DGD-area upside down. Keep in mind that we also don't have that many viking boat findings, but the waters of the North Sea were full of it in the early Middle Age. So I'd make the Nydam boat type available after the Reform of the Sweboz, which takes place very late in the EB timeframe.
By the way there is a large Celtic warship included (don't recall it's name, since I just began a Celtic Aedui campaign - good work till now, I like the presentation of the Celts in EB) Do you really have proof for this one? I really doubt it very much: I only know of leather and fur boats, which were used by Celts but I'm no expert on this.
Wow finally finished. Never posted something huge like this :sweatdrop:
Well first of all: that's quite indeed way out of time frame. But again I'd like to defer this to earlier remarks:
A) Most notably the one about how a fleet would be gathered. This is quite distinctly separate from the way which is represented through military ports as in-game: RTW enforces that you'd need to build the fleets as a faction (aka ruler). This is perhaps (incidentally in various poleis it was customary for individual, prominent citizens to pay for equipping a ship rather than to draw upon state-funds) quite accurate for the various Mediterrean powers, but in no way is it even close to accurate with societies based on a much smaller scale: i.e. the difference between the size of a Greek or Roman or Carthaginian coastal city with military port and that of a Frisian village, or a Frisian town.
It was much more de-centralised, much more geared towards 'private' commerce/piracy; there was much less of a central thing that enforced the construction of the required infrastructure: there was no need, for every community had it's own ships. (You'd need to.)
B) The one about how a ship would be pulled on land and anchored: i.e. the local villagers would have their ships close at home. There would not be any such thing as a true port in the biggest part of the Netherlands, and certainly not any such thing as a military port.
It boils down to one real simple sentence: AFAIK there was a substantial naval activity (even military at times) on the North and Baltic Seas, but - especially so with the DGD-coast the use of ports and especially military ones was very limitted at best. The ships various commuities would gather a fleet, recruited from the local 'tribesmen' if you will, by simply adding each other's ships to the big ensemble. Not by building a brand new one with the sole purpose of going to war and leaving the 'working' ships at home.
A final note: all such ships could and would be used for piracy, raiding and whatnot; but their primary goal was to be a failry cheap and reliable cargo-carrier.
In EB2 we should be able to represent this better, there you can have mercenary fleets.
CirdanDharix
01-08-2008, 14:30
Tellos: well, since the locals' idea of a war fleet was a trade fleet with warriors inside, and we're agreed that they had loads of trade vessels (right?) and Germanic naval units in EB are the aforementioned trade ships with warriors in them...why shouldn't the Germans be able to build their fleets where they can have trade harbours? IMO the whole concept of separate naval harbour provinces is almost like forcing the Seleukids to automatically lose battles at Raphia against the Ptollies. If you've got the deep-water harbour, you should be able to build the facilities for the war-fleet, even if historically no major naval power was based there.
thank you again for taking the time, Tellos.
Whoa slow down a bit. First two questions I defer to my comment regarding the design of the cog (but for the echo of the fact that the cog actually is a Frisian type of ship)
Why are we actualy talking about cogs? The earliest cogs are dated 900 A.D. and are a true medieval ship type. The ancient Frisians must have used other ship types in the antiquity, most likely very similiar to the Iron age Hjortspring type and the later Nydam type and Saxon types, which were common in the area.
I think that such invasions would have (if there you would want to speak of 'invasion': my initial thoughts would be more akin to gradual migration/settling, as the Frisians, Belgae, and other Germanic & Celtic tribe did do all the time, btw) centered around fleets made up of mercantile ships.
And as for sea-faring traditions. Well, allow me but I don't see why the military navy is a prerequisite for being renown as sea-faring peoples? Methinks that the extensive trade network the Frisians had built up on its own more than meritted their reputation; not to mention their engagement in piracy.
It is absolutely not in any way comparable with the organised, centralised development of naval infrastructure - not even the very smallest levels. Note that a military port is not just about storing your ships (with the cog types it's not a big deal: you can pull them on the beach/terp and anchor them: by the time the waves will reach your precious boat they will be broken already, because of the long stretch between the beginning of the coast (or rather 'wad') and the place where you'd typically tie your boats up). A military port is also about building the fleet, about repairing it.
[...]
Well, as has been pointed out:
A) For the most part that was how the local naval military was.
B) For the most part that was how the local culture was (trade first, and the rest uses what trade can spare)
C) For a substantial part the regions simply lacked the means as required for a military port of their own.
Make no mistake: nobody is saying that it is perfect. But just consider this: to properly accurately represent the way how a fleet would be raised, we'd need to have a lot of mercenary fleets in the region. Basically to simulate the fact that the peoples who had the cogs/etc (virtually every village had a few) would join the army. Just like Antigonos persuaded Agean & Kretan pirates to join his war against the Koinon Hellenon.
But does the game support this kind of mechanism? Well, not RTW... (Incidentally M2TW does, so it could feature in EB2.)
Well first of all: that's quite indeed way out of time frame. But again I'd like to defer this to earlier remarks:
A) Most notably the one about how a fleet would be gathered. This is quite distinctly separate from the way which is represented through military ports as in-game: RTW enforces that you'd need to build the fleets as a faction (aka ruler). This is perhaps (incidentally in various poleis it was customary for individual, prominent citizens to pay for equipping a ship rather than to draw upon state-funds) quite accurate for the various Mediterrean powers, but in no way is it even close to accurate with societies based on a much smaller scale: i.e. the difference between the size of a Greek or Roman or Carthaginian coastal city with military port and that of a Frisian village, or a Frisian town.
It was much more de-centralised, much more geared towards 'private' commerce/piracy; there was much less of a central thing that enforced the construction of the required infrastructure: there was no need, for every community had it's own ships. (You'd need to.)
B) The one about how a ship would be pulled on land and anchored: i.e. the local villagers would have their ships close at home. There would not be any such thing as a true port in the biggest part of the Netherlands, and certainly not any such thing as a military port.
It boils down to one real simple sentence: AFAIK there was a substantial naval activity (even military at times) on the North and Baltic Seas, but - especially so with the DGD-coast the use of ports and especially military ones was very limitted at best. The ships various commuities would gather a fleet, recruited from the local 'tribesmen' if you will, by simply adding each other's ships to the big ensemble. Not by building a brand new one with the sole purpose of going to war and leaving the 'working' ships at home.
It was an invasion, all sources speak of an invasion and contemporary witness have had the impression of a large scale violent invasion (ok, sources have tendencies and sometimes they can create a very contorted image of what really happened, but still you musn't neglect them) - but logically it took decades untill the Anglo-Saxons were able to establish themselves as the the power-bearers and even leading culture in England. By the way the medieval Vikings most of the time just conquered and actuialy settled lands in the very same way as the Saxons did in Britain - bit by bit, quite unorganised, from each other independant war parties, most likely some charismatic leaders as main actors, which got more and more followers as success grew and so on. When the first Saxons established themselves word came to the ones, which were unlucky at home, that it's a good choice to follow their path so the whole thing becomes a automatism and gains momentum. (The late antiquity German tribes did their large scale migrations the same way f.e. Goths, Vandals, Alemanni, Franks) Just because invasion of tribal societies just don't happen the same way as for example with Imperial Romans or Alexander's Makedons, it is no invasion?? That's not the point I think.
Back to the Saxons and migration by Sea: Most likely they used mercantile ships and most likely their own easy to build troop transports - so what?
In EB,RTW and M2TW fleets are used for the only purpose to transport troops and to cross the sea with them, and in antiquity it was possible for the ancient Germans to transport toops from the DGD-coast to f.e. Britain or Gaul, so if you don't admit a "military" port there (we all know that it wouldn't ba a military port in a Roman or Greek sense) you neglect the posibility of the Sweboz faction to transport troops in the North-Sea from the nearest coast. I agree, tribal societies like the Sweboz didn't have military ports in a classical sense, but they still had the possibility to transport their troops by Sea with their own easy to build ships and "confiscated" (sounds so modern ~;)) mercantile ships of the area, while the game engine or better your EB port system doens't allow this and therefore Sweboz have a big game-balance disadvantage compared to the civilized factions, which isn't historic like this. Hiring merceneray ships is also no solution, since it would make a faction dependent on them, while it actualy had the possibility to build own ships for landing operations - even if this happened in a de-centralised and quite more unorganised way. Your system may be great for the Romans, Greeks and Greek successor states, but it's not a good system at all for tribal societies - you really should make adjustments here for the Sweboz, like allowing a second "military" port or any other port which allows the player to carry troops form DGD coast, which is historic justified.
And we both agree that the antic German ships were no real war ships at all in a classic sense, but served many purposes and some even modified to serve its purpose even better. But still in RTW and EB ships are used to transport troops, which was very much possible fro ancient Germans, but your system actualy doesn't reflect this and therefore gives the Sweboz a big disadvantage. They already have the big disadvantage that their ships are too primitive to face others in game and now you even don't want to admit them at least the historic justified possibility to have more places to build these very weak Hjortspringtype "war" ships?
So if you and me accept all premises of your EB port system you have to make a decission; 1. possibility: You don't give the Sweboz and Celts any type of military port, because the EB definition of a military port doesn't fit into tribal societies - this would be the silliest way to deal with the problem, because like this transport by sea would be completely impossible
2. possibility: You guys account for the fact that tribal societies used no war ships for transporting troops and didn't have military ports, but very much had the possibility to make landing operations and therefore you admit more "military" ports for them. It even wouldn't spoil game balance at all, because the recruitable ships can't match with Roman or Greek counterparts anyway. The player of Barbarian factions doesn't want to build up fleets and having Sea battles with other factions, but he wants to have the justified possibility to transport his troops in a adequate and historic way, which isn't included in the EB mercantile port system.
But that's not exactly how you can actually build any sizable, central, state/tribe/confederation-owned fleet. You can't build a fleet without material. And in the Netherlands the material for large-scale production of fleets just isn't there: by around 1600 just about every forest that had been in any way close to populated areas, and which were sufficiently accessible (as opposed to the Biesbosch) was virtually gone IIRC.
The Netherlands has a long tradition of importing basically everything and being the middle-man. A very long tradition: the Frisians themselves were middle-men already. (Timber, btw was typically imported from Sweden. Interestingly this was one of the foundations of the lucrative trade with the Baltic. Timber and grain were imported to the Netherlands, went through the whole chains of various industries and was then in some form exported again. A most striking thing is the trade in Iron ore from Sweden to the Netherlands where it was used in the various weapon industries. Second-rate quality weaponry was then sold back to the Swedes, the best quality was either kept or sold elsewhere.)
Anyhow: I think we can agree that if, as is being done consequently, military ports are only allowed in regions which historically had the resources, the expertise and the 'location', then we should exclude the Netherlands if only for the fact that they did not have the resources, right ? Same would go for Denmark which is pretty much a copy of the Netherlands (ok, apart from what those weird humans did to it), with proper hills if you will. Or was that the other way around? ~;)
Sorry but no. The Netherlands are quite a good example, that it is possible to have a vast fleet even without the resources like enough wood. Dutchmen were very much present in all Oceans after around ~1640. Like you said, it's no problem at all to import wood and then to build your ships, which is the way it actualy happened. That the Dutch had deforested their territory already in the early modern time around 1600, because of their huge need of wood, is no argument at all for not beeing capable of having a military fleet, like history shows.
It's the same with Northern Germany: The Hanseatic Leage also deforested whole northern Germany during the whole Middle Age, because of their huge need of wood for their cogs - but still they continued to be one of the strongest forces in the North-and Baltic-Sea untill the late Middle Age, because they imported excellent wood very easily from South-Germany via the Rhine. Now this is Middle Age and the Duch example is early modern times - but we are supposed to talk about antiquity and the area wasn't deforested at all at this time - so plenty of wood in Danmark, Germany and Netherlands in antiquity - even bogs, which have been a very common landscape in the area had enough good quality wood in order to build many ships with it.
Even without those resources, which is a hypothetical situation, because resources were still very much present in the Middle Age! Our two examples out of two different eras, show very well that lack of resources near ports is no argument at all for not having a huge mercantile and even a strong military fleet. (the famous Dutch Fregates guarding the Cargo Fluyts, armed Hanseatic tower cogs guarding the mercantile cogs)
here are some examples of the landscape of the DGD-coast area in the antiquity out of that book, which I mentioned the page before
https://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8033/boglandscapeur0.jpg
Text reads: Bog in Northern Germany - below: reconstructed sacrificial place in Danish Lejre
https://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6729/boglandscape2gj1.jpg
Text: Bog landscape in Danmark
Do you also see the plenty of nice trees, which would make good planks for my de-centralised tribal navy ~;)
Now back to the Hjortspring boat and Nydam type boat. Don't you guys think that there must have been a stage between those two? The first is dated around 300 B.C. and the second around 300 A.D. I didn't play untill Sweboz reform yet, so did you guys implement another boat type for the Sweboz, which must have been in use in the time between? Like I said Hjortspring boat is very primitive Iron Age type while the Nydam boat is the early ancestor of the Viking longship already - I hope you guys have a solution for this problem and don't let the Sweboz paddle around in the Hjortspring type boat for 300 (don't know exaclty when EB timeframe ends) years. ~;)
And please inform me about the Celtic big warship - I really doubt that the Celts had such kind of ships in the EB timeframe, allthough the EB-Celts all in all make a very good impression on me
Tellos Athenaios
01-08-2008, 16:49
I was talking about cogs, mainly because a) this ship type is a prime example of the ships you can use on the North Sea, but mostly in the coastal waters; and b) because atcually, that type of ship is far older thant 900 AD...
Let's not bother with the exact nomenclature of the entire migration of tribes from point A to B. I do not call it an invasion in itself, since to my understanding it was not like: today we're here, tomorrow we sail and we'll conquer ourselves a new home. But yeah, you could call it an invasion anyway. Silly me. ~:)
In EB the purpose of fleets is a bit more than just transport troops with 'em. It's of course the limitted enviroment we work with: the naval aspect of the game just stops with role-playing. But you gotta admit that if we thought: all you need is a ferry, we would not have included any such thing as 'triereis' or above. Pentekonteroi: those are the troop-carriers; anything above is purely a big weapon, and a matter of prestige.
Yes, we appear to compeletly agree on "how this stuff works", yet we draw a different conclusion. I would say that Scandinavia with it's timber, and perhaps the north-german coast on the Baltic would be the only source of (apart from Belgium and Brittain) forests that were both that big, and accessible enough to allow for a local timber-industry of sorts. You also got to keep in mind that to build ships you can't just use every type of timber (mostly because not all timber is sufficiently water-thight) and that lot's of forests you can find today are the result of either human activities (planting trees) or the result of the on-going evolution of the landscape. And actually this type of landsacpe (bogs) is very dynamic, and very susceptible to change. (A few interesting maps http://dronten.flevoland.to/geschiedenis/ ; keep in mind though that more than half of the territory you see there is, in fact, one big bog.)
Mind you, the fact that there are forests does not mean that they are used, or can be accessed in anyway. Distance is a relative concept: what's easier, to import the timber from Scandinavia when that's a week sailing up and down at most with good weather (and you'd have your timber ready-made so to speak); or to venture into a bog you know of one big fact: anyone to make a little mistake is going to die, period. I would definitely say that the local people were actually afraid of that territory. According to their (and later) legends it would be the realm of all sorts of evil-doers and man-eaters. Nasty place.
And it's a long road to where you could find your forests in the Netherlands. Roughly from the North-Sea coasts of the modern-day islands (back then: part of the mainland) to Drenten at least. I would not go as far as to say 'uninhabited' but you weren't going to find many people on your way down either: most of the territory at this stage is not usable for farming purposes.
There were bog roads, of the type which has some famous Irish examples, yes; but those did not go everywhere. There are a few typical examples of where forests occur in the bog of the Netherlands, old, 'sandy' stretches, usually surrounded by younger, very dangerous stretches of vast swamp. The most reliable places to find your woods would be comparatively dangerous also: what with wolves, wild boars and actually a pretty much uncharted (and even today it's a location to get lost thoroughly) territory? Again the sites are useless as farmland, because the landscape has only come into existance of the effects of glaciers (way before our time-frame yes, but the effect is still notable today; for one thing it created a vast bassin of drinkable water under the hills it created as well, which is nowadays the source of 'Sourcy' and the tap water in the province of Utrecht), and therefore contain very little, and poor quality soil (again, sand mostly) but lot's of impenetrable, compressed rock.
Enough of bogs: I agree with you that it is not accurate the way it is. But I also disagree with you when it comes to the idea "because they imported it, that means you need to be able to have a port there" - by that line of reasoning there would be no settlement that would be not landlocked and yet not have such a port. Heck, I think the Sauromatae did have coastal settlements with semi-subjugated peoples which surely knew the concept of sea-faring et all. And doesn't southern Russia have a *real* forest, clearly old enough to provide you with timber? ... Uhm, yes. But I still doubt that they built ships on such a scale it'd warrant the inclusion of a military port, though they must have also built ships to raid each other.
Essentially it's very much the same situation, albeit on a much smaller scale. You have a people located somewhere that so happens to maintain a vast network of sea trade, and uses mercantile vessels for other purposes than strict commerce as well.
Mercenary ships would be a most excellent way of representing the Frisian type of navy, but unfortunately that's not possible with RTW.
Finally: it is not like the Sweboz are that 'disadvantaged' compared to other factions. Aedui and Arverni have only a few ports in their near vicinity which they are not likely to get their hands on any sooner than the Sweboz as we have them now. And let's just not talk about the Casse. By the time other factions reach this territory it doesn't really matter either because no way are other factions' navies going to sail all the way up the North Sea. The statement about 'unfair disadvantage' clearly comes from lack of experience with the Celtic factions.
Tellos you shirk arguments and facts.:thumbsdown:
First you said that there are no resources for a "fleet", then I proofed that in antiquity the area of the North Sea had large forests and Bogs, where it was possible to gain good quality wood for shipbuilding, which is proofed by historic evidence, since the ancient f.e. Frisians (only to mention one tribe on the coast) somehow must have been able to build their ships, which they did (remember Mare germanicum and beeing credited for it by ancient writers). The pics I posted are out of a scientific book and they are in there in order to give people an imagination how the landscape of ancient Germans situated in northern Europe in the antiquity looked like! But still you don't want to see the obvious.
Now again you come up with modern Netherlands and that the next forest is far away from the coast - like modern northern Germany the landcape changed significantly since the antiquity!! One of the most obvious reason is constant shipbuilding in the area from the Antiquity to the early Middle Age even untill modern times and therefore massive deforestation and another reason is landgaining from natural bogs in order to have more farmland. There is no way to compare the landscape of the area of now with the wilderness it was in antiquity. Even the coastline was completely different then from now! So keep the modern landscape completelky out - it is nonsense!
Than your last and craziest "argument" (don't want to offend I'm just aghast) was, that people actualy were afraid of going into the bog for gaining wood or the forests weren't accessable!! I really can't believe it. Those bogs are only scary for us modern humans, while people inhabiting that area in the antiquity pretty good lived with it. But they also were a place of community like religious rituals (there are plenty of bog-corpses which proof this, because those bodies didn't go down there accidently, but were sacrificed) and working places (like gaining wood and cutting peat, which they did without any doubt). Many of these bogs were also holy places and therefore highly frequented - only with christianity the perception on places like bogs changed dramatically - During decades of christianisation they became strange, creepy places in the mind of the now christianised people with devils, demons, ghosts and whatever else wandering around - and this mindchange since christianity about places like Bogs and Deep forrests is well documented and an everywhere accepted fact. It was even activated and cultivated by the early missionaries in order to keep people away from those pagan shrines!
I really get the impression that you've (I'm adressing EB as a team now) made up your mind on a topic sometime ago for whatever strange reasons and nothing in the world -even real historic facts - can change your mind.
And mercenary ships are no solution, because it makes a faction dependent on those while in reality they had their own ships.
On the disadvantrage: Sweboz have to move via land all the way up to Scandinavia in order to get ships, which is completely unhistoric, allthough the nearby North-Sea coast would be absolutely justified for a shipbuilding port, while f.e. Aedui or Averni have to conquer a nearby province.
Barry Soteiro
01-08-2008, 22:14
Cool another troll polluting the forum :2thumbsup:
Do you know that allowing military port where you want is a 2 minutes work ? But obviously you won't even change it even if it seems to cause you much troubles. I mean it's alaways more difficult to move your lazy ass rather than bash a team that work freely for you.
Please continue crying little spoiled child :laugh4:
Cool another troll polluting the forum :2thumbsup:
Do you know that allowing military port where you want is a 2 minutes work ? But obviously you won't even change it even if it seems to cause you much troubles. I mean it's alaways more difficult to move your lazy ass rather than bash a team that work freely for you.
Please continue crying little spoiled child :laugh4:
WTF?? In contrary to others I don't pollute the forum with silly comments or stuff like: "My General in game just won a large battle"
My intention here is contributing to the so called EB ethos (if it really exists) by trying to help coming closer to historical accuracy! I am no modder, I can't do it myself, but I can help EB and everyone, who cares about this mod to make it better and actualy to enjoy a more accurate Sweboz faction! But anyway people like you are a mere waste of time
Geoffrey S
01-08-2008, 23:25
Cool another troll polluting the forum :2thumbsup:
Do you know that allowing military port where you want is a 2 minutes work ? But obviously you won't even change it even if it seems to cause you much troubles. I mean it's alaways more difficult to move your lazy ass rather than bash a team that work freely for you.
Please continue crying little spoiled child :laugh4:
Lazy ass? I'd wager writing up the fairly extensive texts sdk80 took a fair amount of time, and at least he also had the guts to come out with his opinion and actually attempt to substantiate it, unlike many have done. At the very least I find it infinitely more informative than the drivel contained in the above quoted post of yours.
sdk80, if I had to give possible a game-balance reason for the restriction of ports, it's that the quite different naval approaches from the Baltic to the Mediterranean mean that giving Sweboz access to far more ports would give them either an unfair advantage in that regard over other factions, or the cost and efficiency would be low and they'd end up being spammed. As it is, it looks like the team has made an effort to limit the availability of fleets for all factions (not just Sweboz!) across the map to a small number of military ports located nearby, to limit the amount of fleets in comparison to vanilla RTW, where they were often numerous, a-historical in nature and extremely annoying.
As it is there is absolutely no way to portray naval activity accurately in the RTW engine, so limitation to some kind of abstract is necessary as a compromise. It's certainly not ideal, but it is making the best of a weak part of the engine.
Edit: just thinking out loud. Naturally the interests of people such as the Sweboz wouldn't lay across the North Sea, at most following the coast in most cases. I was under the impression that it was mainly the population explosion of later periods which made extensive population movements overseas more attractive to them as an alternative to similar migrations over land? Perhaps the means were available, but even then it perhaps wasn't an active interest.
What I do get out of this is that maybe the military port option should be moved from exclusively Scandinavia to somewhere more local along the southern Baltic coast. But considering the gameplay issues mentioned above that is more of a matter of emphasis than a major change in the policy of limiting all shipbuilding all the way across the map.
Tellos Athenaios
01-09-2008, 00:12
Tellos you shirk arguments and facts.:thumbsdown:
First you said that there are no resources for a "fleet", then I proofed that in antiquity the area of the North Sea had large forests and Bogs, where it was possible to gain good quality wood for shipbuilding, which is proofed by historic evidence, since the ancient f.e. Frisians (only to mention one tribe on the coast) somehow must have been able to build their ships, which they did (remember Mare germanicum and beeing credited for it by ancient writers). The pics I posted are out of a scientific book and they are in there in order to give people an imagination how the landscape of ancient Germans situated in northern Europe in the antiquity looked like! But still you don't want to see the obvious.
Now again you come up with modern Netherlands and that the next forest is far away from the coast - like modern northern Germany the landcape changed significantly since the antiquity!! One of the most obvious reason is constant shipbuilding in the area from the Antiquity to the early Middle Age even untill modern times and therefore massive deforestation and another reason is landgaining from natural bogs in order to have more farmland. There is no way to compare the landscape of the area of now with the wilderness it was in antiquity. Even the coastline was completely different then from now! So keep the modern landscape completelky out - it is nonsense!
Eh, please read again: I wasn't talking about modern landscape at all. Had I been why would I bother to provide you with a source, containing a series of maps, one of them reconstructing the rough size of the Netherlands in 0-500 AD.?
Constant ship building? Have you any idea where the trees stood that were turned into timber which would be used for shipbuilding in the Netherlands? Any idea where the stuff came from which would be turned into the famous mercantile fleets of the Dutch in the wharfs of the Zaanstreek? Sweden.
It's one of the fundamental anchors of one of the most ancient trade networks in all of the Baltic and Northern Europe; a network which indeed dates back to the very people you argue about (Frisians).
Than your last and craziest "argument" (don't want to offend I'm just aghast) was, that people actualy were afraid of going into the bog for gaining wood or the forests weren't accessable!! I really can't believe it. Those bogs are only scary for us modern humans, while people inhabiting that area in the antiquity pretty good lived with it.
C'mon :laugh4: That wasn't an argument it was utterly and competely a note aside. And FYI according to the local legends: trolls, witches, ghosts, goblins etc. etc. all are said to live in the bogs. I do not think that they would not at all have ventured into the bog (mainly because the better known stretches would have been used for hunting & fishing purposes): but they would not have been happily going there to set up a timber-industry either (trees that would be usable are located in the oldest, and dry parts of the bog).
Mind you: nobody says "you can't build ships in the Netherlands" or "there's not forest in the Netherlands of the right kind or such". But there isn't anything the size and scale and sufficiently accessible required for any such thing as the military port. This would not have been such an issue if, for instance, we knew there was some Frisian council which gathered and decided: "time to build a new squadron again, lads - let's ship in another ton of timber" - but as far as I am awar no such thing (i.e. the central decision) ever happened.
Also I suggest you take a look at your pictures again: the trees you see there are by far too small (not too mention you can not actually go and cut them down... they're located in the wet part of the bog...). Again:
A) For ship building purposes you can't use any kind of tree. It just won't work (either too heavy, or too brittle, or won't be bended easily enough or whatever)
B) Your tree need to be the right size, and most importantly the right age. Old trees will make better timber than younger ones; small trees will contain relatively little usable wood at all (some kind of trees, incidentally the ones you posted a picture of are actually virtually useless for anything but making a fence/pallisade which doesn't involve timber very much at all)
C) You need to have a great many of them should you wish to keep up an industry of sorts. Because you need some next year as well. And 20 years later you are still using basically the same 'shift' of trees.
Apart from that you need to have a site which is suitable for locking up your boats and keeping them there. Something which is flooded half the time; or the bogs will not do: the ships will rot away faster than you can mend them. Take a look at this link: http://www.historischekringdebilt.nl/Bodemonderzoek/geologie/nederland.html
Scroll all the way down (second last map from below) to the map of 50 AD. (Na Chr. in Dutch). Observe the fact that all the pink-ish areas are just one big bog of the sour, and very wet types; akin to the Bieschbosh. Observe the fact that only the sandy/yellowish colours allow for the building of settlements apart from the dark-brown (but the dark-brown territory is even today not a place you'd go and set up a farm); also observe that the bigger sandy-parts are in fact just that: sand. Not something which is going to grow you much crops, apart from potatoes - but they didn't have those back then.
The various blue's are water, the lighter ones are the bits that flood every odd 6 hours or so. The green is the only place with substantial farming potential; but alas it tends to flood (during winter; the sandy-specks are the only places with some kind of 'dike' at this point, one that is naturally generated by the river), so you can't build your houses there.
But they also were a place of community like religious rituals (there are plenty of bog-corpses which proof this, because those bodies didn't go down there accidently, but were sacrificed) and working places (like gaining wood and cutting peat, which they did without any doubt). Many of these bogs were also holy places and therefore highly frequented
- only with christianity the perception on places like bogs changed dramatically - During decades of christianisation they became strange, creepy places in the mind of the now christianised people with devils, demons, ghosts and whatever else wandering around - and this mindchange since christianity about places like Bogs and Deep forrests is well documented and an everywhere accepted fact. It was even activated and cultivated by the early missionaries in order to keep people away from those pagan shrines!
Actually... there's more to that story, you know. It is mainly an incorporation of the local beliefs & stories into christianity, a practice which is well-documented also. Frisians proved a though nut to crack (though not as though as some other peoples) for any hard-line-missionary (one of them got lynched for it, and was later proclaimed a saint); but those who had been willing to 'compromise' a bit so to speak could be quite effective.
I really get the impression that you've (I'm adressing EB as a team now) made up your mind on a topic sometime ago for whatever strange reasons and nothing in the world -even real historic facts - can change your mind.
Sorry. All historical evidence you showed me, and I can recall seems to indicate that if anything the Frisians simply did not gather a fleet in this way.
Neither that they were actually, actively busy with maintaning a military presence on the sea or any such thing.
And mercenary ships are no solution, because it makes a faction dependent on those while in reality they had their own ships.
On the disadvantrage: Sweboz have to move via land all the way up to Scandinavia in order to get ships, which is completely unhistoric, allthough the nearby North-Sea coast would be absolutely justified for a shipbuilding port, while f.e. Aedui or Averni have to conquer a nearby province.
Uhm... it would seem that simple perhaps, and IIRC the Aedui have a lucky hit (Cenabum is already in their possesion) but you got to keep in mind that you can't really develop the place sufficiently (at least you have 20 other, more important things to spend your funds on) before you would do so with the province of Skandza as the Sweboz. Finally, the Celts just like the Frisians had their share of the pie as well; and most likely I'd say a big share: what with the Tin and Copper trade...
Also: why 'should' it be fair from a game-play perspective (only)? What, actually is 'fair'? Should basically every settlement on the coast be able to build military fleets (provided you play on hughe: 52 ships/unit at least)?
@Geoffrey S
thank you Geof
I undestood the EB port system and the difficulties with the RTW engine, but still why do you believe a military port for the Sweboz in
the Baltic would fit better than the one on the North Sea, for which I thnk, that I have given undeniebale arguments and even proofed it, where it was possible?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for something else.
I have found grave mistakes of ethnicities in the eastern European part of the EB map. First I will post a link of a scientific book on ancient Germans, which will contain a map showing archeological cultures of the EB timeframe (=LatePreRomanIronAge) of the area. (it's a online study edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ds2N_O7IKOsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#PPA144,M1
translated legend: Europe in the Early Pre-Roman Iron Time: 1. North Group 2. Jastorf culture 3. Pommeranian [Przeworsk] culture 4. West-baltic hilltomb culture 5. Estonian group 6. East-baltics 7. Milogrady culture 8. Harpstedt-Nienburger group 9. Celtic groups 10. Getian and Thracian groups
out of "Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (2nd ed.)" 1998
So what we have here above is the archeolgical map of the area in the Late Pre-Roman Iron Time (450 B.C. - 0).
As additional evidence I'll also include another map below out of wikipedia which has very slight differences, but showing the same issue, when compared with the current EB map and the possible troops to be recruited in Eastern-Europe!
https://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8037/archeologicalculturesofxd6.png
Legend:
dark green - Nordic group
dark red - Jastorf culture
yellow ochre (left center) - Harpstedt-Nienburg group
bright green (left center) - Houseshaped urn group
orange - Celtic groups
yellow-green - Przeworsk culture
carnation - east-Baltic cultures of forest zone
purple - west-Baltic culture
turquoise - Zarubincy culture
black - Estonic group
bright red - Guben group of Jastorf culture (influenced by Przeworsk culture)
brown - Oksywie culture
taupe (bottom right) - Getaian and Thracian groups
yellow (bottom right) - Poieneşti-Lukaševka culture (influenced by Przeworsk and Jastorf culture)
here the link as proof: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:ArcheologicalCulturesOfCentralEuropeAtLatePreRomanIronAge.png
If you compare it with the link of the history online source book from above you will see exactly the same as on this map.
List of errors on EB map:
Carrodunum is the Przeworsk culture, but actualy in EB there are Celts and the Oksywie culture unit available instead of a non-existing East-German Przeworsk culture regional unit, which should be Celtic influenced.
Ascaucalis needs to be the Oskwy culture with the regional Oskwy culture unit instead of Baltic culture and recruiting zone like in current EB 1.0.
Gintaras-Ostan needs to be West-Baltic with the special regional West-Baltic units, instead of having the possibility to recruit all Baltic regional units like in EB 1.0.
Seliun-Pilis needs to be East-Baltic with the special regional East-Baltic units, instead of having the possibility to recruit all Baltic regional units like in EB 1.0.
Then there is the "special building" (don't know how you modders call this building type) "Limios Alses" in Gawjam~Silengoz: the description mentions Proto-Slavic tribes in direkt link with it and Silesia, which is absolutely unhistoric and absurd, since the Slavs came very much later, about more than 300 years after the end of EB timeframe into that area. There were no Slavs at all that much western like Silesia is situated in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Just check the archeological culture maps from above: Gawjam~Silengoz would be the mix-zone of Jastorf and Przeworsk (Pommeranian in the link to the book) culture.
The same with the Oksywie culture unit, which also mentions Slavs in the description. Look again on the map where Oksywie culture is situated and tell me again why one should mention Slavs in the description? By the way Oksywie culture is absorbed into Wielbark culture (Goths) around 100 A.D.
The problem I have with these descriptions is that, since 19th and early 20th century mainly Polish nationalistic "historians" tried to fake an early slavic presence in the area, which has been neglected ever since by serious historians and humane discipline/arts and I would not like EB to repeat such comepletely unhistoric statements. The area was Celtic first, then in the Pre-Roman Iron Age time, which EB portraits, the ancient Germans came (= later eastern German tribes) and after most of those had left duing the Migration Period the Slavs settled there, coming from the east.
Now one last map to illustrate it, also out of Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Germanic_tribes_%28750BC-1AD%29.png
https://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8272/germanictribesexpansiondd7.png
Legend copied from Wikipedia: The expansion of the Germanic tribes 750 BC – AD 1 (after the Penguin Atlas of World History 1988):
██ Settlements before 750BC
██ New settlements until 500BC
██ New settlements until 250BC
██ New settlements until AD 1
Geoffrey S
01-09-2008, 00:39
@Geoffrey S
thank you Geof
I undestood the EB port system and the difficulties with the RTW engine, but still why do you believe a military port for the Sweboz in the Baltic would fit better than the one on the North Sea, for which I thnk, that I have given undeniebale arguments and even proofed it, where it was possible?
I don't really know to be honest. Remember that the Rome engine can place one port per province in a particular site; any port in the region of Germania should be placed on the Baltic in my opinion, since that is where their main interest would be rather than the North Sea. In any case, I could have sworn there was a possibility of building a port in the Belgic province? Again that'd be a compromise, a European mainland port for the North Sea region as the one in Scandinavia currently is for the Baltic region.
Tellos Athenaios
01-09-2008, 00:40
As it is, it looks like the team has made an effort to limit the availability of fleets for all factions (not just Sweboz!) across the map to a small number of military ports located nearby, to limit the amount of fleets in comparison to vanilla RTW, where they were often numerous, a-historical in nature and extremely annoying.
Actually for the purpose of giving people a hand distinguishing military-port area's from mercantile-only regions, there used to be this map by Teleklos; detailing even the level of naval-port you could build...
Edit: just thinking out loud. Naturally the interests of people such as the Sweboz wouldn't lay across the North Sea, at most following the coast in most cases. I was under the impression that it was mainly the population explosion of later periods which made extensive population movements overseas more attractive to them as an alternative to similar migrations over land? Perhaps the means were available, but even then it perhaps wasn't an active interest.
Well at least from what I understood the Sweboz were mainly focused with west and south.
What I do get out of this is that maybe the military port option should be moved from exclusively Scandinavia to somewhere more local along the southern Baltic coast. But considering the gameplay issues mentioned above that is more of a matter of emphasis than a major change in the policy of limiting all shipbuilding all the way across the map.
And then we would get the complaints of "but surely those proto-Swedes or whatever they were, did build ships did they not?" And people would be right as well. Just like with the Frisians: anybody on the coast did invest in ships and shipbuilding; some more than others and there's only a few of them who get the military port for a number of reasons;
1) The more limitted availability of militray fleets than with Vanilla RTW, for all its reasons;
2) The fact that certain areas/locations were famous for [part of] the industry involved (in case of Umbria, just like with Scandinavia it's the timber);
3) The fact certain areas simply appear not have developped such things as a 'military port'
--
A simple comparison: of all places, Sidon does not have the capability of building a military port. Why?! Phoenicia, the stories, the legend, the facts: how can that be?! Well, for one thing Antiocheia with it's big military port capabilities is right next door. And Kypros isn't far away either...
