Login

10-24-2002, 10:02 AM

Archaelogically there is little difference between the peoples on the respective banks of the Rhine 100bce-100ce. The gravegoods etc are identical. 
 
Was there ever a Celtic Gaul threatened by German invasion in Julius Caesar's time? Were the Gauls merely West Rhine Germans? 
 
Is is possible that the Romans actually created Germania as distinct from Gaul by building the limes? 
 
If the two regions were never actually distinct ethnically, then it puts the whole Varus/abandonment of Germania theory in a new light. If say the Romans had been defeated heavily by the Nervii so that the Province of Gaul never got beyond Narbo, the modern "Germany" would have regarded the Rhine in much the same way as the French regard the Moselle. 
 
What do you guys think...Did the Romans create their own western Nemesis by creating the Rhine Limes?

10-24-2002, 10:54 AM

Other than the languages being completely different... 
_____________________________________________ 
The Way of a Warrior is based on humanity, love, and sincerity. 
The heart of martial valor is bravery, wisdom, love, and friendship. 
-- Ueshiba Morihei 
 
_____________________________________________

Goffredo · 10-24-2002, 11:40 AM

I believe that if Ceasar had been defeated by the Nervii or at the final show-down at Alesia, Rome would still have attempted to conquer Gaul. I think it would have been only a matter of time that Rome would try again as Gaul had cities (lets say big towns) and its conquest was more conventional than what the conquest of wild and cityless Germany promised to be. Gaul was a matter of hard work but Germany was percieved as hopeless, too vast, too wild and without immediate resources to conquer and use to roman ends. 
 
Lets also not forget that Rome influenced Gaul in many ways. Rome and Greek culture irradiated up from Provence (Marseille). Gemany was very far away.

10-24-2002, 01:16 PM

Celts and Germans were two different cultures. They had different religions and they lived in different places. 
Caesar's tripartite division of Gaul still reflect somewhat today's reality: Aquitanians in the southwest, Gauls in the center and Belgians in the north. Plus Latins in the south, of course. 
Besides, the Germans did not seem to have a unified religion such a the druidic religion. The germanic world was divided into several sub-cultures. Sometimes simply the way to wear a brooch would differentiate between two cultures. 
Here is what Tacitus tells us about the Germans. IMHO it's as good, even better, than modern analysis. To begin with it is contemporary to the ancient Germans. Tacitus may have extrapolated and exagerated a bit to prove his point. But I don't think he invented any of this: 
 
"In the traditional songs which form their only record of the past the Germans celebrate an earth-born god called Tuisto. His son Mannus is supposed to be the fountain-head of their race and himself to have begotten three sons who gave their names to three groups of tribes - the Ingaevones, nearest the sea; the Herminones, in the interior; and the Istaevones, who comprise all the rest. Some authorities, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by remote antiquity, assert that Tuisto had more numerous descendants and mention more tribal groups such as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suebi, and Vandilii - names which they affirm to be both genuine and ancient. The name Germania, however, is said to have been only recently applied to the country. The first people to cross the Rhine and appropriate Gallic territory, though they are known nowadays as Tungri, were at that time called German; and what was at first the name of this one tribe, not of the entire race, gradually came into general use in the wider sense. It was first applied to the whole people by the conquerors of the Gauls, to frighten them; later, all the Germans adopted it and called themselves by the new name." 
Tacitus, Germania. 
Note that Tacitus expresses not doubts, but caution: "Some authorities, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by remote antiquity"... 
 
According to some researchers the Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones could have been three distinct cultural groups following distinct religious rituals. 
Incidentally, the story of Mannus' three sons fall squarely into the indo-european tripartite organisation of society. 
A river like the Rhine could be a border as well as a way of communication. Historically, and for obvious practical reasons, rivers have always been frontiers of choice and I don't think neither Gauls nor Germans waited for the Romans to develop the concept of border. 
It probably predates fire. Borders, limits, frontiers existed ever since that one prehistoric tribe found a good hunting gathering place and figured out they wanted no other tribe in there.. 
Of course, the bigger the river, the safest the border. 
This perpetual fight for control of both banks of a river can still be seen in the name of some Gallic tribes, like the Ambians, who picked up that name meaning "from both banks" (ambivalent comes from that) after defeating a rival tribe in a great battle and taking control of both banks of the river Mosella, sometime in the IIIrd century BC.

10-24-2002, 02:59 PM

A celt wasn't necessarily a "racial" type but a "cultural" type. This was very much linked to the language, religion and a prediliction for personal freedom. 
 
The northern "Belgic" Gauls were very tall blonde/ginger, very " Germanic" thus assumed to eminate from the same Nordic stock??? The Celts of Wales were small stocky & swarthy and even today typical Scots & Irishmen have black hair & blue eyes. The UK has an average of 1 in ten as redheads which is the highest concentration in the World. 
 
