+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? (/showthread.php?tid=22086)
Pages:
1
2
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Christian - 02-07-2013
Hi, I was hoping to have my confusion on this cleared up.
I often see it stated that Julius Caesar introduced or at least cemented the Germanic bogeyman in the Roman worldview. But then Plutarch is quoted as filling out Spartacus’s ranks with a pretty sizeable proportion of ‘Germans’ – which I find surprising at that point in history (I can’t find him in the original latin). I know the Germanic/Celtic nature of the Cimbri-Teutons will be debated forever. But what did the Romans perceive them to be?
So my question comes down to: when did the Romans really start distinguishing Germanic-speaking people from Gauls?
PS: As always, apologies if this has been covered – but at the moment popping ‘Germans’ or a related term in the search engine just leads to dozens of these Dacian-oriented debates...
Thanks,
Christian
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - M. Demetrius - 02-07-2013
The Greeks evidently used the term Keltoi as far back as Brennus' sacking of Delphi, yet some sources say the invaders were called Gauls (though not coming from anywhere near Gaul).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/celtico/3751742958/
Julius Caesar in the opening of De Bello Gallico said that while the Romans called the people in Gaul "Gauls", those people referred to themselves as "Celts".
http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/gallic1.html
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. (the third by their own language [are called] Celts, by our [language] are called Gauls.)
In that same book, Caesar makes a distinction of sorts between those living North of the Rhine and those living South, but more often, he just addresses the peoples by their tribe name, whether living in Germania or Gaul.
I suppose the easy answer is it is unclear and contradictory, and filled with argumentative pitfalls, whichever view we take. I guess that doesn't help with the confusion, though.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Nathan Ross - 02-07-2013
Quote:Plutarch is quoted as filling out Spartacus’s ranks with a pretty sizeable proportion of ‘Germans’ – I can’t find him in the original latin
I believe Plutarch originally wrote in Greek, in the first century AD, although his work was soon translated into Latin. Greek writers are often rather indiscriminate in their ethnic labels - Zosimus writes of the 'celtic legions' of Noricum and Pannonia, for example. So it would depend on Plutarch's source for the information - quite possibly by then there was more consensus about who was a 'Gaul' and who a 'German'.
So we're back to Caesar. In a way, Caesar's labelling of the peoples on either side of the Rhine served his own political purpose: the Gauls were people he intended to conquer, the Germans were those too scruffy and chaotic to bother conquering. The Rhine served as a convenient border between them. By this demarcation, he was setting his own terms for victory. The real situation seems to have been more complex - there were apparently germanic-speaking people south of the Rhine, and celtic-speakers north of it (Ariovistus is a decent 'celtic' name). The 'Germans' described by Caesar may not have been the same germanic-speaking people that inhabited the area in later centuries. As usual, we're stuck between a Roman political definition and the far less certain movements of various people for whom the Rhine was perhaps more a thoroughfare than a border.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Alanus - 02-07-2013
I'll agree with Nathan-- that the overall names, or designations, by Caesar and everyone else were and remain confusing. Oddly enough, or not, the leader who also sacked Rome (the first time) was called "Brennus," which indicates that the sacker of Delphi was recorded by his epithet, not his actual nomen.
Seems to me that Marius was recorded as defeating errant "Teutones," probably a good Teutonic name for Germans.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Marja - 02-07-2013
The ancient Germans are a modern invention. In the 19th century, German nationalists tried to bring most of the German speakers into one German nation, and to try to claim all the Germanic peoples for German history.
At this point, while some might consider the Dutch, Swiss-Germans, Austrians, etc. to be Germans, few consider the English, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders, etc. to be Germans. So when people describe Goths, Vandals, etc. as Germans I think it's misleading, I think it reinforces the idea of some special association with Germans in particular instead of recognizing that these are other Germanic groups, no more German than the English or the Danes.
Germanic is generally a linguistic group. It doesn't correspond with any one cultural group.
