What do we know about Germanic tribes and culture?

Scaeva · Nov 8, 2014

The Romans won the vast majority of both their battles and their wars against Germanic tribes. This includes the period during and after Teutoburg, and even well into the Late Empire.

In some respects the martial prowess of the Germanic tribes is somewhat overrated. Teutoburg, though perhaps the most well remembered of battles between the Romans and Germanic tribesmen, was the exception rather than the rule. Teutoburg is also one of the more overrated battles of antiquity.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

indigo said:
The second is, and sorry to be so blunt, that germans were too simple to comprehend how much they could get from allowing romans in.

Not even Tacitus believed Roman rule created benefits for the subdued population. Tacitus wrote the following words and ascribed them to Galgacus leading the resistance in Caledonia:

"To robbery, they give the lying word Government. They make a desert, and call it peace."

'Brittunculi' is how romans refered to Britons. I think the Romans would have had some equally derogatory term for the Germani.

And so did Arminius, Herman der Cherusker, who defeated the roman legions at Kalkriese. He had served in the Roman Army and knew what fate befell those they subjugated.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Scaeva said:
The Romans won the vast majority of both their battles and their wars against Germanic tribes. This includes the period during and after Teutoburg, and even well into the Late Empire.

The construction of the Upper German Rhaetian Limes to hold the Germanic tribes back would suggest otherwise. Even then, it was breached many times.

When the romans did venture to the east of Rhine or north of the Danube and beyond their own Limes, they lost heavily at places like [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_the_Harzhorn"]Harzhorn[/ame].

Evo · Nov 9, 2014

authun said:
Not even Tacitus believed Roman rule created benefits for the subdued population. Tacitus wrote the following words and ascribed them to Galgacus leading the resistance in Caledonia:

"To robbery, they give the lying word Government. They make a desert, and call it peace."

'Brittunculi' is how romans refered to Britons. I think the Romans would have had some equally derogatory term for the Germani.

And so did Arminius, Herman der Cherusker, who defeated the roman legions at Kalkriese. He had served in the Roman Army and knew what fate befell those they subjugated.

I think, @Indigo talked not about the “benefits for the subdued population” as a whole. But about the benefits for the chieftains of the subdued population.

The idea of our Bulgarian friend “Indigo” was very simple – According to him, it is quite normal if you, as a chieftain, decide to sacrifice your own people in order to have a bath and to live wealthy.

It is quite primitive but very practical.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Evo said:
According to him, it is quite normal if you, as a chieftain, decide to sacrifice your own people in order to have a bath and to live wealthy.

It is quite primitive but very practical.

I doubt Boudica and her daughters would agree with him.

Frank81 · Nov 9, 2014

authun said:
The construction of the Upper German Rhaetian Limes to hold the Germanic tribes back would suggest otherwise. Even then, it was breached many times.

When the romans did venture to the east of Rhine or north of the Danube and beyond their own Limes, they lost heavily at places like Harzhorn.

Actually a Roman victory. The fact that Romans could win most of the battles to Germanic peoples doesn't mean to conquer them, because a war is more than battles. That's why the Romans decided to build a fortification line in the border, leaving the outer part as unconquerable. Since then, for the most part of the time the wars involved raidings and retaliations with inconclusive results.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
Actually a Roman victory. The fact that Romans could win most of the battles to Germanic peoples doesn't mean to conquer them, because a war is more than battles. That's why the Romans decided to build a fortification line in the border, leaving the outer part as unconquerable. Since then, for the most part of the time the wars involved raidings and retaliations with inconclusive results.

Germania Superior was mostly celtic tribal territory, referred to as the Agri Decumates.

Have a look at this map of Celtic La Tene Oppida:

or this of La Tene chariots burials

Settlement followed the river valleys of the Mosel, Rhine, Main, Neckar and Donau, none of which are germanic names. The rest is forest. Celts settled in the areas. Even by the 7th cent. pollen analysis shows that forest dominates:

Xenology · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
Actually a Roman victory. The fact that Romans could win most of the battles to Germanic peoples doesn't mean to conquer them, because a war is more than battles. That's why the Romans decided to build a fortification line in the border, leaving the outer part as unconquerable. Since then, for the most part of the time the wars involved raidings and retaliations with inconclusive results.

I'm not denying that, but several major battles can still impact a war, I think the hardest thing of conquering Germania would've been all the separate tribes they'd have to deal with.

Xenology · Nov 9, 2014

Scaeva said:
The Romans won the vast majority of both their battles and their wars against Germanic tribes. This includes the period during and after Teutoburg, and even well into the Late Empire.

In some respects the martial prowess of the Germanic tribes is somewhat overrated. Teutoburg, though perhaps the most well remembered of battles between the Romans and Germanic tribesmen, was the exception rather than the rule. Teutoburg is also one of the more overrated battles of antiquity.

Back in those times though I'm sure the romans were wondering how to counteract against these tribes. I'm sure people in Roma were mystified at how they lost so badly at Teutoburb. I can't deny the facts though, that romans had better equipment and training. But let's put them against a leader like Ariovistus, Boduognatus, Vercingetorix. They were all deadly combatants and did some heavy damage to Rome with tactical and ferocious prowess.

Frank81 · Nov 9, 2014

authun said:
Germania Superior was mostly celtic tribal territory, referred to as the Agri Decumates.

Yes that area was Celtic. In regard to the Agri Decumantes, it was abandoned in the 3rd century and then occupied by the Alamani

The only originally Germanic territory permanently conquered by Romans was arguably the lower Rhin area. That area had been Germanized for some time before the Roman conquest, if we accept that the Belgae in the area were Germanics. After the Roman conquest, lesser Germanic peoples fleeing from the Suevi were authorized to cross the Rhin and settle in the safe western bank of the river

During the 3rd-4th century the limes was dismantled, and the area occupied by the Franks in terms of foederati, who rebuilt the Roman military in the area.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
if we accept that the Belgae in the area were Germanics.

That has defeated the best of the scholarship for well over a century.

Similar to the pressure of the alemanni on the upper german lines, pressure on the limes in the lower rhine compelled the Romans to settle Salian Franks in Toxandria, salians probably fleeing growing 'saxon' power building up in the lower Elbe.

As far as I know, Novomagius (Nijmegen) is latinised celtic, Welsh newydd, Breton nevez and magos "field", "plain", then "market" '(cf. Old Irish mag "plain"; Old Breton ma, place).

Anti · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
Yes that area was Celtic. In regard to the Agri Decumantes, it was abandoned in the 3rd century and then occupied by the Alamani.

It was not entirely Keltic during the Roman times;
Acc. to inscriptions [CIL XIII 2633] the so-called Suebi Nicrenses (Neckarsueben / River Neckar) lived in the vicinities of Lopodunum and the Civitas existed as Ulpia Sueborum Nicretum as well as adjacent CivitasVangionum (Wangionen);

The Wangionen were one of the several Germanic tribes that had already crossed the Rhine in the 1st century BC into (than) free Gallia; Tacitus (Ger.XXIII) describes the Gauls in the Dekumatland as the most daring and adventurers but describes them as cultivators of this contested land; Which can be understood as the Gauls coming in with the Romans in the 1st century AD since the passage also continues with the Limes build;

Keeping in mind that Julius Caesar (B.G.I/I) already noted that the GERMANI and the Keltic Belgae and Helvetii were ''continually waging war'' .... ''in almost daily battles'' already in the 1st century BC; And Ariovistus did not wage war against the Romans he crossed the Rhine to wage war against the Gauls (Magetobriga 63BC) and the Gauls sought help from the Romans who however regarded Ariovistus as ''king and friend of the Roman people'' (Julius Caesar B.G.I/XL / Appian Celt. fr. XVI);

During the 1st century BC the Keltic presence in the Hercynian forest was crippled into non-existence (absorption at best); Not just by the Germanic emergence but also by the Getan king Boerebistas who virtually annihilated the Boii with the remnants escaping to the Helvetii (Bibracte 58BC);

The Limes was finally abandoned by Aurelian; After re-conquering the secessionist ''Gallic empire'' who was not fit to maintain this bollwerk and Aurelian had to abandon it in consequence;

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Anti said:
The Wangionen were one of the several Germanic tribes that had already crossed the Rhine in the 1st century BC

Or more accurately, a people from Germania. Caesar often used such terms as geographic descriptions, not linguistic descriptions. They may have been celtic speakers. Ralph Häussler, Alexander Sitzmann: Wangionen. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA)

Frank81 · Nov 9, 2014

OK guys your level on the issue is much higher than mine guys, I didn't know about the Suevi around the Agri Decumates, neither the hypothesis of the "pushing" Saxons. When did the Saxons appeared in scene?, what happened with the Suebi between Tiberius and the invasion of Galaecia (5th century)?

As a side note, someone mentioned the Marcomanni. This people is an odd example in the relation among Rome and the barbarians, since they are the only example I can remember of a people moving OUT of Roman borders because of fear of extermination. They fled to Bohemia from the Rhin frontier, in a kind of reverse migration. The normal movement of peoples was from the Eurasian steppes and forest into the Roman border, but not the opposite.

authun · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
I didn't know about the Suevi around the Agri Decumates,

It's a general term. Over half of the tribes are collectively called Suevi. The Baltic is called Mare Suebicum so it gives you an idea of the extent of the geographic territory.

Like the Alemanni later, meaning all men, it is an etic term, that is, a term outsiders use to refer to a people. The people themselves use their own emic descriptions, for example, Bucinobantes or Lentienser were alamannic groupings or cantons. One of the biggest groups who went to make up the Alemanni were the Semnones, but they, like many other Tacitean tribes, disappear.

Saxons are another such etic term, comprising of many groups, westfail, ostfali, amisvariner, dithmarser, holstaetter, stormanner and so on.

This is the nature of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_kingship"]germanic kingship[/ame] of the migration period. Groups are constantly reforming themselves.

Scaeva · Nov 9, 2014

authun said:
The construction of the Upper German Rhaetian Limes to hold the Germanic tribes back would suggest otherwise. Even then, it was breached many times.

.

By overrated I don't mean that the Germanic tribes were militarily weak. What I mean is that they were not as formidable as people often imagine. I've seen Teutoburg described as a turning point, and many people are under the mistaken impression that the Romans lost most of their battles and wars against the Germanic tribes after it. Neither is true.

Anti · Nov 9, 2014

Frank81 said:
OK guys your level on the issue is much higher than mine guys, I didn't know about the Suevi around the Agri Decumates, neither the hypothesis of the "pushing" Saxons. When did the Saxons appeared in scene?, what happened with the Suebi between Tiberius and the invasion of Galaecia (5th century)?

The Suebi/Suevi were never a single tribe but multiple tribes (post#19) who belonged to the Irminonic (Herminones) Germanic branch; The term Suebi/Suevi signifies the plain over-term but in several accounts specific tribes are mentioned by their names; From Tiberius til the 5th century AD there is most notably the Marcomannic-wars (late 2nd century AD) which saw a major concentration of numerous (hostile/warring) Germanic tribes, amongst many Suebii, along the Danube frontier with the subsequent emergence (concentrated) of the Alamanni and Iuthungi in the 3rd century AD;

The over-term (ethnonym) Suebi was however still attested as such during the 5th century AD for a group on the Danube and Pannonia; A part of these Suebi under king Hermeric crossed the Rhine (406AD) along with the Vandals and Alans and reached as far as the prov. Gallaecia; The other part of these Suebi remained on the Danube (Donau-Sueben) under king Hunimund as vassals of the Ostrogoths and were ultimately defeated by the Ostrogoths of Thiudimir (Bolia 469AD / Jordanes LIV[277-279]); After this defeat the Suebi who escaped (fled to) mingled with the Alamanni across the Danube - into which Thiudimir led a campaign (Jordanes LV[280-282]);

Other Suebi remained in Pannonia and were subjugated by the Langobarden (early 6th century AD / H.L. I/XXI) and joined them into Italy (H.L. II/XXVI); The 12th century Tabula Peutingeriana depicts both an Alamannia and a Suevia - north of the Alps and Danube and east of Francia;

authun · Nov 10, 2014

Anti said:
The other part of these Suebi remained on the Danube (Donau-Sueben) under king Hunimund

Notwithstanding Hunimund's Suebi, the term Donauschwaben refers to an 18th century migration to an area vacated by the expulsion of the Ottomans. There are many groups such as the Krimdeutsche, Swabian farmers who migrated to the Crimea but they are all much more recent.

The term Neckar Schwaben too is potentially misleading. The Neckar valley north of Stuttgart roughly from Cannstatt, was an area settled by alemanni but which came under pressure from the Franks. Whilst many alemanni left, some stayed and mixed with the new frankish settlers which has given rise to the South Franconian dialect. Most Franconian dialects are middle german but this particular one belongs ot the high german classification because of the influence of the alemanni..

In addition, it is postulated that places like Gross u. Klein Sachsenheim near Ludwigsburg were Saxon settlements established under Charlemagne's policy of exiling 'saxons' from the north who refused to convert to Christianity. Some historians believe that these are the 'saxons' of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden"]Verden[/ame] who were exiled rather than beheaded, delocare (relocated) rather than decollare (decapitated).

Isleifson · Nov 10, 2014

authun said:
Notwithstanding Hunimund's Suebi, the term Donauschwaben refers to an 18th century migration to an area vacated by the expulsion of the Ottomans. There are many groups such as the Krimdeutsche, Swabian farmers who migrated to the Crimea but they are all much more recent.

The term Neckar Schwaben too is potentially misleading. The Neckar valley north of Stuttgart roughly from Cannstatt, was an area settled by alemanni but which came under pressure from the Franks. Whilst many alemanni left, some stayed and mixed with the new frankish settlers which has given rise to the South Franconian dialect. Most Franconian dialects are middle german but this particular one belongs ot the high german classification because of the influence of the alemanni..

In addition, it is postulated that places like Gross u. Klein Sachsenheim near Ludwigsburg were Saxon settlements established under Charlemagne's policy of exiling 'saxons' from the north who refused to convert to Christianity. Some historians believe that these are the 'saxons' of Verden who were exiled rather than beheaded, delocare (relocated) rather than decollare (decapitated).

The Donauschwaben come mostly from Lorraine

[ame="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donauschwaben"]Donauschwaben ? Wikipedia[/ame]

BANATerra - Une encyclopédie progressive du Banat

Isleifson · Nov 10, 2014

The name Donauschwaben was used for all people coming to the Banat using a small type of ship used in Ulm.

[ame=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmer_Schachtel]Ulmer Schachtel ? Wikipedia[/ame]

Search

Search

What do we know about Germanic tribes and culture?

Scaeva

authun

authun

Evo

authun

Frank81

authun

Xenology

Xenology

Frank81

authun

Anti

authun

Frank81

authun

Scaeva

Anti

authun

Isleifson

Isleifson

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions