What are the Cimbri?

Hi all! This is my first time posting, and I must say that EB is a HUGE improvement over vanilla Total War. I can't believe I just got started on EB and now there's an EB 2 being made!!:dizzy2: Just a quick question though, I have always thought that the Cimbri were germanic. But when my cousin flew in last week and the conversation turned to celtic and germanic tribes, which he is fanatical about, and I told him my opinion of there origins, he went into this deep conversation of proof that they were celtic. He then showed me a site... here's the URL

http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf

After reading it, my beliefs about the Cimbri have been shaken. What do you guys think, celtic, or germanic? :help:

I'm not really qualified to answer, though Wikipedia says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Advocates for a northern homeland point to Greek and Roman sources that associate the Cimbri with the peninsula of Jutland, Denmark. According to the Res gestae (ch. 26) of Augustus, the Cimbri were still found in the area around the turn of the First Century AD:

My fleet sailed from the mouth of the Rhine eastward as far as the lands of the Cimbri, to which, up to that time, no Roman had ever penetrated either by land or by sea, and the Cimbri and Charydes and Semnones and other peoples of the Germans of that same region through their envoys sought my friendship and that of the Roman people.
The contemporary Greek geographer Strabo testifies that the Cimbri still existed as a Germanic tribe, presumably in the "Cimbric peninsula" (since they are said to live by the North Sea and to have paid tribute to Augustus):

As for the Cimbri, some things that are told about them are incorrect and others are extremely improbable. For instance, one could not accept such a reason for their having become a wandering and piratical folk as this that while they were dwelling on a Peninsula they were driven out of their habitations by a great flood-tide; for in fact they still hold the country which they held in earlier times; and they sent as a present to Augustus the most sacred kettle in their country, with a plea for his friendship and for an amnesty of their earlier offences, and when their petition was granted they set sail for home; and it is ridiculous to suppose that they departed from their homes because they were incensed on account of a phenomenon that is natural and eternal, occurring twice every day. And the assertion that an excessive flood-tide once occurred looks like a fabrication, for when the ocean is affected in this way it is subject to increases and diminutions, but these are regulated and periodical.[3]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri

They were germanic, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur, king of the Britons

They were germanic, you shouldn't believe anything you read on the internet.

---

then i dont believe you^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFS2006

then i dont believe you^^

---

D'oh I meant to write everthing. Thanks for the heads up.

afaik the cimbri themselves(thus those that lives in denmark) were germanic. yet the Cimbri that invaded roman territory had been wandering through central europe and took everyone who wanted to join with them and they thus became part of the "army"/"warband"/"mob". this made them Cimbri so It is probably correct that many(I'd guess 50-60%) of them were originally celts.

Doesn't anyone think the story that the Cimbri all left their homes in Northern Denmark and then marched the whole length of Germany ( presumably being supplied with provisions by numerous other Celtic and/or Germanic tribes the whole way, with no objections from anyone) and then turned East into the Balkans before turning back and going for Italy is just a little far-fetched? Isn't it much more likely that these Cimbri were Celts who just happened to have the same or a similar name to the Danish ones?

There are more occasions of peoples moving such distances, just look at the later Germanic peoples.

I do think they are Germanic, many Celts might have joined them and that is probably the reason some think they were Celts but coming from the heartland of Germania from which the Germanics spread south they most likely were Germanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

There are more occasions of peoples moving such distances, just look at the later Germanic peoples.

---

No, that's completely different.

As in the Cimbri weren't forced away? First need to know the reason, perhaps the crops were low or something similar. I don't see how them not being forced away (in people migrations definately not all people of an certain tribe move away) makes them an Celtic tribe.

Who knows what reasons they had to search for new lands to settle on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Doesn't anyone think the story that the Cimbri all left their homes in Northern Denmark and then marched the whole length of Germany ( presumably being supplied with provisions by numerous other Celtic and/or Germanic tribes the whole way, with no objections from anyone) and then turned East into the Balkans before turning back and going for Italy is just a little far-fetched? Isn't it much more likely that these Cimbri were Celts who just happened to have the same or a similar name to the Danish ones?

---

That's actually an intriguing idea, and quite possible given how imprecise the names of barbarian tribes were recorded. But like Phalanx300, I wonder why you think the Cimbri migration different from the later ones.

You're talking about the Goths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

You're talking about the Goths?

---

Or the Angles, Saxons, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, or Vandals... They all migrated into Roman lands, some of them (notably the Vandals and Visigoths) traveling just as far, if not farther, than the Cimbri did. These migrations do sound far-fetched, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

At the same time, I agree that it is very possible that there were two similarily named tribes, one Germanic and one Celtic, that we are confusing as being one in the same. It's an interesting idea.