Germani is generally a geographical group. It originally referred to undoubtedly Celtic tribes on the Rhine, such as the Nametes and Tribocci. It later came to refer to both Celtic and Germanic groups east of the Rhine. I suspect the term was transferred over when Celtic tribes on the Rhine hired Germanic mercenaries.
Also, doesn't one late source turn the Gaesatae, who were Celtic mercenaries from Gallia Transalpina into Germani?
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Marja - 02-07-2013
Teutones can come from Celtic languages, as in tuath; or Germanic languages, as in þiuda; perhaps it's a better match for some of the Celtic languages, but I'm not familiar with them.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Lyceum - 02-07-2013
Quote:The ancient Germans are a modern invention. In the 19th century, German nationalists tried to bring most of the German speakers into one German nation, and to try to claim all the Germanic peoples for German history.
At this point, while some might consider the Dutch, Swiss-Germans, Austrians, etc. to be Germans, few consider the English, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders, etc. to be Germans. So when people describe Goths, Vandals, etc. as Germans I think it's misleading, I think it reinforces the idea of some special association with Germans in particular instead of recognizing that these are other Germanic groups, no more German than the English or the Danes.
Germanic is generally a linguistic group. It doesn't correspond with any one cultural group.
Yes, no, well sort of I guess I mean I agree that the idea of ancient Germans are a modern invention, which unfortunately persists in modern German scholarship. I've cited books like a “a very dangerous book: Tacitus' Germania” and “Rome and the Germanic Peoples” or whatever the latter was called, an OUP book, very insightful. But we do talk broadly in linguistic or ethno-linguistic/cultural terms about the Germanics though and I think that is indeed valid, with requisite caveats. As you mention
You're right, we must speak more broadly, the other tribes are just as Germanic as those who now reside in Germany. I agree with you 100% on these issues, and indeed I have before. So does the majority of modern scholarship too from what I can tell.
Quote:Teutones can come from Celtic languages, as in tuath; or Germanic languages, as in þiuda; perhaps it's a better match for some of the Celtic languages, but I'm not familiar with them.
Well if we postulate a PIE *tewteh2 we then end up with a proto Germanic *theudo (th = thorn, long O) from which we get various derivations.
From the selfsame PIE root we can have a proto Celtic *touta (long a? Makes sense for lather accent on tuath) whence insular Tud and Gaelic Tuath etc can come from.
So you could argue its the same word from the same source. The sound laws do fit, but I have *heavy* misgivings about this sort of reconstruction in this instance! I mean we could easily put this down to loan words which happen to match phonology rather than an even derivation...god knows.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Lyceum - 02-07-2013
One last post guys, sorry! But I don't think we should be examining Roman names for various tribes etc in terms of mistakes/confusions, sure they might not be as accurate as we would be but often this is deliberate ethnography, a very very powerful and consistently used Roman tool. When the Romans, especially Caesar, are throwing around terms like "Scyth" or "Germanus" etc they're actually telling you a lot of information there. I think the best book on the Republic/Early Empire on this is probably still "Romulus' Asylum", there are lots of concentrated studies for other periods though too.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Robert Vermaat - 02-08-2013
Quote:Germani is generally a geographical group. It originally referred to undoubtedly Celtic tribes on the Rhine, such as the Nametes and Tribocci. It later came to refer to both Celtic and Germanic groups east of the Rhine. I suspect the term was transferred over when Celtic tribes on the Rhine hired Germanic mercenaries.I agree. It's odd to see that a vehement discussion exists about Celts and Celtic, with total disagreement (I think) about Halstatt/La tene and when and where to apply the label 'Celtic'. Oddly, such a discussion does exist where Germani/German are concerned. I mean aprt from the 'who are Celts/or German' discussion, which is entirely politicallly motivated (or inspired).
