Wikipedia

Talk:Germanic tribes

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Dbachmann in topic merge

Pre-Germanic place names

edit

That there isn't pre-germanic place names in southern Scandinavia I think is somewhat true. But there is rare exception. The name "Ismansdal" in Gotland has been claimed to have other origin, mostly related to basque language. The name Simrishamn, which is a town in southern Swedish province of Skåne has also been claimed to have non-germanic origins, some people claim that it's celtic, but I think that's hard to varify.

I'm under the impression that the word Volk is another word for Folk, but I'm not 100% positive.Gringo300 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea of a single German people, or Volk, is a relatively recent development, largely invented by 19th and 20th centuries writers and politicians. From ancient times, several ethnic groups have mixed to shape the history of Germany. Even though the Roman Empire had often grouped several peoples under the name Germans, it is doubtful that most of these groups viewed themselves as connected in any cultural, linguistic, or political sense. The formation of an eastern Frankish kingdom in the 9th century seems a watershed event in German development, although this kingdom featured a diversity of cultures and political allegiances. Most of the medieval "German" rulers actually considered themselves kings of the Romans, and, later, Roman emperors. Not until the 15th century did the emperors officially add "of the German nation" to their title.

(Source: Microsoft Corporation, Encarta.)
1) Is this copied from Encarta??
2) This paragraph doesn't make sense. It seems to link the issue and ideals of 19th/20th century Volkish(nazi?) nationalism with the very existance of the Germanic peoples full-stop. Now you could be nilistic and say no ethnic/linguistic groups don't really exist and are just blurs of each other, but I doubt any encyclopaedia would say anything like what is in that paragraph about the Bantu or Slavs, in such that they're insinuating the concept of the said group's existance is a 19th-century intellectualist plot.

Huns

edit

An anon wikipedian said that this link was a mistake. Is it? Martin

Well the "Huns" as in Magyars are definitely not Germanic. As far as I remember the original Huns (as in Attila) were also not Germanic, they were probably Turkic. Maybe the link was there because someone confused it with slur "Hun." Adam Bishop 17:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Splendid. Thanks :) Martin


Germanicus

edit

Germanicus in Latin means "Conqueror of Germans." Why is Tacitus omitted? "Hints" in strabo and Ptolemy need to be quoted, not hinted at.

Added link to Strabo's Geography -EikwaR

Walha and "Valhalla" might be discussed. Ethnic content of "southern" Christianity seems a little Nazicated. I give this a B minus. Wetman 22:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Germanicus actually means (roughly) of Germany; the Germanicus gained the cognomen because of his military successes in Germania, but the term had other uses. As for Tacitus, I would guess that his mention is so brief because the ethnography of the Germania is next to useless; there's some doubt, and not just among Central European ethnic nationalists, whether all the groups he enumerates (the Cimbri, for example) were even German. The ethnicization of religious divisions is just ridiculous: Poland and Ireland are by no means "southern" countries, and while the Reformation had more impact on countries speaking Germanic languages, correlation isn't causation. --67.71.78.210 22:55, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not to defend the text, but even though correlation and causation aren't synonymous, correlations are usually our best indication of where to look for causation. Your maxim pretends that there is no causality between fire and smoke since there is a correlation. Sorry to spoil your maxim.--Wiglaf 14:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why the united states , Anglophone Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc... Are not included in the actual peoples of germanic culture, while england is !!??

If germanic is just a cultural term, there is no reason to esclude those countries, wich cultures are obviously anglo-saxon rooted, so germanic rooted !

USA is as germanic as Argentina is latin !

Of course it is. I think it should be mentioned on Germanic peoples. Wiglaf 19:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At a second thought, I really hope you don't still think so! Already the British are excluded, if due to Celtic remnants or due to Romanization after 1066 is beyond my understanding. US culture is not limited to WASPs.
--Ruhrjung 02:57, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
The English are included in the article. Moreover, I don't think that the presence of other cultures besides the dominant Germanic culture in the US is reason to exclude neither the US, Canada, Australia nor New Zealand. Even countries such as Sweden, Germany and Holland have substantial non-Germanic cultural minorities. Moreover, countries such as Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay are less "Latin" than the US is "Germanic".--Wiglaf 15:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page move

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

(from WP:RM)

Germanic tribe → Germanic tribes

edit
  • The article Germanic tribe (singular) should be moved to Germanic tribes (plural). It is the natural name for the article, and would make linking to the article easier. 68.46.123.33 10:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • But linking is already easy. Just write [[Germanic tribe]]s. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization). And in any case, Germanic tribes is a redirect, so does it matter? Gdr 00:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
    • No offence, Gdr, but if you actually read the naming conventions page you recommend, it says right off the bat: "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English" Since the subject of this request is a term describing 50-60 tribes, it is and has always been Germanic tribes in the lexicon—and your argument about a redirect already being in place is invalid, because that's what this requested moves page is all about...and...Germanic tribe should be redirecting to Germanic tribes, not as it is now. I have no objection to this move. —ExplorerCDT 17:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • "Germanic tribe" gets more than 7,000 Google hits, so it is not "always in a plural form in English". It makes perfect sense to write "The [[Visigoth]]s were a [[Germanic tribe]].". The point of the exception you quote is for things like scissors and trousers. Gdr 20:44, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
        • Gdr: Again, no offence. But 7,000 for the singular form were probably stating "The Visigoths were a Germanic tribe" (11 for that exact verbiage), and other mentions of other tribes as being one Germanic Tribe. Did you bother to see that Google also has 97,200 hits for "Germanic Tribes." 97,200 vs. 7,000 hits. I consider that being an overwhelming sign that the masses have spoken—just as they have on scissors and trousers.—ExplorerCDT 21:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I only got 43,000 google hits. Gdr 22:25, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC) P.S. Preceding an insult by "no offence" doesn't make it any less offensive, it just indicates that you know it is offensive. I think it is generally better to cut the insult.
I didn't use all the conditional minuses that you used. Still, when you look through those 6,390 selections (too low to round up to 7000, but thanks for the rhetorical flourish) [1] most of them are refering to one tribe and saying "x was a germanic tribe." The singular form "Germanic tribe" is only used to qualify the nominative subject through the form of a direct object in its semantic usage. Through a quick survey of the results from google (I bet you didn't look past the number of results to survey the content of the results) you will not see the singular "Germanic tribe" used in the nominative case.
This article is a summary of all FIFTY of the Germanic Tribes. Not just one. Therefore, on that fact alone, the title of the article should be in the plural. If it were a category linking over 50 articles on each of the tribes, would YOU call it Category: Germanic Tribe? Heck no. As there are over 50 Germanic Tribes, and because they are commonly referred to through the label of "Germanic Tribes" as a general category, there are too many reasons why Germanic Tribes should take primacy over "Germanic Tribe" as the title.
Lastly, compare those 6,390 with 43,000. A 1:7 ratio. I'd be willing to bet that those 43,000 are all refering to "Germanic Tribes" as a categorical subject in the nominative, as opposed to the 6,400 that are undoubtedly all in the objective usage or dative case. Take a look.
Since its usage as a nominative subject is ALWAYS in the plural, that is where the title of the article should derive. Usage as anything-but-a-nominative-subject does not count.
Finally, don't deign to think I care that want to lecture me on what you think is offensive. Most people get defensively offended when someone points out their being wrong. You're no different. —ExplorerCDT 23:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
PS— If you read the Oxford English Dictionary, "trousers" and "trouser" are both equally accepted as singular usage. Also, "scissor" was a common singular usage until the early 18th century. So your two examples are faulty. --ExplorerCDT 23:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
PPS —, if you also look over the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization) page, you will notice that an exception is made for Germanic languages, most likely because as related in the article, different cultural groups (some would say tribes) speak different dialects that eventually morphed into similar languages under that organized under that category. So, by induction (see the logic defn.) wouldn't Germanic Tribes also be such a category worth of exception? What a concept!
How about you try this... Go to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization) page, click on Germanic languages, then notice in the first sentence of that article it refers to Germanic peoples (not just people, peoples). When you click on Germanic peoples what do you find before your eyes? If that isn't a sign of common usage, golly gee.—ExplorerCDT 23:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've convinced me that you're right and I'm wrong and I withdraw my objection. Gdr 17:09, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Germanic tribes and/or Germanic peoples?