Same goes for Frisia: Bagacos, Skandza-warjoz already get the possibility. (Incidentally Nervii lived partly in the south of modern day Netherlands, and the Frisians lived just about right where you find that port as well.)
Geoffrey S
01-09-2008, 01:23
And then we would get the complaints of "but surely those proto-Swedes or whatever they were, did build ships did they not?" And people would be right as well.
Yet in that case, you get questions such as those of sdk80, wondering why Scandinavia of all places. If gameplay is taken into account in the sense that it's unwanted to have too many 'military' ports in one area, why not in an area on the southern Baltic coasts closer to Sweboz, since the means for them to build ships were closer than Scandinavia? It's already an abstraction, yet one which doesn't yet fully suit gameplay purposes in that region in my opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to answer by the way, it's certainly been informative from both sides! Certainly provides an interesting break from more work on the Yom Kippur War in Moscow... :snore:
TWFanatic
01-09-2008, 02:47
This thread reminds me of something I've been curious about for a long time but have yet to ask. Why is the famous Roman port at Ostia not represented in EB? You cannot even train a fleet in that province if I remember correctly.
Thank you for your time.
blitzkrieg80
01-09-2008, 03:29
Slavs did not mysteriously and spontaneously generate! Many tribes are unmentioned throughout history for a variety of reasons, one of which is the masking/ assumed identity of a more powerful neighbor, such as the Antes who are steppe people but thought to be among the earliest true confirmation of Slavic identity (Venedi, Sclaveni) and differentiation. The Steppe peoples have a long history of identity conglomeration and sudden turns of dynasties, peoples, and powerbases. All one has to do is consult the various timelines of the Eurasian steppe peoples invading and conquering (such as Scythians, Sarmatians, Aryans, Persians, Parthians, Huns, Alans, Avars, Bolgars, Magyars, various Uralic peoples, various Tartar peoples, Kippchak, various Turkic peoples, Mongols, "oh my"- although I admit I forgot an awesome tribe or two). If Indo-Iranian leftovers fought for Goths, they were 'Goths' or known as 'Scythian' [by those enlightened thinkers who called everything by what they knew before] altogether for some time. If Goths and others fought for Huns, they were still dubbed 'Hun' just like 'Rome' continued in the East into the Medieval Era. Lusatian culture and a number of Bronze age cultures add more flavor to our understanding then is possibly explained by the simplicity of Roman authorities who had little interest beyond their fickle scope.
(don't even touch Przeworsk (I say to all)! there is no sure link between it, Lugi, Celt, Slav, Balt, Germanic, or other Indo-European, nonetheless pre-IndoEuropean)
Great Moravia (a little known and lovely thing) didn't come from thin air, just as Germanic peoples did not, nor Carpi or Wend. The Identity of peoples in Eastern Europe are vastly misunderstood due to a lack of interest by all, which is truly unwarranted for their varied cultures are indeed complex and deep.
I happen to agree that Eastern and Northern Europe is misrepresented (although hardly a tragedy- EB does accept change and criticism) to the degree that Gaul is more favored with similar port technology.
I must say that Wikipedia and similar online and non academic web organizations are hardly a good source of historical information, nonetheless the high level of evidentiary and extrapolated information needed for an understanding of the true Germanic peoples, esp. during a time period of which we have so little literary evidence.
I can tell you that early Germanic literature (Old English, Old Norse) shows a definite trend to associate water with danger (to the point that antagonism is directly related), esp. moors fens bogs ect. (this and 'other'-worldly creatures was aptly touched upon by Tellos) It is true they would have knowledge of their nature, but that does not mean respect and fear was not maintained.
Word of the Day: From an early beginning, Boii-home was not exclusively home either to Celt or German: Bohemia is a junction of culture and peoples! We know of certain possession and dynasty but what we do NOT know is of demographic influx and immigration, esp. during times when all tribes were near alien to each other. Let's not get into the question of where all the Thracians had gone (mentioned as Second Most Populous people in the world behind the Indians by Herodotus). There was no "people" consciousness known best in late form as 'Deutsch.' Indo-European derivative languages were not isolated organisms and the migration and development of those peoples is not a linear progression.
@Geoffrey S
thank you Geof
██ Settlements before 750BC
██ New settlements until 500BC
██ New settlements until 250BC
██ New settlements until AD 1
I didn't want to get mixed up in this, yet think you may want to rethink this to a very great extent, as I do not believe there is any solid evidence to support these conclusions.
If you do respond please try to be nice, as will I.
Slavs did not mysteriously and spontaneously generate! Many tribes are unmentioned throughout history for a variety of reasons, one of which is the masking/ assumed identity of a more powerful neighbor, such as the Antes who are steppe people but thought to be among the earliest true confirmation of Slavic identity (Venedi, Sclaveni) and differentiation. The Steppe peoples have a long history of identity conglomeration and sudden turns of dynasties, peoples, and powerbases. All one has to do is consult the various timelines of the Eurasian steppe peoples invading and conquering If Indo-Iranian leftovers fought for Goths, they were 'Goths' or known as 'Scythian' [by those enlightened thinkers who called everything by what they knew before] altogether for some time. If Goths and others fought for Huns,they were still dubbed 'Hun' just like 'Rome' continued in the East into the Medieval Era. Lusatian culture and a number of Bronze age cultures add more flavor to our understanding then is possibly explained by the simplicity of Roman authorities who had little interest beyond their fickle scope.
You are absolutely right about sources, ancient writers and the unfortunate manner to name every "newcomer" tribe with a name which already was known long before and you are absolutely right that Slavs didn't just appear out of nowhere.
But it is undoubted that Slavs came very late into Poland, Bohemia and the Balkan region. In the 6th century A.D. the big Slavic migration began and in places like Poland, which were left by the East German tribes long before (Langobards, Vandals, Goths, Burgundi) they established themselves very quickly and slawicized the remaining inhabitants. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landnahme_der_Slawen_auf_dem_Balkan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples#Autochthonic_theory - HERE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IS IMPORTAND: in the early 6th century, they have inhabited most of eastern Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans)
(don't even touch Przeworsk (I say to all)! there is no sure link between it, Lugi, Celt, Slav, Balt, Germanic, or other Indo-European, nonetheless pre-IndoEuropean)
Pommeranian (Przeworsk) culture is the basis of the later East German tribes, which all came from that area. Read any academic litrature you know about Vandals, Brgundi, Goths, Langobards. They all came out of this huge, big melting pot of German and Celtic culture.
Great Moravia (a little known and lovely thing) didn't come from thin air, just as Germanic peoples did not, nor Carpi or Wend. The Identity of peoples in Eastern Europe are vastly misunderstood due to a lack of interest by all, which is truly unwarranted for their varied cultures are indeed complex and deep.
Never doubted that Slavs have a very interesting culture, nor am I against Slavs or anything like this, please don't misunderstand me! That's not my intention!! Great Moravia is an early medieval "empire". What has it got to do with the subject? I never doubted it, when Slavs came in the area in the 6th century A.D., that they establisjed their own realms over decades, sure thing and interesting subject.
I happen to agree that Eastern and Northern Europe is misrepresented (although hardly a tragedy- EB does accept change and criticism) to the degree that Gaul is more favored with similar port technology.
nice, we'll see :inquisitive:
I must say that Wikipedia and similar online and non academic web organizations are hardly a good source of historical information, nonetheless the high level of evidentiary and extrapolated information needed for an understanding of the true Germanic peoples, esp. during a time period of which we have so little literary evidence.
In fact wiki is not a good solution, but it isn't that bad either and I din't back it up with Wiki only, but with a very academic book namely the "Rellexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde". Just look it up in your nearest University Library, they will have it for sure, if they are any good. The mentioned academic book is also published online for study purposes - don't see anything wrong with it, or why someone should miscredit it therefore. Please keep in mind that the most credited historians on ancient Germans are Germans and therefore publish in German language - if you don't understand German you miss most of the newest literature on the subject, because there isn't much translated since many native English-speaking historians of that subject, understand German anyway.
I can tell you that early Germanic literature (Old English, Old Norse) shows a definite trend to associate water with danger (to the point that antagonism is directly related), esp. moors fens bogs ect. (this and 'other'-worldly creatures was aptly touched upon by Tellos) It is true they would have knowledge of their nature, but that does not mean respect and fear was not maintained.
I know all early Germanic literature like Beowulf and the Edda and the Nibelungs Song, but they all have in common that they are created after christianisation and therefore have big christian tendencies. It's a known fact that christianisation changed the mind of the former pagan people gravely.
Word of the Day: From an early beginning, Boii-home was not exclusively home either to Celt or German: Bohemia is a junction of culture and peoples! We know of certain possession and dynasty but what we do NOT know is of demographic influx and immigration, esp. during times when all tribes were near alien to each other. Let's not get into the question of where all the Thracians had gone (mentioned as Second Most Populous people in the world behind the Indians by Herodotus). There was no "people" consciousness known best in late form as 'Deutsch.' Indo-European derivative languages were not isolated organisms and the migration and development of those peoples is not a linear progression.
I know all this, but two things are undoubted: Pommeranian culture was heavily Celtic and German influenced. Around the first century A.D. it is a completely East-German tribe area according to the sources like Plinius and Tacitus. It is also undoubted that Slavs later (6th century A.D.) migrated from the East in the during Migration Period left behind area of the East-German tribes and established themselves there successfully. But for sure there haven't been Slavs or Proto-Slavs in the area in the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
Now 19th and 20th century was a cruel age of exaggerated nationalism, Slavish nationalistic authors tried to proof a Slavic presence in the area from early on, which has been refused ever since and you can read everywhere in serious academic literature that those crude theses have no evidence or proof. It's the same with this mad guy, who says "Alexander was an Albanian":beam: The psychological reason behind is, that 60 years of communist and russian supression has left most of the former Eastern Block states hungry for national symbols and nationalism, which is a bad anachronistic thing for modern day Europe, because Western-Europe has left behind this sad chapter of history. You can monitor this exaggerated nationalism all over Eastern Europe currently, which is a socio-cultural fact. But that's off-topic!
How about presenting the sources and quotations of academic books you guys used for representing Eastern-Central Europe in EB? Otherwise you just miscredit my sources with mere opinion. It's always the easiest way to say "I don't think so and your sources are no good", but also it's a very ignorant and absolutely non-academic way. I mean, I invest a heck of a lot time in here in order to help you guys achieving more historic accuracy on ancient Germans, but instead of getting a thank you, I get quite simple refusals.
@cmaq
what are you refering to exactly and where is your backed up counter statement?
Teleklos Archelaou
01-09-2008, 15:53
I mean, I invest a heck of a lot time in here in order to help you guys achieving more historic accuracy on ancient Germans, but instead of getting a thank you, I get quite simple refusals.
Are you serious? 17 posts, "a heck of a lot of time in here"? We have 143,000 posts in our internal mod development forum. Over 1,200 I can see on Germanic faction development just in two threads (not counting tons of others in various ones). We've had a *tremendous* amount of work put into the Sweboz. Plus you're abrasive and arrogant in my opinion, and whether or not you've got a point in your posts when you come across as you do the folks on this volunteer mod we've made here aren't necessarily going to put much into trying to make sure you're happy. I'm surprised Tellos and Blitz are spending as much time trying to explain things here as they have, but then they're nicer guys than me I guess.
TWFanatic
01-09-2008, 16:01
I fear my tiny post may have been eveloped by the massive ones surrounding it, and forgotten.
This thread reminds me of something I've been curious about for a long time but have yet to ask. Why is the famous Roman port at Ostia not represented in EB? You cannot even train a fleet in that province if I remember correctly.
Thank you for your time.
blitzkrieg80
01-09-2008, 20:36
As to everyone, I look foward to offering you some fresh sources to compliment your 1 book. Give me some time (I am currently busy) and I'll post something.
btw, I agree there are some great books in German on the subject but that does not mean they are inherently more academic or more accurate. Not all books are created equal ~;) therefore a comparison of all sources breeds best. Yet I must admit that my favorite book is one that I can only read in German: F. Holthausen's Altenglisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch seems pretty unbeatable in quality. I am sometimes biased in such decisions on scholarship and presentation.
I fear my tiny post may have been eveloped by the massive ones surrounding it, and forgotten.
Like I said I didn't want to get mixed up in the Swabo thing, but I'll try to answer your Ostia question, TWFanatic. But, to do that I'll open another posting, OK?
@Teleklos Archelaou
First of all, people started beeing rude to me (3 persons) and they even got personal just like yourself now, where I always tried to stay on academic topic - BUT I realised that it isn't possible and that it's useless anyway in here (it's so simple, if people are rude to me I give it back, but seems like you guys only can dish it out, but can't take it back - that's indeed very poor)
Whatever, forget it, I recognized that I was wasting my precious time in here. I threw pearls befor swine.
Anyway forget it, I recognized that I was wasting my precious time in here. I threw pearls befor swine.
Ah, so we are swine now?
Pardon me, Your Excellence, but us puny mortals might not understand the vast and unmistakably perfect treasures of information that surely lie in Your head.
I have, however made a few conclusions about you as a poster;
1. You think you're always right
2. Everybody else is always wrong
3. Everybody is out to hurt poor little you
4. Everything must be done exactly how you want
5. It's okay for you to post nonsense like having metal for Sweboz soundtrack (seriously, what the...?)
6. Nobody can say anything bad about the aforementioned nonsense
7. You are the one and true source of historic knowledge.
Am i close? Yeah i'm not polite, but you have proven yourself to be an asshole in this thread, so too bad...
Btw, the "silly and ignorant" member named paullus most likely knows more about history than you ever will.
Cheers :beam:
@Teleklos Archelaou
First of all, people started beeing rude to me (3 persons) and they even got personal just like yourself now, where I always tried to stay on academic topic - BUT I realised that it isn't possible and that it's useless anyway in here (it's so simple, if people are rude to me I give it back, but seems like you guys only can dish it out, but can't take it back - that's indeed very poor)
Whatever, forget it, I recognized that I was wasting my precious time in here. I threw pearls befor swine.
I'll get back to you. But I promise you may not be able to handle what I have to say?
Frostwulf
01-10-2008, 02:04
I didn't want to get mixed up in this, yet think you may want to rethink this to a very great extent, as I do not believe there is any solid evidence to support these conclusions.
I believe this is based on the spread of the Jastorf and other archeology attributed to the 'Germanic' peoples.
Pommeranian (Przeworsk) culture is the basis of the later East German tribes, which all came from that area. Read any academic litrature you know about Vandals, Brgundi, Goths, Langobards. They all came out of this huge, big melting pot of German and Celtic culture.
I have read both sides on this. It seems that it is not conclusive yet. What does seem to be of general opinion is that the Slavs became Slaves in the 6th century just as the Germani became Germani around 500BC. Seeing as how I'm mostly ignorant on anything more then this I will no comment any further(at least until I become more educated on it).
As to everyone, I look foward to offering you some fresh sources to compliment your 1 book. Give me some time (I am currently busy) and I'll post something.
Excellent I always look forward to reading your informative posts.
I think sdk80 has some legitimate points, it would be nice for all involved to forget the past name calling and etc. and just stick to the academic portion.
Markus_Aurelius
01-10-2008, 02:11
Tellos you shirk arguments and facts.:thumbsdown:
Than your last and craziest "argument" (don't want to offend I'm just aghast) was, that people actualy were afraid of going into the bog for gaining wood or the forests weren't accessable!! I really can't believe it. Those bogs are only scary for us modern humans, while people inhabiting that area in the antiquity pretty good lived with it. But they also were a place of community like religious rituals (there are plenty of bog-corpses which proof this, because those bodies didn't go down there accidently, but were sacrificed) and working places (like gaining wood and cutting peat, which they did without any doubt). Many of these bogs were also holy places and therefore highly frequented - only with christianity the perception on places like bogs changed dramatically - During decades of christianisation they became strange, creepy places in the mind of the now christianised people with devils, demons, ghosts and whatever else wandering around - and this mindchange since christianity about places like Bogs and Deep forrests is well documented and an everywhere accepted fact. It was even activated and cultivated by the early missionaries in order to keep people away from those pagan shrines!
In my mind this argument makes no sense to me. You said here that these bogs were indeed used as holy places, correct? Now if they were holy places, why would its people defile the place by wading in there and chopping down the trees. Im sure the priests or whatever would not agree to his, or the people who, you say, frequent these places. Now dont get me wrong im not backing up the other guys argument im just bashing yours, also Christians cultivating the place has nothing to do with ancient germans :yes:
Geoffrey S
01-10-2008, 02:16
I think sdk80 has some legitimate points, it would be nice for all involved to forget the past name calling and etc. and just stick to the academic portion.
Agreed. I've seen both sides present informative posts, it'd be a shame to disregard that because of earlier objectionable language.
sdk80, I'd recommend you mellow your tone just a little since I agree it might offend some people who have worked for many, many hours on what you see in EB; to others, I ask a bit more patience. Single-word and single-sentence replies in a snide tone don't help anyone at all and may as well not be posted. Tends to be discouraging to people who would like to know more.
Mouzafphaerre
01-10-2008, 04:40
.
I threw pearls befor swine.
Çüşşş!
This one is way too much for the ORG.
.
@sdk80:
You do make sense in some of your posts. The sad thing is; your argument is lost because your written tone comes off as arrogant. You probably don't even mean to make your posts sound as arrogant as they do, so it is most likely just a matter thinking about your wording. Here are a few examples.
You frequently call others' opinions "absurd" and "nonsense" and you say that the EB team "should" do as you say, instead of "could". There is a huge difference between should and could - one is basicly an order while the other is a suggestion. You keep saying "no offense" after these outburts (as if you actually do realize people might be offended), but by then the damage will in most cases already be done.
Remember that the people you're talking to have spent thousands upon thousands of hours working on this mod, all for the love of the game and for the love of ancient history - trying their best to mesh those two things together. They will probably have thought many times over about whatever issues you have, or at least that is what you should expect. If you put forward your thoughts as suggestions instead of orders or demands, I am sure people will be more willing to debate the issues with you. :)
I believe this is based on the spread of the Jastorf and other archeology attributed to the 'Germanic' peoples.
and just stick to the academic portion.
Which Germanic people? German is just a Latin word meaning 'genuine.'
The Jastorf complex is just the local expression of the late Halstatt and early LaTene cultures? As we all know the late Halstatt is the basal and the LaTene the full on expressions of what was the Kelt ethnos. Regardless, how would one know if the people of the Jastorf expression spoke Kelt or Nord? The progression of specific elements of material culture associated with the late phases of Halstatt culture from southeast to the west, northwest, and north does not support a proposed early southward expansion from Scandinavia. Neither does the progression of the LaTene nor that of the early phase of the Halstatt. In fact, along the Frisian coast and Denmark many aspects of the EIA material culture (ceramics and architecture) appear to be associated with the local LBA expression as well.
Sdk80, I can get very detailed on this subject, but it will only add to disprove your thesis of an early Nordic southward expansion into Denmark and northern Germany. The reason I didn't want to address the direction this thread was heading is because this is a typical quasi-national socialist view of the subject. If this is indeed the case I want no more part of it. If not, debate away if you must?
blitzkrieg80
01-10-2008, 06:26
This comes from my university textbook on Central Asian History (Nomads to Nations):
David Christian's A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume I Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. 1998. Blackwell
"By this time, there had emerged just beyond the Roman frontiers, a series of frontier kingdoms, in which Gothic and allied elites ruled local populations of Slavs, Sarmatians and even Germanic peasants" (Christian 223).
"At the end of the first millenium BCE, commercial agriculture was practiced in Crimea to supply the cities of the Black Sea coast and for exports to the Mediterranean. To the north, pastoralists dominated the Pontic steppes, while communities that Herodotus referred to as 'farming Scythians' lived along the river valleys and in the forest steppes of the old Tripolye heartland. The forested lands further north had long been an area of scattered communities of foragers who adopted some of the technologies of neolithic, including pottery. From the Second millenium BCE, there are signs of the spread of a type of forest pastoralism from central Europe, in a belt that stretched just north of the wooded steppes, from the Baltic to the middle Dneiper and the middle and upper Volga. This tradition is associated with the so-called 'corded ware' cultures. It combined foraging, fishing and livestock-breeding. From 1000 BCE, some woodland communities also began to practice swidden agriculturer. Swidden farmers cleared well drained slops near rivers, burnt the felled trees and farmed in their ashes for three or four years before moving on. This extensive and nomadic form of agriculture could only support small populations, and population densities in such regions were little higher than those of foraging communities. So, even at the beginning of the contemporary era, farming communities of the woodlands were confined to the southern edge of the great Russian forests, depended on livestock-rearing as much as farming, and farmed without ploughs. Their villages formed a thin lacework of settlements spread along the region's river systems.
"The densest populations of farmers could still be found further south in the Tripolye heartland, which had also been the heart of the Chernyakhiv cultures in the Gothic period. Written sources describe the presence of numerous small communities of farmers in the region. Tactitus, writing in the first century of the modern era, described the 'Venedi' of western Ukraine as a 'populous race' who occupied a 'great expanse of land.' The names attributed to these populations suggest that most spoke or used early forms of Slavic, though amongst them there may also have been groups who spoke Sarmatian, Gothic or Turkic languages. These communities used plough agriculture, reared livestock and had trading and other contacts with the Mediterranean. Most settlements were unfortified, which suggests that they were used to the suzerainty of Gothic, Sarmatian or Turkic tribute-takers, though they occasionally used the woods and swamps as refuges.
"From c.500 CE, there are signs of new migrations into and beyond the wooded steppes. Most migrants probably spoke some form of proto-Slavic or used it as a lingua franca. The fact that the various Slavic languages were still quite uniform even in the eleventh century, suggests that these migrations began from a compact east European 'homeland', whose precise location remains uncertain. In the sixth century, Jordanes described a large area of agrarian settlement in eastern Europe, dominated by a 'populous race' of Slavic speakers (Venethi), and reaching from the Carpathians to the middle Dneiper, and northwards to the Vistula. Their major tribes he named as the 'Sclaveni' (who almost certainly spoke Slavic) and the 'Anti' (many of whom may have been of Sarmatian or Alan origin).[...]
"We do not know the exact form these migrations took. New households may have cleared land close to the established villages, leading to a slow, amoeba-like migration, household by household. Or whole communities may have migrated in a more deliberate way. Such migrations may have been as organized as the migrations described by Caesar in Gaul, in which whole communities picked a likely territory after sending out scouts, packed up their crops and belongings like nineteenth-century settlers in the American Midwest, and set off with their belongings in carts drawn by horse or oxen. But almost everywhere they went, from the sixth to the tenth centuries, Slavic-speaking migrants built log-houses (poluzemlyanki) sunk 40-70 cm into the ground for greater warmth. Their houses were roughly square with sides of 3-4 metres, with roofs of earth and straw, and with stone stoves that were used for heating and cooking. Slavic dwellings were, as Goehrke puts it, 'modest, dark and sooty'. Only in the north, around Novgorod and Pskov, did Slavic migrants borrow the Finnish technique of building houses at ground level.[...]
"In the first millennium, improved technologies created population pressure throughout the 'barbarian' lands just north of the Roman empire, as farmers adopted better ploughs, with iron ploughshares hauled by oxen or horses, or started sowing more wheat and rye. Improved techniques spread into much of eastern Europe, including the old farming areas of Moldova and central Ukraine. Here the so-called 'Prague' cultures show the spread of plough agriculture and stock-rearing, using Roman techniques including systematic manuring and crop rotations. Further north, migrants used more extensive systems of cultivations, though a 'scratch' plough (ralo) became common. An improved light plough with a metal share (sokha) began to appear towards the end of the millennium. The sokha was particularly well adapted to the stony, root-filled soils of the newly colonized woodland regions, whose thin top soils lost fertility if ploughed too deeply. The heavy plough (plug) began to spread in the woodlands only in the eleventh to twelfth centuries and perhaps even later
"In the old core areas, the main crops in the sixth and seventh centuries were still millet and also wheats and barleys. Oats became more common as a summer crop, while pulses and flax and fruit such as apples were also grown. Everywhere, livestock were important, including horse, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. However, the key to successful colonization further north was probably the spread of winter ryes. In the ninth and tenth centuries, winter ryes begin to appear in the mixed forest zone. Rye was more reliable than wheat in the colder, northern parts of Rus', and its introduction permitted the use of more intensive and productive systems of crop rotation. The introduction of rye stimulated population growth right across the northern half of Europe in the first millenium and eventually allowed the emergence of non-agricultural specialists, including artisans such as smiths, or regional chiefs with retinues who coulde provide a measure of defense. As populations grew, and new implements came into use, the number of blacksmiths and the quality of their work increased in the ninth century. This was the first sign of an emerging division of labour within the farming communities of the mixed forest lands" (Christian 328-331).
Give me some time and I will follow this up with a source on Slavic language loanword-traffic / interaction with Baltic and Gothic, which gives us some perspective on linguistics and timeline. These sources are just ones I happen to have close at hand at the moment- I love these books. I might just scan some pages instead... hmmm.
This comes from my university textbook on Central Asian History (Nomads to Nations):
David Christian's A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume I Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. 1998. Blackwell
Give me some time and I will follow this up with a source on Slavic language loanword-traffic / interaction with Baltic and Gothic, which gives us some perspective on linguistics and timeline. These sources are just ones I happen to have close at hand at the moment- I love these books.
blitz, not to offend, yet this is what is known in the business as an Overview. Its better to get down to the nuts and bolts, as these are normally not all that precise. Still, the above overview appears to be fairly good.
Frostwulf
01-10-2008, 18:06
Which Germanic people? German is just a Latin word meaning 'genuine.'The Germanic tribe which would include the Suebi,Chatti,Cherusci,Batavii,Quadi, etc.There are many thoughts behind the meaning of this.
"Various etymologies for Latin Germani are possible. As an adjective, germani is simply the plural of the adjective germanus (from germen, "seed" or "offshoot"), which has the sense of "related" or "kindred"[2] or "authentic". According to Strabo, the Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).[3] Alternatively, it may refer from this use based on Roman experience of the Germanic tribes as allies of the Celts."
The Jastorf complex is just the local expression of the late Halstatt and early LaTene cultures? As we all know the late Halstatt is the basal and the LaTene the full on expressions of what was the Kelt ethnos. Regardless, how would one know if the people of the Jastorf expression spoke Kelt or Nord?This is not what I have read, they are different. I believe the jastorf culture followed the nordic bronze age. I think they were influenced by the Halstatt cultures but are still different. As far as what they spoke that usually comes from philology and place names in the region such cultures had dwelt.
The progression of specific elements of material culture associated with the late phases of Halstatt culture from southeast to the west, northwest, and north does not support a proposed early southward expansion from Scandinavia. Neither does the progression of the LaTene nor that of the early phase of the Halstatt. In fact, along the Frisian coast and Denmark many aspects of the EIA material culture (ceramics and architecture) appear to be associated with the local LBA expression as well.
I can only repeat what more learned men then I have said:
J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" In the second millennium BC the homes of the Germanic peoples were in southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts. The lands west of the Elbe, to the Rhine were occupied by Celts.
After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.
Across Europe the long line of Celtic hill-forts may be said to have restrained German expansion for centuries, though, as we have said, there was considerable intermingling. Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt. There is no reason to suppose that it was specifically German pressure that detonated the great Celtic invasions of Italy and Bohemia at the end of the fifth century BC. There is no evidence that the line of Celtic fortifications did not hold good at that time. On the other hand, Celtic pressure seems to have caused Eastern Germanic tribes, such as the Bastarnae, to move eastwards." pg.18-19
The Oxford Classical Dictionary-"The conventional view is that German language and culture originated in northern Germany and land about the western Baltic from about 500BC. Movement of peoples, leading to the reversal of Celtic expansion and Germanic contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from 300BC. In the west, this included the Cimbric migration of the 2nd cent. BC -probably also the date of German settlement across the lower Rhine. The early 1st cen. saw the arrival of the Suebi on the upper Rhine. In the east, the Germanic Bastarnae appeared on the borders of Thrace as early as 200BC; and the same period saw the establishment of the distant ancestors of, amongst others, Burgundians, Goths, and Vandals, between the Oder and the Vistula." pg. 635 Contributers: Anderson,Much,L.Schmidt,E.A.Thompson,M.Todd,P.Heather
This comes from my university textbook on Central Asian History (Nomads to Nations):
David Christian's A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume I Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. 1998. Blackwell
very interesting information, hopefully I will have the time to read that book.
This is not what I have read, they are different. I believe the jastorf culture followed the nordic bronze age. I think they were influenced by the Halstatt cultures but are still different. As far as what they spoke that usually comes from philology and place names in the region such cultures had dwelt.
---------------
J.B. Bury-" Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.
Across Europe the long line of Celtic hill-forts may be said to have restrained German expansion for centuries, though, as we have said, there was considerable intermingling. Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent [east of the Rhine-german not Nordic]. The Belgae also were a mixture [?] of German and Celt. There is no reason to suppose that it was specifically German pressure that detonated the great Celtic invasions of Italy and Bohemia at the end of the fifth century BC. There is no evidence that the line of Celtic fortifications did not hold good at that time. [why is it assumed these were built for protection against Nordic invasion]On the other hand, Celtic pressure seems to have caused Eastern Germanic tribes, such as the Bastarnae, to move eastwards." pg.18-19
The Oxford Classical Dictionary-"The conventional view is that German language and culture originated in northern Germany and land about the western Baltic from about 500BC. Movement of peoples, leading to the reversal of Celtic expansion and Germanic contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from 300BC. In the west, this included the Cimbric migration of the [late] 2nd cent. BC [cimbri were most likely Kelt and not Nordic]-probably also the date of German settlement across the lower Rhine [?]. The early 1st cen. saw the arrival of the Suebi on the upper Rhine. In the east, the Germanic Bastarnae [why are these Nordic] appeared on the borders of Thrace as early as 200BC; and the same period saw the establishment of the distant ancestors of, amongst others, Burgundians, Goths, and Vandals, between the Oder and the Vistula." pg. 635 Contributers: Anderson,Much,L.Schmidt,E.A.Thompson,M.Todd,P.Heather
very interesting information, hopefully I will have the time to read that book.
Influenced by the Halstatt cultures or local expression of Halstatt means the same thing. Nordic bronze age, only if one includes Denmark, otherwise this is a bridge too far. Some researchers have inserted this to support the argument of an early Nordic southward expansion. If one actually looks at the material assemblage of the LBA and much of the IA it is clear there was a relatively homogeneous complex that extends along the entire southeast North Sea coast.
---------------
If you want me to rip these apart I will? But if you read these carefully you can do the same. I always read these with a grain of salt. The real key to this problem is within the langauge the English call German.
Far too few Kelt loan words in German for so long a proposed co-habitation. Also far too many non-IndoE load words in German which do not show up in Kelt-speak. For a good example of the reverse please see English. However, the one good exception to what I propose were the Frisians, we just don't know how early they did establish themselves in Holland and along the northwest German coast. Of course that would in turn bring us back to the relationship of Latin-Kelt-Balt on the one hand and English-Frisian on the other.
Again, I hope this line is not a case of a 'modern German tail/tale wagging an Old Norse dog?'
Sorry I must run for now.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
01-10-2008, 19:42
I don't want to get into this argument, and I didn't read everything.
You frequently call others' opinions "absurd" and "nonsense" and you say that the EB team "should" do as you say, instead of "could". There is a huge difference between should and could - one is basicly an order while the other is a suggestion. You keep saying "no offense" after these outburts (as if you actually do realize people might be offended), but by then the damage will in most cases already be done.
The should thing could easily be a translation error. The German equivalent to should is normally "sollte", which is in no way offending, and indeed even polite. However, this cannot be an excuse of course, and I agree that his posts often seem rude, arrogant and much like "hoppla jetzt komm ich".
Again, I hope this line is not a case of a 'modern German tail wagging an Old Norse dog?'
I have no idea what you want to state with this sentence. This thread is about the depiction of ancient Germans in EB. You are not more polite than the OP, really, nor do you seem to back up statements like the above "Cimbri are Celtic and not Nordic". Nobody should pretend his assumptions to be truth without any back up.
Frostwulf
01-10-2008, 21:41
As I am working on another post I wont get into this thread to much yet.
[east of the Rhine-german not Nordic].Considering Caesar is the one who writes of this after 61 B.C.
Gerhard Dobesch-"The Celts*"-"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
cimbri were most likely Kelt and not NordicThe majority of historians/archaeologist would disagree with you.
Influenced by the Halstatt cultures or local expression of Halstatt means the same thing. Nordic bronze age, only if one includes Denmark, otherwise this is a bridge too far. Some researchers have inserted this to support the argument of an early Nordic southward expansion. If one actually looks at the material assemblage of the LBA and much of the IA it is clear there was a relatively homogeneous complex that extends along the entire southeast North Sea coast.I apologize, but I'm not sure what your saying here. Also what is LBA and IA?
If you want me to rip these apart I will?Please do, I am interested in this. When you rip them apart please use citations, I have been in debates on these forums where claims were made with nothing to back them up with.
Far too few Kelt loan words in German for so long a proposed co-habitation. Also far too many non-IndoE load words in German which do not show up in Kelt-speak.Very interesting! But considering that the Celtic and 'Germanic' languages were written down much later, couldn't that be cause for this?
However, the one good exception to what I propose were the Frisians, we just don't know how early they did establish themselves in Holland and along the northwest German coast. Of course that would in turn bring us back to the relationship of Latin-Kelt-Balt on the one hand and English-Frisian on the other.
Could you clarify and expand on this?
Again, I hope this line is not a case of a 'modern German tail wagging an Old Norse dog?'I'm not German if thats what your getting at. I hope your not going to get into the "your a nazi" innuendo's because I might disagree with you. I have already been through that and don't care to go through it again. If you disagree with my information that is fine, but don't label me because of a disagreement. My interest is purely academic. I hope I'm misunderstanding what your getting at.
As I am working on another post I wont get into this thread to much yet.
Considering Caesar is the one who writes of this after 61 B.C.
Gerhard Dobesch-"The Celts*"-"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
The majority of historians/archaeologist would disagree with you.
I apologize, but I'm not sure what your saying here. Also what is LBA and IA?
Please do, I am interested in this. When you rip them apart please use citations, I have been in debates on these forums where claims were made with nothing to back them up with.
Very interesting! But considering that the Celtic and 'Germanic' languages were written down much later, couldn't that be cause for this?
Could you clarify and expand on this?
I'm not German if thats what your getting at. I hope your not going to get into the "your a nazi" innuendo's because I might disagree with you. I have already been through that and don't care to go through it again. If you disagree with my information that is fine, but don't label me because of a disagreement. My interest is purely academic. I hope I'm misunderstanding what your getting at.
The word for the day is...
Deconstruction.
First...
Frostwulf, now I remember you...
you're that naked warrior guy?
This is kind of basic stuff...
Does Gerhard Dobesch tell anyone why he makes the assertion about the German usage in the 1st century BC. If we read Στράβων ο Αμάσειος; Strabo, who lived and wrote in the period cited above, we may actually learn what the term meant in the 1st century BC.
Στράβων Γεωγραφία
Strabo's Geography
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, directly over the Rhine, in the mists of the Kelts, moving ahead [this] rising daybreak reveals [the] Germans. [They] are very little different [from] the Keltic nations [except for] greater savageness, stature, and blonder hair. I may say that apart from this [they] nearly resemble the appearance, traditions, and every day manners exhibited the Kelts. Wherefore, [I] believe [the] Romans named this place thus, as haply being Galatae, [as they] wished to indicate the race of the Germans in the Roman language.
[B]Traditional Rendering: H. L. Jones: Harvard University Press, 1917 thru 1932.
[2] Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name “Germani,” as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were “genuine” Galatae, for in the language of the Romans “germani” means “genuine.”
-------------
Based on Strabo's report, I'm respectively disinclined to agree with Dr. phil., Prof. Gerhard Dobesch; Full member of the Section for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, Professor der Römischen Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik an der Universität Wien w. M. Österr. Archäologisches Institut, M. Istituto Naz. di Studi Etruschi e Italici. Yet, as Strabo was so clear on this subject was there really any doubt? Or...
maybe Dobesch knows more about the 1st century BC that did Strabo?
