Germanic faction(s)

[greycat]

"Celtic art and Celtic culture have their origins in south-western Germany, eastern France and Switzerland and spread from there to other parts of Europe," said Dr Krausse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13225829

Edited November 8, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

You seems eager to merge Celts and Germans together.

Also This. I don't trust Caesars motives. "...very anciently both peoples dwelling on either side of the river [Rhine] were called Celts.."

(Germans) Their first great clash with Romans came at the end of the 2nd century bc, when the Cimbri and Teutoni (Teutones) invaded southern Gaul and northern Italy and were annihilated by Gaius Marius in 102 and 101.

it was not until the 1st century bc was well advanced that the Romans learned to distinguish precisely between the Germans and the Celts, a distinction that is made with great clarity by Julius Caesar. It was Caesar who incorporated within the frontiers of the Roman Empire those Germans who had penetrated west of the Rhine, and it is he who gave the earliest extant description of Germanic culture.

Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/231063/Germanic-peoples

Edited November 8, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

You seems eager to merge Celts and Germans together.

Thus it was Caesar himself who gave the earliest extant descriptions of Germanic Culture.

Tacitus: Germania

The name Germany, on the other hand, they say is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.

Some generations earlier, Julius Caesar, on the other hand, does not mention the Tungri, but does say that the Condrusi, the Eburones, the Caeroesi and the Paemani, living in the same approximate area as the later Tungri, were "called by the common name of Germans (Germani)" and had settled in Gaul already before the Cimbric wars (113–101 BC) , having come from Germany east of the Rhine.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/231063/Germanic-peoples

Edited November 8, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

Caesar never actually describes the Germans as Celts but says this...

Caesar describes Gauls moving into Germany "now also they continue in the same scarcity, indulgence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress." He then talks of the decline of the Gauls "but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess."

[The Gallic War, book 6, chapters 11-28]

And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful and lie around the Hercynian forests (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia) and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit: now also they continue in the same scarcity, indulgence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.

Edited November 9, 2013 by greycat

[oshron]

the faction are the full playable, sub factions are not in the game yet. Germans is the Name of the Civilization the faction must be Suebi or Alemanni, the sub Faction can be more little.

and but we can't name it all Germans factions as Germans for example we have Goths you can't mix with Saxons.

as i understand it, it's actually that everything is sorted into a playable faction while some are also part of a larger civilization; e.g., the Macedonians, Spartans, and Athenians are all separate factions from one another but all belong to the Hellenic civilization

way back when, it was going to be that there would be just one Hellene faction and just one Celt faction, which could diverge in the City Phase into the Poleis/Macedonians and into the Britons/Gauls, respectively. that's since been dropped because it cut down on the uniqueness of each faction, so now we have a few aesthetically similar factions which have some key differences (for example, the Spartans can't build stone walls, iirc, while the Athenians and Macedonians can). the same principle would be used for the Germans: they'd all have similar architecture and citizen-soldiers, for the most part, with differences cropping up in the unique buildings and units that each faction within the Germanic civilization could build/train. for example, if one particular Germanic tribe was known for armored swordsmen, then that one and that one only would get an armored swordsman unit, while one which held archers as cowards for not getting up-close-and-personal with the enemy--and thus didn't use them very much historically--would lack an archer unit (keep in mind that these are just off-the-top-of-my-head fictional examples; i'm NOT suggesting that any Germanic tribe had these characteristics; i don't know @#$% about the Ancient Germans anyway )

[Mythos_Ruler]

oshron is right.

We'd have the "German" culture, with common buildings and some common units, but then have multiple "Factions" within that culture that have some unique attributes. Just like the current Hellenic, Successor, and Celtic cultures and their factions.

[greycat]

This is my last bit of evidence of the Germans being Celtic and is written by Cassius Dio in Roman History (c. 220 AD)

The Rhine issues from the Celtic Alps, a little outside of Rhaetia, and proceeding westward, bounds Gaul and its inhabitants on the left, and the Germans on the right, and finally empties into the ocean. This river has always down to the present time been considered the boundary, ever since these tribes gained their different names; for very anciently both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Celts.

http://lexundria.com/dio/0/cy

edit: I don't think the game needs changed.

