Why weren't the Boii in EB1?

[Bloody Sacha]

Perhaps I did not phrase myself clearly- I am Danish after all, for you definately do not adress my points. Perhaps you put up a straw man for us to knock down, i dunno. I shall try and clarify.

1) straw man argument

2) "Enslavement of the Cimbrii by Boii". Now that is what I lack a source for. If I recall correctly the Boii repelled the Cimbrii and Teutons. However, some intermingling would be indicated by the name Boirix for the Cimbrii king later on as that means "King of The Boii". It also seems to me that the Boii were significantly weakened by this clash; perhaps a Pyhrric Victory, perhaps some Boiii left their homes to join in the great adventure of migration as the Cimbrii passed through or near their lands on their way to the Battle of Vercellae (we know that such happened both with later migrations, in the Viking Age and in the Crusades), perhaps both, or neither- it may have been something else. But their lands are later called "deserted" by the Romans, though the rising power of the Getai/Dacians under Burebista definetaly made inroads on them and might be the cause. The final death knell to the lands not taken by the Romans seems to have been delivered by another Suebi tribe; the Marcomanni as the latter moved in to escape Roman expansion and/or exploit a weakness. The resulting mixture seems to have created a very strong and vibrant realm that was to cause the Romans much trouble later on. But nowhere do I see a reliable source saying that the Boii enslaved the Cimbrii. Though likely some of the survivors of their last battle against Rome at Vercellae trying to get home would be enslaved by whatever tribes' lands they passed through. if there had been intermingling the likelyhood of that would be smaller though. In any case, it is not indicative of power to be able to enslave a bunch of defeated refugees...

3) facetious ad hominem

Hope that clarifies my quibble.

I’ll be more then glad to source my statement pertaining to the potential enslavement of the Cimbri by the Boii but first of all, lets be sure to quote me correctly.

“very probably enslaved the Aryan poster boys the "Cimbri"”

please note the qualifier in that statement.

2A: The evidence that the Boii enslaved the Cimbri is very clear. In De Bello Gallico Julius Caesar refers to the invasion of Norican territory as being led by a confederation led by the Boii that assaulted the city of Noreia. Here, Caesar is undoubtedly making a reference to the Cimbrian War of 115–101 BCE.

Lets go over the chain of events.

1: Cimbri lead by Unknown leader X attacks The Boii
2: They are defeated by the Boii
3: Years later Boiorix “King of the Boii" rules over them and with an inordinately large army goes on a rampage across Europe going toe to toe with Arvernii and Romans and everyone else who ever happened to get on the Boii nations hit list.
4. 50 years later Caesar refers to the Cimbrian war as being a Boii affair

In any other historical context that did not involve ze ubermen the forgone conclusion would be taken as fact but as I implied before and as I’ll reiterate in the most frank terms I can think of.

5. 1800 years later in the 19th century it becomes politically expedient for German nationalists to claim that the Cimbri where “Germanic” and therefore superior to all other races. Becoming the victims of cruel chance and circumstance in meeting their match against one of the other master races, the Romans. Even though it’s clear that the initial objective of the historians was to pick a vaguely successful tribe from Germany that was contemporary of classical civilization and to propagandize it the sheer willpower of Volkist historians allows this fabricated historical facade to float to the surface every time. That the Boii beat the Cimbri hand over fist in what was regarded as their own backyard was considered an abhorred blemish and is usually played down or flat out omitted from most historical texts. The direct evidence implying the vassalage of the Cimbrian army to a Celtic king is only met with mocking disbelief.

It is certainly theoretical however it is infinitely more likely that the Boii defeated and commandeered the Cimbri then the Volkist theory created in lieu of archaeological evidence in the 1800s. The Romans did not incorporate the use of the word “German” into their lexicon as an ethnic or political term until well over 50 years after the conclusion of the Cimbrean war, for the entire affair the Romans referred to them as “Cimbrean” or the far more telling term “the new Gauls” which makes any attempt to call the Cimbri “Germanic” anachronistic by default. Realistically, impartial historians will choose between the Cimbreans being Celtic or Germanic and can legitimately drum up evidence to support either claim. Regardless of which is ultimately true, that the Cimbri became subordinate to the Boii can be taken as fact. (Or as factual as anything else Julius Caesar said) According to his name, Boiorix had a pretty firm assessment of the situation.

2B) The ultimate fate of the Boii only leaves room for speculation and isn’t relevant in this context. Your statement that the Marcomanni where a Suebi tribe is as speculative as anything I’ve suggested and yet you state it as absolute fact. Furthermore the first recorded Marcomanni king (of a grand total of two) Maroboduus, the one who led the Marcomanni into Bohemia and the one you implied subverted Boii culture in their own homeland, has a blatantly Celtic name. Akin to many other kings who have Celtic names but where secretly German. This warped data is a good example of an academic circle pertaining to a Celtic subject being poisoned by Volkist History.

With this I have justified the content of my initial post, direct and implied. I am not ruling out the possibility that I’m wrong, no matter what is said we will all be wrong eventually. I will say that my vantage point is truly from the 21st century rather then 20th or 18th and while that doesn’t make me right by default, in this thread it certainly puts me ahead of the game. I now wash my hands of this thread.

[Hax]

3) So... you think nothing has happened in academia since 1945? I do not know where you are from in the world, but where I live lots have. I also seem to notice an awful lot of interest in Celt in the general media and populace. New Age, druidism. Lots of delusional tree-hugging idealists claiming to follow Celtic values.

You rang? ;D

On a serious note, however, I must state that indeed, neo-paganism is becoming quite popular; what it has to do with ancient Celtic religion? I have no idea.

[Krusader]

You rang? ;D

On a serious note, however, I must state that indeed, neo-paganism is becoming quite popular; what it has to do with ancient Celtic religion? I have no idea.

Its attempting to to gain legality or authorization by using Celtic religion...often with some hilarious results. Read on a forum about a guy who visited a neopagan store which also had courses on Celtic religion. He left quickly after the instructor said celtic with an s not k and told how the Celts revered a Potato goddess...

[Hax]

He left quickly after the instructor said celtic with an s not k and told how the Celts revered a Potato goddess...

Perhaps he was refering to the Scottish football club, we don't know! But isn't the potato originally from the Americas?

[athanaric]

But isn't the potato originally from the Americas?

That was actually the point. No potatoes back in 272 BC. Nor tomatoes or chocolate (especially considering these are actually Aztec words)...

[Brennus]

Tomatoes as well? Interesting. Imagine how bland British, Irish and Belgian cooking would be without potatoes and how bland Spanish and Italian cooking would be without tomatoes? Also how healthy my heart would be without chocolate.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Belgian cooking

Wait, what?