If you actually want to debate this subject you need to tell me your understanding of the Latin usage of the term German in the 1st century BC. If you think it simply was used to distinguish the culture east from that west of the Rhine, we may talk. Next, you need to tell me your understanding of the archaeology behind the Halstatt and LaTene culture concepts.
I have no idea what you want to state with this sentence. This thread is about the depiction of ancient Germans in EB. You are not more polite than the OP, really, nor do you seem to back up statements like the above "Cimbri are Celtic and not Nordic". Nobody should pretend his assumptions to be truth without any back up.
Dear sir, good things come to those who wait.
'modern German tail/tale wagging an Old Norse dog'
If we can agree that the basal language was some form of proto-Old Norse, why is this linguistic group called Germanic?
Documented practice concerning a given tradition, among the historic Cimbri.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G-QrAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=cimbri+caldron&source=web&ots=_Oa4AdqICm&sig=Y7Kh8f_6iYxcLxXfVDY9K4RUwtk#PPA395,M1
The artifact type associated with the tradition, found near Gundestrup in Himmerland (Cimbri-Land), Denmark.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Gundestrupkarret1.jpg/180px-
Iconography on the artifact that depices a practice documented within the area of its discovery.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Gundestrup_E.jpg/300px-Gundestrup_E.jpg
Iconography on the artifact that depices known Keltic deities.
Cernunnos
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Gundestrupkarret2.jpg/180px-Gundestrupkarret2.jpg
Lugh of the Long Arm
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/Gundestrup/cc.jpg
The artifact type disposed of in a fashion (dismantled and buried in a peat bog) documented among Keltic groups. More than one example from the same area (the Rynkeby Cauldron).
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/Gundestrup/rynkeby.jpg
The Blekinge Mask
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5373/2432/400/Gorman%20fig%201%20en%20face.jpg
Individual bull's heads like those on the Rynkeby cauldron have been found on Funen and Lolland. Another two fragments of a torqued mask have been found at Ringsebølle on Lolland. These fragments nearly identical to the face on the Rynkeby Cauldron. Now we have alot of LaTene artifacts coming from Denmark.
Please read
http://www.blekingemuseum.se/mapp5/pdf/maskbilden.pdf
Also, the Latin c and Greek k suggest Cimbri/Kimmbros had assumed the Latin form through Celtic which used ch later replaced by Nordic h (Celtic chimbr-, Latin cimbr-, Norse himbr-).
These are called converging lines of evidence.
Cadwalader
01-11-2008, 08:07
That's actually some pretty good points here! No doubt somebody will fence it, though. Europa Barbarorum fans gathered in one place arguing history always gets exciting!
We shall see?
Yet, I for one need to get some sleepb now.
I'm off to the field at six this morning.
Mouzafphaerre
01-11-2008, 08:24
.
All great and enlightening; but why the aggressive style? Neither of your manhood will suffer should the counterpart win, if there's shit to be won at all. :duel:
.
If I'm not aggressive he may not take the bait? Remember Frostwulf and the naked warrior threat. OK, i'll edit it out. I get that way when I get tired. Besides this line is a path well traveled as I fear this may have something to do with Nationalism?
If I'm not aggressive he may not take the bait? Remember Frostwulf and the naked warrior threat. OK, i'll edit it out. I get that way when I get tired. Besides this line is a path well traveled as I fear this may have something to do with Nationalism?
The only one who brought up nationalism is sadly yourself.:no: Beside your comments i didn't noticed anything about this thread being nationalistic.
Arguing about the Cimbri being of celtic origin is rather pointless as the overwhelming majority of historians put them rightly in class of the germanic tribes.
Perhaps you rather want to point out that the Teutoni were at least half celtic, the same we could say about the Nervii beiing half-germanic while belonging to the Belgae tribes b.t.w.
I really enjoyed reading blitzkrieg's, Frostwulf's and other comments without ever noticing some nationlistic background in them.
A fish may never know that he lives in water.
Indeed the Cimbri, Teutoni, and all of the Belgae tribes were Germans in origin, in the Latin sense. But, that is not the issue here.
There we have the predictable 'settled science' response.
Please read carefully the above posts.
I was afraid this would happen and may soon quite this topic as indeed it seems pointless.
My first Post, so first of all: Tank you very much for this great mod! I enjoy playing it sinc 0.74. Though playing the game and reading the forum since this time, I still have got two questions concerning the Swebos:
1. Why is the range of the javelins of the Swebos units that short?
Is it because of bad quality of the javelins or because of the tactic throwing it only in the last moment?
2. Second Question belongs to the defence stats of the german Bodyguards.
Their are shown with chainmail, Helmets and shields of best quality just as the Carnute and Solduros. So I thought they would have similar defense stats, but there is differense of 4 defence points.
I would be happy if somebody could tell me why it is just the way it is now.
Mfg MM83
Ps: Sorry for my bad english. It's some years ago since I learned it in school:shame:
Cadwalader
01-11-2008, 16:03
I also think the Germanic skirmishers' range is short. The Celtic ones can throw their spears longer, and Tacitus describes in "Germania" how the germans can throw their framea to incredible lengths.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
01-11-2008, 17:57
@ cmacq:
That's some nice evidence you brought up there. I won't say something contrary, I couldn't proof it. Cimbri and Teutones are commonly thought to have been Germanic, and so thought I. So perhaps you are right, and you have good evidence. You will admit your theory about them being Celt is not mainstream, and so it's good you have backed up your theory.
Just a few days ago I took a glance at a Spanish magazine for popular science, and there was an article about the Indoeuropeans. They showed the Gundestrupkessel in it and described it as Celtic, and I thought they were complete morons, for I've always been quite sure it's Germanic. It has also been shown in German television in a documentary where it was also depicted as Germanic. Along with documentaries about the Cimbri and Teutones on their march. And I have a book by Prof. S. Fischer-Fabian, "Die ersten Deutschen - über das rätselhafte Volk der Germanen", in which they are also described as Germanic.
So I accept your well backed-up statement, but the issue remains unsolved for me.
Thank you for the kind words and indeed you are very right. It may never be adequately resolved.
I think it is possible for the Cimbri and Teutoni to be both Kelt and German without being that much Nordic. I have to addmit this can prove to be yet another complex subject.
'The first Deutsch: About the mysterious German people,' sounds like a good read.
The point of my intervening into this threat was to demonstrate a distinction in the early Latin usage of the term ‘German’ which was being used to substantiate a massive eighth century BC Nordic migration from Sweden and Norway into Denmark and northern Germany. To me it is indeed clear that this massive Nordic migration in fact did occur. However, I suggest this may have happened in the wake of the huge Teutoni, Cimbric, and others, southern migration from Denmark, which of course transpired around 120 BC. I agreed this may be too short a time for so great a change. Yet if it did occur as I propose it may represent an example of punctuated equilibrium.
As you are interested this is Strabo talking about why the Cimbri abandoned Denmark, their final defeat at the hands of the Romans, and the Danish Cimbri's divine caldron and their treaty with the Romans. You'll note Strabo says he doesn’t believe the causality in Cimbri abandonment story, yet reports it all the same.
Στράβων Γεωγραφία
STRABO's GEOGRAPHY
BOOK 7
[Chapter 2]
[1] Περὶ δὲ Κίμβρων τὰ μὲν οὐκ εὖ λέγεται͵ τὰ δ΄ ἔχει πιθανότητας οὐ μετρίας. οὔτε γὰρ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν τοῦ πλάνητας γενέσθαι καὶ λῃστρικοὺς ἀποδέξαιτ΄ ἄν τις͵ ὅτι χερρόνησον οἰκοῦντες μεγάλῃ πλημμυρίδι ἐξελαθεῖεν ἐκ τῶν τόπων· καὶ γὰρ νῦν ἔχουσι τὴν χώραν ἣν εἶχον πρότερον͵ καὶ ἔπεμψαν τῷ Σεβαστῷ δῶρον τὸν ἱερώτατον παρ΄ αὐτοῖς λέβητα͵ αἰτούμενοι φιλίαν καὶ ἀμνηστίαν τῶν ὑπηργμένων͵ τυχόντες δὲ ὧν ἠξίουν ἀπῆραν· γελοῖον δὲ τῷ φυσικῷ καὶ αἰωνίῳ πάθει δὶς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας συμβαίνοντι προσοργισθέντας ἀπελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ τόπου. ἔοικε δὲ πλάσματι τὸ συμβῆναί ποτε ὑπερβάλλουσαν πλημμυρίδα· ἐπιτάσεις μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἀνέσεις δέχεται͵ τεταγμένας δὲ καὶ περιοδιζούσας͵ ὁ ὠκεανὸς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις πάθεσιν. οὐκ εὖ δ΄ οὐδὲ ὁ φήσας ὅπλα αἴρεσθαι πρὸς τὰς πλημμυρίδας τοὺς Κίμβρους͵ οὐδ΄ ὅτι ἀφοβίαν οἱ Κελτοὶ ἀσκοῦντες κατακλύζεσθαι τὰς οἰκίας ὑπομένουσιν͵ εἶτ΄ ἀνοικοδομοῦσι͵ καὶ ὅτι πλείων αὐτοῖς συμβαίνει φθόρος ἐξ ὕδατος ἢ πολέμου͵ ὅπερ Ἔφορός φησιν. ἡ γὰρ τάξις ἡ τῶν πλημμυρίδων καὶ τὸ τὴν ἐπικλυζομένην χώραν εἶναι γνώριμον οὐκ ἔμελλε τοιαύτας τὰς ἀτοπίας παρέξειν. δὶς γὰρ ἑκάστης ἡμέρας τούτου συμβαίνοντος τὸ μηδ΄ ἅπαξ αἰσθάνεσθαι φυσικὴν οὖσαν τὴν παλίρροιαν καὶ ἀβλαβῆ͵ καὶ οὐ μόνοις τούτοις συμβαίνουσαν ἀλλὰ τοῖς παρωκεανίταις πᾶσι͵ πῶς οὐκ ἀπίθανον; οὐδὲ Κλείταρχος εὖ· φησὶ γὰρ τοὺς ἱππέας ἰδόντας τὴν ἔφοδον τοῦ πελάγους ἀφιππάσασθαι καὶ φεύγοντας ἐγγὺς γενέσθαι τοῦ περικαταληφθῆναι. οὔτε δὲ τοσούτῳ τάχει τὴν ἐπίβασιν ὁρμωμένην ἱστοροῦμεν͵ ἀλλὰ λεληθότως προσιοῦσαν τὴν θάλατταν· οὔτε τὸ καθ΄ ἡμέραν γινόμενον καὶ πᾶσιν ἔναυλον ἤδη ὂν τοῖς πλησιάζειν μέλλουσι πρὶν ἢ θεάσασθαι͵ τοσοῦτον ἔμελλε παρέξεσθαι φόβον ὥστε φεύγειν͵ ὡς ἂν εἰ ἐξ ἀδοκήτου προσέπεσε.
My Rendering
On one hand some information about the Cimbri, is not well validated, while other reports are more convincing, although not without limits. Unacceptable is the explanation that some attribute the origin of their wandering and piratical nature. That when residing on the peninsula, they were driven out by a great random wave from the sea (a) and yet still hold this territory as it was in earlier times. As a gift they sent to Sebastoi, who is the self same Augustus, a divine caldron, asking that if deemed worthwhile a new start, amnesty, and friendship with bygone transgressions removed to last a lifetime in natural laugher. It was agreed that if perchance one was provoked by aggression the other would in haste be likewise obligated to respond. They departed this place the very image of harmony at a time not to overshoot the tide that was extended in slack and ready to recede, as perarranged, into the ocean in the manner that it normally happens. Thus it is incorrect to say the sea tides were the tool that caused the Cimbri to rise up and move, nor that anyone as fearless as the Kelts fashion homes that are dashed by deluge, the remains only to be rebuilt. Nor those that claim this phenomenon results in more death from water than battle, as Ephoros says. The order of the sea tides and extent of tidal flows are well known and not held as extraordinary. That this phenomenon occurs not once, but twice is seen as the natural and harmless daily reflux of water, and not an isolated event that likewise happens everywhere, in a way by no means unlikely. Nor is Kleitarchos right, in declaring that when horsemen seeing the sea’s advance rode away in full flight only to be nearly consumed by the water. Critically, it could not to be so high and swift in approach, as otherwise its advance would be imperceptible. Nor would the calm of the receding tide be a pleasure to be near in thought or view, as being so large one is held in readiness to flee in flight, if thus so undecided that it may unexpectedly strike.
[2] Ταῦτά τε δὴ δικαίως ἐπιτιμᾷ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι Ποσειδώνιος καὶ οὐ κακῶς εἰκάζει͵ διότι λῃστρικοὶ ὄντες καὶ πλάνητες οἱ Κίμβροι καὶ μέχρι τῶν περὶ τὴν Μαιῶτιν ποιήσαιντο στρατείαν͵ ἀπ΄ ἐκείνων δὲ καὶ ὁ Κιμμέριος κληθείη Βόσπορος͵ οἷον Κιμβρικός͵ Κιμμερίους τοὺς Κίμβρους ὀνομασάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων. φησὶ δὲ καὶ Βοίους τὸν Ἑρκύνιον δρυμὸν οἰκεῖν πρότερον͵ τοὺς δὲ Κίμβρους ὁρμήσαντας ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον͵ ἀποκρουσθέντας ὑπὸ τῶν Βοίων ἐπὶ τὸν Ἴστρον καὶ τοὺς Σκορδίσκους Γαλάτας καταβῆναι͵ εἶτ΄ ἐπὶ Τευρίστας καὶ Ταυρίσκους͵ καὶ τούτους Γαλάτας͵ εἶτ΄ ἐπὶ Ἑλουηττίους͵ πολυχρύσους μὲν ἄνδρας εἰρηναίους δέ· ὁρῶντας δὲ τὸν ἐκ τῶν λῃστηρίων πλοῦτον ὑπερβάλλοντα τοῦ παρ΄ ἑαυτοῖς τοὺς Ἑλουηττίους ἐπαρθῆναι͵ μάλιστα δ΄ αὐτῶν Τιγυρίνους τε καὶ Τωυγένους͵ ὥστε καὶ συνεξορμῆσαι. πάντες μέντοι κατελύθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν Ρωμαίων αὐτοί τε οἱ Κίμβροι καὶ οἱ συναράμενοι τούτοις͵ οἱ μὲν ὑπερβαλόντες τὰς Ἄλπεις εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν οἱ δ΄ ἔξω τῶν Ἄλπεων.
My Rendering
Because of the observed well order and precise nature of this, value is given to the correct presentation of Poseidonius, that as piratical and migrant the Cimbri even as far as the vicinity of Lake Maeotis made an expedition to move away from the place called the Cimmeri Cattle-ford, since the Cimbri, as the Greeks also called them Cimmeri(b). The Boii of the Hercynian Forest say when they inhabited the sacred oak groves (Bohemia)(c), the Cimbri moved on this place, to be beaten off by the Boii (d), only to come down upon the Galatae Scordisci, along the Danube, with the Teuristae and Taurisci, these also being Galatae. When they came on to the Helvetii, peaceful men rich in gold, they saw this band of robbers alongside such amassed wealth, that the Helvetii rose up, particularly the Tigurini and Toygeni, to follow on. All these were put down by the Romans, both the Cimbri and those who had followed them, some in one instance over the Alps in Italy, and the others before the Alps.
Notes
(a) Apparently Strabo didn't understand the very frequent North Sea quakes and tsunami effect.
(b) The Greeks equated the Cimmeri with the Cimbri. This referrers to the Herodus and Poseidonius reports that the Cimmeri, on the approach of the Scyths, abandoned the Ukraine and migrated to Denmark to become the Cimbri.
(c) In Strabo's lifetime the Boii had abandoned Bohemia, due to their being weaken by the Cimbric invasion and later relentless Swabian attacks. In the mid 1st century BC the remaining Boii migrated to Gaul where they were intercepted and eventually resettled by the Romans.
(d) Although the Boii claimed to have defeated the Cimbric host, it appears the opposite was true and they were forced to ransom themselves as did the Teuristae and Taurisci.
I believe in the lines marked as bold Strabo indicates the Cimbri were Kelts.
Overall I suggest that the Cimbri migration wrecked much of the German and Gallic economy and political organization, thus opening a window of opportunity for the proposed massive Nordic migration.
If one hears hoof beats think horses not zebras.
The mainstream, based on stylistic grounds, claims that the Gundestrup Cauldron was manufactured by the Scordisci in Romania. Initially, it was proposed that the Cimbri captured it from the Scordisci and returned it to Denmark. At some point the mainstream realized this rational was untenable as the artifact depicts a ceremonial practice similar to that described by Starbo as conduced by the Cimbri. The mainstream next insisted that the Cimbri had commissioned the Scordisci to manufacture the artifact and then transported it by land across barbarian Europe from Romanian to Denmark. However, many examples of this artifact types have now been found in Denmark along with numerous other artifacts that display a similar artistic style. One may suggest that a more logical explanation would be that these were made either in Denmark or very nearby and if indeed this was the case this region could be included within the LaTene III sphere.
http://jblstatue.com/gundstrup/gunstrup5.jpg
Στράβων Γεωγραφία
STRABO's GEOGRAPHY
BOOK 7
[Chapter 2]
[3]Ἔθος δέ τι τῶν Κίμβρων διηγοῦνται τοιοῦτον͵ ὅτι ταῖς γυναιξὶν αὐτῶν συστρατευούσαις παρηκολούθουν προμάντεις ἱέρειαι πολιότριχες͵ λευχείμονες͵ καρπασίνας ἐφαπτίδας ἐπιπεπορπημέναι͵ ζῶσμα χαλκοῦν ἔχουσαι͵ γυμνόποδες· τοῖς οὖν αἰχμαλώτοις διὰ τοῦ στρατοπέδου συνήντων ξιφήρεις͵ καταστέψασαι δ΄ αὐτοὺς ἦγον ἐπὶ κρατῆρα χαλκοῦν ὅσον ἀμφορέων εἴκοσιν· εἶχον δὲ ἀναβάθραν͵ ἣν ἀναβᾶσα ... ὑπερπετὴς τοῦ λέβητος ἐλαιμοτόμει ἕκαστον μετεωρισθέντα· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ προχεομένου αἵματος εἰς τὸν κρατῆρα μαντείαν τινὰ ἐποιοῦντο͵ ἄλλαι δὲ διασχίσασαι ἐσπλάγχνευον ἀναφθεγγόμεναι νίκην τοῖς οἰκείοις. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἔτυπτον τὰς βύρσας τὰς περιτεταμένας τοῖς γέρροις τῶν ἁρμαμαξῶν͵ ὥστ΄ ἀποτελεῖσθαι ψόφον ἐξαίσιον.
My Rendering
[3]Furthermore a Cimbri costume is described in full; that an expedition in which their families joined, they were followed closely by gray-haired priestesses of second-sight. These barefooted and clad in a white woman's dress made of flax and held by a copper girdle. Then in fact, those taken prisoner of the spear to their camp, met these face to face with sword in hand. They were decked with a wreath and brought before a copper bowl that could hold as much as twenty amphoras, Yet to hold overturned she brought to an end … reaching above the cauldron, cut the throat of each, raised high, and out poured forth blood into the bowl as something prophetic was pronounced. Yet another cleaved prophesies from their entrails and proclaimed aloud a victory, over those they occupied. Meanwhile, among all those assembled the stripped hides stretch over wicker-work covered wagons were drummed to produce in truth an entirely unnatural sound.
Traditional Rendering: H. L. Jones: Harvard University Press, 1917 thru 1932.
[3]Writers report a custom of the Cimbri to this effect: Their wives, who would accompany them on their expeditions, were attended by priestesses who were seers; these were grey-haired, clad in white, with flaxen cloaks fastened on with clasps, girt with girdles of bronze, and bare-footed; now sword in hand these priestesses would meet with the prisoners of war throughout the camp, and having first crowned them with wreaths would lead them to a brazen vessel of about twenty amphorae; and they had a raised platform which the priestess would mount, and then, bending over the kettle,would cut the throat of each prisoner after he had been lifted up; and from the blood that poured forth into the vessel some of the priestesses would draw a prophecy, while still others would split open the body and from an inspection of the entrails would utter a prophecy of victory for their own people; and during the battles they would beat on the hides that were stretched over the wicker-bodies of the wagons and in this way produce an unearthly noise.
Then from Hjortspring, Denmark we find the type of shield depicted the Gundestrup Cauldron. Also at Hjortspring, investigators found evidence of mail armor.
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/images/skldf31a119.jpg
And the same type of shield boss from Illerup, Denmark.
http://www.tollundman.dk/gifs/DIAS06-170.jpg
Yet, the Gundestrup foot appear to carry Nordic type spears and sword. Again we have examples from Hjortspring (below), and Illerup (above). The top photo from Hjortspring (below) displays mostly Kelt type spear points.
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/images/kaul25s17f2.jpg
All of these Hjortspring swords are the IA Nordic type; single edged.
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/hjortspr/images/kaul24s16f2.jpg
Gundestrup Cauldron also clearly shows the western Keltic breed of horse (Equus gracilis).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Hp_Ponies.jpg
These are photos of Exmoor Ponies from England, which are close descendants to the Kelt Pony.
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/feathers/BIRD6.JPG
This photo is of a handle fitting from the Brå Cauldron, Denmark. We also have the Mosbæk Cauldron.
http://www.questia.com/ImageViewer.qst?action=1&docId=62940886&imageName=b61411/b61411p0375a.fpx&pageNo=375&isImageViewable=true
http://www.questia.com/ImageViewer.qst?action=1&docId=62940886&imageName=b61411/b61411p0375b.fpx&pageNo=375&isImageViewable=true
However, we also have the following Classical authors that actually stated that the Cimbri were Kelts;
Posidonius of Apamea, Florus, Appian, Diodorus Siculus, Dio Cassius, Orosius, and Strabo above.
Below is the passage in Appian’s fragmented book on Rome’s Gallic wars that says the Teutoni and Cimbri were Kelts. Again, Appian referres to the huge Teutoni, Cimbric, and others, southern migration from Denmark and their final defeat at the hands of the Romans and Marius.
Εκ Τἶσ Κελτικἶσ
[2] Αλλουσ δε παλιν Κελτουσ ενικα Ποπιλλιοσ· και μετ᾿ εκεινον τουσ αυτουσ Καμιλλοσ ηο του Καμιλλου ηυιοσ, εστὑσε δε κατα Κελτὀν και Παπποσ Αιμιλιοσ τροπαια, προ δε τὀν του Μαριου ηυπατειὀν πλειστον τι και μαψηιμὀτατον· τὑι τε ηὑλικιαι μαλιστα πηοβερὀτατον ψηρὑμα Κελτὀν εσ τὑν Ιταλιαν τε και Γαλατιαν εσεβαλε· και τινασ ηυπατουσ Ρηὀμαιὀν ενικὑσε και στρατοπεδα κατεκοπσεν; επη᾿ ηουσ ηο Μαριοσ αποσταλεισ ηαπαντασ διεπητηειρε,
My Rendering
[2] Another Keltic reversal where Popillivs prevailed, and afterwards the same by Camillvs, a son of Camillvs. To make a stand over the Kelts even Amilivs Pappvs won a trophy. Yet before Marivs assumed the office the single largest and most warlike, and of that era an exceedingly terrifying Keltic horde, overran both Italy and Gual and prevailed over every Roman and cut to pieces their legions. Of this Marivs was sent off to utterly destroy.
Traditional Rendering: ed. Horace White.
[2] Another Gallic force was defeated by Popillius, and after this Camillus, son of the former Camillus, defeated the same tribe. Afterwards Æmilius Pappus won some trophies from the Gauls. Shortly before the consulships of Marius a most numerous and warlike horde of Celtic tribes [the Cimbri and Teutones], most formidable in bodily strength, made incursions into both Italy and Gaul, and defeated some of the Roman consuls, and cut their armies in pieces. Marius was sent against them and he destroyed them all.
Now closely notice the type of shoe worn by the figures depicted on the Gundestrup Cauldron. These are identical to other examples found in Bog contexts.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5373/2432/1600/chaudron-%20gundestrup3.jpg
The same shoe type from the Cernunnos panel of the Gundestrup Cauldron.
http://www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk/GUNDEST2.JPG
See the top view of the Amscotts Woman’s Shoe, from Lincolnshire England (AD 350-400).
http://home.columbus.rr.com/herneswood/image008.gif
And these found with Yde Girl, the Netherlands (1st century BC and AD).
http://www.paramuspost.com/mediagallery/mediaobjects/tn/e/e172c7ca3a3ddf5ac0670bb2cfbc97a6.jpg
Again, more converging lines of evidence that become increasingly more detailed. Now if the mainstream is correct in their thesis that the Scordisci were commissioned to manufacture such cauldrons, it appears to clearly demonstrate that this Cimbri ceremonial practice was intimately associated with numerous LaTene style (Kelt) artifacts.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and is called a duck, maybe its a duck?
Frostwulf
01-13-2008, 07:59
In this thread there are points I didn't get to:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1801393&postcount=64
J.B. Bury-" Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
The above statement fits not only with Caesars writings but also with archaeological findings of the Jastorf culture(attributed to Germanic speaking peoples) which was replacing the La Tene culture during this time period.
Bastarnae [why are these Nordic]The appearance of in Moldavia of an archaeological grouping with obvious connections to the cultures further west, datable to roughly the same time. Then you have the ancient sources which claim mixed ancestry, some Celtic(most of the Greeks didn't use the term Germani till later on) and Pliny is the only one to class them without qualification.
From this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1801781&postcount=67
Does Gerhard Dobesch tell anyone why he makes the assertion about the German usage in the 1st century BC. If we read Στράβων ο Αμάσειος; Strabo, who lived and wrote in the period cited above, we may actually learn what the term meant in the 1st century BC.
This is based on how the Romans saw things. Dobesch goes on to say:
"Now the Germanic tribes were recognized as being different from the Celts, and became a well-defined political entity. This new awareness was reflected first of all in Caesar's memoirs of his campaign against the Celts of Gaul, his Gallic War, which, fortunately, has come down to us. pg.35
Dobesch is simply stating the beliefs of the Romans the differences between Celts and Germani, the Romans most certainly did not believe them to be the same.
Based on Strabo's report, I'm respectively disinclined to agree with Dr. phil., Prof. Gerhard Dobesch; Full member of the Section for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, Professor der Römischen Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik an der Universität Wien w. M. Österr. Archäologisches Institut, M. Istituto Naz. di Studi Etruschi e Italici. Yet, as Strabo was so clear on this subject was there really any doubt? Or...
maybe Dobesch knows more about the 1st century BC that did Strabo?
So are you trying to say the Suebi, Chatti,Ubii, Batavi and others were Celts? Again the material culture of the aforementioned people are different than that of the La Tene Celts. Why were not the Helvetii and other "Celtic" groups across the Rhine not called Germani? What about Caesar,Tacitus and others? Strabo is saying there is a difference between Celt and Germani, his only deviation is what Germani means. Gehard Herm is the only author I know of who semi-postulated the same idea that the Germani and Celts are the same.
Eduard Norden (1923: 81-4) argued that Posidonius distinguished Celts and Germans as distinct but closely related peoples and that analysis is was reflected in Strabo's discussion of the two groups. It is true that Strabo admits using the Germani of his day as models for the Gauls as they were before Roman rule, and justified this with the remark that 'in nature and political institutions these peoples are similar and akin to one another, and in habit a region with a common border, divided by the Rhine.
Caesar who actually dealt with the Germani and Gauls as opposed to Strabo who did not, did make a distinction between the two cultures. The overwhelming majority of historians/archaeologist make a distinction between Celts and Germani.
If I'm not aggressive he may not take the bait? Remember Frostwulf and the naked warrior threat. OK, i'll edit it out. I get that way when I get tired. Besides this line is a path well traveled as I fear this may have something to do with Nationalism? Whats this about? What does it have to do with this thread?
Indeed the Cimbri, Teutoni, and all of the Belgae tribes were Germans in origin, in the Latin sense. But, that is not the issue here.Using only Strabo as a source is a mistake, more on this later.
The mainstream, based on stylistic grounds, claims that the Gundestrup Cauldron was manufactured by the Scordisci in Romania. Initially, it was proposed that the Cimbri captured it from the Scordisci and returned it to Denmark. At some point the mainstream realized this rational was untenable as the artifact depicts a ceremonial practice described by Starbo as conduced by the Cimbri. The mainstream next insisted that the Cimbri had commissioned the Scordisci to manufacture the artifact and then transported it by land across barbarian Europe from Romanian to Denmark. However, many examples of this artifact types have now been found in Denmark along with numerous other artifacts that display a similar artistic style. One may suggest that a more logical explanation would be that these were made either in Denmark or very nearby and if indeed this was the case this region could be included within the LaTene III sphere.
Of the Cimbri,Teutons and Ambrones:
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"The first direct written evidence we have for Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein comes from Tacitus in the late first century AD where he places the Cimbri in the north and the Chauci in the south. It thus seems likely that Jutland was the origin of the Cimbri who ravaged central Europe (113BC) and southern Gaul in the late second century BC before being defeated by Marius at the battles of Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence) in 102 BC and the Vercellae near Milan in 101. Lingquistic evidence from later periods show this was a Germanic speaking area, though we should note(sceptically) the claim based on the word Morimoarusa that the Cimbri spoke a Gallic language (Pliny Naturalis Historiae 4.95). However, the ethnic classification of the Cimbri in the second century BC presents difficulties as this dates to the period before Latin literature was making a distinction between Galli and Germai, and even aas late by the mid-first century BC Cicero still considered them to be Galli (De provinciis consuaribus 32)." pg.183-184
J.B.Rives-Germania-"Lastly, in the late second century BC. came the most famous of early Germanic migrations, that of the Cimbri. Classical sources provide much information regarding their movements, and locate their homeland in the northern part of Jutland. It is therefore commonly assumed that they had migrated from that area down to Bohemia, where they are first attested by classical sources. That archaeological research has been unable to substantiate this migration is not surprising, considering that they did not remain in any place for very long. But it is possible that their association with Jutland, and thus their classification as Germanic, is mistaken." pg.10
Rives goes on to give more information on the reasons for the Cimbri to be either Germanic or Celtic. I don't feel like typing that many pages, but nevertheless there are many reasons why the majority of historians/archaeologists and etc. say the Cimbri were Germanic. Also while not much is known of the Ambrones, the Teutons "homeland" is also placed in an area considered Germanic.
J.B.Rives-Germania-"What was the extent of the peoples who spoke Germanic in the mid-first millennium BC? That is to day, with what archaeological cultures may we associate them? As noted above, archaeological finds cannot on their own answer this question. Nevertheless, a continuity of material culture into historical times provides at least some indications, and the evidence of river-names can provide further support. Thus there is little question that the peoples of Jutland, the Danish and Baltic islands, and southern Sweden spoke Germanic, and few scholars hesitate to identify the Jastorf and the later Elbe culture as that of Germanic-speakers.
Of the Gundestrup cauldron:
The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"But its place of manufacture has long eluded investigators. Guesses range from Gaul to Russia; Thrace, in the Balkans, now seems the likeliest spot. There a Celtic tribe known as the Scordisci settled; examples of Thracian silverwork bear stylistic and technical similarities to the cauldron. How the vessel came north remains a mystery, though it could have been seized as booty by marauding Danes." pg. 126
However, many examples of this artifact types have now been found in Denmark along with numerous other artifacts that display a similar artistic style. One may suggest that a more logical explanation would be that these were made either in Denmark or very nearby and if indeed this was the case this region could be included within the LaTene III sphere.
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-" One item must be an import, the Gunderstrup cauldron, which belongs to a tradition of art totally foreign to Denmark, but its origin on the lower Danube is almost universally agreed; it is worth noting the long tradition of exotic items being imported into Denmark fro this area, starting from as early as the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic around 4000 BC." pg.184
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"These are exotic and high prestige goods, and so are difficult to parallel closely anywhere else, so to assume that because they are in 'Celtic' La Tene style they cannot have been made in 'Germanic' Denmark is obviously false logic. With more prosaic objects we can see that local products were often following the mainstream of central and western artistic traditions." pg184
Just as the Celts picked up Roman and Greek methods and items we don't call the Celts Greek or Roman. With the amount of Roman coins and amphorae does that mean the Celts were actually Roman? Of course not, the same with the people of Denmark.
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"In brief, in Denmark we have a group of probably Germanic-speaking people with burial rites and material culture which are considerably different from those living further south, but who were using and manufacturing metalwork with La Tene forms and decorations."pg.185
John Collis-European Iron Age-"The highland area of the German Mittelbirge extending through Hesse, Thuringia, northern Bavaria and into Bohemia, had been one of the areas in which La Tene culture had developed in the fifth century.....(Collis talks about the La Tene culture)....(new paragraph)
Further north, on European Plain, a very different settlement pattern and culture had come into existence.....(Collis puts in allot of examples)..By the first century BC these groups, from southern Poland to Jutland, had developed burial rites and a distinctive material culture which distinguishes them from their central European neighbors, and which is usually termed 'Germanic'." pg.173
Finally Strabo as a source:
J.B.Rives-Germania-"Strabo was quite right about the meaning of germanus, and we find puns on the two words in various Latin writers (cic.Phil. 11. 14, Vell. Pat. 2. 67.4, Sen. Apocol. 6.1); yet his explanation of the word has not won much assent. Tacitus provides little help. All he says is that the first people to cross the Rhine west into Gaul were at that time called Germani...(Rives goes on about Tacitus)....(new paragraph)...
Few of the proposed etymologies of the name have won general acceptance. A number of scholars have argued that the word is Gemanic in origin. One frequent suggestion for its derivation is the combination of *ermin-(see above at 2.2, 'Herminones') wit the prefix *ga, with a meaning of 'the exalted ones'. Much (1967:72), on the other hand, suggest a connection wit modern German gern and begehren, so 'the desired ones, the befriended ones'. Other scholars have preferred a Celtic origin for the word, calling attention to Old Irish gairm, 'cry', and gair, 'neighbor'. So for example Zachrissen (1928) refers to hypothetical root *gher(e)m, meaning 'a strong noise', and ,citing the use of this element in river-names, argues that 'Germani' meant 'people of the roaring torrents'. But all such proposals have met with vigorous objections on linguistic grounds. A few scholars have revived Strabo's explanation in more sophisticated forms, arguing that 'Germani' was the Latin translation of a word these peoples used of themselves. Collinder (1944) suggests that it was a rendering of the Germanic *sweboz (i.e. Suebi), meaning 'of our kind, of the same blood', while more recently Pekkanen (1971) has proposed that the tribal name 'Sciri', meaning 'the pure ones' (in opposition to Bastarnae, 'the bastards, those of mixed heritage'), was translated into Latin as 'Germani'. These suggestions have also received sever criticisms, and it seems unlikely that there will ever be a solid consensus on the origin of the name." pg.118-119
Ein Lungenflügelschreiben gehen überall
Het lange schrijven overal gaand
I'll repost my thesis as you may not have seen it above.
The point of my intervening into this threat was to demonstrate a distinction in the early Latin usage of the term ‘German’ which was being used to substantiate a massive eighth century BC Nordic migration from Sweden and Norway into Denmark and northern Germany. To me it is indeed clear that this massive Nordic migration in fact did occur. However, I suggest this may have happened in the wake of the huge Teutoni, Cimbric, and others, southern migration from Denmark, which of course transpired around 120 BC. I agreed this may be too short a time for so great a change. Yet if it did occur as I propose it may represent an example of punctuated equilibrium.
The first pillar in the 'mainstream' or 'settled science,' 'Early' or 'Always Nordic Germans' line is the necessity that the Latin usage of 'German' was as an ethnic qualifier. The second great pillar is that the ethnicity of the Cimbri must be Nordic. The third great pillar is that all Classical writers were feeble, biased, or just plain wrong and all modern authors that support the 'Early' or 'Always Nordic Germans' line are always correct.
Strangely, you do not present direct evidence to counter my thesis; rather you merely cite the tertiary (or worse) augments of modern authors?
Please read carefully what I wrote above. Strabo was telling us the reason the Roman's called that region 'Germany.' It was used as a geographic and not an ethnic qualifier...
Indeed, Strabo’s report grows more complex, as he goes on to explain, and while it serves only to support my thesis, this is not central to the issue in question.
J.B. Bury-" Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
I believe the Swabian (which was partly a Nordic ethnos) confederation had allied with the Arverni and was attempting a land grab in Gaul around 60 BC. This would have been at least 60 years, or about three human generations after the Cimbri migratation. This was why I made this line Bold so you may notice the date and understand this occurred well after the Cimbri move?
Maybe we should revisit Caesar's Germans, rather than cite tertiary sources. So then Tell me, from your own read, what does Caesar say about his Germans?
///The above statement fits not only with Caesars writings but also with archaeological findings of the Jastorf culture(attributed to Germanic speaking peoples) which was replacing the La Tene culture during this time period.///
You wrote the above, so please read the part I made Bold. You understand what that means, don't you?
Just as the LaTene was beimg replaced by Romano-Hellenic culture, in the same time frame, for similar reasons.
Maybe you hadn't notice that many of the tribal names recorded in Ceasar's day, east of the Rhine, end up either west of the Rhine or gone altogether, by the end of the Julio-Claudians. These replaced by the namesakes of what became the hallmarks of the Deutsch-Germans
In this thread there are points I didn't get to:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1801393&postcount=64
Of the Gundestrup cauldron:
The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"But its place of manufacture has long eluded investigators. Guesses range from Gaul to Russia; Thrace, in the Balkans, now seems the likeliest spot. There a Celtic tribe known as the Scordisci settled; examples of Thracian silverwork bear stylistic and technical similarities to the cauldron. How the vessel came north remains a mystery, though it could have been seized as booty by marauding Danes." pg. 126
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-" One item must be an import, the Gunderstrup cauldron, which belongs to a tradition of art totally foreign to Denmark, but its origin on the lower Danube is almost universally agreed; it is worth noting the long tradition of exotic items being imported into Denmark fro this area, starting from as early as the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic around 4000 BC." pg.184
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"These are exotic and high prestige goods, and so are difficult to parallel closely anywhere else, so to assume that because they are in 'Celtic' La Tene style they cannot have been made in 'Germanic' Denmark is obviously false logic. With more prosaic objects we can see that local products were often following the mainstream of central and western artistic traditions." pg184
[[[[[[Just as the Celts picked up Roman and Greek methods and items we don't call the Celts Greek or Roman. With the amount of Roman coins and amphorae does that mean the Celts were actually Roman? Of course not, the same with the people of Denmark.]]]]
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"In brief, in Denmark we have a group of probably Germanic-speaking people with burial rites and material culture which are considerably different from those living further south, but who were using and manufacturing metalwork with La Tene forms and decorations."pg.185
In this thread there are points I didn't get...
at all.
First Collis says one thing, then says the reverse, then couters back again. It is obvious he doesn't actually present evidence, as this is an overview of others opinions. I have this book as well, but this section is little more than once again, his or others opinions. The part I underlined appears to be yours, as it may have confused others. Not good to interspace your's with other's opinions. Please read carefully the third paragraph; the segment you made bold. Are you a native English speaker?
blitzkrieg80
01-13-2008, 18:37
We KNOW that ancient sources are hardly trustworthy beyond a reference which can easily be mislabeled since no single Roman or Greek writer bothered to learn the actual culture of the people they wrote, many times relying on second-hand information of locals with variously biased attitudes. Herodotus had some truth in his writings... but does that mean we should believe legend (aha! women DID tear off their breasts for archery)? Tactitus had some truth in his writings... or NOT. There are contadictions in his very words- at one time he says Germanic leaders fight at the front and can earn their position (from the bottom level up)... next time, he says the Germanic leaders (kings) are born from nobility (conceptually the opposite of self-made), but this obvious flaw can be dealt with though, despite his own statement of how he (Tactitus) is such an authority on the subject. Upon further research, we can determine Tacitus' statement to refer possibly to Common Celtic -rix (L rex) borrowing seen across the Germanuic board as -rik / Reiks (modern 'Reich', 'rich') which denotes a special form of kingship common throughout La Tene/Halstatt culture, so this means there IS an influence, but by the very mention that Germanic leaders can come from commoners means that they do not truly follow this high stratification of society most notable in Celt, Greek, and Roman. A regulus is frequently mislabeled 'King' in the cultures of all sorts of barbarians, throughout the various translations, when in-fact the position (for Germanic tribes) is a hybrid of chieftain and duces (yes my Latin is bad). The famous early Norse rune-stone from Rök mentions "20 sea-kings banded together for warlike undertakings"... which informs us just how much their idea of 'king' was not the same as Gr basileus.
Your attempt to restrict all modern conclusions to be based on the words of ancient writers may be traditional but certainly doesn't make much sense AT ALL when we consider your unique work with the non-Germanic Cimbri connection in another thread (interesting stuff) nonetheless their connection to the Thraco-Cimmeri, esp. when there is almost no evidence to support such theory (don't worry- I've read your posits. same conclusion). No Classical Source states the 'theory' you support, so by your own standards you are wrong on the Cimbri. BUT I personally think you are doing some very interesting, and truly ground-breaking reconstruction (if academia would ever get its head out of its ass- sorry there are just not 5 levels of foundation in 'authorities')
I must say I like how you all list citations which makes for a very compelling argument on either side. BUT if anyone reads the thread, the original argument had NOTHING to do with arguing for Jastorf or Cimbri whatsoever.
Thus why I supplied an "Overview" which contradicts whoever said the Slavs were some crazy migration out of nowhere even though Greeks and Romans never really cared enough to learn about the people of the North in the first place. Most people don't know Turks originated in the vicinity of Mongolia but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially since nobody was aware of it to record it- the tree falling in the forest where no on can hear it- CAN be heard (just have to be tuned into the right amplitude ~;))- c'est la vie.
blitzkrieg80
01-13-2008, 21:04
[EDIT] If anyone does not know, my stance on the term 'German', it is that it is a propaganda tool of Caesar used to enlist legitimacy to his campaigns, where before it had been a designation for tribes in hinterland (hardy, fell), mostly associated with the Rhine and Gaul because of the occupation of those lands by Celtic tribes and the impressive and sophisticated influence of Halstatt/La Tene. No Germanic speaker calls themselves 'German' in their own language and there is no language which uses a related modern cognate. It pains me that Spain is called Espagne on the Olympics in the USA, but Deutschland is Germany WTF!? Anyways, the Germanic peoples (not Germans) had begun mixing with the indigenous populations of West and Central Europe for some time, to a greater degree in some areas than others, which would foreshadow the shaping of our modern Europe. An ethnos does not travel overnight and a gens level substantiates more influence in these developments than credit is given. Also, we all realize there must have been pre-Indo-Europeans to greater or lesser degrees, admitting that quite a bit of the empowerment of Indo-European culture is due to various levels of integration with them.
Since it has been touched upon, I just want to add that it seems to me from various sources that the Hermunduri are the core identity / culture of the original "Germanic" peoples who continuously developed over time into Germany proper. Pomponius Mela [Pliny] who writes in his Description of the World (III.3.31) concerning Hermiones, descendents of Irmin (ancestor god) [PGmc Ermenaz, Ermunaz]- OT: while also being similar in form to 'German' do not think this the case, partly based on the scale and direction needed for the linguistic changes necessary to form the alternate derivations we receive. Nonetheless, the Hermunduri have an elusive history in which they disappear completely, yet reappear as powerful players in the Dark Ages: Thuringia, of whom there is an infamous (and beautiful) forest and province named after to this day- the 'Thuringi' where we see a dropping of the initial name element and an added suffix -[I]ing along with d => t dialectal High German sound change : which makes [Hermun]-Duringi, which means 'descendents of Hermunduri', which does not make for an unbelievable name, especially in the context of conglomeration. This population has always been described as large and constant, although competitive identity / populations exist but their later disappearances (Semnones) forever from history can be attributed to amalgamation into a newer identity even in an older name. One of the reasons I think this is so, is the frequency of references made to this tribe (from the very beginning perception of 'German') but also throughout later ancient sources [Pliny, Gregory of Tours, Jordanes] and its key location which later defines Germany as we think of it today- nonetheless the gap of information we do not know concerning them makes sense in the context of overall lacking information on the Germanic tribes as we come to know them. We only assign various attributes from the Norse language family because we have such a gap between the later Migration age Germanic peoples and the Greco-Roman awareness of Rhine culture.
The Celto-Germanic Nordwestblock culture on the Rhine indeed is not the same as that of Thuringia, despite a similar Celtic presence. The languages derived from the West Germanic branch are clearly different and help highlight various levels of migration through dialectal sub-families- although there are many factors to consider. Btw, later Migration Age High German speakers are to be differentiated from the early Thuringians. I believe that Low German (closely related to Old Friesian and Old English) in general has stayed most consistent over time (despite location) and the early Germans were derivative from the same core- this core which slowly split in identity to merge into the Nordwestblock away from those who remained in the North or integrated into the South. Later Migrations from Central/Eastern dialects of West Germanic began those trends which characterize the High German language, differentiating it further away from Common West Germanic. There is nothing wrong with dialectal development which diverges more or less from Common Germanic, but if it happens it cannot be denied. Gothic is ultraconservative but has very specific East Germanic developments just as Old Norse has its peculiarities and commonalities, while Old High German is another, a bridge-like language, a highly developed borderland language which has semi-close (regional) ties to our lovely Prototypical language- where 'awe from god' (wīxaz) is nearly the same word for priest (wīxōn) and temple (wīxan) which later hateful propaganda will outlaw in a crusade against anything NOT Roman-Catholic (no offense- they did) [although various other reasons political and social could be included, haha OT] anyways made 'evil' in witch (OE wićća) [the male form of the word, BTW- English is silly]
MeinPanzer
01-13-2008, 23:12
Gintaras-Ostan needs to be West-Baltic with the special regional West-Baltic units, instead of having the possibility to recruit all Baltic regional units like in EB 1.0.
Seliun-Pilis needs to be East-Baltic with the special regional East-Baltic units, instead of having the possibility to recruit all Baltic regional units like in EB 1.0.
What evidence do you have for differentiated western and eastern Baltic units? Separate western and eastern Baltic funerary material cultures can be differentiated, but to my knowledge there is next to no evidence for the armament of the Balts during the EB timeline, and certainly not enough to differentiate regional variants in equipment.
Yet in that case, you get questions such as those of sdk80, wondering why Scandinavia of all places. If gameplay is taken into account in the sense that it's unwanted to have too many 'military' ports in one area, why not in an area on the southern Baltic coasts closer to Sweboz, since the means for them to build ships were closer than Scandinavia? It's already an abstraction, yet one which doesn't yet fully suit gameplay purposes in that region in my opinion.
I think that Scania is given a military port because there is some robust evidence for military boatbuilding and raiding coming from that region in the form of the Hjortspring finds, which are now widely believed to have belonged to raiders from the Scanian coast (in part based on the following piece of evidence); a seat dredged from a bog in Scania which is almost identical to the seats from the Hjortspring boat; and late Bronze Age or Iron Age rock drawings from southern Scandinavia of war boats which are very similar in form to the Hjortspring find.
If we can agree that the basal language was some form of proto-Old Norse, why is this linguistic group called Germanic?
Documented practice concerning a given tradition, among the historic Cimbri.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G-Q...Uwtk#PPA395,M1
The artifact type associated with the tradition, found near Gundestrup in Himmerland (Cimbri-Land), Denmark.
Iconography on the artifact that depices a practice documented within the area of its discovery.
Iconography on the artifact that depices known Keltic deities.
Cernunnos
Lugh of the Long Arm
The artifact type disposed of in a fashion (dismantled and buried in a peat bog) documented among Keltic groups. More than one example from the same area (the Rynkeby Cauldron).
The Blekinge Mask
Individual bull's heads like those on the Rynkeby cauldron have been found on Funen and Lolland. Another two fragments of a torqued mask have been found at Ringsebølle on Lolland. These fragments nearly identical to the face on the Rynkeby Cauldron. Now we have alot of LaTene artifacts coming from Denmark.
Please read
http://www.blekingemuseum.se/mapp5/pdf/maskbilden.pdf
The Gundestrup cauldron almost certainly came from around the Danube and is of Thracian or Thraco-Celtic and not Germanic origin. Cf. "The Gundestrup Cauldron" by F. Kaul in Acta Archaeologica 66, 1995 (one of the latest treatments).
The mainstream, based on stylistic grounds, claims that the Gundestrup Cauldron was manufactured by the Scordisci in Romania. Initially, it was proposed that the Cimbri captured it from the Scordisci and returned it to Denmark. At some point the mainstream realized this rational was untenable as the artifact depicts a ceremonial practice similar to that described by Starbo as conduced by the Cimbri. The mainstream next insisted that the Cimbri had commissioned the Scordisci to manufacture the artifact and then transported it by land across barbarian Europe from Romanian to Denmark. However, many examples of this artifact types have now been found in Denmark along with numerous other artifacts that display a similar artistic style. One may suggest that a more logical explanation would be that these were made either in Denmark or very nearby and if indeed this was the case this region could be included within the LaTene III sphere.
I don't know who you are quite railing against by titling "the mainstream," but this is not the scholarly consensus on the Gundestrup cauldron. Some attempts were made to link the introduction of the cauldron into Denmark by the Cimbri, but these could be little more than speculation at best. It should be noted that among the finds of the Hjortspring deposit was a single sica or small rhomphaia, which was undoubtedly of Thracian manufacture; this strongly suggests trade ties of one sort or another between the Balkans and northern Europe in the latter 4th C. BC, which gives more than enough time for the Gundestrup cauldron to make its way north, the latest scientific analyses of which now indicate a date in the first century AD or so (cf. "The Gundestrup Cauldron: New Scientific and Technical Investigations" by S. Nielsen et al in Acta Archaeologica 76, 2005).
Then from Hjortspring, Denmark we find the type of shield depicted the Gundestrup Cauldron. Also at Hjortspring, investigators found evidence of mail armor.
The Hjortspring shield shares the fact that it is an oblong shield with the shields on the Gundestrup cauldron, which is to say, not much. The Hjortspring shields date to the 4th C. BC, while, as stated above, the Gundestrup cauldron almost certainly dated to the 1st C. AD, and perhaps the 1st C. BC at the earliest. They are two varieties of a type of shield which was in use all over Europe for hundreds of years.
And the same type of shield boss from Illerup, Denmark.
Shields which have been dated to the 3rd C. AD.
Yet, the Gundestrup foot appear to carry Nordic type spears and sword. Again we have examples from Hjortspring (below), and Illerup (above). The top photo from Hjortspring (below) displays mostly Kelt type spear points.
The Gundestrup cauldron is so stylized that I doubt any attempt to classify the style of spearheads depicted would result in any good. I also highly doubt that one could distinguish properly between "Nordic" and non-Nordic spearhead types on such a crude depiction. I'm curious what "Nordic" spearheads from contemporary sources you would use for comparisons?
All of these Hjortspring swords are the IA Nordic type; single edged.
These single edged swords are broadly Germanic and by no means solely Nordic. Also note the sica I mentioned earlier on the far right.
Gundestrup Cauldron also clearly shows the western Keltic breed of horse (Equus gracilis).
Again, the depiction is so stylized that I sincerely doubt that any specific species of horse could be identified.
Now closely notice the type of shoe worn by the figures depicted on the Gundestrup Cauldron. These are identical to other examples found in Bog contexts.
The same shoe type from the Cernunnos panel of the Gundestrup Cauldron.
See the top view of the Amscotts Woman’s Shoe, from Lincolnshire England (AD 350-400).
And these found with Yde Girl, the Netherlands (1st century BC and AD).
Again, more converging lines of evidence that become increasingly more detailed. Now if the mainstream is correct in their thesis that the Scordisci were commissioned to manufacture such cauldrons, it appears to clearly demonstrate that this Cimbri ceremonial practice was intimately associated with numerous LaTene style (Kelt) artifacts.
Once again, the depictions of footwear on the cauldron are so crude as to be useless. And besides, even if they perfectly matched the numerous shoes from bog finds across northern Europe, such shoes were also worn by peoples living in the Balkans.
blitzkrieg80
01-14-2008, 01:31
1. Why is the range of the javelins of the Swebos units that short?
Is it because of bad quality of the javelins or because of the tactic throwing it only in the last moment?
2. Second Question belongs to the defence stats of the german Bodyguards.
Their are shown with chainmail, Helmets and shields of best quality just as the Carnute and Solduros. So I thought they would have similar defense stats, but there is differense of 4 defence points.
1. Sweboz units already cost (too much, imo) more just because they have added javeline range +5/10% (used throughout the game). I am not happy about it since it makes cost balance a little weird, using our awesome statistic system (you stat guys rock) but it makes sense historically too... which leads me to believe : the javeline type is different?? i have no knowledge of this aspect of the game
2. the mail-armor shoulder-protectors (pauldron is the medieval equivalent?) account for 2 points of armor, an added (1) point for high quality Celtic iron smithing i believe, and 1 armor for cheek-plates on the helmet = 4 (any stat guys please correct me)
blitzkrieg80
01-14-2008, 03:40
This excerpt is from D.H. Green's Language and history in the early Germanic world 1998. Cambridge University- a marvelous book (and quite affordable compared to some) recommended to me awhile ago by my professor of Old English / Old Norse. It is nearly my favorite book on such subjects ~:thumb:
"Linguistic contact was made in the sphere of Celtic place-names as the initially slow expansion of the Germanic tribes brought them gradually into the Celtic sphere of political and military influence and ultimately, with the increase of Germanic pressure, into occupation of Celtic territory with its Celtic (or pre-Celtic) names.
"One of the most important, but difficult examples is the name given by Caesar and Tacitus to the central German highland (Mittelgebirge): Hercynia silva / Hercynius saltus. The presence of y in these forms (together with Caesar's explicit observation) points to a Greek source, confirmed by Greek references to a moutain-range called Orkýnios or Arkýnia. The same name occurs in Germanic for parts of the Mittlegebirge (OHG Fergunna, Virgundia). but also as an appellative: Go. faírguni 'mountain (-range)', OE firgen 'mountain.' Correlating these forms makes it likely that behind the Greek forms there was a Celtic informant, since Germanic forms with f-drive from a p- (First Sound Shift) which would have been regularly lost only in Celtic (Lat. H- must be regarded as prosthetic). That we are right to assume an original p- is confirmed by a wider range of evidence from Balto-Slavonic. In Slavonic Perunъ occurs as the name of a thunder-god and in Lithuanian Perkūnas as the name of a god (in close association with oak-trees). The word is also found as an appellative: in the Baltic languages it means 'thunder', but in Latin (quercus < *perquus) 'oak.'
"The first question which this range of parallels poses is whether the Germanic examples derive directly from an IE form or whether, as has been suggested, they were taken over from Celtic before its loss of initial p- (and before the First Sound Shift, with the operation of Verner's Law). The answer to this hinges on the relevance of the Balto-Slavonic evidence, for its presence apparently weakens the exclusive Celto-Germanic connection required for any suggestion of Celtic influence. In the first place, the Baltic forms are not necessarily independent, for they could derive from Germanic. Secondly, we need to stress a difference in the onomastic use of this word: Balto-Slavonic it is used as the name of a god, but in Germanic, Greek, and Latin (and, behind these, Celtic) only as the name of a mountain-range (confirmed by the meaning of the Germanic appellatives). Thirdly, if the Greeks acquired the name of this north European range from Celtic, it is likely that the Germani did, too, for at many other points they encountered the Celts and adopted geographical names from them (e.g. Gmc. *Rînaz 'Rhine'). From this we may conclude that the Germani, whose contact with the Celts fits in chronologically with this, acquired knowledge of this geographical name from them.
"The other question is where precisely we may locate the Hercynia silva and this particular contact. The greatest extent (and therefore for us unusable) is attributed to it by Caesar's mention of sixty day's travelling time, but apart from this the name appears to have been applied different parts of the Mittelgebirge (OHG Fergunna refers to the Erzgebirge. Virgundia to a range between Ansbach and Ellwangen). Two other points, however, may allow us to place greater stress on the Erzgebirge. First, in the view of what we shall see in connection with the name 'Bohemia' it is significant that Velleius Paterculus, Strabo and Posidonius all located the Hercynia silva in the region, just as, secondly, Caesar also associated the Celtic tribe of the Volcae (who were probably settled a little to the east, in Moravia, and with whom the Germani also made contact) with this same wooded highland. It is this area, probably not before 500 BC, that we have to see one of the most important zones of contact between Celts and Germani - important perhaps because of military encounters, but certainly in view of its rich mineral resources of which the Celts made such good use.
The mention of Bohemia is of linguistic interest, too, since it contains the name of another Celtic tribe in this region, the Boii. True to the wide extent of the Celtic migrations the name of this particular tribe is attested from different parts of Europe and it also occurs in personal names (e.g. Boiorix) and place-names (e.g. Boiodurum, surviving in modern Beiderwies, opposite of Passau). The settlement area of theirs which concerns us is their occupation of the basin of the upper Elbe, for the classical authors who locate the Hercynia silva in this area are also quite explicit in mentioning the names of the Boii or Bohemia, or both. Tacitus, with an eye to the later occupations of this area by Germani says that the name Boihaimum still clings to the former lands of the Boii, even after its change of inhabitants (Germania 28). The same name occurs in the form Boiohaemum with Velleius Paterculus, whilst in Baias (Geographer of Ravenna) the s-shaped sign is taken as a mark of abbreviation (*Baiahaimum). There seems little doubt that this name, composed of a Celtic tribal name combined with a Germanic word for 'homeland' (cf. Go. háims), was coined to designate the formerly Celtic territory now occupied by Germani, as was already clear to Tacitus. As part of the assimilation of Germanic names to Celtic practice the form Boi(o)haemum shows a Celtic o (both in the stem and in the thematic vowel), whilst *Baiahaimum suggests a fully Germanised variant. It is from this latter form that MHG Bêheim and the modern Böhmen are derived, even though subsequent history means that it is now applied to yet another people. The geographical name has proved more static than the inhabitants.
"The Celtic Boii have also given their name to yet another tribe: the Bavarians. The earliest attestations of this tribal name are Lat. Baibari (Jordanes, where the -b- stands for -w-), Baioarii (Venantius Fortunatus, where o stands for w) and OHG Peigira (where g acts as a glide). These forms we may derive from *Bai(a)warjōz which, apart from the fact that it shows a Germanised form of Boii (o > a, as in *Baiahaimum), presents difficulties. Germanic formations with -warjōz to indicate inhabitants of a region generally show a geographical name as their first element, as with Anglo-Latin Cantuarii 'inhabitants of Kent' (cf. OE Cantware) or the OHG personal name Lantweri (literally 'he who protects the land', cf. Go. warjan 'to protect'). This explanation hardly applies to *Bai(a)warjōz, since the only evidence for *Baija as a possible geographical name was Baias with the Geographer of Ravenna, now regarded as an abbreviation of *Baiahaimum. For this Reason the reconstructed earliest form for 'Bavarians' is now regarded as a contradiction of *Baiahaimwarjōz. This linguistic reconstruction might suggest that in the course of their ethnogenesis the later Bavarians entered their new homeland from the north, from Bohemia, but this need not necessarily be so. If we take Boiohaemum in its original literal sense it meant not what we now know as Bohemia, but the land of the Boii who, on abandoning 'Bohemian' territory under Germanic pressure, moved elsewhere, including Pannonia, where Pliny located the deserta Boiorum. This aspect of the problem of Bavarian ethnogenesis (settlement from the north, from Bohemia, or from the east, from Pannonia?) will come up for discussion later when we consider the possibility of loanwords of Gothic origin in Bavarian.
"The last Celtic tribe for us to consider are the Volcae (Tectosages) mentioned by Caesar in the region of the Hercynia silva, for there is linguistic evidence that the Germani early came into contact with them. Although the Volcae, like other Celtic tribes, were taken far and wide in the course of their migrations Caesar placed those he had in mind in Germania, east of the Rhine. What he reported of them is said in the past tense and what we know of the location of the Volcae in Caesar's day does not suggest that they were still neighbours of the Germani. Caesar's statement is therefore about the past, as is borne out by his dependence on Greek sources in this passage. This is confirmed by our linguistic evidence from Germanic, since the tribal name, like that of the Boii, was borrowed into Germanic, yielding the form *Walh- (attested in OHG, OE, ON) where the development of k to χ shows that the loan word preceded the First Sound Shift and that contact between Germani and this Celtic tribe was probably made before the third century BC.
"Locating the place of contact geographically is made difficult by two factors: by the wide extent which Caesar attributed to the Hercynia silva and by the far-flung movements of the Volcae whom he associated with it. Accordingly, numerous attempts have been made to do this. These include the Rhineland (but do we know of Volcae in this region?), but also Hessen, the upper Main and southern Germany, all rendered unlikely by being too far south for contact between Germani and Celts at so early a date. Much more probable (even though there may be no proof) is the area to which we have had our attention drawn more than once, the eastern range of the Mittelgebirge, with the Volcae settled perhaps east of the Boii, in Moravia rather than Slovakia, but certainly not too much further eastwards (in what later became EG territory) if we are to account for the absence of the word *Walh- in Gothic, as opposed to WG. (There may have been no occasion to use such a word in Wufila's Bible, but the word is also significantly absent from the formation of Gothic personal names, again in contrast to WG.) Locating the Volcae in this area also sheds further light on Caesar's remark on the land in which the Volcae were settled. His reference to the wealth of this region (fertilissima Germaniae... loca) may mean not only agriculture but perhaps also the mineral deposits there, whilst the renown attributed to the Volcae in peace and war (summamque... iustitiam et bellicae laudis opinionem) rested on their skill in metallurgy and the quality of their weapons. On both scores they attracted the attention of their northern neighbours.
"In different ways and with different implications these three geographical terms (Bohemia, Bavaria and Wales) are thus all fosslised survivals of the encounter between Celts and Germani which add valuable new material to the often uncertain evidence of loanwords" (Green 159-163).
[EDIT] There is a good deal of loanword traffic between Celtic and Germanic- did you want details? it's very interesting- most loanword traffic is rooted in trade but specific Celtic words for metallurgy ('iron', 'lead', 'wire') and military technology ('byrnie') are significant, with some military/political (Go. reiks, OHG ambaht) or others plain superior technology like 'leech'-craft. Interestingly enough, Germanic peoples probably transmitted steppe culture (Iranian/Sarmatian possibly through Bastarnae/Sciri or Thracian, possibly the Zarubintsy culture): loanwords such as 'breeches' and 'mare' (as term for warhorse, speedier than draft)
WOW that took forever to type ~:doh:
I just realized something : this information can be referenced when people are curious to the new Celto-Germanic cavalry unit (1.1), recruitment based in those areas of Eastern Celtic influence :grin: nice! btw, I named them Marhaleudiz Walhiskē (the unit concept was Paullus' wise idea- rather than a Cimbri regional- all on Frostwulf's inspiration for a decent MED cav- couldn't have worked out better)
anyways, I plan to do some citing of Gothic / Balto-Slavic loanwords too and more from this book in another post- unless everyone yells at me :uhoh2:
We KNOW that ancient sources are hardly trustworthy beyond a reference which can easily be mislabeled since no single Roman or Greek writer bothered to learn the actual culture of the people they wrote, many times relying on second-hand information of locals with variously biased attitudes. Herodotus had some truth in his writings... but does that mean we should
blitz don't be so hard on those poor old dead guys. It seems that they may not have the same frame of reference as we today. Then again, maybe its not how they wrote, rather its how we read? As to my use of Strabo above, I believe that initially he was making a historical reference that roughly covered a period between 150 BC to AD 20, as to the ethnicity of the 'Kelto-Germans (KGs).' This is because immediately after the chapter opening he reports that many of these KGs had been destroyed or deported west of the Rhine. Further, he describes another group of Germans who were becoming the dominate power east of the Rhine. Of these he never uses the term Kelt. I did not want to include this in my post above as it was not central to my thesis, and if misunderstood would only cloud the issue. Please read below.
Στράβων Γεωγραφία
STRABO's GEOGRAPHY
BOOK 7
[Chapter 1]
[3] Ἔστι δὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα μέρη τῆς χώρας ταύτης τὰ πρὸς τῷ Ῥήνῳ μέχρι τῶν ἐκβολῶν ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἀρξαμένοις• σχεδὸν δέ τι καὶ τοῦτ' ἔστι τὸ ἑσπέριον τῆς χώρας πλάτος, ἡ ποταμία πᾶσα. Ταύτης δὲ τὰ μὲν εἰς τὴν Κελτικὴν μετήγαγον Ῥωμαῖοι, τὰ δ' ἔφθη μετα στάντα εἰς τὴν ἐν βάθει χώραν, καθάπερ Μαρσοί• λοιποὶ δ' εἰσὶν ὀλίγοι καὶ τῶν Σουγάμβρων μέρος.
Μετὰ δὲ τοὺς παραποταμίους τἆλλά ἐστιν ἔθνη τὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ Ῥήνου καὶ τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ, ὃς παράλληλός πως ἐκείνῳ ῥεῖ πρὸς τὸν ὠκεανόν, οὐκ ἐλάττω χώραν διεξιὼν ἤπερ ἐκεῖνος. Εἰσὶ δὲ μεταξὺ καὶ ἄλλοι ποταμοὶ πλωτοὶ (ὧν ἐν τῷ Ἀμασίᾳ Δροῦσος Βρουκτέρους κατεναυμάχησε), ῥέοντες ὡσαύτως ἀπὸ νότου πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ τὸν ὠκεανόν. Ἐξῆρται γὰρ ἡ χώρα πρὸς νότον καὶ συνεχῆ ταῖς Ἄλπεσι ποιεῖ ῥάχιν τινὰ πρὸς ἕω τεταμένην, ὡς ἂν μέρος οὖσαν τῶν Ἄλπεων• καὶ δὴ καὶ ἀπεφήναντό τινες οὕτως διά τε τὴν λεχθεῖσαν θέσιν καὶ διὰ τὸ τὴν αὐτὴν ὕλην ἐκφέρειν• οὐ μὴν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτό γε ὕψος ἀνίσχει τὰ ταύτῃ ὄρη. Ἐνταῦθα δ' ἐστὶν ὁ Ἑρκύνιος δρυμὸς καὶ τὰ τῶν Σοήβων ἔθνη,
My Rendering
[3] On the one hand, a former existence for that portion of the region closest the Rhine, as from waters first flow to discharge this entire river is approximately equal to the whole breath of the territory. Here, on the other hand the Romans removed the Kelts, some fled before hand into the depths of the region, as did the Marsi and few remain in the Sugambri’s territory.
Yet there are other nations, within the valleys that run side-by-side and parallel into the ocean, between the Rhine and Elbe rivers, these pass through no less an insular region. Among these are other navigable rivers (where on the Elm, Drusus on the water prevailed over the Bructeri) that flow in like manner from the south in a northern direction and towards the Ocean. For this region is elevated from the south and contiguous to the Alps, which make somewhat of a backbone stretched out in length progressing from the east. About these being part of the Alps, thus some proclaim this and that, accordingly as altogether this vision recounts a forest is produced: Still these hills are not as tall as the height of a new moon for here are the Hercynian Oaks and the Swabian peoples.
Traditional Rendering: ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.
[3] The first parts of this country are those that are next to the Rhenus, beginning at its source and extending a far as its outlet; and this stretch of river-land taken as a whole is approximately the breadth of the country on its western side. Some of the tribes of this river-land were transferred by the Romans to Celtica, whereas the others anticipated the Romans by migrating deep into the country, for instance, the Marsi; and only a few people, including a part of the Sugambri, are left.
After the people who live along the river come the other tribes that live between the Rhenus and the River Albis, and traverses no less territory than the former. Between the two are other navigable rivers also (among them the Amasias, on which Drusus won a naval victory over the Bructeri), which likewise flow from the south towards the north and the ocean; for the country is elevated towards the south and forms a mountain chain14 that connects with the Alps and extends towards the east as though it were a part of the Alps; and in truth some declare that they actually are a part of the Alps, both because of their aforesaid position and of the fact that they produce the same timber; however, the country in this region does not rise to a sufficient height for that. Here, too, is the Hercynian Forest, and also the tribes of the Suevi.
--------
Notes
The preceeding paragraph can be found in another post above.
This para continues as Strabo describes the various Swabian federations in some detail.
I belive the frame of reference for this paragraph was much tighter than the first and covered only the period of Augustus.
This excerpt is from D.H. Green's Language and history in the early Germanic world 1998. Cambridge University- a marvelous book (and quite affordable compared to some) recommended to me awhile ago by my professor of Old English / Old Norse. It is nearly my favorite book on such subjects ~:thumb:
WOW that took forever to type ~:doh:
I just realized something : this information can be referenced when people are curious to the new Celto-Germanic cavalry unit (1.1), recruitment based in those areas of Eastern Celtic influence :grin: nice! btw, I named them Marhaleudiz Walhiskē
anyways, I plan to do some citing of Gothic / Balto-Slavic loanwords too and more from this book in another post- unless everyone yells at me :uhoh2:
Very informative Blitz, I'm not familiar with Green's work. I've always wondered about where those Bavari came from. It seems to make sense and by the way may suggest there is some merit to my thesis, possibly? If I may make an additional point. The initial line of contact Green proposes may only represent that which due to happenstance was recorded by Classical authors. Of course I suggest this line may have been much further north. In turn you may ask where the initial line of contact was in relationship to Balt and Slav. Please see the Lugii and Zumi for Slav?
Additionally, this thread has me revisting the Danish Cauldrons, and I think I may have had a 'bring the mountain to Mohammad' moment. For the reasons I presented above, the current popular theory is that the Cimbri commissioned the Scordisci to manufacture the artifacts and then transported them by land from Romanian to Denmark. However, I was thinking that in fact the Scordisci would not have made these artifacts. Rather, it may have been the Scordisci craftsmen that actually made them. As craftsmen are mobile and Romania is not, is it impossible that Cimbric princes lured such craftsmen to Denmark, as well as those from other Gallic regions to work for them directly?
And yes please post the load word list.
[EDIT] I just want to add that it seems to me from various sources that the Hermunduri are the core identity / culture of the original "Germanic" peoples who continuously developed over time into Germany proper. Pomponius Mela [Pliny] who writes in his Description of the World (III.3.31) concerning Hermiones, descendents of Irmin (ancestor god) [PGmc Ermenaz, Ermunaz]- OT: while also being similar in form to 'German' do not think this the case, partly based on the scale and direction needed for the linguistic changes necessary to form the alternate derivations we receive. Nonetheless, the Hermunduri have an elusive history in which they disappear completely, yet reappear as powerful players in the Dark Ages: Thuringia, of whom there is an infamous (and beautiful) forest and province named after to this day- the 'Thuringi' where we see a dropping of the initial name element and an added suffix -[I]ing along with d => t dialectal High German sound change : which makes [Hermun]-Duringi, which means 'descendents of Hermunduri', which does not make for an unbelievable name, especially in the context of conglomeration. This population has always been described as large and constant, although competitive identity / populations exist but their later disappearances (Semnones) forever from history can be attributed to amalgamation into a newer identity even in an older name. One of the reasons I think this is so, is the frequency of references made to this tribe (from the very beginning perception of 'German') but also throughout later ancient sources [Pliny, Gregory of Tours, Jordanes] and its key location which later defines Germany as we think of it today- nonetheless the gap of information we do not know concerning them makes sense in the context of overall lacking information on the Germanic tribes as we come to know them. We only assign various attributes from the Norse language family because we have such a gap between the later Migration age Germanic peoples and the Greco-Roman awareness of Rhine culture.
Yes indeed, I rather agree with you on this point. To me it has seemed the Thuringi was the progenitor of some type of basal proto-Swabian ethnos (not the later Swabo-Federation we see functional at 60 BC). I would be willing to modify my thesis to provide for the appearance of these Thuringi (the Vandal's bogie men) prior to the Cimbri migration. However, the Vandals, Longobards, and proto-Guthons, I'd still place after 120 BC. Yet while Thuringi, embedded in the northwest, the Cimbri migration may have still triggered their expansion and morphing into the Swabos? Again the Frisians would have to be another very different story altogether.