Edited November 9, 2013 by greycat

[newcivs]

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianCherusci.htm

Marcomanni wasn't a superpower it was a confederation of tribes rather than a single tribes made up of clans.

Indeed, without the Goths there will be no modern Spain, but unfortunately i think Goths should be a major faction not the Cherusci or Marcomanni and i strongly support the Goths as a major faction.

Ok, but yet we know the 2 reamining factions, and i have some corrections:

2 germanic factions

* Ancient Germans: Acodring to Germania by Tacitus the Sweben were a powerful tribe, in fact this tribe wast a superpower, but was of the most powerful germanic tribes in the ancient history!, y can put it

* "Middle age germans" we put the Goths

[greycat]

Ok, but yet we know the 2 reamining factions, and i have some corrections:

2 germanic factions

* Ancient Germans: Acodring to Germania by Tacitus the Sweben were a powerful tribe, in fact this tribe wast a superpower, but was of the most powerful germanic tribes in the ancient history!, y can put it

* "Middle age germans" we put the Goths

Yes suebi almost replaced the name German at one point. Also they had cool hair...

Edited November 10, 2013 by greycat

[GunChleoc]

"Celtic art and Celtic culture have their origins in south-western Germany, eastern France and Switzerland and spread from there to other parts of Europe," said Dr Krausse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13225829

Now you're confusing the territory of modern nations with where ancient tribes used to live. Only because Celtic culture used to thrive in a geographic region that's now part of Germany, this doesn't turn Germans into Celts. Do some research on the Voelkerwanderung and you'll understand why the one is not identical to the other.

[greycat]

Now you're confusing the territory of modern nations with where ancient tribes used to live. Only because Celtic culture used to thrive in a geographic region that's now part of Germany, this doesn't turn Germans into Celts. Do some research on the Voelkerwanderung and you'll understand why the one is not identical to the other.

Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher and historian 64/63 BC – c. AD 24 .) Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).

Edited November 13, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

I don't mind them being called German in the game.

Edited November 14, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

La Tène culture

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/326556/La-Tene-culture

[greycat]

Now you're confusing the territory of modern nations with where ancient tribes used to live. Only because Celtic culture used to thrive in a geographic region that's now part of Germany, this doesn't turn Germans into Celts. Do some research on the Voelkerwanderung and you'll understand why the one is not identical to the other.

That is my point. Caesar used an arbitrary division the river Rhine for his division. It was not based on culture. We never understood that Germani just meant "authentic Celts". when we started labeling everything Celtic. Celtic culture was more diverse.

This river has always down to the present time been considered the boundary, ever since these tribes gained their different names; for very anciently both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Celts.

(Dio 39.47)

Cassius Dio was a Roman consul and noted historian who wrote in Greek. AD 155 – 235

[Andrettin]

That is my point. Caesar used an arbitrary division the river Rhine for his division. It was not based on culture. We never understood that Germani just meant "authentic Celts". when we started labeling everything Celtic. Celtic culture was more diverse.

This river has always down to the present time been considered the boundary, ever since these tribes gained their different names; for very anciently both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Celts.

(Dio 39.47)

Cassius Dio was a Roman consul and noted historian who wrote in Greek. AD 155 – 235

The Latin word "Germanus" means "authentic", "sincere", etc. The word "Germani", therefore, means "[the] authentic (plural noun)", and has nothing necessarily to do with Celts.

In any case, regardless of how the Romans understood the meaning of "Germani", the word "Germanic" in English relates to the ethnic groups that speak Germanic languages, and has little to do with Celts.

The Celtic languages, as has been attested by linguists with overwhelming evidence, are a language family distinct from the Germanic one (although both have Indo-European roots).

[greycat]

The Latin word "Germanus" means "authentic", "sincere", etc. The word "Germani", therefore, means "[the] authentic (plural noun)", and has nothing necessarily to do with Celts.

In any case, regardless of how the Romans understood the meaning of "Germani", the word "Germanic" in English relates to the ethnic groups that speak Germanic languages, and has little to do with Celts.

The Celtic languages, as has been attested by linguists with overwhelming evidence, are a language family distinct from the Germanic one (although both have Indo-European roots).

You need to understand Caesar was a military general. That is why we need to look for actual scholars that lived during the same time for more information.

Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher and historian 64/63 BC – c. AD 24 .) Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).

Yes we created are own meaning because we didn't understand what a Celt was.

Edited November 14, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

The Celtic languages, as has been attested by linguists with overwhelming evidence, are a language family distinct from the Germanic one (although both have Indo-European roots).

When they called those languages Celtic it was a matter of national pride. It doesn't make the knowledge useless.

[Andrettin]

You need to understand Caesar was a military general. That is why we need to look for actual scholars that lived during the same time for more information.

Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher and historian 64/63 BC – c. AD 24 .) Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).

Yes we created are own meaning because we didn't understand what a Celt was.

"γνησίους Γαλάτας" does not translate to "Germani"; "γνησίους" (the first part, meaning "authentic") does. Furthermore, although the ancient scholars did well for their time, they had much less knowledge of archaeology and linguistics than we do nowadays. And in any case, regardless of the name which is used to describe them, the Germanic and Celtic languages belong to two distinct families, and the Celtic and Germanic cultures are quite distinct in religious customs and etc. as well.

[Andrettin]

When they called those languages Celtic it was a matter of national pride. It doesn't make the knowledge useless.

Maybe, but regardless of the original meaning of the name, the meaning of the word in English nowadays is what it is. Just because a certain meaning is an earlier one doesn't mean it is better.

[greycat]

Maybe, but regardless of the original meaning of the name, the meaning of the word in English nowadays is what it is. Just because a certain meaning is an earlier one doesn't mean it is better.

Many archaeologists would disagree with you.

Edited November 14, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

Also if we are going to use the words they created we should at least try to understand what they meant by them. Not just stick with things for feeling of national pride i.m.o.

[greycat]

"γνησίους Γαλάτας" does not translate to "Germani"; "γνησίους" (the first part, meaning "authentic") does. Furthermore, although the ancient scholars did well for their time, they had much less knowledge of archaeology and linguistics than we do nowadays. And in any case, regardless of the name which is used to describe them, the Germanic and Celtic languages belong to two distinct families, and the Celtic and Germanic cultures are quite distinct in religious customs and etc. as well.

Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher and historian 64/63 BC – c. AD 24 .) Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).

γνησίους Γαλάτας = genuine Galatians

"The term 'Galatae' was used by the Greeks to denote these Celtic tribes."

http://www.ancient.eu.com/galatia/

Edited November 14, 2013 by greycat

[Rodmar]

There! Those kind of culture maps should precisely help you differentiate true Germans from true Celts.

Please, don't mix true Germans with people who lived in what Caesar called Germania in the 2nd part of the 1st century BC.

and do use fragmentary (a few occurrence) late (posterior to Caesar) accounts with care as far as the epoch 1 is concerned.

In other terms, don't mix people of true Nordic ascendancy with people who were only germanized by contact or by sharing a common ancestry who could barely be qualified as Germanic. To this account, better call the Roman, the Cimbri and the Britton cousins and stop this thread!

We surely all know that people migrated, were acculturated or even absorbed in that period. 500 BC - 0 AD witnessed the Celtic raids and late migrations, and the Cimbri event, but because of the incredible mix/push that occurred after 0 AD, we lack informations.

To my point of view, the most conservative stanza is to clearly identify which people were truly Germanic when they were quite enough depicted and referenced, and only speculate on what happened before, centuries before, to their predecessor.

Now, on the arguments: my sources are various Wikis I deem documented and rational enough, as well as an interresting discussion on the Rome:Total War Europa Barbarorum ("What are the Cimbri"). Take care that I will use "Germania" in the sense of Caesar and post-Caesar authors' "Germania Magna": all the land east from the Rhine, north from the Danube and west from Belarus.

* Archeology:

The Celtic and Germanic iron age central spots are VERY clearly separated. However, in the late La Tène age, a Celtic centre seemed to have came in direct contact with another emerging culture that will be called Germanic. Those Germans were expanding south in the river valleys. In those area at the same times, we find both remains of Celtic oppida and a lot of Germanic artifacts, but that could only mean commercial exchanges. Don't forget about all the Celtic artifacts retrieved in Jutland Germanic tombs, dated from after the Cimbri raid, although trade might not have been the only mean used to acquire them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture

* Linguistics:

There are three theories to locate the "heartland" where the Indo-Europeans came from in several waves. First is Kurgan (Ural), second is Anatolia, and third is Balkans, the latest being maybe backed by genetic studies. The map shows the first one but the other would be merely shifts from it (with an Aegean/Bosphoran route for the Anatolian's).

In short, what is shown is that after the early separation of the Anatolian and Hellenic groups two western group diverged into Proto-Germanic and Celto-Italic. The first went north to the Baltic, the second to the balkans and then separated from each other.

Also, the Celts had been given a specific name by the German (Waal or Gaul), maybe based on the Volcae, a tribe that settled in the northern Celtic area, near the Boii. That's nothing to do with the Rhine valley, and now France.

Also, do you know the Nordwestblock theory? It seems that all recent maps take account of it.

- Belgian anthroponyms and toponyms don't show much evidences of Germanic influence until the Germans started to fight the Roman.

- They are much more akin to Gaulish with an anomaly in some words that would antecede P-Celtic.

- Maybe only the elite would have spoke Celtic, while the other would have only spoke a language akin to the Italic languages (such as Indo-European(ized) Liguric).

- However, Cesar used translators from Iberia and Narbonensis to communicate with the Belgian (and the whole Belgica is considered being populated with peoples using a distinctive dialect).

- Some "Celtic" Belgian would call neighbor tribes as "german", that could mean "brother" in Gaulish. At the same time they would boast about their "germanic" origin (in the sense: "we were like them before"). However, they felt Gallic in dire situations.

- Cesar naturally called those neighbor land : "Germania", and this was west from the Rhine at first, or a little beyond it (as far as Belgian settled). Then, for the political reasons you explain, the Rhine became a border, and the unknown lands in the NE became Germania (the same for the Danube).

- The Belgian formed a federation of peoples either fully, or only partially (or non) celticized.

As a result, this theory speculates that the Belgian were Proto-Indo-European people, a bronze age Celtico-Italic branch isolated before the migration of some of them to the Italian peninsula, that were celticized to some extent by eastern and southern Celts as those expanded in Gaul and Britain. A pocket between Main, Rhine, and the North Sea would have been barely touched, however. Thus, the first German ever Cesar encountered in Belgica would be Belgian, both west and east of the Rhine, except maybe some remnants of the Cimbri raid, and the Batavian, further north on the Rhine (they could be the least integrated Belgian too). Then only during 1st century BC, did form or come what will become the Frankish League and the Chatti, truly Germanic speakers. This lead to a Belgian migration in SW Britain, and maybe in all the NW coastal area of Gaul, Armorica included. The same hypothesis might apply to the most southern "germanic" people that really departs from mainstream Germanic penetration.

So to say, as soon as German-speaking people (true German, germanized PIE and germanized Celts) appeared near the limes, they would be called... "Germans", that is brothers among the Belgian, which become more ridiculous, the farthest you are from the Rhine valley.

A corollary of this is that we are not sure who, east from the Belgian federation, were non federated celticized PIE, germanized PIE or "true" German. As an example, the Sicambri are sometimes depicted as "Celtic", but does it mean that they were not federated Belgian, or another partly celticized local isolate, or a migrating celiticized Proto-German? But they disappeared at the advent of the Frankish League. It is probable that all ended in merging with the pushing German, in the first centuries AD.

By the way, in the above I use indistinctly "Belgian" and "Belgian federation" to refer to all the people the Belgian felt akin to (NW PIE in the exposed theory), not to the specific Belgae tribe.

[greycat]

Please, don't mix true Germans with people who lived in what Caesar called Germania in the 2nd part of the 1st century BC.

I really can't do that since he was the main proponent for using the term in the first place.

[greycat]

I must believe the various scholars that all agree that before Caesars idea they were all Celts.