Found another interesting tidbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Since the Cimbri are known to have inhabited the northern part of the Jutland peninsula, and are therefore equated with the Jutes, it follows that the Teutons inhabited the area of Schleswig-Holstein, and are therefore to be equated with the Angles. Between 120 and 114 BC the territory of the Cimbri and Teutons suffered extensive flooding, and much land was permanently submerged in what is known as the Cimbrian Flood, forcing the tribes to seek new living space.[4]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._of_the_Angles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Doesn't anyone think the story that the Cimbri all left their homes in Northern Denmark and then marched the whole length of Germany ( presumably being supplied with provisions by numerous other Celtic and/or Germanic tribes the whole way, with no objections from anyone) and then turned East into the Balkans before turning back and going for Italy is just a little far-fetched? Isn't it much more likely that these Cimbri were Celts who just happened to have the same or a similar name to the Danish ones?

---

I'm not sure about their journey from jutland but, don't we know they came into conflict with the Boii and other tribes and were driven back westward.

Also given their extensive movement all over gaul and nothern iberia, is it not too hard to imagine them making the journey from jutland to noricium, where the romans first encountered them?
I do believe celts made up a significant part of the numbers though.

The Cimbri were indeed Germanic, in that their homeland was east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. And... as far as far-fetching, they did leave a somewhat significant archaeological footprint across the face of western Europe. There has been a great deal of research and debate concerning the Cimbri and related peoples of greater Germania, concerning the who, where, and when of what they were. But quite frankly, if I may, I’m simply not willing to share this informaion and these data at this particular instant. However, I will promise, that at the proper time, many may well be, entirely overwhelmed.

I’ll drop several small scraps to fight over. The first is that the Cimbric migration was a water-shed event for pRIA Europe. Second the archaeological evidence is very clear that the Cimbric migration broke the military back of the Boii, in their homeland. This eventually caused most of the people of the tribes that composed the Boii confederation to abandon much of southwestern Germania, which was all but completed, about forty years later. Finally, directly and as a provocation, the Cimbric migration was instrumental in what can only be called 'the coming change;' assisting the final disintegration of Rome's fragile republic and ushering in elements that ultimately would fundamentally transform the political and ethnic landscape of Europe.

Aye, food for thought.

I'm sorry, but all I'm really hearing is people saying that they were German, and couldn't possibly be anything else, without any proof.:inquisitive:

That site that I first mentioned makes some very strong arguments in favour of there being Celtic. I was looking for an answer that could put
my mind at ease about there origins. I've gone through many forums where they just go on and on about how because they lived east of the Rhine that's
proof enough that there germanic. Yet as Dr. Faux points out, they do not have any problem putting the Galatians in modern day Turkey, far from the Celtic homeland.:inquisitive:

It's not that because of my celtic origins I'm trying to prove they were celtic, in fact I'm almost all German. I'm just not seeing proof in favour of there being Germanic.:wall:
Read some of Dr. Faux's report, see what you think.:juggle2:

Oh, and thank you Madoushi, for your information. :beam:

OK, please reread my post above, I didn't actually say they were ethnic Germanics. I slimply pointed out that they were Germanic because early on, that term was only used by Classical authors as a geographic qualifier. Therefore, greater Germania was 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube,' and those that lived there were seen as Germans. Even the most causal observer will note that the Boii, who were eastern Celts, lived 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube.' Again a cursory review will clearly demonstrate that the Celtic Boii, who were considered Germans, because they lived in greater Germania, yet they were not unique. However, on the other hand in the paper cited above, which I've looked over, some of the information, primarily outside Faux's particular field, is not well research. Nonetheless, that is not to say that Faux's theory has no merit. Overall, at this time I'm simply not at liberty to; nor do I care to offer up, much more than that.

That is not entirely correct because no ancient author made a difference between north and south of the Danube, as far as I know. The Greeks in addition usually did not differ between Celts and Germanics, for the most Greek authors there were the Celts and the Skythic people as the "barbarian" world. The term Germanic was first used simply as a name for a certain tribe. The term became more common after the Suebic intrusion in Gallia for the intruders.

The river Rhine as a border between Celts and Germanics however was Caesars idea, caused by inner Roman political affairs. In reality it seems to have been more a north-south distinction than a west-east one. Even then the problem is, when you have archaeologic findings, you have difficulties to judge correctly to what ethnicity the people who left them belonged to. In the second century BC it is even difficult to speak of a Germanic or Celtic culture for every settlement. There were for example the Nordic Group, the Jastorf culture, the Przeworsk culture, the Latene culture and so on. Wether they were Celts or Germanics in the ancient sense is difficult to decide. There was a mixed zone in middle Germany around the river Main (that is far north the river Danube) where you find oppida like settlements but also many "Germanic" findings. Ade/Willmy in their little book "Die Kelten" gave a nice example for that: a village where you find many baseball caps, jeans and Coca-Cola bottles must not be inhabitated necessarily by North Americans.