MeinPanzer
01-14-2008, 12:37
However, I was thinking that in fact the Scordisci would not have made these artifacts. Rather, it may have been the Scordisci craftsmen that actually made them. As craftsmen are mobile and Romania is not, is it impossible that Cimbric princes lured such craftsmen to Denmark, as well as those from other Gallic regions to work for them directly?
It's a possibility that a Scordiscan craftsman could have moved to the Denmark region, but it seems extremely unlikely. What seems much, much more likely is that the cauldron was looted, given as a gift, or traded (though the latter option does seem unlikely for such a prestigious item) and made its way to northern Europe that way. Once again, there is some evidence for other items from the Balkans already having reached Denmark at a much earlier date.
F. Kaul, in the 1995 article I cited before, has an extensive section entitled "The Gundestrup Cauldron's Route to Denmark: The Cimbri" (pp. 28-29 specifically, with pp. 30-34 being an excursus on other items that provide evidence of links between the Balkans and Denmark). Multiple scenarios are laid out, with one being that the Cimbri captured it as loot from the Scordisci when they fought them after 118 BC. There are however historiographical problems with the contact between the Cimbri and the Scordiscans between 118 and 113 BC, and Kaul suggests that they may have formed an alliance after some initial contact; he postulates that the cauldron could have been given as a gift in the alliance-forming process. This is, however, extremely hypothetical, and Kaul also fails to take into account the Thracian weapon present in the Hjortspring deposit, which suggests other means for items from southeastern Europe to have reached Jutland.
This is, however, extremely hypothetical, and Kaul also fails to take into account the Thracian weapon present in the Hjortspring deposit, which suggests other means for items from southeastern Europe to have reached Jutland.
Right, I believe this strong Thracio-Getea material culture connection, extending from the LBA to the early Roman IA was explored in an earlier thread about a possible Cimmeri connection. Blitz referred to this thread above. It seems clear that the Thracio-Getea region was responsible for the west and northwest spread of Halstatt C, as it was associated with the introduction of Iron into that part of Europe. This also appears to be associated with a complex trade network that dealt with the exchange of amber, ivory, salt, medals, horses, and other high status items.
Kaul, F., and J. Martens
Southeast European Influences in the Early Iron Age of Southern Scandinavia. Gundestrup and the Cimbri, Acta Archaeologica, vol. 66 1995, pp. 111-161.
Right, I've looked at the Thracio-Kelt examples as well. While I must say the manufacturing techniques are very similar, and some similar motifs are used, the overall execution of this style (Thracio-Kelt) appears to demonstrate a more ridged or stronger Hellenistic influence. The execution on the Gundestrup for example, almost looks early 3rd or 4th century northern Gaulish. I don't think Kaul and Martens were being totally upfront on that point. Then there are other examples from Denmark which do not display the Thracio-Kelt style at all. Then as always, there is the problem of the composition on the Gundestrup; what the iconography displayed? If indeed it was swag, tribute, trade, or a gift made in Romania, as I explained above, why did it depict a practice documented among the Cimbri?
Are Kaul and Martens telling us there was some type of familial relationship (shared set of customs and believes) between the Cimbri and Thracio-Kelts? Of course that would redirect your rebut and I don't think you want to go there. This line may even reopen the Cimmeri issue and I'm sure no one is ready for that either. No, I think the more pratical explanation is the 'commissioned' thesis; the only question is were the craftsmen present in Romania, Gaul, or Denmark.
I need to get a project report out, so I'll be a bit tied up for some time. If I don't respond immediately, please continue as I will join in as time permits.
Frostwulf
01-14-2008, 23:35
You do realize the only reason I joined this thread is to show what evidence there was for this quote:
I didn't want to get mixed up in this, yet think you may want to rethink this to a very great extent, as I do not believe there is any solid evidence to support these conclusions.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1799963&postcount=46
I'm not trying to be rude but I do have a hard time understanding what your saying. I can only address some of your quotes/questions etc. because I'm having a hard time figuring out what your getting at.
The point of my intervening into this threat was to demonstrate a distinction in the early Latin usage of the term ‘German’ which was being used to substantiate a massive eighth century BC Nordic migration from Sweden and Norway into Denmark and northern Germany.What your calling Nordic is to me the same as Germani. If this is correct then the archaeological evidence supports what I posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1801371&postcount=63
The third great pillar is that all Classical writers were feeble, biased, or just plain wrong and all modern authors that support the 'Early' or 'Always Nordic Germans' line are always correct.Using just one ancient author is just ridiculous. You are completely ignoring multiple others. The majority of the modern historians/archaeologists don't use just one source. They use both archeology as well as multiple ancient-modern texts. For you to be fixated on Strabo is a mistake.
Strangely, you do not present direct evidence to counter my thesis; rather you merely cite the tertiary (or worse) augments of modern authors? I think I countered your arguments of the Cimbri, Cauldron and Denmark quite well using the sources I posted.
Please read carefully what I wrote above. Strabo was telling us the reason the Roman's called that region 'Germany.' It was used as a geographic and not an ethnic qualifier...I must have missed it, the only thing I could find that you put down was this:
Traditional Rendering: H. L. Jones: Harvard University Press, 1917 thru 1932.
[2] Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name “Germani,” as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were “genuine” Galatae, for in the language of the Romans “germani” means “genuine.”
The above certainly is a ethic qualifier. Maybe this wasn't the post you were referring to?
J.B. Bury-" Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
I believe the Swabian (which was partly a Nordic ethnos) confederation had allied with the Arverni and was attempting a land grab in Gaul around 60 BC. This would have been at least 60 years, or about three human generations after the Cimbri migratation. This was why I made this line Bold so you may notice the date and understand this occurred well after the Cimbri move?The Cimbri wandered by, this wasn't occupation. Had the Cimbri occupied this region, then he would have put down an earlier date. The Suebii(Sweboz) were invited by the Sequani in 71BC, and I'm sure they would have been there earlier then that, perhaps soon after 100BC.
Maybe we should revisit Caesar's Germans, rather than cite tertiary sources. So then Tell me, from your own read, what does Caesar say about his Germans?
He says they are different then the Celts, having different social structure, less advanced etc.
///The above statement fits not only with Caesars writings but also with archaeological findings of the Jastorf culture(attributed to Germanic speaking peoples) which was replacing the La Tene culture during this time period./// It does fit, it means that the Germani(nordic as you put it) began to move into this particular area. This is why the Helvetii were being pushed out as said by Caesar.
Maybe you hadn't notice that many of the tribal names recorded in Ceasar's day, east of the Rhine, end up either west of the Rhine or gone altogether, by the end of the Julio-Claudians. These replaced by the namesakes of what became the hallmarks of the Deutsch-GermansMeaning that they had been resettled by the Romans or they moved across? Again I'm not sure of your point here.
The part I underlined appears to be yours, as it may have confused others. Not good to interspace your's with other's opinions.Good point, I'll try to be more careful of that.
Please read carefully the third paragraph; the segment you made bold. Are you a native English speaker?I am a native English speaker.
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-" One item must be an import, the Gunderstrup cauldron, which belongs to a tradition of art totally foreign to Denmark, but its origin on the lower Danube is almost universally agreed; it is worth noting the long tradition of exotic items being imported into Denmark fro this area, starting from as early as the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic around 4000 BC." pg.184
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"These are exotic and high prestige goods, and so are difficult to parallel closely anywhere else, so to assume that because they are in 'Celtic' La Tene style they cannot have been made in 'Germanic' Denmark is obviously false logic. With more prosaic objects we can see that local products were often following the mainstream of central and western artistic traditions." pg184Collis is saying that some of the objects found in the La Tene style could have been made locally except the Gunderstrup cauldron.
John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"In brief, in Denmark we have a group of probably Germanic-speaking people with burial rites and material culture which are considerably different from those living further south, but who were using and manufacturing metalwork with La Tene forms and decorations."pg.185What Collis is saying is that the people living in Denmark were probably German speaking but had a different culture then that of the La Tene culture(Celts). I don't see a contradiction in what Collis is saying.
I hope I didn't misunderstand you on the things I answered.
The Celto-Germanic Nordwestblock culture on the Rhine indeed is not the same as that of Thuringia, despite a similar Celtic presence.
Has the Nordwestblock become more excepted now?
For the rest of your post I agree with you, though there certainly was for me, new information.
As I'm still trying to finish another post, my response will be slow or non-existent till I finish it.
What your calling Nordic is to me the same as Germani.
Right, your understanding of something...
I tried to be as clear as I could. I understand this is a complex subject, and I do not want to be curt or cruel, so as you say you understood Blitz's postings better, please read them again. Here to help you I've posted below, the one where he addresses this subject, and will bold the important parts.
Posted in this thread by blitzkrieg80
If anyone does not know, my stance on the term 'German', it is that it is a propaganda tool of Caesar used to enlist legitimacy to his campaigns, where before it had been a designation for tribes in hinterland (hardy, fell), mostly associated with the Rhine and Gaul because of the occupation of those lands by Celtic tribes and the impressive and sophisticated influence of Halstatt/La Tene. No Germanic speaker calls themselves 'German' in their own language and there is no language which uses a related modern cognate. It pains me that Spain is called Espagne on the Olympics in the USA, but Deutschland is Germany WTF!? Anyways, the Germanic peoples (not Germans) had begun mixing with the indigenous populations of West and Central Europe for some time, to a greater degree in some areas than others, which would foreshadow the shaping of our modern Europe. An ethnos does not travel overnight and a gens level substantiates more influence in these developments than credit is given. Also, we all realize there must have been pre-Indo-Europeans to greater or lesser degrees, admitting that quite a bit of the empowerment of Indo-European culture is due to various levels of integration with them.
------------------
Again, please read carefully as this may appear to be a subtle distinction. Still, it is critical to the understanding of this subject. I respectively propose that if you can not get over this hump, your continued posts on this subject will add little to the debate. Additionally, as this seems to be your modus operandi, if you could shorten your posts by addressing fewer topics concerning the direction of the debate, it would make reading them helpful.
Thank you
MeinPanzer
01-15-2008, 01:09
Right, I've looked at the Thracio-Kelt examples as well. While I must say the manufacturing techniques are very similar, and some similar motifs are used, the overall execution of this style (Thracio-Kelt) appears to demonstrate a more ridged or stronger Hellenistic influence. The execution on the Gundestrup for example, almost looks early 3rd or 4th century northern Gaulish. I don't think Kaul and Martens were being totally upfront on that point.
The stylistic qualities of the cauldron have been discussed to death at this point. In that selfsame issue of Acta Archaeologica, Kaul discusses the argument that the cauldron was produced in Gaul (which has been for a long time the most prominent opposing theory) extensively. Having reviewed the secondary writings on the topic, I agree with Kaul and his conclusions.
Then there are other examples from Denmark which do not display the Thracio-Kelt style at all.
Which indicates nothing one way or the other on the issue. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the peoples in Denmark obtained luxury goods exclusively from the Balkans.
Then as always, there is the problem of the composition on the Gundestrup; what the iconography displayed? If indeed it was swag, tribute, trade, or a gift made in Romania, as I explained above, why did it depict a practice documented among the Cimbri?
There is nothing on the Gundestrup cauldron or in the nature of the cauldron itself that is exclusively Cimbri in character. Similar cauldrons have been found all over western and central Europe (including fragments from the Balkans and the Czech republic).
Are Kaul and Martens telling us there was some type of familial relationship (shared set of customs and believes) between the Cimbri and Thracio-Kelts? Of course that would redirect your rebut and I don't think you want to go there.
Of course not, and I think you are entirely missing the point. No direct cultural or familial link is being drawn between the Cimbri as possible procurers of the cauldron and the Scordisci other than the suggestion of an alliance, merely a parsimonious explanation for how it ended up in Jutland.
This line may even reopen the Cimmeri issue and I'm sure no one is ready for that either. No, I think the more pratical explanation is the 'commissioned' thesis; the only question is were the craftsmen present in Romania, Gaul, or Denmark.
It doesn't reopen the Cimbri issue since this has already been widely discussed in the past. And as for the last point, the already mentioned extensive scholarly discussion on the topic now suggests that it was made by Scordisci craftsmen in northwestern Bulgaria or southwestern Romania. To suggest that such craftsmen travelled to Denmark is a needless stretch and utterly farfetched.
Having reviewed the secondary writings on the topic, I agree with Kaul and his conclusions.
Regrettably, as you have made up your mind about this subject, there appears little more that you can add to the debate.
As these are only arguments designed to support or reject a thesis, I for one have not decided one way or the other, nor am I personally invested in the out come, and thus I remain open minded. Such is the nature of archaeology and historiography in theory.
MeinPanzer
01-15-2008, 01:33
Regrettably, as you have made up your mind about this subject, there appears little more that you can add to the debate.
As these are only arguments designed to support of reject a thesis, I for one have not decided one way or the other, nor am I personally invested in the out come, and thus I remain open minded.
I'm curious, how many of the published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron and its origins have you read?
By published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron, I assume you mean those that focus on this artifact? As you know every basic treatise on the Euro IA mentions it to some degree.
Sorry if this takes awhile, I'm compiling a list, and doing two other things.
blitzkrieg80
01-15-2008, 03:24
It seems to me that we all agree on these things to quite a degree, so this thread is odd, but entertaining. I have enjoyed many posts from everybody in this thread.
Frostwulf has made significant contributions to EB threads with good logic and better evidence and citation. I think you guys have a misunderstanding- I know I love 'throwing down' a little and so, do some of the same, but as I said, we all seem to agree. Cmacq, I have enjoyed reading much of your comparative work in threads, you also do the good practice of logic, evidence, and citation. Was there really an argument going on about Norsemen in Roman times in the first place? It doesn't seem like it to me. I think everybody has made good points on that.
Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz? :grin:
btw, Nordwestblock isn't necessarily widely accepted, I have no idea- I think it makes sense, especially considering the physical material and linguistic evidence I have read.
Mouzafphaerre
01-15-2008, 06:28
.
Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz? :grin:
Yes and gladly so.
.
.
Yes and gladly so.
.
Seconded...
Anthony II
01-15-2008, 09:01
The progression of specific elements of material culture associated with the late phases of Halstatt culture from southeast to the west, northwest, and north does not support a proposed early southward expansion from Scandinavia. Neither does the progression of the LaTene nor that of the early phase of the Halstatt.
Sdk80, I can get very detailed on this subject, but it will only add to disprove your thesis of an early Nordic southward expansion into Denmark and northern Germany. The reason I didn't want to address the direction this thread was heading is because this is a typical quasi-national socialist view of the subject.
Agree. From what I’ve observed on these forums, there appears to be a general consensus amongst many here that there existed a huge generic Nordic / Germanic 'volk' that invaded very early in the period and slaughtered all of the generic 'La Tene Celts' in their path due to an innate superiority / marshal prowess.
Again, I hope this line is not a case of a 'modern German tail/tale wagging an Old Norse dog?'
Often wondered that myself
I hope your not going to get into the "your a nazi" innuendo's because I might disagree with you. I have already been through that and don't care to go through it again. If you disagree with my information that is fine, but don't label me because of a disagreement. My interest is purely academic.
Sounds terrible, when did this happen?
The only one who brought up nationalism is sadly yourself.:no: Beside your comments i didn't noticed anything about this thread being nationalistic… I really enjoyed reading blitzkrieg's, Frostwulf's and other comments
A fish may never know that he lives in water..
So true cmacq
All of these Hjortspring swords are the IA Nordic type; single edged..
I’d tend to disagree there.
I can only repeat what more learned men then I have said:
J.B. Bury…
H.D. Rankin …
The Oxford Classical Dictionary….
In this thread there are points I didn't get...at all.
First Collis says one thing, then says the reverse, then couters back again. It is obvious he doesn't actually present evidence, as this is an overview of others opinions. I have this book as well, but this section is little more than once again, his or others opinions. The part I underlined appears to be yours, as it may have confused others. Not good to interspace your's with other's opinions. Please read carefully the third paragraph; the segment you made bold. Are you a native English speaker?
Having looked over these forums, it appears that Frostwulf does this sort of thing alot. If I'm not wrong, the general modes operandi involves unintentionally posting large amounts of conflicting data in an attempt to support a given position.
Excellent post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1803355&postcount=83)by the way cmacq
I have enjoyed many posts from everybody in this thread.
Frostwulf has made significant contributions to EB threads with good logic and better evidence and citation. Cmacq, I have enjoyed reading much of your comparative work in threads, you also do the good practice of logic, evidence, and citation.
True on Cmacq. Whilst I don’t agree with everything he’s said, he’s argued his position most admirably. No offence as he is obviously a close friend..but Frostwulf, I just found confusing, vague and clutching at straws.
Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz? :grin:
lol ..poor sdk80, EB mods probably banned his ass!
my2bob
Mouzafphaerre
01-15-2008, 10:33
.
poor sdk80
I was thinking of somebody else. :inquisitive:
.
MeinPanzer
01-15-2008, 11:06
By published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron, I assume you mean those that focus on this artifact? As you know every basic treatise on the Euro IA mentions it to some degree.
Sorry if this takes awhile, I'm compiling a list, and doing two other things.
Yes, I'm referring to works specifically discussing the provenance of the cauldron. Because you state that you have not decided "one way or the other," I'm curious how informed your opinion is- have you read Klindt-Jensen 1950, Berciu 1969, Powell 1971, Olmstead 1979, Grooth 1987, Hedeager 1988, or Hachmann 1991? Because when you read these sources, and their extensive arguments and counterarguments culminating in the latest research, the debate is no longer as open ended as you seem to make it out to be.
Anthony II
01-15-2008, 11:44
.
I was thinking of somebody else. :inquisitive:
.
Oh, who ?
Mouzafphaerre
01-15-2008, 13:58
.
Somebody else. ~;p
.
Jaywalker-Jack
01-15-2008, 14:39
That is not a digeridoo but an ancient celtic instrument (like Alexandros said), that resembles a horn.
Sorry to nitpick but those intruments were from pre-Celtic Ireland, its a mistake to say they are "celtic".
blitzkrieg80
01-15-2008, 17:56
lol ..poor sdk80, EB mods probably banned his ass!
my2bob
what you talking about, Psy2bob?
EB mods don't ban, unless you refer to individuals who harass for immature and sick pleasure, going on campaigns of self-loathing where continual antagonism of good people is rewarding to them in some way, dragging those who want nothing to do with them down, for no reason but for the fact that he feels so low. No point in feeding at the bottom by choice, so 'poor'- wh-wha-WHAT!?
Mouzafphaerre
01-15-2008, 19:32
.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else. :inquisitive:
.
antiochus epiphanes
01-16-2008, 01:52
.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else. :inquisitive:
.
more then a few of us...
Frostwulf
01-16-2008, 02:16
I understand this is a complex subject,Its not the "complexity" of the subject, its your way of conveying information that I have a problem with. This is not an insult, the problem could easily be me.
Additionally, as this seems to be your modus operandi, if you could shorten your posts by addressing fewer topics concerning the direction of the debate, it would make reading them helpful.This is a fair request though I don't think there is any point for me to continue with this. We disagree on the Cimbri, Denmark etc. and I feel confident on my stance on these subjects as they are backed up by the majority of academia.
btw, Nordwestblock isn't necessarily widely accepted, I have no idea- I think it makes sense, especially considering the physical material and linguistic evidence I have read.It does make sense to me as well, but not having an in depth knowledge of the subject its hard to say what there would be to counter it.
Blitz- I think we have the same thought on the 'Germani' but I would like to clarify some things. My thought is that around 100BC the 'Germani'(cmacq's nordic) came into the area in southern Germany and the Rhine area. I believe we agree on this part.
I think the part that you might disagree with is that there may have been earlier movements around 250BC or so. My belief is that these 'Germani' moved into northern Holland area and mixed in with the people already there(Celts,Nordwestblock? etc.), hence the Belgae(or at least some of the Belgic tribes).
my2bobHow sad.
blitzkrieg80
01-16-2008, 03:18
hmm... I don't get it- Nordic would be like Proto-Norse (450 CE) so I don't see how the Germanic peoples can be anything different than Germanic before then? I suppose I believe that Common Germanic is Nordic, whether material culture from another civilization is used or not. The Indo-Europeans are all pretty Nordic, although mixing with other peoples brings interesting combinations. The Yueh-Chi didn't have Celts in their midst- they were simply Indo-European and thus the Chinese describe them with the same traits (as many describe Celt, Slav and German alike): red/fair hair, tall, ruddy- from a similar origin (linguistically PROVEN) so I don't have a problem with Halstatt/La Tene being dominant at the time (especially when one looks those cultures- what kickass culture!). The Germans undoubtedly mixed early into the fringe of nearby Celtic borders, just as many other peoples have throughout time. I seriously doubt any "no man's land" existed in Europe very long after the Ice Age (damn Global Warming! civilization would have been so much better without ~;)) whether or not that there are gaps in the amount we know, small in the scale of history, because unless the land is radioactive (or artic)- somebody's been there. So we don't see an emergence of conflicting 'Nordic' material culture until 100BCE-100 CE? That simply means there was no heavy pressure for local Celtic populations to adapt their lifestyle, ect. to their new neighbors. Similarly, the effect of immigration from India on the USA might not be very measurable until we have Curry Restaurants everywhere, like The United Kingdom of Great Britain, who seems to talk about eating curry every time I hear about it on the BBC- that's so cool! (seriously- I like curry)
I think the part that you might disagree with is that there may have been earlier movements around 250BC or so. My belief is that these 'Germani' moved into northern Holland area and mixed in with the people already there(Celts,Nordwestblock? etc.), hence the Belgae(or at least some of the Belgic tribes).
No, I pretty much agree with that- I just don't think we get to call them 'Germanic' (even if mixed, which they certainly were)
My thing is the identifier 'German', which never meant anything close to 'Deutsch.'
After the teaser, I'd planned this to be the second stage of the debate.
So that everyone out there understands, the Nordwestblock is more or less an archaeo-historic concept with a strong linguistic element. It was proposed to explain the relatively common cultural expression found within what is now the Netherlands, Belgium, northern France (around Calais), and northwestern Germany. It roughly covers the period from the Bronze Age to the beginning of the Christian era. I think the theory was initially developed by Hachmann, Kossack, and Kuhn in the early 60s.
As I'm a Southwestern US archaeologist, whos only interest in Old World Arch was the Eastern Med and Near Eastern LBA, I was totaly unaware of this concept until well after I had come to basically the same conclusion. I can't speak to the linguistic aspect, yet I've objectively reviewed alot of the available site report data (which is actually considerable and covers detailed information concerning ceramics, architecture, burials, and metallurgy) and I think that as far as the LBA to at least EIA, archaeologically the concept is irrefutable. Basically, local expression of Hallstatt with about as much LaTene as that found in Denmark. This concept also provides some answers for many of the historic questions: such as the 'all Gaul is divided,' line.
I hinted at this concept above, as it is a 300 pound gorilla, and it appears that blitz immediately picked up on it. However, based on the archaeological data, I suggest that this expression was most pronounced from the LBA, while its end is somewhat indistinct. Additionally, while I would not include this area within the Nordwestblock, the archaeology of the Danish peninsula, at the same time, appears very similar. In fact I might suggest that this area, if not included within the Nordwestblock, should be considered a related yet discrete culture area.
Please see
Hans Kuhn, Rolf Hachmann and Georg Kossack, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. 1962
(The People between the Germans and Kelts)
I think Kossack just died a few years ago?
Anthony II
01-16-2008, 10:51
what you talking about, Psy2bob?
Ah yes, poor Psycho. Had his ass banned because allegedly some in EB found his presence here too threatening. Or so he said, I'm his cousin.
.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else. :inquisitive:
.
My, someone is perceptive! Ok, yes I admit I'm not really Anthony II. My real name is actually Bhuail Tá leabhar agam Antaine Moíthimtengae. I just thought an Anglo-Latin name Anthony would be easier and 'Anthony' had already been taken. :smiley:
Anyway, this is all a bit off topic. Lets get back to this discussion on the Germans.
my2bob
Frostwulf
01-16-2008, 16:48
@blitzkrieg80-Seems then we are of the same conclusion on the 'Germani'. The reason I used the term norse was of cmacq designation for them. The Roman term 'Germani' is perfectly fine for the peoples who moved from southern Sweden area and spread from there.
Please see
Hans Kuhn, Rolf Hachmann and Georg Kossack, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. 1962
(The People between the Germans and Kelts)
I guess I had it backwards, I was thinking it was more linguistic evidence and not so much material. Thanks for the reference.
blitzkrieg80
01-16-2008, 19:07
I had this idea recently and I want to know what everyone thinks:
FOR EB2:
REMOVE Rugi town / province (add land to Sweboland or Pomerania/Polish coast province)
ADD Hermunduri town / provinces in the mysterious gap North of between the Chatti (Volcae) and the Boii on the map.
RENAME Swebotraustastamnoz town (which currently means 'Suebi Allied stem') to something with the Semnones
@Blitz
Well, considering the Rugii i agree with you - give the Sweboz a little more landmass.
Hermundurii inclusion is a good idea, though they simply don't appear before BC in any reasonable fashion.
Also the adding of towns is a problem for germanic tribes, because you know that they germanic people simply almost had none that would be worth considering to be named towns or cities. I would even go so far and say it is totally against germanic tradition in the EB timeframe to live in gathered places like oppidas or towns. Only with contatct/conflict with the romans towns appeared in Germania, so adding towns would be totally unhistorical. The Chattii had two towns of reasonable size, Mattium is one of them, but also those were populated only after contact with romans.
Swebotraustastamnoz means by my translation book Allied tribes of the Sweboz b.t.w.
blitzkrieg80
01-16-2008, 20:20
I figured out why there is confusion with the term Nordic: scholars are misinterpreting data, because the Norse were really outcropping colonies into harsher climates, thus they are the latest Germanic to pop around the rest of Europe. The East Germanic language is not really similar (although some) to Northern Germanic, thus why East splits early from North-West Germanic in the family tree. The Migration Age was triggered by the same Germanic peoples in Central/West Europe appearing time and again under different tribal names (with those which stuck- Schwaben, Thüringen, Hessen) but this time they had impetus and organized tribal structure, although population undoubtedly helped (so much that we have a lot of far-off places named after them: Allemagne, Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Sachsen-Anhalt, Nieder Sachsen, Friesland, East Anglia, England, France). The Goths and Huns gained their number under their title and banner, it is not like Germany was ever abandoned: they lost identity easily because you ARE whoever you fight for, especially with supratribal / advanced organization as seen in the Reiks [emperor/warlord rather than king (Go. kindins)] or Khagan, or better example: Romans.
Denmark's islands were inhabited by Germanic tribes of the Low German / Anglo-Frisian sort, btw, Nerthus Cult worshipers, although I'm certain they did not lose their original Germanic pantheon completely. The Norse developed out of fringe contact with the pre-Indo-Euro inhabitants and other nearby influences, and that is why there is a great mythology centered around a marriage alliance between the two families of gods- Vanir and Aesir. The Aesir represent the typical Norse gods, but the Vanir are represented almost purely as fertility, and a double set of fertility twins- Freyr and Freya, with Njord as their father who is thought to be the male counterpart to Nerthus, a Celtic fertility goddess in Denmark (Angleland- the original England), which points to non-Indo-Euro because of strong Neolithic Earth Mother worship and absence of war gods, although the Norse certainly developed them in that direction.
sorry, gotta go- will respond to you later, SaFe
Anthony II
01-17-2008, 03:03
@blitzkrieg80-Seems then we are of the same conclusion on the 'Germani'. The reason I used the term norse was of cmacq designation for them. The Roman term 'Germani' is perfectly fine for the peoples who moved from southern Sweden area and spread from there..
So just to clarify, you believe that a mass migration of Nordic / Germani volk slaughtered and displaced prior inhabitants of what we today call Denmark, Germany, Austria, Holland, etc?
I had this idea recently and I want to know what everyone thinks:
FOR EB2:
REMOVE Rugi town / province (add land to Sweboland or Pomerania/Polish coast province)
ADD Hermunduri town / provinces in the mysterious gap North of between the Chatti (Volcae) and the Boii on the map.
RENAME Swebotraustastamnoz town (which currently means 'Suebi Allied stem') to something with the Semnones
No sure about the Rugi, but the rest sounds good
Now there once was a famous SW US archaeologist that wrote ‘When is a Kiva.’ Please see Watson Smith. As some researchers at the time had taken to call nearly everything a kiva, his book provided detailed information about the architecture and setting of these important ceremonial structures.
In regards to the relevance of this little anecdote to the current debate, one may submit, ‘When is a 1st century BC German.’ One may then reply, ‘why stop there;' why not ask, ‘When is a Kelt, a Swaboz, a Nord, a Slav, a Balt, a Ligures?’ In other words; how does one defind each of these? For example were all Kelts created equal; in other words...
were the 1st century BC Kelts in Ireland the same as those found in Anatolia?
Anthony II
01-17-2008, 06:25
Now there once was a famous SW US archaeologist that wrote ‘When is a Kiva.’ Please see Watson Smith. As some researchers at the time had taken to call nearly everything a kiva, his book provided detailed information about the architecture and setting of these important ceremonial structures.?
A very good point.
For example were all Kelts created equal; in other words...
were the 1st century BC Kelts in Ireland the same as those found in Anatolia?
Obviously not.
I believe this was the point Psycho was trying to make (aparently unsuccessfully) elsewhere when Frostwulf stated
Gauls are overpowered because:
…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory (who, where, when they were from).
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…The German warrior is superior.
…The Germans should (always) be superior to them (Gauls)..
The greatest difficulties concern chronology and regional variation. To imply that any generalized description has universal application is evident nonsense (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p92, Barry Cunliffe).
“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis).
This is very much the same way in which Europeans considered the whole of America to be inhabited by “Indians”. In locating the Celts we should ignore such generic usages: Celts, Germans…and perhaps others which no longer exist. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p105, John Collins).
Again in principle..
(We run the)… risk of turning an abstract set of material markers, which we have ourselves selected, into a historically real group of humans to which we then attribute a collective identity or ascribe collective value. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Archaeology, Identity and Ethnicity, p62, Michael Kulikowski)
I even noticed that after Frostwulf quoted select pieces of 'World of the Celts' (Simon James) over and over again to support his aforementioned statement, the point didn’t seem to register with him even when James himself stated that the thinking was dated and that he believed there was no such thing as the timeless / generic Celt / German.
Glad you liked 'World of the Celts', although you should be aware that it is now quite an old book, and my views have changed a lot since I wrote it, mainly in that I no longer believe the generic, Europe-wide 'Ancient Celts' existed as such..
I believe allot of the information in "The World of the Celts" is still valid..
I believe one is bound to reach the wrong conclusions in any given area of scientific study if one begins from what is known to be an erroneous premise.
Very much enjoy reading your work cmacq.
Right, I've had to deal with the same problem in SW US archaeology as well. Many researchers (particularly well established upper escalon types) have great difficulty wrapping their heads around the fact these are only theoretical constructs based on specific material assemblages. Out here, to be able to apply these constructs (as often they need to be modified}, to the facts on the ground, takes alot of work.
Some of this is about personal investment. I once had a very well know and very upset Phd ask me, as he removed his glasses to wipe the tears from his eyes, 'I thought you had more respect for the Hohokam?'
lol ..poor sdk80, EB mods probably banned his ass!
Ah yes, poor Psycho. Had his ass banned because allegedly some in EB found his presence here too threatening. Or so he said, I'm his cousin.
Nope, still here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1788408#post1788408). We don't ban people on the Org, except in extreme cases. We use a system of accumulating warning points resulting in temporary demotion and restriction of posting ability. Nor could the EB moderators hand out these if they wanted. The warning system can only be operated by full moderators.
Anthony II
01-17-2008, 20:34
Nope, still here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1788408#post1788408). We don't ban people on the Org, except in extreme cases. We use a system of accumulating warning points resulting in temporary demotion and restriction of posting ability. Nor could the EB moderators hand out these if they wanted. The warning system can only be operated by full moderators.
Gday Ludens. Psycho asked me not to bring this up but seeing as you have raised it.... (hangon)..
arrr..(*flick**flick**flick*) na, na, na, na, hmmm ..ummm.. no, nope, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, ...ah..errrrr, nup...na, na, na, ah here.....no that's not it. No, no, no, na, na, na..ah here it is !! :smiley:
Psycho's notes clearing state here .."I recieved no 'accumulating warning points', no 'temporary demotion' but am most certainly banned from parts of the org". He continues, "the only reason provided before all communication was cut off was that senior EB leaders stated that they found my presence 'threatening'".
Opps. Poor Psycho. So what happened to the aforementioned warning system? :shrug:
blitzkrieg80
01-17-2008, 22:38
So says just about any who breathe: "no, no! no, really! I'm innocent! I swear!"
Trolls may regenerate and find various ways to come back again and again to harass and antagonize (obviously), eating my poor billy-goats! BUT WHO will drive my chariot now!? Beware trolls, I know you're out there and I'm a-waiting, feigning stillness, to suddenly then wrestle your arm off :viking:
Have fun bleeding to death!
Anthony II
01-17-2008, 23:41
wow ... I can't believe how coherent I was earlier
So says just about any who breathe: "no, no! no, really! I'm innocent! I swear!" Trolls may regenerate and find various ways to come back again and again to harass and antagonize (obviously), eating my poor billy-goats! BUT WHO will drive my chariot now!? Beware trolls, I know you're out there and I'm a-waiting, feigning stillness, to suddenly then wrestle your arm off :viking: Have fun bleeding to death!
Let me guess, that was prison code for "I want you bad"?
How do I say "Sorry, its not you.. its me"?
:shrug:
You kids...
More parts of the big jigsaw, continue to fall into place, nicely.
From:
Lloyd Robert ---2006
The Archaeology of Celtic Britain and Ireland
There is a complete lack of oak in Irish archaeological contexts between 95 BC and AD 540, for example, and there seems to be a correlation between climatic change and the eclipse of the flourishing Iron Age society. Since there is a decline in archaeological evidence for human activity in the early centuries AD this factor may be related. For example, there was a steady decrease in the number of tree pollens at Red Bog (Mitchell; 1976: 117-21).
--------------------------
Thank god for the Irish and their dendro, I never though it would come down to this?
I already have several other lines of evidence confirming this precise time frame, as well. Ice core, pollen, other such data. I always go for massive overkill. I need to find the raw data for that statment. I love when a plan comes togther, as it’s now looking more and more like I'm getting ready to submit for publication? I can't believe no one else in the SW has figured this out yet, it’s sooooo bloody obvious. All I need is a little more field data.
So much for the '535 theory' as they say its often darkest before the dawn, or in this case the MWP, begining around AD 600. Sometimes the answers to big questions can be as clear as the frostbit nose on your face? Sorry I can’t be any less cryptic right now. I think Blitz may have an idea what the hell I talking about here?
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm
I'm so glade this is all 'settled science.'
Thank you Al Gore and all your many Fellow Travelers, God bless you.
for someone from the southwest, you use question marks in odd ways. and that was quite cryptic...some Irish dendrochronology helping you out with settlement development patterns in the SW at the same period, perhaps?
that was quite cryptic...?
Please see Brian Fagan for an outline for the MWP and LIA. The above is about the period preceding the MWP. I may call it the RCP?
Sorry, have to run, field day and the truck's here.
Just wanted to say that I agree that Germans should have naval capability. I understand and agree that the way the navy used for the Mediterranean factions just doesn't fit, but just because the German tribes didn't have proper military navies doesn't mean that naval invasions aren't an important part of the faction.
One of the EB members did say something about mercenary fleets in EB2, though, which I think would be the perfect solution.
Check out this link below
http://membres.lycos.fr/bronzeage/
Check out this link below
http://membres.lycos.fr/bronzeage/
Without doubt a spectacular link, very good work there, Thetank.
I just want to add that it seems to me from various sources that the Hermunduri are the core identity / culture of the original "Germanic" peoples who continuously developed over time into Germany proper. Pomponius Mela [Pliny] who writes in his Description of the World (III.3.31) concerning Hermiones, descendents of Irmin (ancestor god) [PGmc Ermenaz, Ermunaz]- OT: while also being similar in form to 'German' do not think this the case, partly based on the scale and direction needed for the linguistic changes necessary to form the alternate derivations we receive.