edit

I don't see where this particular issue has been discussed here; but my preference would be to rename the article Germanic peoples, and change the content now there to Germanic nations. In the USA, at least among people of a certain political tendence, the word "tribe" is strongly disfavoured, and "peoples" or even "nations" are the preferred substitutes. "Tribes" is imagined to condescendingly suggest primitive cultures and political institutions. These implications are wrong for the Germanic peoples, who are described as literate and having sophisticated political institutions from the moment they appear in recorded history; they weren't all just a bunch of Wagnerian extras. Now "nations" would seem to me to accurately describe what's now at Germanic peoples, but "peoples" instead of "tribes" strikes me as appropriately neutral and colourless, while accurately describing the contents here. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)



I personally, have nothing against the term tribe. It is true that they were literate and had advanced institutions, there is no denying that. In fact, I have strong doubts about the extreme Mediterranean bias that we find at Western culture (as if the North European parliaments "only" had their roots in athenian democracy, and not in institutions such as tings and witenagemots, *sigh*). Moreover, West European monarchy evolved out of the way Germanic kingship was constitued. However, if we define them as nations we start another semantic dispute, and if we term them peoples we might start yet another one. Moreover, the Germanic culture of the time was a warrior society, and I think tribe conveys that element.--Wiglaf 15:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Wiglaf, and I think tribes is the more accurate name. I do think "Ancient Germanic peoples" would be an acceptable alternative, though--and perhaps one more "politically correct", as tribes often connotates "primitive". However, tribes is reasonably and accurately applied to Native American peoples, who were by no means primitive when the Europeans showed up. As to having political institutions, "tribes" does indicate at least a moderate level of organization--otherwise there would be no "tribe". "Peoples" by contrast is rather vague.
Interestingly, other encyclopedias differ on how they handle the naming of this article. The Columbia Encyclopedia names it "German Tribes". [2], while the more PC Encarta calls the article "Germanic Peoples", yet starts it with the sentence "Germanic Peoples, group of tribes united by language and custom...." Heh, if the "Germanic Peoples" were a group of tribes, why not just call the article "Germanic tribes"? I say down with Political Correctness, and just call things what they are.
- Pioneer-12 16:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I am the person who originally proposed renaming this article from Germanic tribe to Germanic tribes.
"Germanic Peoples" would be the most neutral form to use in English. "tribes" does tend to imply a particular range of technological, social, cultural, and religious development for any given gens/ethnic group/whatever... in English. "nations" would be even worse than "tribes" in this context.
As for the Native American peoples: that is too broad of a generalisation to be able to make easily. The width and breadth of development for various groups, from the Arctic to nearly the Antarctic, is extremely broad in scope before (and after) the Europeans arrived (again) in the 15th century C.E.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything at all wrong with 'nations' in this context, and I don't believe it implies anything regarding technology. Arker 18:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is called an "anachronism", which is something that is best avoided when attempting to write within an ethnographic and/or historiographic context. It tends to confuse people. They begin to confuse actual history with fiction.
Tribes are not necessarily equivalent to nations. Nor is a gens. Scientific ethnography does not grant every ethnic group the status of being a nation, even in our time when all it takes is a few loud people and some rifles to start an international debate over the "plight of an oppressed people". The assertion of the right of self-determination does not always carry a concurrent assertion of the status (or desire for) a nation-state. Describing the Lombards, Alemanni, or even the Goths as being "nations" is an anachronism in the context of this article.
P.MacUidhir (t) 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I can't agree at all. It's not anachronistic, nor is there any clear denotative distinction between a tribe and a nation. There are innumerable instances where they are used interchangeably, and very few where a particular scholar has carefully defined them to draw a distinction relevent to a particular context. The main difference is that nation has a more dignified connotation. Arker 20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
{shrug} I have no problem with agreeing to disagree with you on these topics.
P.MacUidhir (t)09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply


society's current fascination with "political correctness", is a subversion of the realm of the mind, and of expression. how can you wield the sword of semantics with one hand and the white flag of censorship with other?

restrictions on abstract thought and expression? -what? i don't get it? how do we expand our understanding by limiting the tools we have to use? damn the pejorative!!! and mark the lexicon in twain. ;)

seriously though, the language and the meaning of it's integral little cogs, the words we use every day, should not bear the burden of society's woes. the fact that they will is a natural process we call "etymology". but forcing it, don't fit! so that all this "connotation" and that "implication" is what gives man's finest achievement it's greatest power. for good or bad. tell me what a word doesn't mean, and we've got something to hem and haw about. -communication. but tell me what a word shouldn't mean, and we're headin' for a breakdown.

more to the subject. it sounds reasonable to say a given state is "a nation of tribes". even to say a nation state was composed of mostly "tribal people". (suppose in a demographic essay or what-not). but to say that a given state is a "tribe of many nations", sounds a little off to me. i guess the way i see it; a central government (state) doesn't preclude the existence of tribal entities within the realm of it's (state's) sovereignty. for instance the apache nation has many tribes. however, the idea of a tribal entity with a few states within the scope of it's authority does seem to stretch the limits of the idea. in my view, a tribe is a form of government. a pecking order at the least. an extension of the family. and if you consider that an inferior society, that's fine. and if that offends you, change yourself not the language.

respectfully,

Ransom147 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

dispute?

edit

Talk:Germanic peoples redirects here. Why is there an NPOV warning on the Germanic peoples page? I agree that it is not really common to refer to the modern speakers of Germanic languages as "Germanic peoples", and it seems rather bad taste to speak of a "Germanic diaspora" (which I would just quietly rephrase instead of putting up the NPOV banner). But where are the objections connected with the boilerplate, and how have they been addressed? dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be much better to rephrase such statements, than to add an NPOV warning anonymously. Since there is no explanation why it is there, I guess it should be removed.--Wiglaf 10:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is mentioned the germanic diapora and influence outside the germanic countries, about the french regions of Alsace, Normandy of Burgundy why metionning only french regions? germanic tribes had settled in all latin countries such as Spain and portugal (wisigoth), or Italy (they gave their names to regions like lombardia). Even sicily recieved large norsemen settlements and Andalousia takes its name from vandals who also settled there and in north africa. thinking that france is the only latin country that had recieved germanic influence is false.

Strange Paragraph

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed following text. In my opinion very subjective and conflicting with "the existence of a common identity is testified by the fact that they had a name for non-Germanic peoples, *walha, from which the local names Welsh, Wallis, Walloon, and Wallachia have been derived."84.163.190.89

Generalizing economical, social, religious, ethnic or political structures of Germanic people is impossible. The category 'Germanic' is a Roman and educated one; there had never been a Germanic identity. Peoples were classified by the date of their confrontation with Rome. Every 'gens' has to be discussed on its own, considering the specific historical circumstances. Latin gens, genealogia, natio and Greek ethnos refer to a community of biological descent. Our sources, however, show the complex polyethnic character of the gentes and equate the term with exercitus (army) so that its formation is not a matter of common descent but one of political decision. The development of ethnic identities is to be understood as a process strongly connected to the Roman Empire. Prehistoric sociological structures interacted with the urban, mediterranean culture and out of these processes of integration and confrontation lasting for centuries, the transformation of the Roman World, Medieval Europe emerged. 84.163.190.89

I support the removal.--Wiglaf 20:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply


Please finish all the articles related to germanic tribes, I'm translating them to other wikis

CW

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I do not think we can confidently say that the CW culture "probably" spoke IE. They were "kurganized", sure, but they may as well have spoken Uralic with some early IE loanwords. It is certainly "probable" that IE had arrived in the area by 2000 BC, with the beginning of the "real" Bronze Age, and I would fully support as highly probable that pre-Proto-Germanic had its own, largely isolated development from 2000-500 BC. But the 3000 figure is basically guesswork and may be dismissed with a shrug as speculation. dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but there's no way at arriving at the border between the possible and the probable other than writing it and discussing it.--Wiglaf 09:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
And AFAIK, the CW is the only "culture" that arrives in Scandinavia suddenly and with a lot of killings.--Wiglaf 09:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
really :o) how interesting; so they must have been IEans, I suppose. I'm really intrigued by the stone axes; are they really that prevalent, or are they an archaeological red herring? How do they spread, diachronically (the CW area is huge, but surely there must be some traceable spread of the axes over time; that would seem a pre-IE element, because surely the Indo-Europeans being so fond of Bronze would not innovate ceremonial stone axes? are the earliest axes in TRB territory? or further east?) dab (ᛏ) 10:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The stone axes appear as early as the Funnelbeaker culture, and they were "cheaper" copies of the copper axes further south. My own guess is that the Globular Amphora culture spread IE warlords into the Funnelbeaker culture of present Germany and Denmark, and kurganized it. The control of this fertile region galvanized the IE culture, creating the Corded Ware culture, (compare the mixed Normans and the mixed Kievan Rus') and exploded it in all directions. It appears that mixed cultures (come to think of the US) become especially dynamic.--Wiglaf 11:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
 
Multi-angled Funnelbeaker battle axe

Etymology

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The reorganization looks pretty good. This is getting to be a great article. You'd have to research for some time to get all this information. Do etymologies belong in Wiktionary? There are plenty of them in Wikipedia. Should names be treated differently from non-names? It seems a shame to split a people from its etymology.66.30.94.153 23:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC) This is me. I forgot to log in.Botteville 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well different people see it different ways. I just wonder if "Germanic tribes" is the correct place to include a lengthy etymology of "German". It's not the first place I would look. Perhaps German would be a better place to discuss the etymology of "German"? It could also be included in Wiktionary under "German" which is technically where all etymology should go. Stbalbach 02:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. If there were an obvious link from here to Wiktionary or wherever, that would be in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is fairly short articles tied together by extensive links. You can't after all say everything in one article. I won't be offended if you want to do that. I have not been on Wikipedia for very long so I don't have the judgement to know what fits or how to move material to a different place. Meanwhile I think I will try to put something reasonable in for the tribes still missing.Botteville 11:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Maps

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Wiglaf. You are right, the map is not reliable. However, few maps of ancient peoples are. The ancients did not have aerial photography and all the other tools for map-making. Maps based on Ptolemy are grossly distorted in areas. But, one needs something, so they did the best they could and used that. The ancients don't give us enough information to generate reliable maps of their locations. We might do better but I don't know of any modern maps of Germanic tribes based on the latest scholarship. Meanwhile we need something. The value of these older maps is that they tell us someone else encountered this problem before and here is what they came up with. This is only a starting point or a base reference. Maybe another precautionary note is needed. That's it! Another note. Thanks, wiglaf.Botteville 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

To precise why I think the map is unreliable: If you compare the two maps you'll see that the first one is correct when we can be relatively sure of the position, and it adds question marks when the position is uncertain. The map I consider unreliable has not even bothered to add question marks, and some names are obviously misplaced. Then again, I am not happy with either of the maps.--Wiglaf 11:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

merge

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please note Talk:Germanic_peoples#merge. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_tribes&oldid=1089047445"