To the Cimbri, Teutones, Ambrones and Harudes : I believe at least the Cimbri came to a large part from what is now Denmark or North Germany and could be understood as Germanic people, although all known kings had Celtic names. Poseidonios, an educated and well informed jouneyman and scientist visited Gallia shortly after the Cimbric wars and searched for the origin of the people, identifying them as Celts. On the other hand Strabo tells us that the Cimbri and Harudes sent envoys to Augustus and begged for pardon for what their forefathers did to the Romans, and these Cimbri came from the North Sea.

At the time when it counted in battle however, I believe the "barbarian" hosts of the Cimbric Wars were a conglomeration of Germanic and Celtic groups.

I have some expertise in this field, though as a historian I am probably bested in it by Cmaq who is an acheologist. Good to see you back :-) and now I can guess why you went silent.

In any case, I have written some posts on this in the EB Forum.

If you are at liberty to publicize no more, can I get a copy in private?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

I have some expertise in this field, though as a historian I am probably bested in it by Cmaq who is an acheologist. Good to see you back :-) and now I can guess why you went silent.

In any case, I have written some posts on this in the EB Forum.

If you are at liberty to publicize no more, can I get a copy in private?

---

Indeed the world turns; hows your Beowulf?

Let's not forget that "Celt" and "Germanic" are constructs applied by the Greco-Roman historians and writers looking to qualify these peoples. What's my point? That those historians didn't have the knowledge or the evidence to correctly describe the mentioned tribes, the texts they wrote were created more than two thousand years before ethnography. At best, they used second or third hand sources and many times they made up the information they lacked. The vast majority of material dealing with "barbarians" was written by authors who watched them through their Greek or Roman eyes. And those two cultures were clear-cut in terms of dealing with who was a Greek/Roman and who wasn't, but they shouldn't have applied that same razor on tribal confederations, which were absolutely more loose in their ethnic make-up and had a completely different social structure.

The Cimbri and the Boii are some of the clearest examples of this in the EB timeframe. In the late days of the Roman Empire, the steppe nomads fell into this way of classification too, when they were treated as a single kind of people, rather than a confederation which assimilated tribes that they had conquered.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we should neglect all sources from that time, but it means that a critical reading should be made and don't accept it as hard facts. In some cases, anthropological evidence support those ancient texts, and in many others they refute them.

Strange, that you wrote Razor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

I have some expertise in this field, though as a historian I am probably bested in it by Cmaq who is an acheologist. Good to see you back :-) and now I can guess why you went silent.

In any case, I have written some posts on this in the EB Forum.


If you are at liberty to publicize no more, can I get a copy in private?

---

Nice post, I agree with it, sounds logically to me with the small portion which went away picking up some Celts which influenced them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

That is not entirely correct

---

Actually, I was entirely correct, and I suggest you review all of the early Latin and Greek texts, in Latin and Greek, that address this issue. I've done that many times here, and simply will not take the time to do it again.

CmacQ

OK, I'll give you this.

In 'Germania' Tacitus provided the general geographic setting for greater Germania.

Chapter 1
[1] Germania omnis a Gallis Raetisque et Pannoniis Rheno et Danubio fluminibus, a Sarmatis Dacisque mutuo metu aut montibus separatur: cetera Oceanus ambit, latos sinus et insularum immensa spatia complectens, nuper cognitis quibusdam gentibus ac regibus, quos bellum aperuit.

My Rendering
[1] The Rhine and Danube rivers separate Germania from all of Gaul, Rætia, and Pannonia; as are Sarmatæ and Daci by mountains or mutual fear. The Ocean encompasses the remainder, an expanse embraced by broad bays and great islands, with some peoples and kingdoms only recently discovered; due to war.

From this we understand that in the Classical sense, Germania was primarily a Geographic term, which covered an extremely large region. In total area, this would account for about a third of modern Europe. Within this area would be Holland, nearly all of modern Germany, the Czech Republic, part of Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Belorussia, part of Romania, part of Hungría, part of the Ukraine, Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and part of the Russian Federation.

You have a Danish keyboard!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Nice post, I agree with it, sounds logically to me with the small portion which went away picking up some Celts which influenced them.

---

Don't forget that we hear from an inscription in Lycia that the Galatians brought Agrianians with them from the Balkans when they invaded Asia Minor, so there is certainly a near-contemporary precedent for this kind of incorporation of foreign ethnicities into migratory movements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

You have a Danish keyboard!!

---

A keyboard no, yet some say, I read Dansk, well enough. How was the Beowulf?

You guys are so cool. It's like discussing class topics with my history prof once class is over.