Nonetheless, the Hermunduri have an elusive history in which they disappear completely, yet reappear as powerful players in the Dark Ages: Thuringia, of whom there is an infamous (and beautiful) forest and province [i forget the duchy term used :oD damn American] named after to this day- the 'Thuringi' where we see a dropping of the initial name element and an added suffix -ing along with d => t dialectal High German sound change : which makes [Hermun]-Duringi, which means 'descendents of Hermunduri', which does not make for an unbelievable name, especially in the context of conglomeration.
This population has always been described as large and constant, although competitive identity / populations exist but their later disappearances (Semnones) forever from history can be attributed to amalgamation into a newer identity even in an older name. One of the reasons I think this is so, is the frequency of references made to this tribe (from the very beginning perception of 'German') but also throughout later ancient sources [Pliny, Gregory of Tours, Jordanes] and its key location which later defines Germany as we think of it today- nonetheless the gap of information we do not know concerning them makes sense in the context of overall lacking information on the Germanic tribes as we come to know them. We only assign various attributes from the Norse language family because we have such a gap between the later Migration age Germanic peoples and the Greco-Roman awareness of Rhine culture.
First, I feel like an idiot as I posted something to the affect that, ‘Yes indeed, I rather agree with you on this point. To me it has seemed the Thuringi was the progenitor of some type of basal proto-Swabian ethnos (not the later Swabo-Federation we see functional at 60 BC).’
After reading this tonight, all I can say is I must have been very tired when I posted it. Actually, the use of the term Suebi appears to either predate or be contemporary with the use of Hermanduri. I think the three major groupings included the Istvaeones, Ingaevones, and Irminones.
The Istvaeones were the Nordwestblock people, while the confederation of the Ingaevones included the Cimbri, Teutons, and Chauci of Danmark. Then the Irminones, or what I think were Deutsch/or what I've called Nords, and the progenitors or basal enthos of the Suebi (Swabians), Hermanduri (Thuringians), Chatti (Hessian), and Cherusci.
Then for example the Swabian confederation also included the Semnones, Buri, Quadi, Alemanni (All men), and the Marcomanni (Marco's men); the last three or four representing latter additions/amalgamations. But, say in the mid 1st century BC, elements of the Hermanduri, Chatti, and Cherusci may have been considered, either actual members or temporary affiliates of the Suebi confederation.
I'm sure very few would agree with this.
Then there was the Suebi style of warfare within Germany in the 1st century BC.
I think it was GJC that wrote about the Suebi's program of ethnic cleansing within Germany in the mid 1st century BC?
Continuity and Contrast: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the Pre-Roman Iron Age
Someone once said something about the devil always being in the details. Returning to my thesis of a late massed Deutsch or Nordic continental arrival, I posit that there may have been some type of basal ethnos that occupied what is now northeast Germany (possibly in the state of Mecklenburg). Thus, a closer look at the archaeology of Mecklenburg may prove informative.
For reference, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the Pre-Roman Iron Age began sometime around 600 BC and lasted until about the BC/AD terminus. Its also important to note that chronometrics for this area and era are not particularly precise and the assigned temporal setting may fluctuate at least 50 years either way. By the way, I selected this area because Tacitus’ use of Mare Suebicum, indicated that in the 1st century AD, tradition held this was the homeland of the Swabians prior to their fateful encounter with Gaius Julius Caesar in southwest Germany in the 1st century BC.
Although often placed within the Jastorf Culture, the material assemblage is best described as only peripheral to this construct as defined by Künnemann (1995). This is particular true of west Mecklenburg. Over the course of this Period the local cultural expression became increasing more influenced by the Hallstatt and later LaTene cultures of central Europe as contacts with southern Scandinavia continued (Reinecke 1991). In this Period the dominant burial pattern consisted of cremations within flat grave cemeteries, although small mounds and stone circles burials have been found in Boitin. Several of the former burial type cemeteries appear to have been used continuously from the Late Bronze Age until the Roman Iron Age. This may suggest a certain degree of long term continuity for some of the Pre-Roman Iron Age Mecklenburg-Vorpommern population that extended into the Late Bronze Age.
In the northern portion of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the agricultural intensification that began in the Late Bronze Age appears to have increased as the local differentiation of the material culture increased. In contrast, the lack of imported bronze may suggest the decreased importance of trade and signify the local production of iron (Keiling 1982: 28-34; 1988; Krüger 1988; Voigt 1988). A demographic estimate, based on burial evidence, suggests that west Mecklenburg was densely occupied in the 4th century BC, with a population of 75,000 to 125,000. However, at some point after 300 BC the population level appears to have decreased slightly but steadily until sometime in the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC, when west Mecklenburg was virtually abandoned. Concurrently, central Mecklenburg and northeast Vorpommern experienced very low population densities as well.
Some researchers have postulated that this initial overall decrease in population may have been caused by disruptions associated with the historical Cimbri migration. Interestingly the terminus for the Jastorf and Ripdorf phases has been placed at around 300 BC, as the local populations appear to go into a slow decline. In contrast, the Seedorf phase represented by widespread abandonments has been deliberately centered on 120 BC, the projected date of the Cimbri exodus from Denmark.
I suggest that indeed the transition between the Jastorf and Ripdorf phases may indicate the initial emergence or arrival of the Irminones/Swabian ethnos around 300 BC. If this was the case case the Irminones/Swabian presence was virtually indistinguishable, other than a slight population decrease possibly associated with an increase in warfare, had little other impact on the native population. Furthermore, I agree that the latter abandonments, in the Seedorf phase, were initially inspired by the Cimbri migration and the subsequent Irminones/Swabian expansion to the south and southwest. Regardless, regional reoccupation and significant population increase was experienced in the 1st century AD (Keiling 1982: 35–37). Of course, this brings us to the 'Origo Gentis Langobardorum,' the 'Historia gentis Langobardorum,' Vinnili, and the Langobardi (Long Beards).
References Cited
Keiling, Horst 1982
Archäologische Funde vom Spätpaläolithikum bis zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit aus den mecklenburgischen Bezirken. Museumskatalog 1. Schwerin: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte.
Keiling, Horst 1988
Die Herausbildung der germanischen Stämme (ab etwa 6.Jahrhundert v.u.Z.): Die Entstehung der Jastorfkultur und zeitgleicher Kulturen im Rhein-Weser-Gebiet und deren geographische Verbreitung. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 86–105.
Künnemann, W. 1995
Jastorf: Geschichte und Inhalt eines archäologischen Kulturbegriffs, Die Kunde N. F. 46, 61-122.
Krüger, Bruno (ed.) 1986
Die Germanen. Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen Stämme in Mitteleuropa. Vol. II: Die Stämme und Stammesverbände in der Zeit vom 3.Jahrhundert bis zur Herausbildung der politischen Vorherrschaft der Franken. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Reinecke, Andreas 1991
Studien zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Umland der südlichen Ostsee. Forschungsstand-Chronologie-Kulturhistorische Beziehungen. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 21, 129-146.
Voigt, Theodor 1988
Die germanischen Stämme bis zum Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung: Kult- und Bestattungswesen. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 182-191.
the Swabian confederation also included the Semnones, Quadi, Alemanni (All men), and the Marcomanni (Marco's men);
Just want to note that Marcomanni doesn't mean Marco's men. Marco?
Rather Markamannoz - Bordermen.
Bordermen.
Right, I've seen that as well. I guess it all depends on which you want to believe; either the 'Mark-o-men' or the exo-facto 'Marcus' Men,' lines. At least the later has a documented 'Apocalypse Now-ques,' story behind it?
Although I think Oliver Stone is a total moron, I like the 'Apocalypse Now' or renegade Roman legate run amok, story line for the Marcomanni etymology better.
Please see 'Marcus Fabius Romanus.'
Isn't this a classic example of a Red Herring?
As I though, it seems that this Jastorf Culture has...
mehr Anschein als Substanz.
Ethnogenesis and Integration: A view from the Pre-Roman Iron Age Bardengau Zone
We now turn to the Pre-Roman Iron Age Period Archaeology of west central Lower Saxony around Luneburg, also referred to as the Bardengau Zone. Again, due to factors outlined above its important to note that the assigned temporal setting may fluctuate at least 50 years either way. This area was selected as it is immedately south and west of Mecklenburg.
In the Bardengau Zone we find a nearly identical pattern to that found in west Mecklenburg. Here Wegewitz (1972) identified a rather compact grouping of urn-burial cemeteries in the Elbe valley between the Oste and Jeetzel rivers. Over the course of this occupation these cremation cemeteries represent material assemblages that demonstrate an increasing Hallstatt and later LaTene cultural affiliation with some influence from southern Scandinavia. Once more some of these cemeteries appear to suggest a certain degree of long term continuity between the Late Bronze Age well into the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
As with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the vast majority of the burials recovered from the Bardengau Zone cremation cemeteries date from the 6th to 3rd centuries BC. A relative decline in the number of burials between 300 and 120 BC was noted. At the end of this period the use of a large number of these cemetery sites was rather abruptly discontinued. This evidence suggests major demographic disruptions occurred throughout the later 2nd and early 1st centuries BC and may be associated with the Cimbri migration as this region lies directly along their hypothesized route between Denmark and Bohemia. Once again the Jastorf, Ripdorf, and Seedorf phase trichotomy seems to have been correctly applied.
With the population decline in the 1st century BC, there also was the sudden appearance of differentiated male and female internments; and the associated spur, spear, sword, and shield among funerary items within the remaining burials. The demographic changes and appearance of weapon burials suggest the rapid emergence of a militaristic community where the use of the lance and competent horsemanship had become a defining cultural attribute (Christie 1995).
Künnemann (1995) proposes the Pre-Roman Iron Age Period Bardengau Zone expression is typical of the Jastorf Culture concept. Interestingly, the area encompassed by the modern states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein are considered the core, or heartland, of the Jastorf Culture. Yet, the marked continuity of the material assemblages found within this area strongly suggests this Pre-Roman Iron Age Jastorf construct was but a later adaptation of the widespread Late Bronze Age Urnfield Culure. Over this point, its important to remember the Urnfield Culture initially appeared in a wide band between the Netherlands and central Poland, and while a later contemporary, the Hallstatt Culture is actually a separate construct.
On the other hand, Wegewitz provides that the Bardengau Zone culture represents the historic Langobardi. More recently, researchers have noted that this example is one element of a larger expression found between the Weser to the Vistula rivers. Furthermore, Christie correctly seems to point out that at some point, at least part of this expression, represented the emergence of a Suevi or Swabian ethnos.
References Cited
Christie, Neil 1995
The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards, Oxford UK and Cambridge USA.
Künnemann, W. 1995
Jastorf: Geschichte und Inhalt eines archäologischen Kulturbegriffs, Die Kunde N. F. 46, 61-122.
Wegewitz, W 1972
Das Langobardische brandgräberfeld von Putensen, Kreise Harburg.
Sorry, but I edited and moved this post to page 7.
I know this is out of sequence ....
The period began with a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds from this period. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the Proto-Germanic tribes into continental Europe.
Den funntomme perioden?
Baltic Hunter, could you please find the factual basis and reference for the deteriorating climate statement in this paragraph. Being that far north, I assume this period of deterioration began around 100 BC. This may sound a bit strange but this is the key to understanding everything. I have other data from other parts of the world, yet I firmly believe in massive overkill.
One may find a similar phenom marks the start of the Late Bronze Age around 1300-1200 BC and the High Medieval about AD 1300.
Auf diesem thema unterschätzen einige mich. Es scheint unterschätzen mich sehr groß.
Verzeihen, arbeite ich auf mehrere projekten im augenblick und erhalte nicht viel Schlaf. Ja, ich muß jetzt schlafen.
Ich fange wieder bald an und auf diesem thema mehr kommt.
blitzkrieg80
01-24-2008, 07:16
Want to help find a settlement (oppida?) that had importance during 272BCE around / near Thüringen for EB2? Any data while you're at it there would be helpful. I am sure something can be found from juxtaposition of the Geographia with other data, hwæt sæġst þū?
You may be thinking of the Steinsburg Oppidum near Romhild, Thuringia?
http://images.questia.com/?fif=b61411/b61411p0188a.fpx&obj=iip,1.0&wid=300&hei=370&rgn=0.0,0.0,1.00000000,1.00000000&lng=en_US&vtrx=1&cvt=jpeg
Located in extreme southwest Thuringa with a history very similar history to that of the Glauberg Oppidum. I was going to include this with the Bohemian Oppida network. I don't know about Geographia as it was abandoned in the 1st century BC, again most likely due to Swabian expansion. Still Steinsburg might have been Bikourgion?
blitzkrieg80
01-24-2008, 09:50
bikourgion seems likw a good candidate for a settlement in the area... i wonder if there is anything else we might know, such as the name origin so it can be adjusted to the correct naming system.
Bikourgion or Bicurgion is the name given by Ptolemy in Geographia for 34° 30? 51° 15?
Jaywalker-Jack
01-24-2008, 21:08
Gday Ludens. Psycho asked me not to bring this up but seeing as you have raised it.... (hangon)..
arrr..(*flick**flick**flick*) na, na, na, na, hmmm ..ummm.. no, nope, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, ...ah..errrrr, nup...na, na, na, ah here.....no that's not it. No, no, no, na, na, na..ah here it is !! :smiley:
Psycho's notes clearing state here .."I recieved no 'accumulating warning points', no 'temporary demotion' but am most certainly banned from parts of the org". He continues, "the only reason provided before all communication was cut off was that senior EB leaders stated that they found my presence 'threatening'".
Opps. Poor Psycho. So what happened to the aforementioned warning system? :shrug:
From what Ive read of Psycho's posts I think he's one of the most sensible people Ive seen argue a point in this forum. I certainly hope he wasnt banned.
Frostwulf
01-25-2008, 00:02
From what Ive read of Psycho's posts I think he's one of the most sensible people Ive seen argue a point in this forum. I certainly hope he wasnt banned.Sensible perhaps, but dishonest most certainly. I didn't mind his typical juvenile responses nor his misunderstanding/misinterpretation of material. What bothered me was the claims he never backed up, his distortion of citations(to support his view) and one he made up completely.
I don't feed trolls(Anthony II, aka-Psycho V) but since this has been brought up and I believe the troll has returned to his cave I'll reply to his post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1806888&postcount=123
Of course La Tene A-D are different because of the area and time, but the situation stays the same when you claim the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries.During Caesars time the central Celts(Arverni,Aedui,etc.) were different from the Belgae who in turn were different from the British Celts.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1716806&postcount=360
I also repeat myself here once again:
I have said before that the Belgae are different from the Aedui, who were different then the Celts on the Island etc. So what is your point here?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1724930&postcount=401
Jaywalker-Jack
01-25-2008, 01:01
Sensible perhaps, but dishonest most certainly. I didn't mind his typical juvenile responses nor his misunderstanding/misinterpretation of material. What bothered me was the claims he never backed up, his distortion of citations(to support his view) and one he made up completely.
I don't feed trolls(Anthony II, aka-Psycho V) but since this has been brought up and I believe the troll has returned to his cave I'll reply to his post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1806888&postcount=123
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1716806&postcount=360
I also repeat myself here once again:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1724930&postcount=401
How exactly was he a troll? I didnt read the entire debate, but from what I saw it was you who kept pushing the argument, and you who seemed to have some emotional attachment to the topic. :inquisitive:
blitzkrieg80
01-25-2008, 01:38
Psycho knows some good stuff- thus why he was an EB member and why there is good work by him in EB. He is human like the rest of us and not perfect, but calling someone a nationalist (which is unrelated to the topic) simply because they think differently, especially without academic evidence, but also in the context of Germanic history / culture discussion is DEFINITELY being a troll. The problem isn't the disagreement but the way it is handled... I love a good debate or discussion about anything (even my mistakes!) but to call me a Nazi just because I don't worship Celtic culture (a culture I deeply admire and study) as some Antlantean golden race, well that is Troll-ish and inappropriate. It doesn't need to be repeated, as Psycho has done (not about me though), even if intermingled with other informative statements, ect. It is still being a Troll in that 1% of the discussion. Maybe we are not the ones to make such decisions about who are Troll-ish or not, esp. since we are not from Halogaland ~;) Brand rules! If you're from Halogaland, I'm not making fun of you, but making a reference to a cool book trilogy by Harry Harrison
the year is 2008, ppl. the Germanic language speaking peoples DO get credit for everything done by said culture and derivative civilizations before the existence of Attila, Teutonic Knights, the Kaiser, and Hitler. :wall: If you don't like history- don't read it: that's why sports were invented j/k
Cmacq, I know Ptolemy mentioned Bikourgion (although thanks for pointing that location out), thus why I mentioned the Geographia. What I don't know is more about the culture that inhabited that area so that I might recreate an original name. You have been doing an excellent job of posting interesting and informative stuff, thus why I ask you ~:) feel free to continue to Cimbria though, if that is your final destination with all this
Admittedly an often undulating and somewhat circuitous route, to be sure. Yet in the end, indeed the road less traveled may be the only way for some to reach the intended objective. Of which I may add, you seem to have correctly ascertained. Nonetheless, even if one did know their final destination, one may still find points of interest along the way?
Because you ask I'll make this one little detour from Hesse to Thüringia.
Mouzafphaerre
01-25-2008, 02:22
How exactly was he a troll? I didnt read the entire debate, but from what I saw it was you who kept pushing the argument, and you who seemed to have some emotional attachment to the topic. :inquisitive:
.
His insolence had erupted behind the doors long before his infamy spread in the public. 'nuff said. I'm, if anything, glad he's been shown the door out. :coffeenews:
.
Frostwulf
01-25-2008, 05:07
How exactly was he a troll? I didnt read the entire debate, but from what I saw it was you who kept pushing the argument, and you who seemed to have some emotional attachment to the topic. On this thread Anthony II, (aka-Psycho V) came on and started to make statements about me that were blatantly false as I had shown, thats a troll. To say that I was the one pushing it would be a false presumption, as the post you quoted by me is the 2nd post on this thread that had any dealings with him. The first post I simply put "how sad" to reflect the way he was dealing with things.
If your referring to the "Celts Overpowered" thread, that is certainly debatable. I could have let things go, just as any one else could have. No one made me or Psycho or any of the others continue that thread. I like to think I like to think of that thread as a matter of reaching historical "truths"(as we will probably never know the entirety of it all).
Awaked from a bad dream, and the tortuous transverse towards Bikourgion continues.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1276572
well, if you put in more info on the heidetrunk oppidum, may i suggest doing it by a new post, so that it doesn't get lost on a previous page? i haven't had a chance to go through your mini-essays very closely, but having looked at them briefly, they're very interesting, so i'll be revisiting them later, when i have an opportunity.
Right, will do. But, I must warn you, from time to time, I have the very bad habit of going back to edit mistakes and insert additional information. As pre your request, this I will not do for Heidetrunk.
The Steinsburg Oppidum: Exploring the Frontier of Keltic Thüringia, Germany
The Kleiner Gleichberg or Steinsburg Oppidum (literally in English, Stone Fort), is situated on a steep hill top in the southwestern corner of Thuringia, near the headwaters of the Wasser drainage just east of Römhild (50º 24' 39" N 10º 35' 33" E). The site was partially excavated between 1900 and 1940 by A. Götze (1940).
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1276572
The Steinsburg settlement was initially established in the Neolithic period and continued into the Bronze Age. The large Late Bronze Age settlement was associated with tumulus burials and overall this occupation appears typical of the Urn Field Culture between the 10th and 8th centuries BC. The site was abandoned and reoccupied in the 6th century BC. This Pre Roman Iron Age community was incorporated into the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural spheres as it experienced intense population growth until the 4th century BC. At this point it appears to have become a district capital of a Keltic chiefdom (Peschel 1998).
The site was briefly abandoned then reoccupied to quickly reach its greatest extent by 200 BC. The settlement went into decline in the early 1st century BC until it was finally abandoned for the last time shortly after 50 BC. The Pre Roman Iron Age fortifications consist of a large upper enclosure surrounded by dry-laid stone walls that were built in the 2nd century BC. These walls appear to be of core-veneer or murus gallicus construction with dressed facing walls filled with rubble. The weaker outer walls enclose an area of about 78 ha and may have been built very late in the 2nd century BC. The main entry was located on the west side of the site as indicated by a formal gate (Peschel 1998).
http://static2.bareka.com/photos/medium/1276585/blick.jpg
A large number of artifacts were recovered in the course of Gotze’s (1940) excavations. These included an array of ceramic, ground stone, and metallurgical types. Analysis of the large ceramic assemblage from Steinsburg and other contemporary sites investigated in the general Mittelgebirg area, suggest a very strong connection with major LaTene production centers located further south. Nearly all of this particular assemblage was locally manufactured and of this about 25 percent were wheel-made types. Due to the homogeneous nature of the ceramic assemblage differentiation between distinct local manufacture loci are difficult to establish. However, a particular type of pottery, made from a graphite clay and tempered with a crystalline material, appears to have been made in the area inhabited by the historic Vindelici and Boii tribes, to the southeast (Peschel 1998).
Additionally, Gotze excavated a large number of metal artifacts (Götze 1940). These include Keltic coins, agricultural tools, keys, and items of personal adornment. Over 150 wire or sheet bronze fibula could be dated to the early LaTene Period (5th century BC). This was based on a cross-dated typological seriation that demonstrates a developmental relationship to the late Hallstatt Twin-Disc fibula types. The large numbers of this artifact type and specific design traits indicate that these were of local manufacture. Also of importance were the large numbers of solid and filiform bird-headed fibulae found at Steinsburg. In fact more have been collected from this site than any other, in the region, of comparable size (Peschel 1998).
The zonal pattern of artifact distribution across the site suggest that specific industries and crafts production areas were concentrated within particular neighborhood precincts. For example, ground stone and metal production appears to have been focused in the lower portion of the settlement between the outer wall and the fortified hill top (Peschel 1998). Again, based on excavations conducted at other Oppida the enclosed area once housed avillage or town with several thousand residents. This settlement would have been composed of streets, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.
The Steinsburg Oppidum was situated along the north central frontier of the Keltic Oppida network. Taken in its entirety this site and its environs provided a direct east-west connection between Keltic settlements in Hesse and Bohemia. Based on the material assemblage this community had been fully integrated into first Hallstatt, and later the LaTene cultural spheres. However, it is also clear that although Steinsburg displayed a certain level of specialization, this community did not share the degree of sophistication witnessed at similar type sites located further south and west.
Evidence of a large Late Bronze to late Pre Roman Iron Age settlement system, consisting of hamlets and farmsteads, has been found surrounding the Steinsburg hill. The Oppida itself is situated immediately adjacent to an important north-south road that was used until the Late Medieval Period. Peschel (1998) notes that the location of the Steinsburg Oppidum is consistent with the site of Ptolemy's Βικούργιον (Bikourgion, Bicurgion, or Bicurgium). Peschel (1998) also speculates that the 1st century BC abandonment was probably due to tribal movements from the Elbe region. I may add that Peschel's tribal movements appear to closely correspond to the temporal and geographic setting I propose for a Swabian southern expansion scenario.
For those of more discerning consideration, it may prove insightful to note that the Steinsburg Oppidum together with those outlined in Hesse and Bohemia, in effect formed a frontier zone. This frontier delineated those communities integrated within the Hallstatt and LaTene spheres from those that were not. The importance of this line of demarcation is a theme we shall revisit when discussing its significance for later economic, political, and cultural developments.
References Cited
Gotze, A 1940
Führer auf die Steinsburg bei Römhild.
Peschel, K 1998
The Steinsburg Hillfort, in The Celts (edit); Moscati, S., O. Frey, V. Kruta, B. Raftery, and M. Szabó; Rizzoli International Publications.
Ptolemy, C
The Geography of Book II, Chapter 10: Greater Germany (Fourth Map of Europe).
Jaywalker-Jack
01-26-2008, 01:34
.
His insolence had erupted behind the doors long before his infamy spread in the public. 'nuff said. I'm, if anything, glad he's been shown the door out. :coffeenews:
.
Did he call someone a nazi or something?
To Froswulf, Blitzkrieg etc, there is nothing wrong with being a Germanophile. I know youre not white supremacists or anything like that. But I think with history youve always got to promote a completely neutral position, no matter how contrary that may be to our instincts.
Youve got to admit a few people here don't have what you'd call an objective view of history.
Frostwulf, youre obviously well read but when you say things like this : "Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Gauls are overpowered because:
…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory (who, where, when they were from).
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…The German warrior is superior.
…The Germans should (always) be superior to them (Gauls).. "
I mean, that's just complete generalisation and gross simplification. I dont think your conclusions here are drawn from evidence - rather, you came to your conclusion first and then looked for facts that go nicely with it. Can I just say Im not a Celticist, Im a realist. I know this is just a discussion about a computer game, but there is a history of people twisting our knowledge of the past for unscientific motives. Its never a bad thing for people to be watchful for that.
If you can be banned for accusing someone of bias how can it be dealt with? I will stress that I am not trying to start an argument here, Im defending a person's right to disagree.
Mouzafphaerre
01-26-2008, 03:00
.
Did he call someone a nazi or something?
What happened behind the doors should remain there. Some recent EB members were part of the team then, too. I won't talk about what happened in EBH before my resignation unless the team decide to make it public and I need to defend my position. :coffeenews: No need to beat that dead horse, or open that can of worms, or whatever metaphor suits here...
.
blitzkrieg80
01-26-2008, 03:41
Nobody gets banned because of bias or even name-calling... pretty much, nobody gets banned, period... but if the need arises because of harassment, I would hope an organization has the authority to keep themselves from being victimized incessantly... and when I say victim, I don't mean the organization, but personal attacks that have no bearing on the team or its work.
stalking is not cool.
the nazi-name-calling was a completely separate but demonstrative issue
I completely agree that everyone should try and be objective, even about their passion, because the collection and analysis of all information leads closer to truth than cherry-picked or limited scope
Nice job so far Cmacq! I am really enjoying the read
Mouzafphaerre
01-26-2008, 04:33
.
Nice job so far Cmacq! I am really enjoying the read
That makes two of us. :yes:
.
If you’re following this thread, this particular post was getting too long and too buried, so I moved it to page 7.
Sorry, but there appears to be alot of conflecting information in the literature. For example, one report tells that Glauberg is the furthest north and east oppida in Hesse and another says Steinsburg is the northern most within the network overall. Then as I plot these locations I find neither statement to be correct. Thus, I have to go back and edit earlier posts.
Frostwulf
01-27-2008, 01:30
But I think with history youve always got to promote a completely neutral position, no matter how contrary that may be to our instincts.
Youve got to admit a few people here don't have what you'd call an objective view of historyI agree completely with you on both of these statements.
Youve got to admit a few people here don't have what you'd call an objective view of history.
Frostwulf, youre obviously well read but when you say things like this : "Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Gauls are overpowered because:
…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory (who, where, when they were from).
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…The German warrior is superior.
…The Germans should (always) be superior to them (Gauls).. "
The above is the reason for my post here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1813453&postcount=150
Here is what I really said:
I completely agree. It wasn't that they were just tough martially as attested by the land conquered but also the writings and the fear they generated in their enemies. The Celts were also as already mentioned were an ingenious people as shown by the arms,armor and artistic items produced. There are many things to admire in the Celts, in which the Romans for one copied from them. While I think the Celts out stripped the Germans in arms and armor, the superior prowess and valor I believe belong to the Germans.
In general I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>-
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1609719&postcount=196
Anthony II(aka Psycho v) has a tendency to do this kind of thing. He will run several things together and make it sound like something else.
Did he call someone a nazi or something? An insinuation by him because he didn't like quotes this:
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274
or situations like this:
I appreciate the reply. If your saying that "isolated incidents" is Caesar's conflict in Gaul thats fine. There were 4 battles in which Caesar's mercenaries "won the day", The 800 German cavalry routing Caesars 5,000 Gallic cavalry which included the Remi Mairepos and the Sugambri's cavalry destroying the Roman cohorts.
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229
If you subscribe to the thought that the Germani were superior warriors during Caesar's day, you must be a nazi(in effect).
To Froswulf, Blitzkrieg etc, there is nothing wrong with being a Germanophile. I know youre not white supremacists or anything like that. But I think with history youve always got to promote a completely neutral position, no matter how contrary that may be to our instincts.I have been called something to the effect of a Germanophile, also that of a Roman apologist. They both have something in common, I received those titles because I said that the Romans were superior at arms then the Celts and later in another thread I said the Germans were superior in arms. Here is what my contention on the Germans for game purposes:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612
I dont think your conclusions here are drawn from evidence - rather, you came to your conclusion first and then looked for facts that go nicely with it.I have heard this statement before, the funny thing is all the books I refer to are easy to find in just about any library. You say that I have conclusions and I find sources to back that up, care to show how I did that? Does it strike you odd that none of those arguing against me on these matters never came up with a credible source that is contrary to my points?
Don't you think it's a bad idea to make claims and not be able to back them up? Isn't worse to make citations that are distorted to back up your claims? Or what about just making up citations? Care to guess who did these things?
Can I just say Im not a Celticist, Im a realist. I know this is just a discussion about a computer game, but there is a history of people twisting our knowledge of the past for unscientific motives.I agree with you on this. I make the same claim as you, perhaps now you see why I am defending myself because of the distortions about me. Why did you come to the aid of Anthony II(aka Psycho v) without even reading the thread? You didn't bother to find out what the situation was. He came on trolling me right off using the same tactics he did in other threads, he ran a bunch of my quotes together to come up with something completely different. You speak of twisting knowledge, I suggest you see who has done that.
One last thing Ill emphasize, please feel free to back up you words when you say " I dont think your conclusions here are drawn from evidence - rather, you came to your conclusion first and then looked for facts that go nicely with it." Please find material contrary to what I have said, it could make for a good discussion. Of course I noticed that you as with others there were questions on my resources, yet only a few even bothered to question Psycho v's made up/distorted citations or his claims without any evidence to back them up.
I had a very long and well written post about, 'those that continue to expound about the commission of perceived past wrongs,' only as a deep desire to argue for the sake of argument,' but I edited it, massively. More to the point, please, dont make me think I'm wasting my time here, as did this last post. To its content, it grows more tiresome and increasingly more difficult to ignore.
By the way Blitz, please if you could post an outline of the principles and theories concerning West Deutsch dialects, to include a discussion of the High German consonant shift. As I understand this is your field of expertise and it would greatly expedite the debate.
Frostwulf
01-27-2008, 19:26
@cmacq What I and others debate about should not have an effect on you. This thread was hijacked along time ago. I would hope you would continue with your information as it is not lost on many including myself. You have come up with more resources for me to read. I urge you to follow up with what you have.
Geoffrey S
01-27-2008, 22:22
cmacq, it depends on your definition of 'wasted'. On the one hand, any debate or discussion you have here will be limited by a lot of people knowing very little on the subject and a small group of people who can reply in kind. In that sense, it may not be stimulating for you to discuss what seems to be your area of expertise here.
On the other hand, posts here by other members make me believe I'm not the only person who finds your extensive posts a fascinating look into a new area, and I can state as a fact that such posts by other people on various subjects have stimulated me to read some of the mentioned works - which I also intend to do in this case when time permits. In that sense, I certainly wouldn't consider it wasted and would miss these insights if you do!
To all others, I'd suggest keeping grievances in their relevant place, for politeness' sake if nothing else.
what seems to be your area of expertise here.
Well said Geoffrey S.
Although I am an archaeologist and this is a region of some interest, quite frankly sir, this not my particular area of expertise. However, being a professional, or insider so to speak, I know what you say about 'a lot of people knowing very little on the subject and a small group of people who can reply in kind,' is extended even to those that call themselves experts.
As an archaeologist I do have extremely good instincts and can often dissect an argument in an instant. Yet, I assure all here gathered, on this topic I learn as do you.
Question: Are the photo map links working OK?
Baltic Hunter
01-28-2008, 14:13
Hi everyone,
don't have much to add to the debate, but I have something to add on ancient Slavs, which were mentioned earlier in this thread. Problem is that most authors are very much biased on it and it highly depends on the national origin of the authors, which thesis they follow, which is sad.
I have found some interesting internet sources:
http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000205.html (very interesting one, please take the time to read it including comments, a few quotes out of it follow)
"West Slavs show a high genetic similarity to German ethnic
groups (Germans, Austrians); Bulgarians are similar to
the ethnic groups of the Balkan Peninsula; and Russians
are similar to the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups of
Northern and Eastern Europe."
"Historical testimony is fairly overwhelming that the Slavs did not originate in the Balkans where they arrived in the 1st mill. AD."
"Both groups were closely related at one point, but then diverged over time.
This is why the gene EU18 is so common in Germanic and Celtic people today..
On the other hand, the related EU19 is extremely common amongst the Slavs."
comments on the following words of Mario Alinei:
"Dr. Mario Alinei is not acquainted with the overwhelming majority of facts pointing to the arrival of Slavs in the 6-th AD."
"One thing is definitely certain: the Slavs were intruders in Byzantine territory. This means that their origins are to be sought outside it. Moreover, as far as I know, there is no linguistic evidence for a correspondance between the ancient Balkan IE languages (Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, etc.) with Slavic."
"The border area between the two genetic markers [in our days] is East Germany, Western Poland, the Czech Republic and Austria. It is here that the west and east Caucasoids mixed in more recent times - probably over the last 1000 years or so."
"So in terms of Slavic ethnogenesis, the Slavs originated in the east. The original Slavic marker gene is EU19, also knowns as R1a. All Slavs carry this gene, and so do many other people who have come into contact with Slavs.
But, due to the mixing, the west Slavs do also show genetic markers from western Europe. While the south Slavs have obvioulsy been influenced by Balkan populations."
...
this subject is still highly debated and most of the authors are very much biased as you can read in the comments, but I can get out of it, that Slavs somewhere generated in the East (perhaps Ukraine like Blitzkrieg mentioned in a post before) and Migrated in the 6th century into the West assimilating the previous probably Germanic and other inhabitants.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sig/message/2224
this link above I would like to quote, because I think this guy is right:
"I ask if anyone knows of any archaeological evidence to support
>the Priapet origin theory?
As noted previously, some archaeologists are interpreting the evidence as
suggesting that the Slavs as a group formed in the 4th-5th centuries
somewhere on the periphery of the Chernyakov culture in the Ukraine. My
knowledge of things east of the Carpathians is hazy at best, so whether this
near the Pripyet I don't know (and I'm too lazy to get the atlas out!!!).
>If there can be made a cogent argument for the Slavs simply traipsing
>through eastern Europe,
Yes there can. The earliest Czech settlers can be traced through Malopolska
and into Bohemia by the occurrence of Prague-Korc'ak type pottery, for
example.
> to settle in what history and archaeology know to be already
>populated and controlled territories?
Populated? yes. Controlled? no.
The area between the Merovingian Empire and the Avar Khaganate was in flux
in the sixth century, with no clear control being exercised by anyone.
Indeed, Bohemia - despite domination by Charlemagne and the Great Moravian
Empire - had no real centralised government until the 10th century
Pr'emyslids started bashing heads together.
Bear in mind, too, that much of Central Europe (Bohemia certainly) was
covered in dense forests at this time, making real "control" rather
difficult.
>The Migration theory seems to have arisen within the last 150 years
History and archaeology have always been used as political tools,
everywhere, and by using only selected pieces of evidence can be employed to support just about anything.
My personal (and perhaps subjective) inlcination is to agree that the
"Mother Russia" approach is still too prevalent, and is (& always has been)
a primarily political phenomenon.
>I am reading a very deeply-researched and extensively-footnoted
>book, _VENETI_ by Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, and Ivan Tomazic,
>which presents in great detail a body of evidence suggesting a much
>older Slavic presence in central Europe
But what is the political background to this book, for example? Do the
authors manage to be reasonably objective despite their nationality? Maybe
they are, but what of the sources they are using? When were these written?
What were the politics at the time?
(All sources must be looked at critically, and interpretaions even more so.
Even the internationally-admired and decorated Tr'es'tik, much as I like him
as a person, lapses into subjective nationalism occasionally, for instance.)
Another thought:
the Slavs would certainly have assimilated the less-organised inhabitants of
the territories into which they moved - so that some cultural traits of the
subsumed groups might crop up in Slavic culture later. If these traits were
assumed to ALWAYS have been Slavic because of their occurrence in later
Slavic contexts, then this would give the illusion of an earlier Slavic
presence... especially to someone who was looking for evidence of such."