Thre was no doubt a parting of the ways back in very old Indo-European times. 
 
Even the Celtic lanuage changed over time with Q & P Celtic ( Goidalic & Brythonic .. one having Mac for "son of" and the other Map ) Irish & Scots & Manx as opposed to Welsh , Cornish & Breton. 
 
Both however gave the Romans some grief over the centuries. 
 
Regards 
 
 
Conal

Thiudareiks Flavius · 10-24-2002, 07:02 PM

I'd agree with what has been said above. Firstly, we know that the early Germanics and their western neighbours the Gauls spoke languages from two distinct (but related) branches of Indo-European by (i) looking at the later languages spoken in these two regions and (ii) looking at the forms of early Germanic and Gallic names recorded in Roman writings and early inscriptions. Secondly, Tacitus and others record that these people considered each other distinct in some important senses - language and religious traditions being the two main ones. 
 
The "Celts" and the "Germanics" (both modern, linguistically-based concepts) were related and influenced each other both linguistically and culturally. This was in much the same way that the Greeks and the Romans were related and also influenced each other linguistically and culturally. But the Germanics were no more Celts than the Romans were Greeks. 
Cheers, 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions

Daniel S Peterson · 10-25-2002, 04:49 PM

I'd say there's a big difference in the grave goods of Celts and Germans in the 1st centurys BC/AD. The archaeological evidence shows Tacitus was quite correct when he stated that a typical German might have no more than a skin held by a thorn over his naked frame, and maybe if lucky a small javelin head of iron...... the only metal object in many early Germanic graves. When there is pottery, it looks like something made in Kindergarten. Of course, more metal objects will be found in more affluent German graves, but most of it was traded or stolen Celtic and Roman goods. Other than more elaborate weapons such a a simple iron sword and metal shield fittings, little else made by the Germans themselves. 
 
Celts on the other hand had a much more advanced culture and typically had beautifully crafted metal weapons, jewelry, utensils etc. and pottery that didn't look like it was made in kindergarten. 
 
It seems that circa 9AD, with the exception of some basic metalurgical skills, the average Germans were culturally inferior to the Cro-magnon's of Sourthern France, probably more like the concept of metal-familiar Neanderthals. This is not to say that when in their tens of thousands they could not defeat a "modern" (Roman) army of their day if it was incompetently led, just as the largely stoneage plains Indians and iron age Zulus had shown the modern armies of the United States and Britain in the latter half of the 19th century. 
 
The Germans of 9AD could be best described as "savages", and only attained the status of "barbarians" after a century or more of Roman contact. 
 
The truth is out there, 
 
Dan.

10-25-2002, 10:01 PM

I posted this topic based on a book I'm reading just now, "Rome and the Enemy" by Susan P Mattern. 
 
This is a "revisionist" book, admittably but contains some convincing stuff about the motives, geographical and knowledge and ethics of the Romans. 
 
On page 76 is this passage: 
 
"Julius Caesar it has been argued, invented Germany. His perceptions of this area of the world reflects his political and imperial agenda and traditional concepts of the barbarian.........Archaeology finds no cultural division on the Rhine, linguistic analysis suggests that most of the names of tribes Caesar identifies as German were Celtic, mixed German and Celtic or neither. The Germans imagined by Caesar, Strabo and Tacitus and displayed confidently on Agrippa's map may never have existed as a cultural linguistic or political entity at all." 
 
There's a lot more like that and it is pretty convincing. It is far from a "popular" history and I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has seen this book.

Thiudareiks Flavius · 10-28-2002, 01:08 AM

Dan wrote: 
 
Celts on the other hand had a much more advanced culture and typically had beautifully crafted metal weapons, jewelry, utensils etc. and pottery that didn't look like it was made in kindergarten. 
 
The earliest Germanic cultures were definitely far less materially sophisticated than their Celtic neighbours. 
 
It seems that circa 9AD, with the exception of some basic metalurgical skills, the average Germans were culturally inferior to the Cro-magnon's of Sourthern France, probably more like the concept of metal familiar Neanderthals. 
 
Ummm, Dan, this is overstatement to the point of silliness. Unlike Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals, the early Germanics produced linen and wool, smelted and cast copper, tin and bronze, produced glass and, later, smelted iron. They were less sophisticated than the Celtic or Italic peoples of the same period, but they were not Neanderthals. 
 
There is an extremely wide gap between the material technology of the Neanderthals and that of the Late La Tene Celts. It encompasses developments such as textiles, most decorative arts, ceramics, all smelting, forging and casting technology, glass ware making, and almost all building technologies including thatching, wattle and daub construction, timber and rammed earth walls and fortifications. 
 
The early Germanic cultures of circa 9 AD had all of these technologies. 
 
To call them "metal familiar Neanderthals" makes about as much sense as calling you a "PC-using and car driving Neanderthal" - ie it makes no sense at all apart from, perhaps, a rhetorical expression of a certain rather irrational prejudice. 
 
This is not to say that when in their tens of thousands they could not defeat a "modern" (Roman) army of their day if it was incompetently led, just as the largely stoneage plains Indians and iron age Zulus had shown the modern armies of the United States and Britain in the latter half of the 19th century. 
 
Ah, the "It was all Varus' fault!" theory. Even if we accept that Varus was tactically incompetent, even though there is little in the available evidence to suggest this, he also had plenty of experienced and competent officers and senior centurions with him. They still lost. 
 
Perhaps that was because these "savages" were led by a highly competent commander called Arminius and worked with him to plan and execute a highly effective strategem. 
 
 
The Germans of 9AD could be best described as "savages", and only attained the status of "barbarians" after a century or more of Roman contact. 
 
 
Again, this is quite silly. Were the warriors represented by the Illerup finds - Scandinavians with very little even secondary contact with the Romans - "savages" or "barbarians"? Are you familiar with the Illerup finds? Hardly "Neanderthal" I can assure you. 
 
You're right to say that the early Germanics were considerably less sophisticated than the Celts of the same period. But this "metal-familiar Neanderthals" is such a wild overstatement as to undermine your point. 
Cheers, 
 
Tim O'Neill 
 
 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legionsEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thiudareiksflavius>Thiudareiks Flavius</A> at: 10/28/02 5:21:23 am

Thiudareiks Flavius · 10-28-2002, 01:49 AM

Mad Max quoted: 
"Julius Caesar it has been argued, invented Germany. His perceptions of this area of the world reflects his political and imperial agenda and traditional concepts of the barbarian.........Archaeology finds no cultural division on the Rhine, linguistic analysis suggests that most of the names of tribes Caesar identifies as German were Celtic, mixed German and Celtic or neither. The Germans imagined by Caesar, Strabo and Tacitus and displayed confidently on Agrippa's map may never have existed as a cultural linguistic or political entity at all." 
 
 
That quote is pretty reasonable (apart, perhaps, the last statement). As I pointed out above, the idea that the Rhine formed a clear cut demarcation between Celtic peoples and Germanic peoples is way too neat - there were Germanic peoples on the west bank of the Rhine and several Celtic and Celto-Germanic tribes on the east bank. 
 
That said, it doesn't follow that there was no "Germania" at all. We can see clear cultural differences in the archaeological record between the majority of the tribes east of the Rhine and the far more sophisticated Celtic peoples of Gaul and south-central Europe. There is also substantial evidence from tribal names and recorded names of chieftains and leaders that there were clear linguistic differences as well, and these names are recognisably Germanic in form. And at least some of Tacitus, Strabo and Caesar's idea that "east of the Rhine = Germania" came from both Roman observation of differing customs and gods and a similar Gallic perception. 
 
The "Germania" of the Roman maps and ethnography was rather too neat and tidy, but it wasn't entirely an invention. There were Germanic tribes out there and they were different to the Celts in several important respects. 
Cheers, 
 
Tim O'Neill 
 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions

**Robert Vermaat** · 10-28-2002, 01:21 PM

'Celts' and 'Germans' were indeed more or less invented. First by Ceasar, who used the Rhine as a boundary and subsequently declared the east bank Germania and the west bank Gaul. This neat feat was performed again by 'modern' antiquarians, fuelled by nationalist policies of the early Napoleonic age and after. 'Celts' became all within the French sphere of influence, 'Germans' all those across the Rhine. Similarly, the early Yugoslav republic endorsed a new 'mega-group': the Illyrians. A very recent continuation of this outdated method was the attempt by the Slovenians, after their independence, to endorse the Venetians as THE cultural group resident in the eastern Alps and the areas east of the Elbe. I have a book by this group, in which they claim there were no Celts in Austria and the Venetians were in fact direct ancesors of the modern (Slav) population. 
 
Dan, your remarks about grave-goods are not very on the mark, because no scientist will be able to tell you beyond doubt what is a Celtic grave and what is a German one. Separation of the groups rested on what Ceasar wrote (which all agree was very biased) and on attempts to separate the groups lingistically, which is next to impossible before the Roman era. Culturally, similar separation attempts have been made, but this is as likely to be guesswork, solely based on definitions. What goods were Celtic? Which were German? What language did their owners speak? 
 
Until recently, it was believed there were no Celts north of the Lower Rhine, until linguistic work on the scraps remaining of early Dutch in the post-Roman coastal area revaled that it was comparable to early Anglo-Saxon across the North Sea, up to the point that it was influenced by a British-type language. The conclusion was that a sort of Dutch/gallic Celtic language was spoken in Holland, after all, during Roman times. 
 
My humble advice to all: don't think of Celts and Germans as cleanly seprated groups (cultural or linguistic), there was probably an immense grey area! So-called Celts and Germans living in the Rhine valley in Ceasar's time may have much more in common that Celts living in Britain and Spain, let alone tose in Hungry and Turkey! 
 
Cheers, 
Robert 
 
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum' 
www.fectio.org.uk/

10-28-2002, 02:38 PM

Robert, 
 
Am very intersted in your sources for the language studies ? I had always thought of Dutch as following the same roots as English or even a Nordic language. 
 
There would be no doubt have been some cross pollenisation between the Celts & their northern & eastern neighbours ( English absorbs very well ) making this Dutch/Gallic language you mention. This does not , for me, point to a common ancestry or cultural background which would have made J.Ceaser's split incorrect. I assume he would have asked the locals ? You cannot devide & conquor without knowing where the devides are.

Daniel S Peterson · 10-28-2002, 08:28 PM

Yes Tim, of course it was a silly overstatement. But you see, we had this bet going on how long it would take a certain Germanophile to send a lengthly and indignant reply, and I wasn't disappointed. Sometimes we must exaggerate a bit to insure "a spirited exchange of ideas". 
 
But no, I cannot acknowledge the German victory in the Teutoberger .more to Arminius' genius than to Varus' incompetence and misplaced trust in who he thought was an honorable man. Varus made the fatal mistake of "trusting the Germans". I do not think there is another country in the world that would make a "hero" out of someone as treacherous as Arminius, but then, to the German mentality, the violation of Belgian neutrality in WWI, declaring treaties as "worthless scaps of paper" ,etc are pefectly acceptable stratagems. 
 
Varus foolishly believed the Germans were succesfully being "romanized", and had his troops on a "peace" footing, scattered among the various villages, helping the people who would stab them in the back. 
 
Proof that Arminius was no great general and was victorious only due to treachery is evident from the subsequent Roman successes against him which, of course, many German writers lamely dismiss as Roman propaganda. This selective dismisal of all elements of Tacitus that do not support the pro-Arminius line is absurd when one considers that this "great victory" was aleady virtually lost to German memory in a few generations. Imperial Rome was closer to the United States than say Communist Russia in its recording of historical events. Instead of a state controlled "Pravda"-like apparatus, in Rome, historians competed with each other, and aspired to being accurate in their accounts. Roman historians were not executed for accurately recording history. The same mentalitiy that would suggest that Roman victories were fabricated, would according imply that Roman defeats would not be recorded. Of course, in the Roman world victories and defeats could no more easily be misrepresented than they could today, in all but the most totalitarian states. 
 
And Max, this whole Celt and German debate is part of an agenda among certain German pseudo-historians who will not accept the fact that "true" Germans could ever be defeated by Latin "inferiors". Therefore any suspect "barbarian" tribe documented to have been defeated by Rome could only have been Celtic, certainly never Germans. Caesar did not invent the Germans. The Gauls themselves acknowledged the Germans as their inveterate enemies, and Ceasar employed Germans as mercenary cavalry, who seemed only to happy to fight the gauls. (Odd if they were all Gauls). 
 
It is true that in "border" areas between the two cultures there will obviously be some similarities between them. Also trade and endless combat would cause an intermingling of the two cultures artifacts in the archaeologocial record. In truth, however, there are distinct diferences between the two. Germanic and Celtic swords of the period, for example, are of distincly different styles. Check it out in your Osprey books, 
 
Dan

Thiudareiks Flavius · 10-29-2002, 08:20 AM

Dan wrote: 
 
Yes Tim, of course it was a silly overstatement. But you see, we had this bet going on how long it would take a certain Germanophile to send a lengthly and indignant reply, and I wasn't disappointed. Sometimes we must exaggerate a bit to insure "a spirited exchange of ideas". 
 
 
Well, most of my replies tend to be lengthy (thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s just my writing style) but the one above wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t actually ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œindignantÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

10-29-2002, 08:46 AM

Not bad work for a few blokes dressed in skins & weilding fire-sharpened sticks !!! Use of forests to ensnare an enemy was a favourite Celtic trick right up to the time the Elizabethens were chasing the Irish all over Ireland. Draw them in ..chop a few key trees down & pick as many off as possible before legging it !! 
 
Can you recommend a good read ref AD9 please ? 
 
Also what is available on the Cimbri & Teutones ? 
 
 
Regards 
 
 
Conal

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me