Less Civilized Factions

[geala]

I'm with you in this point, Macilrille, and for the rest I don't want to enter the Celts-Weaklings- discussion, because one only has to look to some ancient texts to see that this is not true as a rule.

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.
And I think it is not a shame or arrogant to name some people more civilised (that means just a certain degree of sophisticated organisation with a written and mostly urban culture) than others; it has nothing to do with the worth of the people or culture.

[The General]

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.

Roleplay it then not as a unified empire, but as a confederacy of various tribes electing their leader, or a hegemony established by one tribe over others creating a complex web of vassalages, protectorates, allies and subjugated foes, for example.

[Macilrille]

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

If you scroll up a bit or do a Forum Search on "Cimbrii" you will see that my interpretation is that the Cimbric Wars started as parts of two Jutish tribes following charismatic leaders on a raid-migration S in Europe to claim loot and land. Much like the later Vikings, and much like them some warriors would return and others come to join, while others from the cultures they passed through would join too. We know for certain that this happened to the Goths after Hadrianopolis/Adrianople.

Now in addition to the argument you can find on Wikipedia for the Cimbrii and Teutons being from Jutland there is the fact that we suddenly find an increase in finds from the Balkans-Black Sea area in Jutland- not least the Gundestrup Cauldron which should be known to anyone with an interest in the area. This to me hints that all of a sudden there was an increase in contact for some reason, if you want a sort of analogue think of the increase in English Silver in Denmark around 1000 AD (I like Vikings).

However, what really counts with me is the fact that all our classic sources say they are from Jutland (Cimbrii Chersonesos). Why discount our written sources? Especially when they are in agreeance? What the Celtophiles have to present for them as Celts are the names of two kings. Names that may have been "Celtified" by Romans, by Gallic interpreters in Roman employ or even be Celtic versions of their German names, or Boirix for one may be the result of a political union between Cimbrii father and Celtic mother- such were not unknown amongst German tribes, in fact they were common. The names "work" as well in ancient German as in Gallic too, so I do not know how much "evidence" that is...

As for the German - Celt distinction we see a distinct difference in material culture and society between the areas we label Germanic and Celt/Gallic. One roughly concurrent with the ancient authors' distinction, the difference from them largely being that the border zone in Bohemia and the Rhine area has a mixed culture, we see the same later with the Limes. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hugh Elton has treated this problem of "Iron Curtain" interpretation and argued instead for a frontier zone with mixed cultures and influences.

You are right that before Caivs Ivlivs many authors did not distinguish between Germans and Celts. However, if Pliny The Elder quotes Pytheas correctly, he made it on his ~325 BC voyage where he might have identified the Gutones (Goths?) and Teutons as the first (it may be Pliny who makes it on his behalf). This however is easily explained by lack of knowledge. When the first Europeans arrived in The New World they did not distinguish much between tribes either, but as knowledge grew they started to.

Thus, IMO; Jutland was populated by people of Germanic ancestry (in fact it seems it is part of the original lands of Germanic culture back in the Bronze Age) and as the Teutons and Cimbrii was from Jutland (or in case of the Teutons might have moved from the Baltic Shore to there), they were originally German too. Scroll up to see my interpretation of how it then developed in a previous post.

[geala]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ...

[Macilrille]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ...

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things.

You can always say "maybe" or "what if", but if the majority of evidence points to one specific interpretation, then that is likely close to the "truth". If you doubt all, we might as well drop the study of history. Source criticism is good, but as evidence mounts...

Poseidonois is as suspect as Pytheas, for we do not have the original, only the quote by Athenaios, who might have imposed his interpretation on it. Just like Pliny T Elder might have on Pytheas. Caesar, Tacitus and later authors agree and as their interpretation is largely consistent with the remains of material culture we have they may even be right-ish.

The lack of loss of population is not evident in AD 800- 1050 either, and we can agree that there was a large outward energy from Scandinavia then? If one migration did not leave archeological evidence, could another also not have? Especially as I do not "buy" the Ancients' numbers, there probably was only about 300.000 people in Jutland then at most. As I said in the original post I find it more likely that a core of warriors left, gathering followers and allies underway, just like Goths, Vikings and Crusades did. That is three "migrations" of and largely through cultures on the "Chiefdom" level and as they worked that way I find it likely the Cimbrii one did as well.

As for the Celtic element of the migration, it was there- as I said in the original post- I suspect it might have been as high as a third of the total. But the Ancients agree on where the original migration came from, the Balkan-evidence (Noreia is in that corner of the world...), and the population of Denmark then was undoubtedly Germanic, not Celtic... I believe that the core was still Germanic.
If we use another Viking Age analogy, "The Great Army" was mainly Viking (Danish according to our sources) for 33 years at least despite integrating allies (and some infighting) it still appears as such all the way through.


Anyway, this is nitpicking and I am annoyed by a coming cold (only 6 weeks since I had the Pig Flu, I hate Danish weather this time of year), so I will drink some tea instead.

[chenkai11]

Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800.

[Macilrille]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

[Phalanx300]

The Cimbri came from the Germanic heartland so them being Celtic.

And Chenkai is that actually ingame? Never seen it.

[IrishHitman]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

There's rich pickings of independent states to the east and south, why the hell would you go mess with the Casse when you can leave them for later?

lol

[Kikaz]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

Speaking of which, I just tried that (used many 4chev Medjinikos, as well as a general mix of Baltic and Celtic units,) hasn't been as challenging as I'd hoped (except Cambria.) Casse had several full stacks of militia (which were mowed down with almost no casualties) pitted against the one full-stack that I sent there, plus my spammed Balroae from Attuaca, and recently my spammed Imannae from Caern-Brigantae. It's a fun experience.

Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800.

I'm pretty sure that means you aren't supposed to have a navy... Which is unfortunate once the pirates start showing up in droves.

[geala]

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things. ...

To the Cimbri etc.: I think we are not far away in the end.

As for Kalkriese, have you changed your mind? Why? (0k, it's too much ot perhaps) Nevertheless, I don't believe it could be the battle at the pontes longae because it happened when Caecina left the meeting point with Germanicus and went back to the Rhine. The meeting point was in the area of the outer Bructeres, between the Lippe and Ems (don't know the English names of the rivers). It would have been very strange to march to the Rhine from there meeting the Kalkriese dip. There are some other arguments against the connection with Caecina. But also many things are not clear and problematic concerning Kalkriese and Varus, it is better to be very careful. What we can say is only that a bigger fight took place between Germanics and Roman legionary core troops which the Romans with high probability lost. I personally still believe it was a part of the Varus battle; but being not a historian I can be less chary.

[Macilrille]

It is probably mostly because I dislike believing what all others do and a quirk of mine ;-)
Geography is against me yes, but the description of the respective battles suits Varus' defeat the least. However, we know little of it in fact, so... I may be wrong, but that is healthy sometimes and it is not often I try that when I actually come out and claim something; if I know little of a subject I usually keep my mouth shot, so if I claim something it is mostly well-founded to be wrong occasionally curbs my arrogance