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/6-ad.htm
(this one, I feel awful about it :embarassed: , is no history site, but it's hard to find proper online material on it, so I just used it too)
But as a non history and quite objective site it gives us the example which thesis is the most common and accepted one:
"Slavs 6th century
By the C6 the Slavs were the largest European race. Their early origin is not known, but from 1AD they were thought to have lived in the marshes east of Russia.
Following the dissolution of the Hun Empire the Slavs made a rapid expansion populating modern Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Little remains of Slavic Romania apart from some place names and possibly the voivode, administrative regions, of the Romanians inherited by the Magyars in Transylvania.
The early Slav settlement into Byzantium lands can be traced from toponyms as being along the Timok and Morava rivers and across from Niš to Sofia."
keep up the good work and good luck
There may have been a proto-slav ethnos in poland by the 1st century BC. Please see Lugii and Lusatian Sorbs. For a very short time a member of the east-swabian confederation?
Baltic Hunter
01-28-2008, 16:34
There may have been a proto-slav ethnos in poland by the 1st century BC.
If you stick with the conservative view and the most commonly accepted one amongst historians, you have to agree with the Slavic Migration in 6th century A.D.
I don't understand the problem, some people have with it - the fact that Slavs just migrated later into Eastern-Central Europe doesn't make Slavs inferior or something like this.
There is a minority of East-European historians - but most East-European historians accept the 6th century Migration, who simply want to have a early Slavic presence in the area. Please check, what the Russian guy in my previous post said:
"History and archaeology have always been used as political tools,
everywhere, and by using only selected pieces of evidence can be employed to support just about anything."
"But what is the political background to this book, for example? Do the
authors manage to be reasonably objective despite their nationality? Maybe
they are, but what of the sources they are using? When were these written?
What were the politics at the time?"
"so that some cultural traits of the
subsumed groups might crop up in Slavic culture later. If these traits were
assumed to ALWAYS have been Slavic because of their occurrence in later
Slavic contexts, then this would give the illusion of an earlier Slavic
presence... especially to someone who was looking for evidence of such."
Please see Lugii and Lusatian Sorbs.
I checked Sorbs in the internet and wikipedia article also says that sorbs migrated into the West during the Slavic big Migration in 6th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs
"During the 6th century A.D. Sorbs arrived in the area extending between the rivers in the East: the Bober (Czech: Bobr, Polish: Bóbr), Kwisa and Oder (Polish: Odra) to rivers in the West: the Saale and Elbe. In the North, the area of their settlement reached Berlin."
Wikipedia only accepts the most commonly historic view, because the advantage of wikipedia is, that it is editable and therefore highly speculative contents get edited or at least marked. This example only shows that the late West-Migration is the commonly accepted historic view. And on subjects with so few proof and so much speculation in it, I prefer a conservative historic view.
The Lugian ethnicity is also highly debated. For me, they were of East-Germanic or perhaps mixed Germanic-Celtic origin, while the Proto-Slavic thesis is only supported by a small minority, too.
For a very short time a member of the east-swabian confederation?
which 'east-swabian' confederation? don't know of any 'East-Swabians'. Do you mean East-Germanics? The East-Germanics didn't have a confederation afaik.
But like I said before, I don't want to get mixed into a heated debate and I also don't have enough knowledge on this. I just wanted to add a few - as I hope - objective notes.
Although both were West Deutsch, the Romans seemed to make a distinction between western and eastern Swabian confederations. The eastern element (lead by the Marcomanni) split and largely settled in Bohemia. The Lugii confederation joined this eastern Swabian confederation for a very short time around the BC/AD terminus.
Also as people have these things, I like to call feet, where they were once recorded, may have nothing to do with their ethnic homeland. Then again, the Lugii may have been some kind of Balto-slav enthos. As you may know the Balts and Slavs were once the same. I wonder why the Balts are always ignored? Yet as you say this subject is somewhat, but not completely, outside to scope of our current topic. To this point, I believe that the Baltic affinity to P-Kelt, will in the end, play a very big role.
Jaywalker-Jack
01-29-2008, 03:08
... please feel free to back up you words when you say " I dont think your conclusions here are drawn from evidence - rather, you came to your conclusion first and then looked for facts that go nicely with it." Please find material contrary to what I have said, it could make for a good discussion. Of course I noticed that you as with others there were questions on my resources, yet only a few even bothered to question Psycho v's made up/distorted citations or his claims without any evidence to back them up.
Im not questioning your source. What Im saying is I think you formed your opinion first and THEN found literature/evidence to support it.
The right way would be to look at the whole assemblage of literature/evidence FIRST, and then form an opinion based on the whole picture (not just the part of it you want to see.)
Here's what's wrong with your argument. Your basic claim is that the Germanic peoples were naturally more powerful/valourous in battle than the Celts. Now first of all that's generalising on a grand scale. You give examples of where the Germans outclassed the Celts militarily. But trying to establish a general rule based on that is like making this kind of claim: the French surrendered in two world wars, therefore all French people are cowards.
Secondly; (and this is the reason nazi accusations are flying around) what youve said can only imply you believe the Germans were innately superior in some way, that they were physically different from the Celts because as a group, they were naturally more capable fighters. This does not make sense.
When two men fight, why does one man win rather than the other? There could be many reasons. One happens to be bigger. Maybe one is more healthy. Maybe its training. Or experience. Or equipment. Or circumstance. Or how angry one is. But simply because one is a German and the other is a Celt? Now do you see what I mean?
Favouring one over the other based simply on ethnicity (and ethnicity is a shaky enough concept in itself) can only mean two things, either
1: you follow the pseudo-scientific, outdated and dangerous "race" theory
or 2: you are simply fond of the Germans are a little biased because of it.
And Im sure number 2 is all you are. Why do people get touchy and assume you're a 1, when they wouldnt with a Celticist? I suppose it's just that Celticists have never started a world war. Not yet anyway :beam:
And so in the nicest possible way, Im saying I think you have a biased view of history (which is quite normal), and that's why I took Psycho's side rather than yours.
So cmacq, to what are you tempted to attribute the bump in activity at the Hessian oppida in the 2nd c, and their 1st c decline? Do you see either related to either Swabian or Kimbrian expansion? Or expansion tied to increased economic activity in the area norther of the Alps/Danube?
And one thing that I'm not sure was clear from my reading on the Hessian oppida: does the local material fit into the la tene (by the period we're most concerned with) wholly or partially? do the reports you've read make any classifications of pottery or iron-working types? I'm wondering if we can look in a particular direction to see where they're looking: north, east, or west. I guess they could probably be looking south, that might even be more likely, but as far as I know, the south was looking east or west, and so wouldn't really look different.
So cmacq, to what are you tempted
Not yet, as all the pieces are not in place. I think then it may become clear to even the most casual observer. As the overall artifact assemblage is rather uniform I'll address it in a single post. I can tell you this, although you might find it strange. Southern Germany, to include Hesse, is considered part of the LaTene core area.
Baltic Hunter
01-29-2008, 16:14
Although both were West Deutsch, the Romans seemed to make a distinction between western and eastern Swabian confederations. The eastern element (lead by the Marcomanni) split and largely settled in Bohemia. The Lugii confederation joined this eastern Swabian confederation for a very short time around the BC/AD terminus.
Please don't say Deutsch, because this is a modern term. Use the word Germanic or ancient German (otherwise it would be like calling the Celts of Gaul French). Deutsch derived from the medieval word teutonic afaik, so it hasn't got that much to do with ancient Germanics. The term Germanic subsumed much more people than only modern day Germans.
Never read anything about a distinction between East or West-Suebi, can you tell me which Roman author made this distinction? I've read Caesar 'De Bello Gallico' and Tacitus 'Germania' a longer time ago, so maybe I don't remember it properly, but afaik there was no such distinction from these authors.
Also who said that the Lugi joined the Suebi? Do you mean the Marcomanni realm around BC/AD? If yes then they don't have much to do with the Suebi any more, because the Marcomanni were independent at that time and created their own realm.
Also as people have these things, I like to call feet, where they were once recorded, may have nothing to do with their ethnic homeland. Then again, the Lugii may have been some kind of Balto-slav enthos. As you may know the Balts and Slavs were once the same. I wonder why the Balts are always ignored? Yet as you say this subject is somewhat, but not completely, outside to scope of our current topic. To this point, I believe that the Baltic affinity to P-Kelt, will in the end, play a very big role.
Well again, according to the overwhelming majority of historians - I had hoped to have shown this already - Slavs weren't in the area of the Lugii, Przeworsk culture (most part of modern day Poland) or Silesia, but were located somewhere in Russia/Ukraine, before they migrated West in the 6th century A.D.. Otherwise you follow the view of the somewhat radical minority. Or do you have new material which make you believe that the Balts and some Proto-Slavs were located there? If yes, I really would like to read more about it.
The Balts are already identified on the common archeological map of this time, and they were located at North-Eastern part of the Baltic Sea and not in today southern Poland. Balts and Slavs also weren't the same once - only in a Indo-European sense they are, but Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans also belong to the Indo-European family. Baltic Culture is unique with parallels to other archeological cultures - but still it's a specific archeological culture and even more in a linguistic sense: Baltic languages have nothing to do with Slavic languages, except for the fact that they belong to the Indo-European langauge family - but which European language does not?. I think the archeological maps of site 2 of the archeological cultures reflect the common historic view, while the map of Germanic expansion is really debateable.
I have found more internet sources on the subject you are debating right now: So here you follow the common historic view - and I want to assist you here - ,which says that Germanic expansion into southern Germany took place quite slower and later.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_germanyearly.htm
relevant quote follows, allthough its contrary to your and my opinion of Germanic expansion. It's a difficult subject with contrary views and opinions...
"The Germanic tribes, which probably originated from a mixture of peoples along the Baltic Sea coast, inhabited the northern part of the European continent by about 500 B.C. By 100 B.C., they had advanced into the central and southern areas of present-day Germany. At that time, there were three major tribal groups: the eastern Germanic peoples lived along the Oder and Vistula rivers; the northern Germanic peoples inhabited the southern part of present-day Scandinavia; and the western Germanic peoples inhabited the extreme south of Jutland and the area between the North Sea and the Elbe, Rhine, and Main rivers."
(The Main river is located in Hesse)
http://www.germantribes.org/migrations/migrations_preroman.htm
The first small map on this page shows Germanic homeland (Jastorf and Nordic group culture), which goes farer east than in the current EB-map afaik. In EB I think the Balts are already located there, which is nice :beam:, but probably in contrary to common hiostoric view.
https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8619/200pxpreromanironagenh9.png
The debateable map of early Germanic expansion is also used on this site, but as far as I understood the text itself says otherwise.
"MIGRATIONS - THE PRE-ROMAN ERA
pre roman
The Pre-Roman Iron Age (5th/4th century BC - 1st century BC) designates the earliest part of the Iron Age in Scandinavia, northern Germany, and the Netherlands north of the Rhine River. It is named as the latest period in Christian Jürgensen Thomsen's three-age chronological system (the two preceding periods being the Stone Age and the Bronze Age). The aforementioned associated geographical regions feature many extensive archaeological excavation sites, which in turn have yielded a wealth of artifacts, including the oldest iron items yet unearthed. Objects discovered at the sites suggest that the Pre-Roman Iron Age evolved out of the Nordic Bronze Age. Archaeologists first made the decision to divide the Iron Age into distinct pre-Roman and Roman periods after E. Vedel unearthed a number of Iron Age artifacts on the island of Bornholm which did not exhibit the same heavy Roman influence seen in most other artifacts from that period, indicating that parts of northern Europe had not yet come into contact with the Romans at the beginning of the Iron Age.
The culture covered by this term was most likely Proto-Germanic, and south of it was the Celtic La Tène culture, whose advanced iron-working technology exerted a considerable influence, when, around 600 BC northern people began to extract bog iron from the ore in peat bogs, a technology which they had acquired from their Central European neighbors. In the beginning, iron was valuable and was used for decoration. The oldest objects were needles, but edged tools, swords and sickles, are found as well. Bronze continued to be used during the whole period, but was mostly used for decoration.
The traditions were a continuation from the Nordic Bronze Age, but there were strong influences from the Hallstatt culture in Central Europe. Funerary practices continued the Bronze Age tradition of burning the corpses and placing the remains in urns, a characteristic of the Urnfield culture. During the previous centuries, influences from the Central European La Tène culture spread to Scandinavia from North-Western Germany and there are finds from this period from all the provinces of southern Scandinavia. Archaeologists have found swords, shieldbosses, spearheads, scissors, sickles, pincers, knives, needles, buckles, kettles, etc. from this time. Bronze continued to be used for torques and kettles, the style of which were a continuity from the Bronze Age. Some of the most prominent finds are the Gundestrup silver cauldron and the Dejbjerg wagons from Jutland, two four-wheeled wagons of wood with bronze parts.
The period began with a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds from this period. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the Proto-Germanic tribes into continental Europe.
This warlike demic diffusion southwards is sometimes questioned by proponents of the peaceful cultural diffusion theory according to which all languages and archaeological cultures moved peacefully by the transmission of objects and ideas between geographically static populations (compare historian's fallacy and presentism, which are logical fallacies caused by projecting the modern scholar's mindset onto people living in different times and cultures). However, the Germanic tribes would not be known to history for being very peaceful, nor for being geographically static. This time was also the age of the Teutons and the Cimbri, whose migrations were little like cultural diffusion, and who were an example of what would follow in the later Roman Iron Age and Age of Migrations.
Strong evidence contrary to the above paragraph comes from the fact that "Germanic tribes" were apparently quite content to remain in comparatively improverished conditions for at least a thousand years before their first appearance in southern European consciousness. Given that rich territories to the south were within a few weeks march -- at most -- of the Jastorf locale, this points to the conclusion that these northern peoples were hardly aggressive for the greater part of pre-history. What may have set off aggressive behavior on the part of these more northern Germanic speakers was the example set by Gauls, Greeks and Romans. The organization and communication needed to mount a serious attack was probably imported from the south. As far as the expansion of Jastorf, the first impression would that it would have been an expansion into the relatively unpopulated no-man's land of central Europe."
"Greek Records
The concept of "Germanic" as a distinct ethnic identity was hinted at by the early Greek geographer Strabo, who distinguished a barbarian group in northern Europe similar to, but not part of, the Celts. Posidonius, to our knowledge, is the first to have used the name, around 80 BC, in his lost 30th book. Our knowledge of this is based on the 4th book of Athenaeus, who in ca. AD 190 quotes Posidonius as saying that "The Germani at noon serve roast meat with milk, and drink their wine undiluted".
By the 1st century A.D., the writings of Caesar, Tacitus and other Roman era writers indicate a division of Germanic-speaking peoples into tribal groupings centred on:
the rivers Oder and Vistula (Poland) (East Germanic tribes),
the lower Rhine river (Istvaeones),
the river Elbe (Irminones),
Jutland and the Danish islands (Ingvaeones).
The Sons of Mannus Istvaeones, Irminones, and Ingvaeones are collectively called West Germanic tribes. In addition, those Germanic people who remained in Scandinavia are referred to as North Germanic. These groups all developed separate dialects, the basis for the differences among Germanic languages down to the present day.
The division of peoples into West Germanic, East Germanic, and North Germanic is a modern linguistic classification. Many Greek scholars only classified Celts and Scyths in the Northwest and Northeast of the Mediterranean and this classification was widely maintained in Greek literature until Late Antiquity. Latin-Greek ethnographers (Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, and Strabo) mentioned in the first two centuries AD the names of peoples they classified as Germanic along the Elbe, the Rhine, and the Danube, the Vistula and on the Baltic Sea. Tacitus mentioned 40, Ptolemy 69 peoples. Classical ethnography applied the name Suebi to many tribes in the first century. It appeared that this native name had all but replaced the foreign name Germanic. After the Marcomannic wars the Gothic name steadily gained importance. Some of the ethnic names mentioned by the ethnographers of the first two centuries AD on the shores of the Oder and the Vistula (Gutones, Vandali) reappear from the 3rd century on in the area of the lower Danube and north of the Carpathian Mountains. For the end of the 5th century the Gothic name can be used - according to the historical sources - for such different peoples like the Goths in Gaul, Iberia and Italy, the Vandals in Africa, the Gepids along the Tisza and the Danube, the Rugians, Sciri and Burgundians, even the Iranian Alans. These peoples were classified as Scyths and often deducted from the ancient Getae (most important: Cassiodor/Jordanes, Getica approx. 550 AD)."
http://www.germantribes.org/migrations/jastorf_culture.htm
Here the archeological map of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age is also used, which can be found with slight differences in many books on the subject and which seems to reflect the common historic view.
"MIGRATIONS - PRE-ROMAN - JASTORF CULTURE
The Jastorf culture is an Iron Age material culture in what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC, forming the southern part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age
The culture evolved out of the Nordic (or Northern) Bronze Age, through influence from the Halstatt culture further south. It is named after a site near the village of Jastorf, Lower Saxony ( 53°3′N, 10°36′E). The Jastorf culture was characterized by its use of cremation burials in extensive urnfields and link with the practices of the Northern Bronze Age. Archeology offers evidence concerning the crystallization of a group in terms of a shared material culture, in which the (impoverished) Northern Bronze Age continued to exert cultural influence, and in which the northward thrust of Hallstatt into the same area was instrumental, while extensive migrations "should be discounted". No homogeneous contribution to the Germanic-speaking northerners has been determined, while earlier notions holding proto-Germanic peoples to have emigrated from Denmark during the Northern Bronze Age have been abandoned by archeologists.
Jastorf culture extended south to the fringes of the northern Hallstatt provinces, while towards the north a general congruence with the late phases of the Northern Bronze Age can be noted. Gravefields in Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg, western Pomerania, in Brandenburg and in Lower Saxony show continuity of occupation from the Bronze Age far into the Jastorf period and beyond. The specific contributions from the various quarters witnessing the meeting of Celtic and indigeous cultures during the early periods can not be assessed by the present state of knowledge, although a shift to a northern focus has been noted to accompany the dwindling vitality of continental Celtic cultures later on.
Its area was first restricted to northern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. It then developed a "very expansive" character (Wolfam 1999), expanding towards the Harz and reaching by about 500 BC Thuringia, lower Silesia and the lower Rhine, thus covering the southern and western parts of Lower Saxony. In its mature phase, the Jastorf area proper in northern Lower Saxony (Lüneburger Heide, lower Elbe) can be contrasted with the so-called Nienburg (also Harpstedt-Nienburg) group to the west, situated along the Aller and the middle Weser, bordering the Nordwestblock separating it from the La Tène culture proper further south. The Nienburg group has characteristics of material culture closer to Celtic cultures, and shows evidence of significant contact with the Hallstadt and Latène cultures. Isolated finds are scattered as far as Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Finds are mostly from tumuli, flat graves and Brandgruben graves. There are few and modest grave goods, with the weapon deposits characteristic of migration period graves completely absent.
Periodization is as follows:
6th century BC: Jastorf A (Hallstatt D)
5th century BC: Jastorf B (Latene A)
400-350 BC: Jastorf C (Latene B)
350-120 BC: Ripdorf (Latene C)
120-1 BC: Seedorf (Latene D)
The southern extend of Germanic cultures beyond Jastorf has recently been accounted for at the final stages of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, with the paucity of Late-Laténe bracelet-types in Thuringia and northeastern Hessen proposed to suggest population movements between the central-Elbe/Saale region, Main-Franconia and the edge of the Alps and to have been triggered by the spread of the Przeworsk culture.
The cultures of the Pre-Roman Iron Age are sometimes hypothesized to be the origin of the Germanic languages (Wolfram 1999 locates the initial stages of Grimm's Law here)."
http://www.germantribes.org/tribes/Lombards/lombards.htm
Now again for the expansion I've found a better map
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4782/600premigrationagegermakd1.png
According to this map Hesse is conquered later, but the Lugi territory clearly is seen as Germanic even before 100 B.C.
that's all from me for now. have fun with the info.
Frostwulf
01-29-2008, 18:33
Im not questioning your source. What Im saying is I think you formed your opinion first and THEN found literature/evidence to support it.
The right way would be to look at the whole assemblage of literature/evidence FIRST, and then form an opinion based on the whole picture (not just the part of it you want to see.)
Decide as you will, for quite a few years ago I read on Romans,Celts and such and from those reading I did form an opinion. Many years later I read things on this forum I didn't agree with and decided to see if my recollection was in error. After going through some books (Goldsworthy,Cunliffe,James etc.) I determined my recollection was correct. The above authors I was referred to by Psyco V, so if this fits what your saying then thats the way it is.
Here's what's wrong with your argument. Your basic claim is that the Germanic peoples were naturally more powerful/valourous in battle than the Celts.Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words Caesar used. I should have used skill and boldness and I also should have clarified during Caesars time, but there is no reason to think that the tactics of the 'Germani' would have changed that much from prior time. One thing you need to be clear on, I never said the Germanic peoples were naturally more anything! The Germans did outclass the Celts of this time just as the Romans outclassed the Germans. Any of these peoples could be replaced by each other, its not a "race" thing but a culture thing. The only difference would be in the natural size of the peoples which did exist.
Now first of all that's generalising on a grand scale. You give examples of where the Germans outclassed the Celts militarily. Of course it is, so is the stats used in the Game. I also put examples when the Romans defeated Celts.
Ill restate this, its not about race at all. If I say a Russian t-34 tank is superior to a U.S. Sherman tank, that doesn't mean that I'm pro-Russian. Its simply saying the t-34 tank is better. When I say the Roman legions are superior to the Germani in combat that doesn't mean that I'm a Roman apologist. When it came down to combat, in general the Romans defeated the Germans and the Romans were generally outnumbered. The Romans were superior for many reasons, arms, armor, unit tactics, etc. Now if the Celts had the training, tactics etc. of the Romans they would be just as tough. Its not about race, its about the cultures and the way they performed combat.
And so in the nicest possible way, Im saying I think you have a biased view of history (which is quite normal), and that's why I took Psycho's side rather than yours.I do appreciate the way you spelled it out, but again the way Psycho misrepresented me was unfair. If you read through the threads you would have seen that I explained things(which of course he ignored).
The artist formerly known as Johnny5.:beam:
blitzkrieg80
01-29-2008, 19:37
No no, please don't say the term German- Deutsch was used (Deut+'ish'), is used, and always was used by Germanic peoples (it's Indo-European). it may not have designated a state or language at the time, but neither did Germania! we are not Latin, therefore we should use correct language, which is based in the cultural language itself. Deutsch comes from Deut / Teut - 'tribe', 'people', not Teuton- the only thing 'Teutonic' are Teutons and those identifying with the Teutons, so yes 'Teutonic' would be wrong... nobody here is using that term
I will reply to your detailed request, Cmacq, when I get some time, unfortuantely that is not now.
btw, Tacitus' relation of Aesti to speaking a Celtic language shows his ignorance more than anything. The Aesti, like the Lusatian culture, or West Slavic, all might resemble nearby cultures and yet NOT be of those. I wholly agree that Old Prussian and the Balto-Slavs (specifically Balts) do not get the attention they deserve.
btw, please DO NOT give us more 'common conception' and internet sources on theoretical cultures such as these, because they may help YOU prove that people have ideas based on nonsense (such as that found in wikipedia)- but there is very little academic foundation in some of those sources. You can if you want, I suppose, but you won't convince any of us who have actually opened up books from universities rather than using wikipedia. I'm serious now- looking at that inappropriate bulk copy/paste and using it as any kind of argument really offends my senses. Everybody knows about Wikipedia, we don't need help seeing THAT easily accessible and inaccurate pop-information. Anyone got a Germanics For Dummies too? If Wikipedia gets something right, then good for them, but that unique and coincidental occurence has nothing to do with their database of user-input and generalization.
If you want to add your opinion, ect. that's cool. wikipedia as spam or proof is not.
Please don't say Deutsch.
Please read my posts above on the use of the term German and Jastorf Culture; Continuity and Contrast: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the Pre-Roman Iron Age and Ethnogenesis and Integration: A view from the Pre-Roman Iron Age Bardengau Zone. I'm using Deutsch instead of Nordic to refer to a specific ethnos. I fear that the archaeology of the Jastorf Culture actually can only demonstrate the possible presence of an early Deutsch enthos in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and west central Lower Saxony regions of northern Germany (modern Federal Republic) around 300 BC. However, much clearer evidence may be dated around the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC. Again please read above on page 5.
Deut-sch and Teuto-ones
þēod-OE, þeudā-protogermanic???, þiuda-Goth, þjóð'-ON, túath-OI, tout/teuto/toutâ-Gallic, tud-Welsh, tus-Cornish, tâutâ/tauto-OP, táuta-Lettic, toto-Umbric, totus-Latin, túvtú-Oscan, or teuto-Ingaevic???
This was one reason I used Nordic, yet even that seemed to cause confussion?
Right, Blitz I figured the Deutsch stuff would take some time.
I know I've moved things around a bit, but its a process.
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part Ia: The Urnfield Complex and the Early Kelts
The Concept and Chronology of the Urnfield Complex
The Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture was followed by the Urnfield complex, which was perhaps one of the most dynamic periods of temperate European prehistory. This complex was represented by a rather widespread common burial pattern which was associated with a number of local expressions. These include the Lusatian Culture, which is widespread over much of Poland, northeastern Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and northwestern Ukraine. Another expression is the Knovíz Culture of Bohemia and east central Germany.
Reinecke devised the chronological foundation for the European Bronze and Pre Roman Iron ages, as he differentiated the Hallstatt construct as yet another localized expression, replete with it own temporal scheme, that spanned both periods. In effect, Reinecke's Bronze D and Hallstatt A and B can be equated with the Late Bronze Age and the Urnfield complex. In calendrical terms, the Late Bronze Age covers the period from approximately 1300 to 750 BC.
It is important to note that the Late Bronze and Pre Roman Iron age terminus is extremely indistinct, due in large measure, to significant evidence of cultural continuity. For example, the developmental trajectory of many elements of the burial patterns, settlement forms, architectural features, and artifact designs continued uninterrupted from Hallstatt B or Late Bronze Age, into Hallstatt C of the Early Iron Age. With this said, it is also interesting that the transition from Late Bronze and Pre Roman Iron age witnessed the widespread abandonment of old settlements and foundation of many new communities within particular regions.
Burial Patterns
The Urnfield complex is considered a central European phenomenon as large Urnfield cemeteries are typically found throughout the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. However, this pattern of cremation burial also extended into France, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Scandinavia, Anatolia, and the British Isles. Pertaining to the later locales, the transition from inhumation to cremation in the Late Bronze Age was noted. Yet, these areas lack the vast scale of the typical Urnfield expression, as witnessed in central Europe.
Urnfield cremations are somewhat unexceptional when compared to the richness of earlier Bronze Age burials. In general, each burial pit included one or more ceramic vessels that contained the incinerated remains of the deceased and portions of the funerary pyre. Artifacts found within the urn were those items, unaffected by the conflagration, used to ornament the deceased during the cremation rite. Typically, these included bronze pins and jewelry; as well as glass and amber beads. Additionally, the burial pits often contained the other evidence of the pyre, as well as exequial vessels, some with the trace of carbonized funerary offerings, and other metal artifacts. However, a high-status burial was excavated near Poing, in Bavaria, that included elements of a four-wheel wagon, and bronze wagon models have been found in other Urnfield cemeteries across Europe.
Excavation of the Urnfield cemetery at Očkov in Slovakia, suggest a form of public funerary rite and use of monumental architecture. Here some of the burial population was cremated on a communal pyre that also consumed many bronze and gold artifacts. Evidence of these along with numerous broken vessels and the burned ash from the pyre were covered by a six meter high mound that was stabilized by a stone retaining wall.
There is evidence that the location, of some Urnfield burials, was marked by mounds or wooden mortuary structures. At Zirc-Alsómajer, in Hungary, between 80 and 100 mounds were built over cremations, some of which were found in small limestone slab cists. Returning to Kietrz, burials occasionally were situated among posthole patterns that suggest a small timber structure with a roof was built over the pit. The Urnfield burial pattern of enclosures, as indicated by a ditch, appears to have been concentrated in northwest Germany and the Netherlands. At Telgte in northwestern Germany, 35 cremations each centered within a keyhole-shaped ditch enclosure were excavated. The area within these small shallow ditches was about three to four meters in diameter with one side extended to enclose an elongated area, thus resembling a keyhole in plan. These were found within a cemetery that also included burials surrounded with round and oval ditches.
As the excavations at Kietrz, in Silesia of western Poland, attest that many Urnfield cemeteries were quite large; here about 3,000 burials were recovered. The Urnfield cemetery at Zuchering-Ost, in Bavaria, is estimated to have about 1,000 burials, while Moravičany, in Moravia, has provided another 1,260 cremations. Another large Urnfield population was recovered at Radzovce, in Slovakia. Here, another 1,400 burials were excavated (Kristiansen 2000). Smaller Urnfield cemeteries, such as the one excavated at Vollmarshausen and Dautmergen in Germany, provided 262 and 30 cremation burials, respectively. Further afield, 40 cremation burials were recovered from a Urnfield cemetery at Afton, on the Isle of Wright, England (Sherwin 1940). Several hundred Urnfield cemeteries have been investigated, and thousands more have been destroyed by cultivation and other development.
Settlement Patterns and Architectural Features
Near Munich, excavation of a large, open Late Bronze Age settlement at Unterhaching, uncovered evidence of about 80 houses, scattered over an area of 15 ha. The houses were rectangular in plan, primarily supported by four corner posts, and numerous smaller posts that delineated the walls. At Zedau, in eastern Germany, 78 small rectangular houses were excavated. Some were supported by the four post configuration while the roof support of the others consisted of two parallel rows of three posts. At Eching in Bavaria, two Urnfield settlements were investigated, each with about 16 houses.
Seventeen structures built over a long period were excavated at Riesburg-Pflaumloch, in Baden-Württemberg. Here, the long-houses, as defined by widely-spaced posthole patterns were interpreted as residential. In contrast, the smaller structures were defended as granaries. Furthermore, the construction sequence of these superimposed houses identified several structural clusters, which appears to have functioned as informal farmsteads that deminstrated a main and outlaying house dichotomy.
Another important Urnfield settlement is Lovčičky in Moravia, of the Czech Republic. Of the 48 rectangular houses recorded, many were outlined by widely spaced large postholes. Apparently, many of these structures had steeply pitched roofs, as a row of roof-support postholes were found aligned along the long axis of the structures. In the center of the settlement a large structure was found within a large open area. The structure was 21 meters long and covered about 144 m2. The formal layout of the settlement and the presence of a large central plaza with a community house suggest this site may have served some important but localized administrative function.
The Urnfield complex also witnessed a quantum increase in the number and size of fortified hilltop settlements. These fortifications were often elaborate, with their parameters delineated by bank and ditch features toped with palisades or stone faced walls reinforced with timber. Evidence of fortified hilltop settlements established in the Urnfield period within Hesse, include Glauberg, Hausberg, Milseburg, and Altenburg.
References Cited
Kristiansen, K. 2000
Europe before History (New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press.
Sherwin, G. 1940
Letter in Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeology Society 3, 236.
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part Ib: The Urnfield Complex and the Early Kelts
The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage
Context
The four most important contextual settings for the archaeological reconstruction of the Urnfield complex are; domestic, burial, hoards, and chance preservation. While the domestic setting has the potential to provide a context that could unify all aspects of the Urnfteld material assemblage, it often lacks examples of high-status artifacts. I contrast, the Urnfield burial context is relatively poor in terms of the overall number of artifacts that survived the burial ritual. However, the exceptions often provide a wide array of intact and fire damaged high-status ceramic and metallurgical artifacts. This context includes one or more ceramic vessels, metal vessels, tools, weapons, utilitarian items, and ceremonial accoutrements.
Although very common, the dating of Urnfield hoards suggest these were related to the widespread abandonment of many settlements at the end of the Late Bronze Age. These are often found near or in rivers, lakes, or other wet places like swamps or bogs. Some suggest they were some type of votive offering, as late Urnfield hoards often contained the same type of artifact diversity found in burial contexts.
chance preservation and bogs
Ceramics
Urnfield ceramics are typically manufactured from locally procured, fine-grained clay pastes that were generally tempered with a variety of mica, schist, and arcosic material types. Overall, vessels are hand-made using the coil and scrap or anvil methods. Vessel forms include cups, bowls, cauldrons, low-neck jars, and urns. Surface treatment is normally smoothed but not polished.
Decoration of some type is common yet large portions of individual vessels remain unembellished. Decoration techniques include fluting, patterned-incision, and obliterated-corrugation, while metallic inlay has been documented, as well. These forms of decoration often occur concurrently with modeled elements; such as coils, bumps, lugs, and handles. Vessel morphology include globular urns and animal effigy vessels; as well as, conical-, biconical-, and cylindrical-shaped jars, cups, and bowls. These often have low funneled-necks or cylindrical-necks with slightly flared rims.
Clay models and molds
Metallurgy
In the 2nd millennium BC the increasingly complex bronze metallurgical technology advanced many innovative ornamental, tool, and weapon designs. In the Late Bronze Age, within the Urnfield communities this process culminated with the emergence of several new manufacturing techniques. Among these methods included composite artifact production, typified by the assembly of numerous relatively small elements in order to create larger; as well as more intricate, aesthetic, and durable artifact types.
In part, this was achieved through a new technique that used bronze sheets, which were shaped into large and sometimes complex forms that were bound together with bronze rivets. Another new method was the use of investment casting or cire perdue, whereby a wax model is covered in a two part clay mold and fired. The wax melts and runs out, leaving a hollow cavity into which molten bronze was poured. When the clay mold was separated, a bronze cast of the wax form remained. As wax is a solid yet incredible malleable material, it was now possible to cast artifacts with detailed and finely executed artistic design.
Compared to the Middle Bronze Age, the metallurgical assemblage of the Urnfield complex was rather remarkable. Utilitarian artifact types included; razors, edged axes, winged axes, palstaves, socketed chisels, sickles, flat knives, socketed knives, T-knives, needles, fishhooks, nails, wire, and bellow nozzles. Personal or ceremonial items of adornment or special use consisted of pins, plain-bracelets, ribbed-bracelets, pendants, rings, fibulae, torcs, lurs, horns, socketed ceremonial signa, and miniature wagon models. A variety of Urnfield metal vessel forms, that appear to imitate ceramic prototypes, are also present. These include bowls, jars, and urns; while other vessel form types include cups made of sheet-bronze with riveted handles and large cauldrons with cross-attached elements.
Arms and Armor
One of the most conspicuous aspects of the Urnfield artifact assemblage is the diverse variety of weapons and armor, primarily found in ceremonial deposit and hoard contexts. Weapons types included swords, socketed spears, daggers, arrowheads, and socketed axes. In particular, the Urnfield swords demonstrate a great variety of lengths, widths, and shapes. In contrast to the Middle Bronze Age short stabbing sword, the leaf-shaped Urnfield sword appears to have been designed to deliver side or downward slashing blows.
These leaf-shaped swords commonly included a ricassco and a bronze hilt. The hilt was made separately of a different metal and attached to a blade, or the blade was cast with a tang so that the hilt could be affixed. Examples of swords with tangs are known from Rixheim, east of Mulhouse in the Alsace region of eastern France. The actual hilt of the tanged blades were made of wood, bone, and antler. Sword designs include the Auvernier-, Kressborn-Hemigkofen-, Erbenheim-, Möhringen-, Weltenburg-, Hemigkofen-, and Tachlovice-types.
Elements of defensive body armor include cuirasses, graves, shields, and helmets. These artifact types are extremely rare and virtually never found in burials. The finest example of a highly decorated bronze shield comes from Plzeň in Bohemia, which had a riveted handle. Similar examples of this type of shield have been found in Germany, western Poland, Denmark, England, and Ireland.
Examples of the Urnfield Bronze cuirass are known from Caka, Slovakia. Other complete bronze cuirasses were recovered from Saint Germain du Plain, in France. At Marmesse, near Haute Marne also in France, nine nested bronze cuirasses were found, while fragments of another was recovered in Albstadt-Pfeffingen, in Germany. Bronze circular plates, as a form of phalerae-like armor, that was attached to a leather lattice, have also been documented. Finally, finely decorated sheet-bronze greaves were found at Kloštar Ivani, in Croatia, and the Paulus cave, near Beuron in Germany.
The thin bronze sheet used to make the Urnfield body armor would not preclude a significant breech, particularly from a determined spear thrust. Thus, in defensive terms these may have been designed to blunt the force of impact, as a wood backing or protective undergarment would prevent or reduce actual penetration. Higher quality body armor sets also may have been designed as part of a ceremonially costume or a symbol of rank or office.
Wagons
One of the most intriguing Urnfield artifact types are the miniature wagon and cart models. For the most part, these have been found in southern Germany, Austria, and neighboring areas. The wheels have four spokes and turn on their axles. A cauldron or some type of vessel is often found attached to the wagon bed, while stylized aves, particularly waterfowl are often depicted, and overall appear to have been an important motif in Urnfield iconography.
Approximately 12 burials interned with bronze-fitted four-wheeled wagons have been excavated that date to the early Urnfield period. These wagons are coeval with and appear to be directly associated with the use of single-piece horse bits. Bronze (one-part) bits appear at the same time. These include the Hart an der Altz (Kr. Altötting), Mengen (Kr. Sigmaringen), Poing (Kr. Ebersberg), Königsbronn (Kr. Heidenheim) burials from Germany and the St. Sulpice (Vaud) burial, in Switzerland. Wood and bronze spoked wheels were found at Stade, in Germany, and at Mercurago, in Italy. Solid or dish-wheels made of wood have been excavated at Corcelettes, in Switzerland and at Wasserburg-Buchau, in Germany. Although very uncommon, two-part horse bits, apparently due to the influx of steppe influence, appear near the late Urnfield terminus.
Perishable Artifacts
Urnfield vessels made of wood have may have been widespread, yet have only been preserved in the waterlogged context of Auvernier, in Neuchâtel, Switzerland. The design of the metal shields appear to have been copied from wood examples which have been documented in northern Italy and the eastern Alps. Again, similarly designed leather shields have been recovered from bogs near Clonbrinn, in Ireland.
Subsistence Patterns
Social Organization and Warfare
Causality and Ethnogenesis
References Cited
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part II: Evidence of an Early Keltic Occupation of Central Hesse
The Glauberg Oppidum
Moving further we come to the state of Hesse, and the site of Glauberg, approximately 33 kilometers northeast of Frankfurt am Main (50º 18' 35" N 09º 00' 33" E). Although this region was inhabited by the Neolithic era, we will focus on the Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age occupation. Established around 1000 BC, the late Bronze Age site on the Glauberg hill represents a significant Urnfield Culture settlement.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/265819
After 750 BC this area was absorbed into Hallstatt and later LaTene cultural spheres. By the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the Glauberg settlement had became a district center of regional importance. At this time, it has been hypothesized that Glauberg was the seat of a Keltenfürst or Kelt prince, as its size and extensive fortifications indicate it functioned as an oppida (Herrmann 1990). The Pre-Roman Iron Age fortifications initially consisted of a massive ditch and bank that may have formed a hill fort. The south and north edge of the hill top was walled using dry-laid stone, murus gallicus, and mudbrick. Within this structure a small reservoir was built to supply defenders a source of water. At some point in the 5th century BC the fortifications were extended to the north and here a much larger reservoir was built (Fig 1).
At this time the Glauberg Oppidum covered an area of approximately 8.5 ha. Entry was gained through the main gate on the northeast and a smaller secondary gate to the south. The gates were designed to make access for an attacker as difficult as possible. Another weaker outer wall was built beyond the northeast edge of the oppidum (Herrmann 1985; 1998). Based on excavations conducted at the Manching Oppidum the enclosed area was filled with structures that once housed several thousand residents. Collectively, these formed a large village or town that was composed of streets, stockyards, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.
http://www.keltenfuerst.de/plateau/images/karte01.jpg
Figure 1. Map of the Oppida at Glauberg.
An apparent high-status burial precinct was identified immediately south of the fortifications. This area included a processional way, four complete or fragmentary ritual statues/stele (Fig. 2), a possible shire/temple structure, numerous ditch and bank features, and two large tumulus tombs, one of which was surrounded by a circular ditch. As this tomb was excavated an empty central burial pit, a wood-lined burial chamber that contained an inhumation, and a cremation placed within a wood container were found. The inhumation burial had not been looted and herein a gold torc and tubular bronze jug were recovered. Both burials appear to have been warrior burials as funerary items included swords and other weaponry. The second tomb contained another warrior inhumation burial complete with weapons, a fibula, a belt, and gold ring. At least two additional inhumation burials were recovered from this area.
During its heyday Glauberg was not a temporally or geographically isolated community. Other important Kelt population centers or fortifications are known in the general Rhein-Main and Central Hesse region. Extentively fortified sites have been recorded at Dünsberg near Giessen and Feldberg within the Taunus mountain range. Both are visible from Glauberg. One of the largest urban centers in Keltic Europe is the Heidetränk Oppidum located near Oberursel-Oberstedten, while the center of Keltic salt industry is found at Bad Nauheim.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Keltenf%C3%BCrst_Glauberg_Gesicht.jpg/300px-Keltenf%C3%BCrst_Glauberg_Gesicht.jpg
Figure 2. The head of the 'Prince of Glauberg' sandstone statue or stele.
The regional importance of the Glauberg Oppida appears to have waned in the 4th century, yet the settlement may have remained the seat of a lesser Keltic noble until the late 2nd century BC. The gradual decline of Glauberg appears to correspond closely to the rise of the Heidetrank Oppidum near Oberursel-Oberstedten. Although greatly reduced, the Pre-Roman Iron Age oppida and greater Glauberg community remained intact until it was abandoned sometime in the late 1st century BC. This abandonment appears to closely correspond to the period of Swabian expansion; possibly associated with the Chatti expulsion of the Ubii as recorded by Cassius Dio.
References Cited
Herrmann, F 1985
Der Glauberg am Ostrand der Wetterau. Arch. Denkmäler Hessen 51.
Herrmann, F 1998
Keltisches Heiligtum am Glauberg in Hessen. Ein Neufund frühkeltischer Großplastik. Antike Welt 29, 1998, 345—348.
Herrmann, F 1990
Ringwall Glauberg; in: Die Vorgeschichte Hessens, Herrmann, F. and A. Jockenhövel (eds.); Stuutgart: Theiss, p. 385-387.
Geoffrey S
01-31-2008, 00:24
Absolutely fascinating. It's giving me a far more nuanced image of the region than I had, and you have certainly convinced me to do some reading of my own now.
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part III: The Late LaTene Chiefdom of the Ubii
Gaius Julius Caesar mentioned the Ubii in connection to the Suebi’s expulsion and exodus of the Usipetes and Tenchteri, which occurred between 58 and 55 BC. He provides a basic description of this tribe and mentioned that he met with their ambassadors on several occasions. Furthermore, Caesar inferred that he had concluded an alliance with them and after crossing over the Rhine conducted a joint punitive campaign against the Suebi.
From Caesar's commentary;
Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum; et paulo, quamquam sunt eiusdem generis, sunt ceteris humaniores, propterea quod Rhenum attingunt multum ad eos mercatores ventitant et ipsi propter propinquitatem quod Gallicis sunt moribus adsuefacti. Hos cum Suebi multis saepe bellis experti propter amplitudinem gravitatem civitatis finibus expellere non potuissent, tamen vectigales sibi fecerunt ac multo humiliores infirmiores redegerunt. Julius Caesar-The Gallic Wars, Book 4, Chapter 4.
Next, in the other direction are the Ubiians, as ample and prosperous a state as Germany may provide. Although only a small nation they are civilized. This is because they largely border the Rhine where merchants regularly come and through proximity have become directly familiar with the Gallic manner. Often the Swabians severely test them in battle. Despite a great weight in numbers they are unable to expel this nation from its homeland. Nonetheless they are subject to tribute and are much weakened, reduced, and humbled.
Cassius Dio tells us that they were themselves eventually expelled by the Chatti in the course of establishing a new homeland. Thus, we understand that the late LaTene Keltic chiefdom of southwestern Hesse represents the Ubii and that their capital was the Heidetränk Oppidum.
The Heidetränk Oppidum
The huge Heidetränk Oppidum spans the Heidetränkbaches valley within the Taunus Highlands located about 16 km northwest of Frankfurt am Main. Overall, the settlement extends from the fortress situated on the Altenhöfe (50°13'43.66"N 08°30'35.97"E) in the southwest to the Goldgrube on the northwest (Figure 1). Furthermore, the main Oppida is surrounded by a number of small fortified settlements, the largest of which are the Altkönig and Gickelsburg fortresses. The smaller fortress settlements include the Hunerberg, Heidengraben, Blerbeskopf, and Rosskopf sites; as well as five even smaller fortified farmsteads. Unfortunately, almost no systematic archaeological investigations have been conducted at any of these important sites (Maier 1985).
http://www.oberurseler-forum.de/images/kelten_lage_01.jpg
Figure 1. General Plan of the Heidetränk Oppidum Fortifications.
The site appears to been founded in the 3rd century BC as two discrete middle LaTene fortresses on the Altenhöfe and Goldgrube ridges. These forts were expanded and later linked by extensive bank and ditch murus gallicus type walls in the 2nd century BC. The main gate appears to be located in the northeastern wall of the site. Numerous secondary gates are found along the entire walled parameter of the settlement. A graphic reconstruction of the main gate is provided below (Figure 2). When completed, the length these fortifications eventually reached approximately 10 kilometers and enclosed an area of about 130 ha, which is even larger that most medieval towns. Within the enclosed area are literally hundreds of terraces and platforms that supported thousands of residential structures (Maier 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altenhöfe Locus see the link provided below.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5360679#comment
The Heidetränk site seems to have been a flourishing hub for trade on the northern frontier of Keltic Germany. Intrusive artifacts also demonstrate the importance of trade in Baltic amber, Italian wine, bronze toiletry items and jewelry manufacted along the lower Rhine (Roymans 2005), as well as a large number of coins minted throughout central Europe. Although located in an area many researchers consider a cultural backwater, this community is recognized as the fourth largest Keltic settlement in all of Europe. For a map showing the extent of the greater Heidetränk community, see the link below (Maier 1985).
http://www.teutatesnet.de/portal/images/iupload/taunus.jpg
The Heidetränk Oppidum in the 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, appears to represent a major regional center. Extensive collections of locally made ceramics, weapons, coins, and jewelry indicate that this settlement was an important manufacturing focal point. Some have proposed that this settlement controlled the important iron and salt deposits in the Taunus Mountains and at Bad Nauheim respectively. However, by the middle of the 1st century the site appears to have gone into a rapid decline until it was abandoned in 10 BC, with the beginning of Roman occupation (Maier 1985).
http://www.oberurseler-forum.de/images/kelten_zangentor.jpg
Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Heidetränk Oppidum main gate.
The Altkönig and Gickelsburg Fortresses
Atop a steep hill situated about half a kilometer southwest of Heidetrank, are the massive stone walls of the Altkönig fortress (50°12'41.65"N 08°28'56.81"E). This site was founded as a contemporary of late Hallstatt and early LaTene (5th and 4th centuries BC) tumulus tombs found at Glauberg (Ferdinand 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altkönig fortress see the link provided below.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5365253
Several kilometers northeast of Heidetrank is the Gickelsburg fortresses situated on a southeast trending ridge (50°16'18.49"N 08°35'36.93"E). Based on the limited evidence recovered from this site, it appears to have had a history very similar to that of the Altkönig Fortress. Although both settlements declined in importance in the 2nd century, they continued to be occupied into the 1st century BC. Their abandonments in the late 1st century BC seemed to have corresponded to the general pattern of Keltic withdraw from Hesse as witnessed in the archaeological record.
References Cited
Roymans, Nico 2005
Ethnic Identity And Imperial Power: The Batavians In The Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam University Press.
Maier, Ferdinand 1985
Das Heidetrank-Oppidum: Topographie Der Befestigten Keltischen Hohensiedlung Der Jungeren Eisenzeit Bei Oberursel Im Taunus, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part IV: Fortified Settlements of Lesser Keltic Nobles
The Hausberg Fortress
Similar to the Gickelsburg and Altkönig loci near the Heidetrank Oppidum, another small Keltic fortress settlement is situated on the Hausberg hilltop located several miles southwest of Butzbach. The settlement actually consists of two loci, of which the larger northern settlement is called Hausberg (50°24'44.46"N 08°36'57.49"E), while the southern locus is known as Brülerberg (50°24'16.82"N 08°36'18.46"E). This settlement appears to have been positioned near an important agricultural area located immediately to the east. Archaeological investigations were conduced at these sites by Ferdinand Kutsch in 1911 and 1912 (Verlag 1996).
The Hausberg fortifications consist of two concentric bank and ditch enclosures with walls built with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. Weaker fortifications appear to have been extended in two phases to the north. A main gate was indentified in the east wall while several secondary gates are found at intervals along the alignment of the central enclosure. Overall, these features enclosed an area of about 12ha (Figure 1). To the south the Brülerberg fortifications included a central bank and ditch enclosure. Again the walls displayed elements of murus gallicus construction and the fortified area was later increased to the north with the addition of two bank and ditch based walls. The main gate and a secondary gate were found in the eastern and southern walls, respectively (Verlag 1996).
http://www.bfbag.de/plan2.gif
Figure 1. Plan of the Hausberg Fortifications.
The hilltop was initially occupied in the 9th century, as indicated by the presence of ceramics associated with the late Urn Field Culture. However, the Hausberg Locus was not apparently fortified until the Hallstatt Period between 650 and 475 BC. This settlement reached its greatest extent in the early LaTene Period in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The discovery of a number of Keltic coins, including one minted by the Mediomatrices, indicates that the Hausberg locus was occupied until 150 BC. In contrast, artifacts recently recovered including ceramics, a brooch, and a fragment of a bronze belt buckle indicates the Brülerberg locus was occupied in the Late LaTene Period from 150 to 80 BC. Examples of this site type dot the hilltops throughout the Wetterau area and appear to have functioned as the residence of lesser Keltic nobility (Verlag 1996).
The Dünsberg Oppidum
The Dünsberg Oppidum (50°39'4.52"N 08°35'14.86"E) is located northwest of Gießen within the Lahn River valley. The site appears to have been situated near several important trade routes and can be characterized as a large fortified hilltop. The first excavations were conducted by Ritterling and Brenner between 1906 and 1909. These excavation recovered a large collection that included ceramic and metal artifacts. Limited excavations associated with salvage or research projects also were conducted in 1951, 1965, 1974, 1977, and 1999.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2507074
The fortification consists of three concentric bank and ditch bands. Interestingly, upslope of the each bank was a shallow trough from where material was removed to build the walls. The walls atop the banks were faced with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. The wall interiors were filled with the rock and soil removed from the troughs located behind the banks. Numerous formal gates were identified, however a series of main gates appear to be located in the eastern walls. A photo of a reconstructed main gate is provided in the link above. Scattered throughout the interior of the enclosing walls were about 800 house platforms, as well as, several cisterns and reservoirs.
About 1 km west of Dünsberg a Late Bronze Age tumulus cemetery was identified within the Krodorfer Forest. Nearby, a Late LaTene (phase D2) cemetery was found, which consisted of several low rectangular or circular earthen-banked enclosures that each housed a cluster of urn cremations. About twelve cremation burials were recovered from this cemetery, which fits well the current view of small late LaTene funerary patterns (Schulze-Forster 1998). Several additional late LaTene cemeteries were found throughout the Krodorfer Forest as this is a common occurrence within the Lahn drainage and the nearby section of the Rhine River valley.
The First settlement established on the Dünsberg hill top dates to the Late Bronze Age. The ceramic assemblage and copper axe heads indicate this settlement was associated with the Urn Field Culture (Dehn 1986). The Hallstatt period is represented only by a small number of sherds and it is uncertain if Dünsberg was actually occupied at this time. The settlement was reestablished in the early LaTene period (B2). Although this occupation was relatively small, it seems to represent the first Oppida settlement, and may have been an important center for iron mining and production (Jacobi 1977).
While it is unclear if Dünsberg was continuously occupied, the settlement experienced massive growth in the middle LaTene period (C2 190-130 BC). The old walls were remodeled and expanded as extensive new fortifications were erected. The artifacts include an extensive ceramic assemblage while metal artifacts associated with this occupation include imported bronze vessels, a diverse set of tools, and a very large number of weapons and associated military gear (Figure 2)(Schlott 1999). Mildenberger (1980) concludes that many of the weapons date to LaTene D1 (130-80 BC) and were related with Kelto-Chattian war, while the remainder that date to D2 (80-30 BC) were associated with a later Romano-Chattian conflict. Others suggest the weapons were votive in nature and indicate the Kelts and Swabian confederates intermixed (Schlott 1999).
http://www.dainst.de/medien/de/duensberg3_k.jpg
Figure 2. Examples of Military Gear Found at Dünsberg.
Although the site was greatly reduced in importance by the middle of the 1st century BC, the presence of Swabian pottery and occurrence of a variant of the Forrer 352 coin type indicate the site was occupied very late in the 1st century BC. In fact, the recent excavation of a battlefield in front of gate 4 indicate that Dünsberg was abandoned in 10 or 9 BC (Herrmann 2000; Rittershofer 1999, 2000). The Dünsberg Battlefield will be revisited below.
The Milseburg Oppidum
Located east of Fulda, Milseburg (50°32'48.57"N 09°53'54.11"E) had a history similar to other Oppida communities found witin the Hesse region. The site was initialy investigated by Vonderau Joseph between 1900 and 1906. His excavation recovered a very large ceramic assemblage and metal artifacts that included; iron spearheads, arrow points, and other tools. More recent excavations were conducted between 2003 and 2004 by Matthias Mueller (Maier 2004).
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/337180
The site consists of a large fortified hilltop that enclosed an area of approximately 33 ha. The exterior wall was built of dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. On the northern, east, and southern slope of the hilltop the wall appears to have been about four to twelve meters wide (Figure 3). Because of rock outcrops and steepness, most of the western slope remained largely unwalled (Maier 2004).
http://www.rhoenline.de/uploads/pics/oppidum_milseburg-01.jpg
Figure 3. Photo of the Milseburg Oppidum.
The Rohn valley, Milseburg settlement was initially established in the Late Bronze Age as an Urnfield complex hilltop settlement. Later it became an important demographic and economic center on the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural frontier. The site was intensely occupied in the 2nd century, yet was abruptly abandoned at some point in the 1st century BC (Maier 2004).
References Cited
Dehn, W. 1986
Dünsberg. In J. Hoops (Ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, pp. 260-263.
Herrmann, F. 2000
Der Dünsberg bei Gießen: Führungsblatt zu dem Keltischen Oppidum bei Biebertal-Fellingshausen, Kreis Gießen (2 ed.), Volume 60 of Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.
Jacobi, G. 1977
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.
Maier, Ferdinand 2004
Das nordmainische Hessen im Randbereich der keltischen Oppida-Kultur, in Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen, Heft 4, 1996/1997. Herausgegeben von Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen.
Mildenberger, G. 1980
Die germanische Besiedlung des Dünsbergs. Fundberichte aus Hessen 1977/78 17/18, 157-163.
Rittershofer, K. 1999
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.
Rittershofer, K. 2000
Dünsberg 2000 Website Textbeitrag.
Schlott, C. 1999
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.
Schulze-Forster, J. 1998
Noch einmal zu den latènezeitliche Grabgärten am Dünsberg. Berichte der Kommission für archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 5, 49-64.
Verlag, Afra 1996
Siedlungen der Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Butzbach und seinen Stadtteilen, in: Butzbacher Hefte 5.
[ Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part V: Keltic Settlements in Northern Hesse
The Altenburg Oppidum
(51° 2'42.66"N 09°12'58.07"E)
Pre Roman Iron Age settlements in the Gudensberg Area
(51°10'47.89"N 09°21'9.65"E)
The Results of Recent Archaeological Investigations in Kessel
(51°18'48.43"N 09°30'17.44"E)
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part VI: Terminal Occupation and Archaeological Evidence of Warfare
In archaeological terms the chance preservation of a battlefield is an extremely rare occurence, and evidence of an ancient battlefield even more so. With this in mind, as early as the 1970’s, looters using metal detectors plundered many of the prehistoric sites in the modern State of Hesse. In fact, the site of the Dünsberg Oppidum itself has not escaped this fate. It was through the procurement of some of these artifacts by museums that information about their provenance suggested a large collection of Keltic and Roman weapons. Collectively, there armaments dated to the last decades of the 1st century BC and appeared to cluster near Gate 4 of the Dünsberg Oppidum. Jacobi (1977) and Schlott (1999) have linked these artifacts to the military campaigns of Drusus against the Chatti in 10 and 9 BC, as recorded by Cassius Dio.
The Dünsberg Battlefield
Excavations conducted in 1999 and 2000 at the Dünsberg Oppidum were concentrated on a partition of the rampart immediately west of Gate 4 (Figure 1). This area seemed to have experienced two phases of construction. The early phase was located approximately five meters behind the later wall alignment. This earlier wall appears to have been completely dismantled, as only a linear posthole alignment with a 2.5 meter spacing remained. Investigations suggested this wall was made of dry-laid stone reinforced with a timber superstructure, that may have been built late in the 2nd or very early in the 1st centuries BC. Immediately in front of this wall was a two meter deep flat bottom ditch (Rittershofer 1999; 2000).
http://www.duensberg.de/gifs/duensberg/5.jpg
Figure 1. Graphic Reconstruction of Gate 4.
At some point after the middle of the 1st BC, the first wall was dismantled and a second wall was built on sterile soil immediately in front of the defensive ditch that was associated with the earlier wall. This wall was indicated by an alignment of square postholes and three courses of the stone exterior facing wall. The vertical square-posts were anchored by sets of posts hammered at oblique angles into another exterior ditch face. In turn, these were secured by horizontal beams. Plaster casts of the oblique postholes demonstrate these were rough-hewn tree trunks with limbs cut to a length of 10 cm (Rittershofer 2000).
Along this portion of the later wall numerous offensive and defensive weapons were found. These included a few Roman slingshot lead balls, arrowheads, and spearheads that date to the Augustan era; and a much larger collection of late Keltic artifacts. The Keltic artifact assemblage consisted of over 50 iron spearheads, nails, arrowheads, fragments of swords, horse bits, bronze harnesses, an almost complete bronze Hofheim-type bridoon, and several bronze rein rings, occasionally found with ornamental design and fragments of leather still attached (Rittershofer 2000).
Additional items included bronze and iron linchpins, and a bronze body mount; these all the remains of several Keltic war chariots. This military gear was augmented by the discovery of fragments of bronze sword-scabbards with an occasional intact piece of sword, and finally a nearly complete Keltic iron sword actually embedded in the wall face. Overall, this assemblage seems to represent the chance preservation of the weapons used in an assault on the Dünsberg's fortifications, thus accounting for similar discoveries made prior, in this area (Rittershofer 2000).
References Cited
Jacobi, G. 1977
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.
Rittershofer, K. 1999
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.
Rittershofer, K. 2000
Dünsberg 2000 Website Textbeitrag.
Schlott, C. 1999
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.
PershsNhpios
02-04-2008, 01:41
Does anyone here feel that the Sweboz in EB are overpowered?
Jaywalker-Jack
02-05-2008, 03:03
double post
Jaywalker-Jack
02-05-2008, 03:04
Does anyone here feel that the Sweboz in EB are overpowered?
Good luck to you sir! :sweatdrop:
Rhipsaspis
02-05-2008, 20:01
Actually I think they're fine just the way they are bar a double-handed weapon or two. I've played campaigns with them and against them, I think they're pretty damn tough indeed!
PershsNhpios
02-05-2008, 22:47
Exactly, they are way overpowered, and their weapons weren't that well made either.
Historical evidence shows that the Sweboz in particular fought with sharpened rocks attached to roughly made pine shafts.
The Sweboz were also nomadic people who mostly slept in trees, hence the name Sweboz, ("Tree-people").
Also, the fact that these people have made such a defense of themselves is very suspicious... They may be a prime target for a lynch.
I think you're getting a bit to much into this mafia thing, Glenn.
Germanic peoples mainly fought using spears indeed, spears called the frame.
No surprise as 'Ger' actually means spear in germanic.Thus spearmen literally.
Now historical works suggest they used shieldwalls. Also all weapons featured ingame were found and determined to be used in this area at this time.
Maksimus
02-05-2008, 23:11
I am truly interested what is the pattern and ideal (goal) for EB team when they are making stats in EDU :grin:
As I am aware there are at first some basic constructions that are tweaked ''along the way'' - and then there are some serious tests or comparations based on another basic constructions.. ..
Sometime it seems to me that some units are stronger and/or weaker in EDU (and they are tweaked along the way) because AI Campaign expansion should be considered :shrug: ..sorry but I got that impression ..
So what is really the pattern? How does this work in EB? Is it by saying:''OK, Nomad cavalry was the best so they have 10% stronger cavalry units unlike the others'' :shrug: ...
No. Stats are made by following a system. However the system is always subject to change, if we see that it gives unrealistic results in battle. What we sometimes do is, adjust the money helping scripts to get factions to function better.
Sounds like this thread is no longer going down the path it was headed before I hijacked it. It actually looks very productive now and I don’t want to get in the way.
So if you don’t mind, I’ll move my part of the Kelt and Swabian discussion to another threat, for reference.
However, I have a question as well.
Is it possible to introduce a much greater chance that individual Swabian provenances may revolt without the presence of a very strong FL overall and local FMs?
Thanks in advance.
i'm not sure how well we can do that, but i'd like to see something like that put into place.
Are the Sweboz overpowered?
No! They are indeed one of the weakest factions in the game. Their Bonus is their isolated starting position, which makes it able to first build up an empire and then deal with enemy factions. They have also an advantage for tactics, cause of their bonus in woods (and no diadvantage in snow). I think this is why some guys here have problems fighting them. For players how are aware of this, fighting sweboz is absolutly no problem (at least not for me).
Are the sweboz underpowered?
I don't think so, they are just missing their Wolf- and Bearwarriors (and bit of cost decrease). The only unit which is really too weak are the Bodyguards.
@Rhipsaspis: How long did you play your Sweboz campaign in 1.0? At least, when rome (in my campaign also KH) starts to spamm 2-3 full stacks of their heavy units, you will see how weak the sweboz are. In the beginning when rome only send armies of celtic levies, yes thats easy. But that changes.
@Glenn: Spears weren't the only weapon, the Swebos used. And not all of them were of poor Quality. Furthermore, even the poorest of those Spears were deadly in the hands of skilled warriors and finally it was enough to drive the romans out Germania:smash: .
Mfg MM83
Rhipsaspis
02-06-2008, 19:16
@Rhipsaspis: How long did you play your Sweboz campaign in 1.0? At least, when rome (in my campaign also KH) starts to spamm 2-3 full stacks of their heavy units, you will see how weak the sweboz are. In the beginning when rome only send armies of celtic levies, yes thats easy. But that changes.
To be honest I'd consider that more of an engine problem that any of the factions can "spam" their best units (which I imagine can/will be fixed in EB2).
After playing vanilla RTW for so long I got hooked on the notion that every battle has to be a decisive action, until I started playing as the Sarmatians a few EB versions back, I realised I don't have to defeat that huge stack in one battle, I attack, withdraw, attack. I found that quite successful with my campaign as the Arverni also when facing better equipped enemies, I find it quite a believable solution.
To be honest I'd consider that more of an engine problem that any of the factions can "spam" their best units (which I imagine can/will be fixed in EB2).
M2TW has a much better way of balancing the availability of troops. No more Triarii/Gaesatae/Cataphract spamming :beam:.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
02-06-2008, 20:43
M2TW has a much better way of balancing the availability of troops. No more Triarii/Gaesatae/Cataphract spamming :beam:.
You mean we could face Hastati/Principes/Triarii Legions? That'd be awesome indeed. Hope my Compi can handle M2TW though.~:(
No, sorry. We can't make the AI recruit historical armies. We can however limit the availability of elite forces so that the run-of-the-mill troops will have to be used.
@Rhipsaspis: Well, for my own Sauromatae campaign I also use a similar tactic (even don't know how often I had to reconquer some of my settelments). For the Sweboz I use another tactic (fighting in woods/snow and run over the enemy flanks). But this isn't the point I wanted to say. I wanted to point out, that the Sweboz unit's aren't overpowered. Their unit's are neither strong nor cost effectiv in comperision to other factions units (exept the levies), I also didn't wanted to claim that a player can't win with them. Just to make this sure, I'm not a supporter for a sweboz "super" unit. In generall I'm pleased with the stats of the Sweboz units (except the Bodyguards). But well, what do think about their (Sweboz Bodyguards) strength? The results of duells against Arjos, Solduros or Neitos, are clear against the Sweboz Bodyguards. I think a bit too clear.
I don't want them to be an "Überkrieger", I just think they did a bit better in history. And I would be happy about Wolf- and Bearwarriors:2thumbsup: .
Mfg MM83
PershsNhpios
02-07-2008, 01:45
By rocks attached to pine shafts I didn't mean spears.
See the Sweboz, (Tree-people), would often wrap three large rocks to the centre of a small shaft, and when it came time for the charge of battle, they would hold the shaft at both ends, and push the enemy with the central rocks.
Sometimes they used four, and the upper class Germans who could afford estates usually had opals instead of rocks.
These upper class were referred to as Marcomanni in Latin, (Upper-classi).
Right, this is getting good now.
PershsNhpios
02-07-2008, 07:23
Quote something from a book, they will berate you.
Quote from the first thoughts that enter your head, and you can write the facts unassailed!
Oh, if anyone wants me to relate any more facts on the Sweboz, don't hesitate to ask, it's an interesting book I'm reading on them.
I will cite the name and author when I find it.. it's written by someone who went to a university!
By rocks attached to pine shafts I didn't mean spears.
See the Sweboz, (Tree-people), would often wrap three large rocks to the centre of a small shaft, and when it came time for the charge of battle, they would hold the shaft at both ends, and push the enemy with the central rocks.
Sometimes they used four, and the upper class Germans who could afford estates usually had opals instead of rocks.
These upper class were referred to as Marcomanni in Latin, (Upper-classi).
What?
At least you should know that the Marcomanni were part of the suebi confederation - for better understanding a suebi tribe.
Interesting that those things you've read in the book are called facts by you, but if it was written by someone who went to university it must be the only truth:smash:
And please, don't talk about facts from a mysterious book those are unknown to any other respected historian.
Also it would be interesting how you came to the conclusion the proto-germanic Sweboz means Tree-People?
You really want us to believe the Sweboz who fought Caesar, raided and conquered a part of Gaul were people who fought in a early bronze-age way?
This is just funny and perhaps blitzkrieg or others want to discuss this things with you.
Sadly i have no time for this - reminds me too much of Psycho's arguments.
PershsNhpios
02-07-2008, 10:11
... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh, oh finally, hooray, a serious discussion with somebody!
Safe, everybody knows Swe is Tree, and Boz, is the plural of person in proto-germanic. This is the Europa Barbarorum forum by the way, we know things.
Swe even RHYMES with Tree - how obvious is that!
It isn't the Marcomanni, (Upper-Classi), it is the Myrkophani tribe you are speaking of.
But I forgive your mistake, because I am a fan of the Myrkophani myself, many of their best leaders were scholars under Epitome the Greek Philosopher, including Baergu, Jue, and Travenos the black Weredog.
Anyway, back to actual combat techniques.
The Tree People found that they were out-classed by the Reeboz, (Sea-People), who had boats and also bows.
The Sweboz, (Tree-People), responded by making a ranged version of their rock-stick, (Rokstek), by attaching two rocks to each end of a shaft, and then adding one rock to either end to make that end heavier.
When thrown, this weapon would swing around a bit, and if the enemy got hit with the heavier end, it would hurt more than if they got hit with the lighter end.
The Tree People knew this, as they were smart men, disciples of Epitome.
By smart men, I do not mean to confuse them with the smart-people, (Rartboz), but I will await more interest before detailing them.
By the way, for reference, here is my super-duper know-it-all book written by someone who went to university.
The German People, (Die Jerboz) - written by Schaansen Blaarns
For anyone who didn't understand it, Glenn has been joking all along. It was a light-hearted but apparently unwelcome parody of some other posts here, I believe.
... The German People, (Die Jerboz) - written by Schaansen Blaarns
Was that 'die Gerbils' or 'Gerbillinae/Rennmäuse' and the 'Marcomanni/Meriones unguiculatus?'
PershsNhpios
02-08-2008, 07:32
No, that was me stirring up trouble amongst over-zealous aspiring historians whilst awaiting my fate in Capo de Tutti Capi II. Read it! Amazing!
Anyway, "Die Jerboz", was continuing in the parodic pattern I made, boz meaning people, Jer, as in German, and Die, as in trying to state subtly that, 'die' existed in Proto-Germanic as, "The".
I can't claim to actually know anything on the history of Germanic folks that isn't written in the apparently over-biased accounts of Caius Caesar and Cornelius Tacitus, but I will eventually approach them.
For now it is Roman Consular History, Ab Urbe Condita, and Classical Latin - As well as a base study of the Rhetoric, Dialectic and Topics.
I don't discuss it on here because you usually come into contact with the likes of SaFe, who will treat you like scum no matter what you write.
Well done, SaFe.
I thought Santa Fe was a nice little town when I visited last?
... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh, oh finally, hooray, a serious discussion with somebody!
Safe, everybody knows Swe is Tree, and Boz, is the plural of person in proto-germanic. This is the Europa Barbarorum forum by the way, we know things.
Swe even RHYMES with Tree - how obvious is that!
It isn't the Marcomanni, (Upper-Classi), it is the Myrkophani tribe you are speaking of.
But I forgive your mistake, because I am a fan of the Myrkophani myself, many of their best leaders were scholars under Epitome the Greek Philosopher, including Baergu, Jue, and Travenos the black Weredog.
Anyway, back to actual combat techniques.
The Tree People found that they were out-classed by the Reeboz, (Sea-People), who had boats and also bows.
The Sweboz, (Tree-People), responded by making a ranged version of their rock-stick, (Rokstek), by attaching two rocks to each end of a shaft, and then adding one rock to either end to make that end heavier.
When thrown, this weapon would swing around a bit, and if the enemy got hit with the heavier end, it would hurt more than if they got hit with the lighter end.
The Tree People knew this, as they were smart men, disciples of Epitome.
By smart men, I do not mean to confuse them with the smart-people, (Rartboz), but I will await more interest before detailing them.
By the way, for reference, here is my super-duper know-it-all book written by someone who went to university.
The German People, (Die Jerboz) - written by Schaansen Blaarns
Thank you for your kind words Glenn, b.t.w. boz doesn't mean plural in protogermanic, i think you mean rather the ending -oz.
I fear your kind of sarcasm is lost on me.
Also i'm not sure if i treat anyone as scum, i just don't like to read about "facts" without proof, had that experience too often with other stuff.
blitzkrieg80
02-08-2008, 20:51
It's OK, SaFe, I suppose lazy children who do not want to open those ancient things called pages, they will always hijack threads, spam and rant about their ego and display their lack of wit (you want a challenge in insanity, Bub? You give me a try).
Glenn is burro, grade D scum, among bottomfeeders at home in their mediocrity... used cars or journalism anyone?
My challenge has yet to start by the way... my words above are empirical analysis
PershsNhpios
02-09-2008, 02:48
Gee, I'd really like to Mr. FastWar, but I'm feeling far too lazy and undecided, I'm think I'm going to go have a sit down.
By the way, I'm better than you.
Regards,
The King of England.
Mouzafphaerre
02-09-2008, 03:28
.
If you guys want to poke at each other just come over to the chatroom. :smash:
.
Where all the good pokers are?
Mouzafphaerre
02-09-2008, 21:54
.
Absolutely! :2thumbsup:
.
Tellos Athenaios
02-09-2008, 21:56
That smash smiley is midly ominous. :juggle:
Mouzafphaerre
02-10-2008, 02:05
.
Yea, somewhat. ~:handball:
.
PershsNhpios
02-10-2008, 03:49
:biker: I think this smiley is so cool.
So cool, I think I'll name him Blitzy.
I'd consider some of the more recent posts by multiple parties antagonistic and without any other, constructive purpose. Might a moderator do a bit of clean-up?
Oh, and people should learn to take jokes, or at least accept them graciously when they don't get them. Also, other people should be aware that jokes rarely work well in times new roman size 12 font, even with smiley faces.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.