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Robert Vermaat - 02-08-2013
Quote:When the Romans, especially Caesar, are throwing around terms like "Scyth" or "Germanus" etc they're actually telling you a lot of information there.I read somewhere that the Romans (or indeed Mediterranean cultures) were very bad at correctly recognizing differences in northern tribes. Names are really no more than labels, without attempting to make a correct distinction. Of course we can ask ourselves if a tribe like, say, the Marcomanni always existed in the same, shape or form, and whether that was clear to the neighbors of the Marcomanni, or indeed the Marcomanni themselves! National identity is such a second nature to us, it's hard to project that backwards in time and demand of our ancestors the same views and ideas.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Frostwulf - 02-10-2013
I have to disagree that the Germans are a modern invention, the "Germani" is a Roman construct. It may have been misused by relatively modern Germans(1860's-1930's) for less than ideal purposes, but in relatively recent years(1960's-2000) it has been overstated about Kossina and the German nationalists.
Quote:You're right, we must speak more broadly, the other tribes are just as Germanic as those who now reside in Germany. I agree with you 100% on these issues, and indeed I have before. So does the majority of modern scholarship too from what I can tell.
I agree with this I have not read a book in recent years(1985+) that does not consider those that went to Britain or from Norway, Sweden or etc. as being anything other then "Germani". What I do find ridiculous is in many of the books that deal primarily with "Germani" from the 1970's- early 2000's is the need to put a "Kossina" disclaimer at the beginning of their books.
Quote:Germani is generally a geographical group.
If you look at J.Caesar's writings he writes of "Germani" as being on either side of the Rhine, as well as the Volcae whom he classifies as "Celts" dwelling inside of Germania. Tacitus goes into the Bastarnae (well outside of Germania) calling them "Germani" based "in speech, way of life, mode of settlement and habitation;..". Tacitus also does this with other groups. Groups that the authors may be unfamiliar with may possibly be addressed as "Germani" simply because of location, but to me that seems like a small north eastern group. When groups already classified as "Germani" move from Germania, they still keep the label "Germani" no matter where they go. Yes the Romans/Greeks had the "eternal barbarian" mentality which meant that groups like the Goths were called Scythians to begin with, considering where they came into being as far as Romans and Greeks are concerned. But to say this of the majority of the "Germani" I have to disagree with.
Quote:It originally referred to undoubtedly Celtic tribes on the Rhine, such as the Nametes and Tribocci. It later came to refer to both Celtic and Germanic groups east of the Rhine. I suspect the term was transferred over when Celtic tribes on the Rhine hired Germanic mercenaries.
Quote:More probably these three tribes, like those of the area from which they probably originate, the Wetterau and the regions between the Main and the Lippe, of whom we spoke above, are in the strict linguistic sense neither true Germans nor true Celts, but a border people who have however assimilated the La Tene culture of the Celtic neighbors pg.23He was writing of the Nemetes, Triboci and the Vangiones. He goes on to write of the Ubii and Sugambri as being the same material culture wise as other Celts, just a little poorer. He also speaks of the Belgae as being neither German or Celt. However this book was written in 1972 and it seems newer research/ideas/finds are brought to light.
Quote:The Matronae names of the second and third centuries also reflect both the latest Germanic language influx introduced to the area by the Ubii and the mixed Germanic and Celtic language which pre-dated the Ubian Migration. Pg.119
Quote:The persistence of ethnic traditions is also reflected in the German language of the Ubii (but also of the indigenous population or Germani cisrhenani) which continued to be spoken throughout the Roman period. Significantly, this is more recognizably detectable amongst those members of the group who did not live in an urban environment, and it is in the countryside that non-Roman names predominate over Roman names with tria nomina. It is also here in Cologne's hinterland that more traditional Germanic timber architecture survived in the context of farmsteads (see chapter 4). Pg.130
The groups that were with Ariovistus I'm not inclined to believe were "Celtic", but perhaps the Nemetes and Triboci were some mixed or just Celticized "Germani", at least in name.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Marja - 02-10-2013
I don't think Germani = Germans.
After all, Germani include many of the ancestors of the English and Dutch, too. Germani originally referred to Celtic-speaking Gallic tribes. Nametes and Tribocci are Celtic tribal names. Ubii seems to be disputed. If these tribes had not been described as Germani, would anyone identify them as Germanic, let along 'Germans'? I remember sunken-floored huts being characterized, in one context, as characteristically Germanic, and in another as characteristically Slavic, when they may simply have been a useful building technique. I don't see why 'traditional Germanic timber architecture' [stallhouses?] can't simply have been another useful building technique.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Frostwulf - 02-12-2013
Quote:I don't think Germani = Germans.
