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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny5
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:
.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny5
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/med...6585/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).
Did he call someone a nazi or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
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.
.
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...Quote:
Did he call someone a nazi or something?
.
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
.
That makes two of us. :yes:Quote:
Nice job so far Cmacq! I am really enjoying the read
.
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.
I agree completely with you on both of these statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
The above is the reason for my post here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=150
Here is what I really said:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=196Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
An insinuation by him because he didn't like quotes this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
or situations like this:Quote:
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274
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).
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
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.
@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.
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.
Well said Geoffrey S.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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...s-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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.
Im not questioning your source. What Im saying is I think you formed your opinion first and THEN found literature/evidence to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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/libr...rmanyearly.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/migratio...s_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/...ironagenh9.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/migratio...rf_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/L...s/lombards.htm
Now again for the expansion I've found a better map
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/...gegermakd1.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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
Of course it is, so is the stats used in the Game. I also put examples when the Romans defeated Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack
:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack