What are the Cimbri?

[Frostwulf]

Again, speak to Joe/cmacq about this. He knows more about the Ingaevones' culture in the EB time period than I do. He can almost certainly better explain this. Though, IIRC the Belgae purportedly came from over the Rhine, from Germania, and that has something to do with it.

I'm thinking Kuhn, but this is also a time frame issue as well which I should have spoken of.

As a generalization, they used it to refer to people in a certain geographic area - East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. There are certainly other boundaries of general "Germania" - such as the Carpathian mountains and the Sarmatian steppe (you wouldn't classify Dacians as Germani).

Not to nitpick, but:

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

What do you think Tacitus meant and the end of that paragraph when he says "debased by mixed marriages, they are starting to look like Sarmatians".? He is talking of one group beginning to look like another group, and the two groups mentioned in this paragraph are Germani and Sarmatians. So I'm very confident that he is calling the Bastarnae Germani.

The word language doesn't seem to be in your above quotes. However, he does indeed talk about language. For example:

Tacitus does say the "Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation;....46,1" here is the link to where I put this down:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2493091

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

When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus.

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

I should have been more detailed here, as of course there were different dialects and culture. What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani. I don't believe there to be a point at this time to debate the North Sea Group, though it is an interesting topic, but for this discussion it has no relevance.

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

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

I'll have more on this later.

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

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