History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedHistory of the germanic nations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: History of the germanic nations
    Posted: 08-Jan-2008 at 14:24
I read here a lot of stories about Germanics. So I think we should talk about these nations and about the origins of the germanics.
 
Germanoi are mentioned first by Poseidonios in the 1st century BC. He told us about them in his 30th book. It is not clear if he thought that they are a own nation or just a part of the Celts. His descriptions of other nations make it possible that he saw them as Celts. Diodor e.g. described them as Galatoi. The first who devided them was Cesar who got his interpretation surely from Poseidonios. He devided the northern world into celts and Germanic and the borderline was the Rhine. But this line wasn't correct. Cesar himself told us that there were Germani cisrhenani at the western side and that the Atuatuci were descandants of the Cimbri and Teutones. Even the Belgii had Germanic traditions. It was Cesar as well that includes the Suebi that was often related with the Getae and Skythians, because of their semi-nomadic behavior.
 
But these nations didn't start with Cesar. Where did they come from? They were thought to develope from the Bronze Age Nordic cultures in North Germany, Denmark and South Skandinavia. For sure the roots of the Germanic nations lay there, but those people are probably just the ancestors of Germanics. In the Hallstatt-Age we have three bigger cultural regions in the North. From west to east we have the Harpstedter-culture, since about 600 BC the Jastorf-culture and the Gesichtsurnen or Pommerian culture. These groups are thought to be Germanic. I think that they were very close related, but where they all Germanic?
Back to Top
dexippus View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 17-Feb-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 205
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dexippus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2008 at 19:09
The pre-history of Germany, like any European pre-history, is troubled by the need to relate "historical" peoples, the tribes mentioned by various classical authors, with various archeological patterns. The search for the speakers of proto-Germanic is ultimately futile, given the impossibility of linking language with material remains (our earliest hard linguistic evidence for "German" is the 4th century bible of Wulfias). 
 
The extant which Caesar and Tacitus based their ethnographies of Posidonius is debated. The Irish scholar JJ Tierney advanced in the 60s the notion that Caesar and Tacitus basically plagarized Posidonius' accounts; recent scholarship has noted their debts to Posidonius' lost Celtic ethnography, but emphasized Caesar and Tacitus' original contributions.
 
As for the line between "Celtic" and Germanic" a reading a Caesar indicates that the definition was fluid, and that the Rhine was largely a Roman boundary rather than a useful ethnic divide. Clearly there was a lot of migration back and forth, with the wanderings of the Cimbri and Teutones being the most dramatic. However, tracing "descents" through classical sources is problematic and probably not very productive. Such descents were either fictive kinships created by the Germans themselves, or more likely by Roman ethnographers attempting to fit all barbarians into already known categories (like Scythians and Cimbri).
 
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 09:03
I agree with you in the most parts of your saying. Perhaps I didn't point it out very clearly. We cannot say were these Germans from. We can expect that they developed within or from the late Bronze Age from groups of the so-called "Nordischer Kreis" and that their ethnogenesis was forced by that of the Celts. What we don't know is if the Germani cisrhenani that gave the Germans their name shared the same ethnic. We should expect these groups close to the Harpstedt culture. But we can not be sure that Harpstedt is Germanic or is what we call Germanic today. So the Germanic origins of the Belgii e.g. says nothing more as that they had come from beyond the Rhine.
 
The migration of Germanic groups was forced by the Celts who invaded Italy and the Balkans and of course Gallia. Especially the migration of the Volcae , Boii and the Belgii let the German move southwards. Especially east of the Elbe the Germanic migration can be related with the Jastorf-culture. West of the Elbe we find "Elbgermanische" elements too and they increase by the time.
 
In the areas east of the Oder we have such influence too. It is very difficult to say how Germanic the Gesichtsurnen-Kultur was. Probably there are strong elements from the former Lausitzer Kultur, which was former linked with the Illyrians but now mostly with the Veneti. I don't know if it is helpful, especially because these Veneti are often set equal with the Slavs, which is completely wrong. But let us use these term Veneti sometimes. In the 2nd century we have the first recorded germanic migration of the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones. I would link it with the growing Germanic influence of the Przeworsk culture. In the west we have the first recorded migration with Ariovist in the 70th BC. Unfortunately the Triboci, Nemetes and Vangiones which are said to be Germans have no germanic names. We can connect the Vangiones with the german term "wang" but Nemetes and Triboci are very celtic. These migration is probably forced by that of the Helvetii during the times of the Cimbric invasion which they joined.
 
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 11:40
Germanic, Celtic, Thracian etc, these were linguistic families, not genetic nations.

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 12:05
Did anybody say something else?  But what are genetic nations?
I read about such a research of German genes. The result was that, I repeat them, 45% of the Germans genes today are Celtic, 25% are Viking, 15% are Viking or Slavic, 10% are Jewish and 5% Phoenician. One of the chiefs of the jewish community said in an interview that the Jews existed in Germany longer than some Germans. Well, he knows nothing about history and about genetics for sure. When I looked closer to the study, I saw that Celtic genes meant Haplotype R1b, Viking 1, Viking or Slav R1a, Jewish J, and Phoenician E3b. They said that Celtic Haplotype developed in Sibiria, Viking Haplotype was existing in Norther Europe and developed about 20.000 years ago, Viking or Slavs genes developed 30.000 (!) years ago in North Asia. What a rubbish!!!
For the times we look on, about 2 or 3000 years ago, it is not very helpful to look for genes, because these nations, tribes or what ever are to different.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 13:46
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Did anybody say something else?  But what are genetic nations?
I read about such a research of German genes. The result was that, I repeat them, 45% of the Germans genes today are Celtic, 25% are Viking, 15% are Viking or Slavic, 10% are Jewish and 5% Phoenician.
 
 
Except, there's no such thing as celtic genes, no such thing as german genes, no such thing as viking genes, no such thing as slavic genes, no such thing as jewish genes and no such thing as pheonician genes. There's no such thing as vikings, there's no such thing as celts.... I don't know enough about the subject to know whether there were such a thing as germans. But i really doubt such a homogenous group existed, unless anyone can prove it.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 09-Jan-2008 at 13:47
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 22:01
Celts existed no matter what you say, ever heard of Gaelic?
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 22:31
It's not what I say, it's what every serious archaeologist says.
 
At the lecture I attended before xmas, the top archaeologist in the country described the idea celts existest as "uttter nonsense". Though he admitted if you ask a member of the public, go to new-age shop, buy a coffee table history book the world is full of celts. The truth is only known by the archaeological community and they have totally failed to publicise it amongst the wider population. So we must resign ourselves to a few informed educated people knowing the truth and the mass uinder a delusion.
 
The BBC on their site even seem to be having a crack at educating the mass. My guess is doomed to fail.
 
Before Rome: the 'Celts'
At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get our first eye-witness accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman authors, not least Julius Caesar who invaded in 55 and 54 BC. These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii, Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had any sense of collective identity any more than the islanders of AD 1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.

'Calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.'

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

However, language does not determine ethnicity (that would make the modern islanders 'Germans', since they mostly speak English, classified as a Germanic tongue). And anyway, no one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the archipelago - they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues, when our evidence begins. Certainly, there is no reason to link the coming of 'Celtic' language with any great 'Celtic invasions' from Europe during the Iron Age, because there is no hard evidence to suggest there were any.

Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned. Of course, there are important cultural similarities and connections between Britain, Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate contacts and undoubtedly the movement of some people, but the same could be said for many other periods of history.

The things we have labelled 'Celtic' icons - such as hill-forts and art, weapons and jewellery - were more about aristocratic, political, military and religious connections than common ethnicity. (Compare the later cases of medieval Catholic Christianity or European Renaissance culture, or indeed the Hellenistic Greek Mediterranean and the Roman world - all show similar patterns of cultural sharing and emulation among the powerful, across ethnic boundaries.)

 
 
 
Personally I think the problem is akin to religion. When you try to tell a person who believes in Genesis and the world is 5,500 years old, of modern physics, geology and evolution. They deny it against all reason, because it takes them outside their comfort zone. They've invested so much of their lives in this belief system being true so that they could be totally wrong no-matter clealy so they have to deny.
 
The same is true with the celts. Believers in celts as believers in Genesis are being asked to leave their comfort zone. Facing fact or blind ignorance they choose the latter.
 


Edited by Paul - 10-Jan-2008 at 01:28
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 22:43
but we have Celtic graves and so on, and how you explain the Gaelic languages around?
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 22:48
Celts don't have graves in the UK, name one?
 
Gaelic is what the Irish spoke, not the celts.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 00:18
Paul can you elaborate?

You mean Gauls, were not Celts and neither the Britons?
Back to Top
Goban View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2006
Location: Subterranea
Status: Offline
Points: 582
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goban Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 04:27

The term Celt itself is under scrutiny. It may express some not-so-correct connotations and is faux pas in some circles...

The sharpest spoon in the drawer.
Back to Top
nova roma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30-Dec-2007
Location: Krikkit
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nova roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 05:45
I don't really have anything to add to this thread, but a while back I read "Germany and It's Tribes" by Tacitus and it's an interesting (and quick) read for anyone interested in this subject!

It's from the 1st Century AD, IIRC. here's a link to the text if anyone is interested:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/g01000.htm


Edited by nova roma - 10-Jan-2008 at 05:46
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 13:42
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Except, there's no such thing as celtic genes, no such thing as german genes, no such thing as viking genes, no such thing as slavic genes, no such thing as jewish genes and no such thing as pheonician genes. There's no such thing as vikings, there's no such thing as celts.... I don't know enough about the subject to know whether there were such a thing as germans. But i really doubt such a homogenous group existed, unless anyone can prove it.
 
Of course not. The very premise of the problem is false, since what we're trying to do is to back up the nationalromanticist ideas of what constitutes a people with genetic science, which is hardly worth wasting our energy on.
 
Germanic, Celtic and Slavic refers to linguistic groups, who often share material, social and religious traits, but not necessarily. Viking on the other hand is just a name given somewhat artificially to Scandinavian pirates between 793 and 1066. For some reason Scandinavian pirates outside of this era are not considered Vikings, even though their activities were similar.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 14:17
Now the celt thing is out the way, to my previous question.
 
Germanic existence. Can the Germanic speakers be in anyway regarded a homogenous group. Why do people think one group of Germanic speakers living 100 miles from another are in anyway group-able together by any other way than they spoke a vaguely similar tongue. Why weren't a group of Germanic speakers closer to a foriegn tongue speaking group living next to them than Germanic speakers a long way away?
 
 


Edited by Paul - 10-Jan-2008 at 14:18
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 14:43
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:



 
Germanic, Celtic and Slavic refers to linguistic groups, who often share material, social and religious traits, but not necessarily. Viking on the other hand is just a name given somewhat artificially to Scandinavian pirates between 793 and 1066. For some reason Scandinavian pirates outside of this era are not considered Vikings, even though their activities were similar.

Aye, and this despite the fact that the Scandinavians themselves called those non-Scandinavian pirates "Vikings".


Edited by Styrbiorn - 10-Jan-2008 at 14:43
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyranos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 15:23
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

I read here a lot of stories about Germanics. So I think we should talk about these nations and about the origins of the germanics.
 
Germanoi are mentioned first by Poseidonios in the 1st century BC.


As far as I am aware, German comes from Latin and means 'Seed' or brother'. The Germanics didnt call themselves by the Roman names..even today they call themselves Deutsch.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 15:53
Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

As far as I am aware, German comes from Latin and means 'Seed' or brother'. The Germanics didnt call themselves by the Roman names..even today they call themselves Deutsch.
 
Only the Germans call themselves Deutsch. Other Germanic-speaking peoples such as the Dutch, English and the Scandinavians do not.
 
The Romans' word for the Germans, germani, is plural of germanus, one meaning of which is "authentic". In his work "Germania", Tacitus writes that the germani were "not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse". Personally I believe the answer lies here, and that the germani or "the originals" were called so because the Romans considered them to be a purebred people. 
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyranos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 17:14
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

As far as I am aware, German comes from Latin and means 'Seed' or brother'. The Germanics didnt call themselves by the Roman names..even today they call themselves Deutsch.
 
Only the Germans call themselves Deutsch. Other Germanic-speaking peoples such as the Dutch, English and the Scandinavians do not.
 
The Romans' word for the Germans, germani, is plural of germanus, one meaning of which is "authentic". In his work "Germania", Tacitus writes that the germani were "not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse". Personally I believe the answer lies here, and that the germani or "the originals" were called so because the Romans considered them to be a purebred people. 


I never heard of it meaning "Authentic" or "Pure-Breed" . I said what it means before, it means  'seed'. Such as we get the word "germinate" from.


Other languages use the Alemanni , for Germany:

Alemania (Spanish)
Allemagne (French)
Deutschland (German)
Germania (Italian & Latin)

BTW Tacitus' work was largely a political commentary which reflected the political atmosphere back in Rome according to him. Also much of it is second hand information, so just how accurate his work is.. is questionable.


Edited by Tyranos - 11-Jan-2008 at 04:32
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 21:53
Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

I never heard of it meaning "Authentic" or "Pure-Breed" . I said what it means before, it means 'seed'. Such as we get the world "germinate" from.


It's only indirectly related to 'seed', and germani does not have anything to do with seeds. You're thinking about the noun germen, which means 'seed'. The adjective germanus is related to germen but has a different meaning. It can mean "authentic" as mentioned, it can also mean "related" in the biological sense.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.