After all, Germani include many of the ancestors of the English and Dutch, too.
In this context I agree. The Germani are simply the construct of the Romans which mostly included people who spoke a "Germanic" language and had at one time similar customs. The "Germani" can be looked at as being ingrained into the ancestors of the Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, French, British, etc. etc. But no they are not strictly German which is why some choose "Germani" to distinguish from modern Germans and their distant ancestors.
Quote:Germani originally referred to Celtic-speaking Gallic tribes. Nametes and Tribocci are Celtic tribal names. Ubii seems to be disputed.
The Romans made no distinction of the word Germani, it was to mean those that belonged to their construct which included groups of the Suebi, Cherusci, Chauci, Harii, Frisii, etc. and including the "Germani cisrhenani". Also in this same Roman construct of Germani is included the Ubii, Nametes and Tribocci.
If the term "Germani" was originally intended to mean "Celtic" speaking tribes, then Caesar certainly misunderstood it as so. This is taken from his writings where he calls Ariovistus who was Germani based on his long practice of Gallic now spoke fluently and his Suebic wife which he brought from home.(1.4-"both on account of his fidelity and on account of his knowledge of the Gallic language, which Ariovistus, by long practice, now spoke fluently;" and 1.53"Ariovistus had two wives, one a Suevan by nation, whom he brought with him from home;". Caesar refers to both the Suebi and the Marcomanni as "Germani", both undoubtedly Germanic by Roman and modern versions of what Germanic means. Furthermore he refers to the land of the "Germani" which goes all the way to the land of the Daci and Anartes(6.25). There are other such references mentioned by Caesar that exclude the Gauls.
If you are referring to Tacitus, the same thing applies. Tacitus simply saw the "Germani" as the previous said construct which is backed up by his writings.
If your saying this applies to what the Gauls were implying, it doesn't show in the written record that way and there is no way that I'm aware of proving this. Tacitus implies(at least to me) the Tungri to be a Germanic grouping. The area where the Tungri came from is that of the "Germani cisrhenani" which I will address in the next quote from you.
Quote:Rome's dealings with 'the Germani' start, as with so many things, with Julius Caesar. He is usually credited with the very invention of the term: having come across the word Germani in a way which remains unknown to us, he used it to identify a distinct non-Celtic, population, made up of various tribes (gentes) living for the most part east of the Rhine. pg. 12.
Quote:"From 61 B.C. onwards, the name "Germani" began to be used to refer to non-Celtic tribes east of the Rhine, a term that probably derived from northern Gaul." pg. 35
Quote:For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Gauls and others whom he thought non-"Germans". pg.60
Quote:If these tribes had not been described as Germani, would anyone identify them as Germanic, let along 'Germans'? I remember sunken-floored huts being characterized, in one context, as characteristically Germanic, and in another as characteristically Slavic, when they may simply have been a useful building technique. I don't see why 'traditional Germanic timber architecture' [stallhouses?] can't simply have been another useful building technique.
Yes, not just from architecture but also names(as previously mentioned) and this:
Quote:Germanic dress, in particular that worn by the Ubii, continued to be depicted well into the third century, although images of Ubian women in purely Roman clothing outnumber those in traditional costume. pg.119
There are those who do agree with you on the Germani="Celtic" tribes, Moreau for instance.
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Alanus - 03-12-2013
When did 'Germans' enter Roman consciousness?
THE REAL ANSWSER:
When the 'Germans' rendered the Romans unconscious.
illy: :woot:
When did ‘Germans’ enter Roman consciousness? - Gesiþ - 03-14-2013
Quote:When did 'Germans' enter Roman consciousness?
THE REAL ANSWSER:
When the 'Germans' rendered the Romans unconscious.
I know i'm new here, but can I please sig this? :lol: