This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have found some better public domain maps from William R. Shepherd's Historical Atlas.This would be a good replacement for File:Droysens-19c.jpg, which is in German and not as detailed. Here is a detailed map of the Germanic migrations. Here is a detailed political map of Europe in 486. I would do it myself, but I do not have the necessary software to cut and crop JPEG images without them losing quality.
All of the pages from the Historical Atlas are displayed as JPEG images here. Peasimage543 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My only question is does this match with current anthropology. To avoid losing quality just save them as a .PNG. I suggest gimp which is free. I'll look at these maps for you. Obotlig (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look into blocking IPs or protecting the page if this BC/AC nonsense is going to keep cropping up. Seems to happen on a routine basis. Obviously this and any other articles should use BCE/CE format. Certainly this one. Obotlig (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Anachronism - describing older Germanic peoples as 'Germans'
Can we try to avoid this? It's anachronistic. For lack of a better term, it might be appropriate for collective descriptions of the Suebi, Marcomanni, Francii, etc. but it's seriously misguided for many other Germanic peoples, such as the Scandinavian peoples, the Vandals, the Goths, and so on. Describing the East Germanic peoples as 'Germans' and claiming their history as German history is like describing the South and West Slavic peoples as 'Russians' and claiming their history as Russian history. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Germans is an invented English word. Like Athen(s) or The Hague. Its called Athen without (s) and Den Haag not The Hague. You won't call Denmark, The Mark, will you? We should stop using that sort of English. It confuses the world outside the English sphere. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I mean there is no anachronism. Its a mistake you do in your language. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Overreliance on Jordanes
A lot of recent scholarship rejects Jordanes and sees Jordanes' description of Ermaneric's empire as a product of Cassiodorus' need to invent suitable ancestors for Theodoric. Both Kulikowski and Heather reject this narrative. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Barbarization Thesis
Elton argues against it. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Germans
Who did this thing on the right side? Kopernik was Polish, Hitler was Austrian, Shakespeare was British and so on. Someone has huge imagination... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If Kopernik is really a pole then he is slavic. Austrians are Germanic peoples like half of the British because of the Anglo-Saxon settlement. That has nothing to do with imagination, its knowledge of history. Nothing that is not a historical fact. Thats how migrations work. Prophet of Hell (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Nikolai Kopernik
Why is Kopernik included in the list of Germanic persons at the top of the page? He was of a Polish heritage, which is Slavic and not Germanic. 68.1.172.2 (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
his mother was German — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Revert of infobox
I have reverted the infobox on the right. This article is about the historic Germanic peoples, i.e. Iron Age tribes. There is an important difference between "peoples" and "people". Having those portraits under the title "Germanic peoples" makes it appear as if each and every one were a tribal entity. If you want a list under "Germanic peoples", it would have to be a list of the peoples, such as the Gutones, the Semnoni, the Cherusci etc. I won't meddle with the Slavic peoples article, but I find it highly unfortunate in that article as well.
At the same time: if someone finds a first image more fitting and less tacky and anachronistic than the Hermannsdenkmal, I would be absolutely thrilled. Trigaranus (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Newsleep is right. The Germanic peoples are the category above Germans, German Americans including Norwegians and Emglishmen. The Germanic peoples descendants are still alive like the Slavic Russians, Ukrainians or Poles. I think you don't understand that because your language is responsible for that literary chaos. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, are you aware that the article's content is about the Germanic peoples of the Iron Age up to the Early Middle Ages? I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but it does not change the fact that the article as it now stands is about the historical and pre-historical peoples of 1800 BC to 1000 AD. There is no section on the modern-day speakers of Germanic languages. If you check the article, you will find that, besides the infobox, the only references to modern times are two rather out-of-place-looking sentences at the end of the introduction. Any infobox sporting a "sample" of the peoples treated in the article should therefore be restricted to historical figures who at the time would have been identified as Germanic. Otherwise you will end up in a discussion about people's supposed "Germanic heritage" that will be both point- and endless. You've seen the first of it with Copernicus. How "Germanic" is the ancestry of Kant, of Alexander Bell, of Roger Federer, etc.? Language cannot be the measure, otherwise Irish or upper-class Indian people would qualify, too, and Copernicus would have to be re-inserted, let alone all those Jewish Nobel prize winners. And to say it with Stephen Fry, that would be a bit balls. If they qualify for inclusion here by virtue of their descent from Germanic people, they ought rather to be omitted. Trigaranus (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand that but what not is... Most Germanic peoples are identifiable by their names but the language English is destroying that. Do you get that? Nothing will be restricted. I know people like you who try to bring me down and blacking the way. I'm ready for that ancestry discussion with all the fools who try to steal or black out my history. If necessary I will use DNA. It's possible that this article will end up like that one for the Slavic peoples. Why should we Germanic peoples not have the same rights? If it happens I will revert your untruth anyway. Have a nice day. Prophet of Hell (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
What Trigaranus said. The focus of this article is on ancient/early Medieval Germanic tribes. This is a shockingly poor collage even by the absurdly low standards of the average ethnic infobox. It looks like it was hastily slapped together by Neo-Nazi fanboys, what with its selection of "strong men" from German history (Frederick the Great, Bismarck), plus Hitler (!) and Jörg Haider (!!). Or maybe Haider was put in to balance out Michael Schumacher, in order to demonstrate that not all "Germanic people" have top-notch driving skills. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
collage picitures in infobox
if we are going to have an infobox, can we please atleast have the one used on every germanic ethnic group, the ones with a picture collage instead of this bad quality photo collection 95.199.146.180 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
recent deletion
I recently removed the following sentence from the lead: "As the centre of the Industrial Revolution, the Germanic countries ememerged as the foremost military, cultural and economic powers in the Modern era, spreading it's culture too all parts of the world, with English becoming the lingua franca of international communication. " Besides the obvious typographical errors, this sentence is unsourced and unencyclopedic. It doesn't really have much to do with the Germanic peoples in the period described in the bulk of the article; per WP:LEAD the lead is to summarize the article's contents. Furthermore, it borders on ethnic chauvinism by suggesting a relationship between ancient Germanic peoples and contemporary cultural dominance. This is pretty poor form; it would be a shame if this important article (which I stumbled upon via the Visigoth article) were to become a forum for ethnic supremacists, confused nationalists, or people who just want to exhibit a misguided pride in their "ancestry." The sentence has to go, in the absence of corresponding, well-sourced, and relevant content in the body of the article.
As a P.S., I also agree that the portrait collection in the infobox is way, way out of line and tune here. Sindinero (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
yes, I agree that per the guidance on the content of the lead paragraphs what appears at the start of an article should be a summary of the content. There also appear to be far too many links in the lead making it harder to read.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to make it more clear: the lead now seems to be trying to explain too much. It seems over-loaded?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to throw in my vote with this view. It is not a lead. I can narrow it down I think. The main thing is violations of level. Instead of introducing the main movements it picks out a few details. These are all thrown together in the same long paragraph, which, although the details are in chronologic sequence, gives a disorganized impression. I think people do not dare to work on this article, as a result of long edit warfare. I'm willing to take it on but only after some preparation. The biggest deficit I see in the first part of the article is the failure to define Germanic peoples. It doesn't help just to say they are Germanic. What is missing is a segment of information that is not on WP, the people who spoke Proto-Germanic, where they were and when they were there. In short, the Germanic Urheimat is missing, which would tie it all together. What was the original homeland of these Germanic speakers and what can we say about the people who lived there? It appears as though I am going to get roped into doing an article on the Germanic Urheimat. Before that is done I can't really fix the first part of this article. I suppose by this time you are sick of beating each other up and will let someone work. Apart from that, it seems to me the main problem with the article is the same as in the intro, the main movements are not presented, only selections of the detail. That multiplies the length and decreases the comprehension. I see there are no tags. Some of you must have forced the removal of the tags. That does not make a good article nevertheless. Just because you can prevent someone saying there is a problem does not make the problem go away. Getting back to the lead, it needs to be short and stick to the main themes expressed in general terms. As for the maps, well, I will take that up in "Germanic Urheimat." It shouldn't be too long now, but weeks is probably more realistic.Dave (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. Not only is this clearly in violation of WP:LEAD, a good chunk of the information is based on popular romantic notions that have been contested or abandoned in the scholarly literature, or is simply inaccurate. Citing is extremely poor, with claims backed in neither the lede or the body, and much-debated notions like "barbarization" being spoken of as fact in the editorial voice with the only reference being a passing mention in a popular article on a different subject. Some parts of the lede could be merged into the body, but I think that this is a good candidate for being bold and eliminating much of what's there. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I notice nothing was ever done about this. I am going to WP:BOLDly removing the second and third paragraphs, or at least cut them down. If I remove too much please consider putting removed material somewhere other than the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The Braun & Schneider picture now being used as an illustration
The Braun & Schneider plates were created in 1861-1880. They are highly unreliable depictions of costume that invent unattested details and mix up periods of history and should no longer be used for educational purposes. 207.210.136.252 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Political correctness has scared everyone.
Seriously, Contemporary Germanic peoples are Germans, English, Icelandic, Norwegians, Swedes, Danish, Faroese, Austrians, Swiss Germans, Dutch, Frisian and a few others. The ancestors of those cultures came from Germanic tribes who migrated across Europe, settled and became Nations. Just because people are afraid to talk about European ethnic groups for whatever reason doesn't negate fact.
Nobody says the Amerindian people don't exist. Nobody says the Chinese, or Japanese or Koreans or Arabs, Turks, Egyptians and so forth Exist. You all are dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.244.56 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sidenote: Political correctess aside, if you feel the need to liven your inputs up with gems like "You all are dumb" you are headed down a pretty straight lane towards an editing block. Next time, grown-up talk. Trigaranus (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Those Germanic peoples are mentioned in the article already. But the article correctly points out that the term Germanic is not only or even mainly an ethnic term in modern terms. So the term is used in different ways. The term Germanic (like the terms Chinese and Arab) is not a term with as a clear a definition as Japanese or Korean. People in Western Europe, (historically Western Rome, and later Francia) which is a relatively small area compared to northern America, have not lived in small stable groups of tribes since the Roman empire, and in a sense they form one big ethnic group. Obviously. In Roman times there were tribes which could be called ethnically Germanic, some of whom probably did not speak Germanic languages. So it was then an ethnic term. Today the term is very hard to define. The modern nations of Europe were totally changed by medieval and modern politics and religion and that has very little to do with the pre-Roman ethnic groups of Europe. A Swede who speaks Finnish, or a Norwegian Lapplander are as Swedish or Norwegian as any of other Swede or Norwegian. This is because ethnicity and modern nation states have only approximate relationships.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Infobox ethnic group
Another ethnic infobox concerned with the modern Germanic-speaking nations has come up. This is once more a problem with the ambiguity of "peoples" as used in Ethnology and History. Since this article is about the tribal stage (hence "peoples") of the various Germanic ethne in Antiquity and early Mediaeval times, the use of such an infobox is rather doubtful, as it is anachronistic in relation to the article's contents (not taking into account that the numbers given do not seem to be in order). Expanding this article to include a worthwhile section on the Germanic-speaking peoples of modern times would IMHO be going too far, and most likely loaded with the most tedious debate about "What is Germanic" (beyond linguistics, and that is already where the consensus would come to a stand-still) from the start. I would not be unhappy to see that infobox gone. Can I have a few yays or nays? Trigaranus (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I would strip out the (individual) populations, correct the religion section if possible and just leave it as a very brief infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Article is preachy on Nordicist conception of Germanic peoples of today
This article is almost entirely based on a Nordicist conception of Germanic peoples of today. There are multiple ethno-linguistic roots of Germanic peoples beyond Nordic roots. First of all there are known Latin and Slavic roots amongst the Germans, second of all there are mixed-race people with Germanic descent, such as Afro-Germans, Afro-Dutch, Indo people (people of mixed Dutch-Indonesian descent. I have attempted to reduce this Nordicist conception by adding a modern definition into the intro as well as including two pictures of mixed-race Indo-Dutch and Afro-German people. However substantial work needs to be done to reduce the Nordicist bias.--R-41 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think your impression of a "Nordicist bias" is mostly due to your interpretation of the term "Germanic peoples". Please don't suspect ill will on the part of Andrew Lancaster or myself. The term is a historical one of fairly limited scope, and is not applied to modern Europeans / Americans / Africans / etc. in scholarly debate. (For the same naming convention, compare Wikipedia's article on the ancient Celtic peoples: a search for Celtic peoples on WP will take you to the article on the Celtic tribes/peoples of Antiquity — the 21st century speakers of Celtic languages, plus those who identify as "culturally Celtic" can be found under Celtic nations.) A large part of the world in 2013 is made up of modern-day speakers of Germanic languages as well as of descendants of ancient Germanic peoples; but modern scholarship and lexicography do not subsume them under a header "Germanic peoples" because of it. Not even the modern disciplines of folklore or ethnology (i.e. the study of traditional culture or ethnicity) do use "Germanic" anymore. The situation might be different in South Africa, where public discourse was influenced by official notions of "race" and "Germanic-ness" for much longer than in Europe. Still, this article here ought to limit itself to the ancient Germanic tribes/peoples, with not more than a short paragraph to modern "Germanic identity", if that is needed. Trigaranus (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Article scope
Just to help prevent a fully-fledged edit war: the term "Germanic peoples" is generally used only to refer to Germanic tribal entities (hence "peoples") attested from the time of the Cimbrian War onward; it is no longer applied to any group after the Germanic polities had evolved into mediaeval states by the end of the 1st millennium AD. This limited phase in history is what the term refers to and what there are results for when one looks it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica or online. It is generally not used to refer to the much-transformed nation states of the present where Germanic languages are spoken, nor to the inhabitants of those. Trigaranus (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If someone does find evidence for a modern version of the term it would only be relevant to a small sub-section at best. The article is clearly not about modern nation states with Germanic languages, and I think that reflects the way the term Germanic peoples is normally used in mainstream third party sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. The closest approximation to an attempt to continue the idea of a Germanic identity to the present is at Germanic-speaking Europe. I think there used to be an article that captures the idea even more directly, based on some dubious international research group that sent questionnaires to companies and advocated the idea that there are a number of cultural blocks that differ in their responses. I can't find it any more, so maybe it was deleted. Hans Adler 10:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just wondering: would it be advisable and less annoying for everybody involved to move this page to "Ancient Germanic peoples" and clear the field under "Germanic peoples" for everbody who feels it imperative to refer to Newton, Heidi Klum and Alexander G. Bell as belonging to a still-existing identity group of modern "Germanic" peoples? I've sort of had it with that nonsense. Trigaranus (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not have much enthusiasm for this as this article is covering the main meaning as found in normal sources. Parenthetical titles such as "Germanic peoples (classical)" imply that there is another "main" Germanic peoples article, which is indeed what these people will feel even more need for if we clear the path like that? Anyway, in the end, to the extent that the term Germanic peoples has a modern meaning, is it really separate from the old one? In my mind a healthy future evolution would be if someone found real balanced sourcing for a "legacy" section of this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule I agree with Andrew Lancaster's remarks.--Soroboro (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, why not make a separate "Germanic peoples (modern)" article. The modern meaning is also noteworthy - the concept has played a major role in 19th and 20th century ideology and politics. In sociology it continues to play a certain role, esp. in research that investigates the societal differences between (Germanic) Northern and (Latin) Southern Europe. Morgengave (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have not yet seen anyone bring sources which demonstrate this. The newspapers I read talk about northern Europe, yes, but not Germanic Europe. (And I notice that our northern Europe does not do that concept justice BTW.) Occasionally one sees reference to ways of trying to define this based upon beer versus wine, protestant versus catholic, language family etc. That does not mean that modern reliable sources seriously believe in modern "Germanic peoples" in any way other than "Germanic speaking peoples". Germanic speaking, ie language, already has an article. Should we have an article on Beer Drinking Peoples, just because beer drinking is sometimes mentioned as something separating Europeans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
We have two articles about the Slavs: one about the modern Slavic Peoples and one about the Early Slavs. Jingiby (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do NOT use this image without any further information about the depicted scene.The images from the 19th and early 20th century costumes books are very problematic and they are not representing an actual state of scientific knowledge. The people on the image are wearing a conglomerate of equipment from the pre roman iron age with bronze age detials (e.g. belt of the woman) until to the Midle Ages (15th century Knightly girdle type belt of the right man). The costume are completely fantasy without any historic evidence. The shoes seems to be roman types but the leather straps putees are an 19th century invention inspired from textile puttees of the 7th century and illustrations of the 10th to 12th century. The illustration is a more a product of the Historicism (art) than an scientific illustration. Either please remove the image or please insert an very clear description. From that period lots of archaeological textile finds are preserved for example File:Thorsberg Tunic.jpg, File:Thorsberg Trousers.jpg, Image:Schoes of Damendorf-Man.jpg or a reconstruction of a File:Germanic shoe.jpg --Bullenwächter (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the image has long had a caption describing it as "dated", if that is any consolation to you. I personally would have gone with a picture of a representative work of art such as that one, but that didn't seem too popular. Got any better suggestions? I'd still like a map, but there is a lot of really imaginative maps of the pre-historic or early historic Germanic peoples around (Saxons in 1st century, otherwise non-attested extensive south-eastern expansions due to the Bastarnae, etc.). Anyone who could contribute a good map would be extremely welcome. Trigaranus (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The Vatican relief
The current image may not be a good choice either, since, according to a number of online sources, the Vatican triumphal relief (see also here: [1]) has been very heavily restored -notably, the head has been added- and may not even represent a Germanic warrior. See this description by J.M.B. Toynbee (1934):
"In the Vatican, at the top of the stairs leading up from the Sala della Biga to the Museo Etrusco, is a relief which seems to represent a conquered people or province under the guise of a male captive. The upper part of the relief from the shoulders upwards, and the lower part from the knees downwards, are modern, but enough remains of the original to show a male figure, dressed in a hairy beast-skin cloak, with his hands bound behind his back. On the background, in low relief, are five spears, part of a shield, a standard topped by the figure of a boar and, apparently, hanging drapery of the same type as the cloak which the man himself wears. Probably we have here the personification of a Germanic or Celtic people, inspired in the first instance by some actual prisoner seen in Rome."[2]
Toynbee is referring to this object:
"605. FIGURA di un prigioniero barbaro, come appariscono negli archi di trionfo."[3]
"605. Potrebbe essere il »frammento di una figura trionfale con tutti Ii suoi attributi di buona scultura« comprato il 15 aprile 1789 dal conte Mariano Leoncilli (Giustif. 1789, 1095 [50])."[4]
Apparently, the beardless face was modelled after some of the ancient personifications of Roman provinces:
"Rilievo con giovane barbaro prigioniero (fig. 8a) Il rilievo potrebbe forse esser identificato con l'opera descritta nelle «Giustificazioni» del 15 Aprile 1789 come «frammento di una figura trionfale con tutti li suoi attributi di buona scultura» e che venne acquistata dal Conte Mariano Leoncini. La testa, le spalle e la parte inferiore del corpo sono state integrate (come parte delle lance e dello scudo);per i tratti del volto e la capigliatura si sono prese a modello le personificazioni di Province note, presumibilmente quelle dell' Hadrianeum."[5]
Cf. further:
"A much-restored Vatican relief shows an individual of northern type, more likely a Gaul than a German, wearing a skin mantle, probably a sheepskin." (Brogan, 1936)[6]
The boar standard is seen as Celtic rather than Germanic:
"Torso of a Celtic captive, now in the Vatican, showing the boar standard on the left. The black lines indicate the restored sections of the werk – only the torso is original. The standard is a close parallel for the boar standard in front of Galatia on the cuirass of the Prima Porta statue. Height of torso, 0.72 m." (Archaeological Institute of America, 1968)[7]
For a close-up of Galatia (or Gallia) on Augustus' cuirass, see here: [8], no. 64.
Iblardi (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
can somebody please restore the Modern Germanic peoples paragraph and due to the fact that Seb_az86556 will automatically reject this i need a neutral third party person (someone else than Seb_az86556) answer this request (either rejecting it or applying it), thanks. 90.236.174.237 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
this was protected because of you. Everyone else reverted you w/o exception. Contribute to the above discussion, and make your case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 19:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Declined. Please join the conversation and get consensus for your edit before requesting again. --Onorem♠Dil 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with that; it is self evident! 95.196.171.69 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Too difficult to make such a unqualified and unsourced claim. Descendants of the Germanic people possibly. But more importantly, the lede is supposed to summarise the rest of the article and there is no mention of this in the main article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of European Peoples is a reliable source saying "In modern times it has been used to refer to people who speak a Germanic language" 95.196.171.69 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You may be right, but the source is not obviously good so I've asked for broader feedback. Here is the next problem: if we can find reliable and notable sourcing for the concept of a MODERN Germanic people, then according to the logic discussed on this talkpage before we would then need to create a new article. I would however already wonder whether Germanic-speaking Europe is not that article. (I just noticed it because it is in the article HAT.) This needs more discussion, and please by all means try to discuss and not just demand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
IP, stop yelling at people, your stance is obviously not self-evident; there's an ongoing discussion about the scope of this article. If you continue to add the paragraph before consensus is reached, you will be blocked for edit warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 22:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the inclusion of that paragraph on the following grounds: Germanic peoples is a term almost exclusively used for ancient tribal groups. In this context, "peoples" stands for "tribes", and we no longer are organised along tribal lines nowadays but along "national" (i.e. nation states) ones. The term "Germanic peoples" is not normally applied to anything later than the Early Middle Ages. That is what's wrong with that statement. You are looking at an article about a historical topic, and it does not benefit from adding sweeping statement about present-day nations' modern "Germanicness". The biggest problem about ascribing such a kind of "Germanicness" to modern people (and the reason why it is avoided in ethnology and folkloristics) is one of definition: What makes a modern-day nation Germanic except for language? Are you Germanic if you are a Swedish-speaking Finn? If yes, are you if you are an Ashkenazi Jew with German as your mother tongue? I would argue that the term has very little modern meaning, and would be entirely anachronistic when applied to me or you or Angela Merkel. The low point was probably reached when a infobox was being pushed by a neonazi clown called "Prophet of Hell", who insisted on having a infobox introduced featuring Hitler and Haider as representatives of Germanic peoples. Trigaranus (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Amen. Well-reasoned. ("Germanicness" should be a word, though...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 06:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Having read the cited work for the claim, I'm not sure it holds up. At the start of the preface to the section cited it says "The Celts, Germanics, and Slavs are each an example of a language family —without any other defining characteristics—discussed as people"
The cited text then says "some authors use the name Germans for ancient Germanic-speaking peoples, who are often referred to as ancient Germans. Yet in modern usage the name Germans typically refers to a nationality. The authors have therefore decided to use Germanics, a shortened form of Germanic peoples, for speakers of Germanic languages."
My interpretation is that the authors are choosing to use it in their work, but are not referring to usage by others. At the best we claim that two - not some - authors use Germanic people to refer to modern people; and its not clear (it was preview only) that even in the text they use Germanics for a modern group such as the English. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I found a different preview (google) which gave most of the "Germanics" section - the later history is talking about the areas that are parts of modern Germany and peters out around Luther and the reformation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am okay with the way the article looks now, after Andrew's edit. Trigaranus (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not. It clearly looks like a fringe theory and should not be given prominence in the lead; the fork is pushing this fringe-theory. If it survives AfD, it should be treated like creationism or the moonlanding hoax. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever sympathy I might have for that position, it seems a little overstated. We have to try to cover a lot of different ways of talking and writing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be overstated, but you yourself say that there's only one source. If anyone can find more instances where the term is used in this way, fine. We just haven't seen much of that, have we? And that's pretty much the definition of a fringe theory (or maybe "fringe view" in this case). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
More instances where the term is used in this way is what we found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_European_Peoples. Jeroen DeWulf is a tenured professor at a prestigious university (UC Berkeley), much-published, and an awarded expert in Dutch cultural identity and calls the Dutch a "Germanic people", as well as the Flemish. To that I can add Doise, Willem, Groups and Individuals: Explanations in Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 207: "As in other countries, 'Latin' people are distinguished from 'Germanic' people in Switzerland (Doise, 1969b)." Doise is a tenured professor at a prestigious university (U Geneva), much-published, and an awarded expert in social identity. I think Andrew Lancaster's edit is fairly represents the literature: The treatment of modern peoples as "Germanic" occurs, although they are hardly the focus of the usage of the term.--Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that. "Hardly the focus" seems to be the crux here. Moreover, the problem is the lumping together of everybody, without exception, who happens to speak a Germanic language. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 20:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The crux of what? That some aspect of a topic is not the main focus of that topic does not seem a legitimate reason to exclude coverage of that aspect. This would unnecessarily limit coverage of a topic to only the main aspects. Take a recent featured article like Prosperity Theology: The El Shaddai (movement) is hardly the focus of the usage of the term, but the movement is still mentioned in the article as being part of prosperity theology. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The "cruxes" are: separate article or not? Put the minor view into the lead or mention it in body of article (WP:DUE)? If not separate, how much attention does it warrant? This section was started with an edit that made this view roughly one third of the entire lead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We use it ourselves here in wikipedia; see the GLOBE study, where Germanic is used to lump together modern West Germanic peoples of a non-Anglo-Saxon nature. ;-) Anyway, I think we are doing our readers a disservice if we do not at least take the time to define our term and thus the scope of the article. Dusty|💬|You can help! 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Germanic tribes" is what is used for earlier times. Certainly the modern day Swedes, Dutch,... qualify as Germanic peoples. Of course, for example, there have been those who swear the Swedes are merely some country's inhabitants and are just as likely to be of Finnish (or Martian) background and there is no such thing as a "Germanic" Swede although linguistically and culturally there is. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is more that "Germanic" has very little meaning nowadays beyond linguistics, partly due to the embarrassment of the late 19th / early 20th century's infatuation with anything considered "Germanic". We are all aware of which modern nations are made up of speakers of Germanic languages, but beyond that there are very few commonly agreed-upon criteria by which those are lumped together — which is why "Germanic" as a label of "ethnicity" is so rarely used. The term is most striking in its virtual absence from academic discourse for anything past Charlemagne. Whatever ethnic properties one wishes to ascribe it, they seem to be a matter fairly distinct from the ancient Germanic peoples. (As for Doise and Switzerland, I cannot vouch for what the situation was like in the sixties when Doise wrote that. At least in my lifetime I have never heard the non-Romance segment of the Swiss population being referred to as "Germanic" in public discourse. Swiss-Germans are sometimes labelled "Deutsch", "les Allemands", or "Germans", which we in turn disapprove of, being all Swiss and definitely not German and whatnot, but that indirect quote from Doise is seriously the first time I have ever seen "Germanic" thrown in!) For what it's worth, I believe that this article ought to point those interested toward modern Germanic-speaking Europe, but it should be limited to 1) a quick mention in the lead (pointing out that Germanic languages are still widely spoken), 2) a short paragraph in the main part on what the Germanic peoples transformed into during the Early Middle Ages, and 3) another short paragraph on the Germaneuphoria / Nationalism ("Germanentümelei") mostly of Germany and Scandinavia c. 1860-1945. Those three topics each would deserve their own article, and I would keep any references to them in this article short. Trigaranus (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This ngram view is interesting, it appears that the plurals of Germanic tribes/peoples and singular of Germanic tribe/people seem to track each other pretty closely. Obviously we have to investigate specific sources to establish context for that usage so see if it forms any pattern (ancient/ medieval/ modern, other, or none discernible). VєсrumЬа ►TALK
Sources which speak of modern groups of people as "Germanic", some clearly reliable, others need review:
Waldman & Mason, Encyclopedia of European Peoples, (Infobase Publishing, 2006), p. 296.
Minahan, James, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), pp. 433, 251, 264 & 222.
Minahan, James, Encyclopedia of the stateless nations, vol 2., D—K (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002), pp. 607 & 613.
DeWulf, Jeroen, "Flemish" in Cole, Jeffrey E., Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2011), pp. 110 & 136.
Doise, Willem, Groups and Individuals: Explanations in Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 207.
Fant, Lars Zander & Zander, "Cultural Mythology and Leadership in Sweden" in Kessler & Wong-MingJi, Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009), p. 178.
Fant, Lars, "Negotiation discourse and interaction is a cross-cultural perspective" in Ehlich & Wagner, The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Walter de Gruyter, 1995), p. 180.
Seward & Lal, Cultures of the World: Netherlands (Marshall Cavendish, 2006), p. 58.
Duffy, Kevin Who Were the Celts?" (Barnes & Noble Publishing, 1996), p. 132.
Pavlović, Zoran Modern World Cultures: Europe(Infobase Publishing, 2006), p. 53.
Porter, Theodore M., Karl Pearson: The Scientific Life in a Statistical Age (Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 164. (Describing 19th-century Norwegians).
Owen, Francis, The Germanic people: their origin, expansion, and culture (Bookman Associates, 1960), p. 270.
McQueen, Alison, The Rise of the Cult of Rembrandt: Reinventing an Old Master in Nineteenth-Century France (Amsterdam University Press, 2003) (Describing 19th-century peoples).
Johnson, L. P., "The German Language" in Pasley (ed.), Germany: A Companion to German Studies (Taylor & Francis, 1972), pp. 4 & 5.
Wemple, Suzanne Fonay, Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981), p. 12. (Describing 19th-century peoples).
Steuer, Heiko, "Das „völkisch“ Germanische in der deutschen Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung" in Beck et al.(eds.), Zur Geschichte Der Gleichung "Germanisch—Deutsch" (de Gruyter, 2004), p. 446.
Höffe, Otfried, Democracy in an Age of Globalisation (Springer Publishing, 2007), p. 124.
Hantke & Schärer-Züblin, "Gene Worlds: an international collaboration" in Farmelo & Carding (eds.), Here and Now: Contemporary Science and Technology in Museums and Science Centres (NMSI, 1997), p. 264.
World and Its Peoples: Scandinavia and Finland (Marshall Cavendish, 2010), p. 1186.
Van Der Sijs, Nicoline, Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages (Amsterdam University Press, 2009), p. 58.
Slomp, Hans, Europe, a Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics, Volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 461.
Is this from a google search? Keep in mind that the first reference which was given in this discussion turned out not to look very useful when someone actually read it in context (above).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I do use Google searches all the time for research including in this case; but I'm not sure why that's relevant: I believe this to be common practice in the humanities. I'm citing the actual publications down to the page number for anyone to check for themselves; I'm not citing some Geocities-esque website and hoping no one notices. When I cite a book or chapter or article, I have found the relevant content (sometimes even with Google) and I read it. The content is either in my personal collection (rarely, as in the case of Waldman & Mason), at the university library (frequently, like the Kessler & Wong-MingJi) or on services like Hathi Trust Digital Library (frequently, like the Owens). I think about what is written and then I judge. In these cases I judged that some modern group of people (20th and 21st century except the two cases where noted to be 19th century) is described as "Germanic". I don't say that my judgement is infallible.
I'm not sure how the conclusion that the Waldman & Mason is not useful was reached. As for reading things in context: Unless proven otherwise I assume that whenever someone makes and shares a judgement about content that he is reading it in context, as to do otherwise would be wasting everyone's time, and as per WP:AGF I assume that's not the case. W&M includes a time period for the "Germanics" as "Second millennium B.C.E to present" (p. 296). They explicitly give "Germanic people" as a synonym for "Germanics" (ibid.). They are clearly talking about the same concept as the subject of this article: "Germanics, synonymous with ancient Germans or Teutons in other texts, applies to all those ancient European peoples speaking a Germanic language throughout history, known by a variety of names. Some among the Germanic peoples—the FRANKS and groups they absorbed such as the ALAMANNI—were critical in the founding of the nation of Germany (see GERMANS: NATIONALITY), but Germanic peoples also played a role in the history of every part of Europe: the ANGLO-SAXONS in Britain; the VIKINGS in Scandinavia; the NORMANS, BURGUNDII, and Franks in France; the RUS in Russia and Ukraine; the VANDALS and VISIGOTHS in Spain; and the OSTROGOTHS and LOMBARDS in Italy, to name the most obvious examples. Many more German tribes were spread throughout the Continent" (ibid.).
If you are referring to GraemeLeggett's post, I can just say that it is what it is. GL has an "interpretation" that Waldman & Mason have a different usage for "Germanic people" than other authors. I think GL is free to have his interpretation, but that is merely his own, and not a published source. For my own, I suspect Graeme confused W&M's statement that "some authors use the name Germans for ancient Germanic-speaking peoples, who are often referred to as ancient Germans. Yet in modern usage the name Germans typically refers to a nationality. The authors have therefore decided to use Germanics, a shortened form of Germanic peoples, for speakers of Germanic languages" with a statement that W&M have a different usage from other authors. All W&M were saying there was that they were going to use "Germanics" and "Germanic peoples" instead of "Germans" (as some authors do), because "Germans" is elsewhere equivocated with a nationality (the nationality known by the endonym "Deutsch"). Quite the opposite from differing, they make clear that they are still referring to the same groups as the other authors. The only question is whether W&M is reliable or not. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a very straight answer? Why may I not ask if whether your list comes from a google search. Point is that given the context of this discussion you should perhaps explain how these various sources use the term. It is clear that the term Germanic and the term People are sometimes united, but not that this is done in a standard way which refers to something uniting groups of people in say South Africa and Switzerland for example. The one clear and consistent I know about is concerning the ancient peoples. These peoples are discussed in all kinds of books, and not just books about classical history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have said more than once how these various sources use the term: These sources describe modern groups of people (people living in the 20th and 21st centuries, and, as noted in two cases, the 19th century) as "Germanic". I'm not sure how that can be straighter. Perhaps if you give me an hypothetical example of a "straight answer" I can model my answer to that.
I don't know why you may not ask that, it just does not seem relevant, as using Google for research is normal in the humanities. If a list comes from a Google search, or a Serials Solutions Summon search (as my university library uses), or comes from physically browsing the shelves, it does not change the nature of the sources, but merely the means of finding them. I've seen many bibliographies listing many different sources, but I've never seen a bibliography list whether the books were found with Google or by browsing etc. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we are talking past each other a bit. I simply wanted to see examples. You did that for the Swiss example, and Graeme did it. But anyway in the end I wonder if there is much to discuss because you already agreed that "The treatment of modern peoples as "Germanic" occurs, although they are hardly the focus of the usage of the term".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
We may very well be. I never meant to record the individual texts, but just to compile a bibliography of sources that refer to modern peoples as Germanic. To give quotations from all of them, I would have to re-find some of the sources, for the ones I have on hand I can quote now though:
Zander & Zander 2009, pp. 177-178: "Swedish folk tales about beings of the dark woods tell a consistent story about the workings of the world. Unlike other Germanic people, Swedes seem totally at ease with the complexity, vagueness, and opaqueness of the inner nature of humans and other beings. Instead of fully-fledged ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’, including superheroes and super-villains, Swedish fairy-tales, folk tales and stories are full of people and creatures that can be either good or bad, depending on how one treats them. Interestingly, this view of human nature is very close to Voltaire’s view that was promoted during the Age of Enlightenment. The idea that all of us can be both angelic and bestial and should constantly cultivate ourselves is quite different from the Hobbesian idea of ‘man as man’s wolf’ and Rousseau’s idea of ‘the noble savage’. Rousseau’s teachings have been very influential in Sweden during the twentieth century when promoted and applied by Social Democrats in their attempt to reengineer society, but it is quite clear that the ancient (and more nuanced) view of human nature has recently made a comeback."
DeWulf 2011, p. 110: "The Dutch (in Dutch: Nederlanders) are a Germanic people living in the Netherlands, a constitutional monarchy in Western Europe with some 16.5 million inhabitants. Their homeland is sometimes referred to as Holland, although Holland is only a region within the Netherlands, albeit the cultural, economic, and political center of the Netherlands and one of the most densely populated areas in Europe."
ibid., p. 136: "The Flemish (Dutch: Vlamingen), also called Flemings, are a Germanic people living in Belgium, a constitutional monarchy in Western Europe with some 10 million inhabitants. With 6 million people, the Flemish form the majority of the Belgian population. Flanders, the Flemish homeland, is located in the north of Belgium, whereas the French-speaking south of Belgium, homeland of the Walloons, is called Wallonia."
Van Der Sijs 2009, p. 58: "Fortunately, there are also neutral expressions with Dutch, although they are a minority, such as Dutch blanket (since 1757) for a soft, woolen blanket made by or for Netherlanders in New York, Dutch oven (since 1780) for a particular type of pot or oven, and recently Dutch house for a specific kind of music, and Dutch model for a certain consultation model (see 2.15). For some cold comfort, finally: remember that Dutch quite often refers to German (because of the similarity in sound between Dutch and Deutsch) and sometimes even Scandinavians and other Germanic people."
McQueen, 2003: "Later, Hippolyte Taine, a philosopher, historian, and literary critic, also praised the characteristic Dutch emphasis on individuality and their rejection of official authority embodied by the Catholic church — the same attributes previously criticized by Michiels. Taine, who along with Thoré-Bürger was among the most laudatory French critics of Dutch art, advanced a polarized view of northern and southern art in his study Philosophie de l’art dans les pays-bas. He had published a history of Italian art before this study on the Netherlands and he divided what he referred to as the history of modern art into two opposed groups. He placed in the first group the Latins, which included Italians, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Germanic people formed the second group and comprised Belgians, Dutch, German, Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians. For Taine, Italians were the best of the Latin artists and Flemish and Dutch the prime Germanic artists. He also defined Dutch art as mimetic, reflecting society with its proclivity for the “real” and “truth.” Taine not only used the same adjectives as Houssaye and Thoré-Bürger, but also cited the latter directly in his text."
Owen 1960, p. 270: "Only towards the end of the main phase of the Migrations did the urban life of the Roman Empire begin to exercise any marked influence on the Germanic peoples. From that time on they began to acquire a knowledge of foreign cultures, the cultures of the Mediterranean and Christianity, From that time on they ceased to be purely "Germanic" and began the long process which has not yet been completed, of becoming European."
Minahan 2000, p. 264: "The Frisians are a Germanic people with historical and linguistic ties to the English, Dutch, and Germans. Closely related to the ancient Anglo-Saxons, the Frisians have maintained their unique culture from the time of Roman control in Northern Europe, over 2,500 years."
ibid., p. 227: "The English are a Germanic people, the dominant nation of the British Isles and one of the major nations of Europe. The great majority of the English are descended from early Celtic and Iberian peoples and the later invaders of the islands, including the Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans."
ibid., p. 222: "The Dutch are a western Germanic people, the descendents of the ancient Batavi, Frisians, Franks, and Saxons. United by their opposition to foreign rulers, the various peoples of the northern Low Countries began to unite in the sixteenth century."
ibid., pp. 433 & 434: "The Luxembourgers are a Germanic people of mixed German and French background, but with a distinct national consciousness and a long and distinct history as a European nation. Ethnically, the Luxembourgers belong to the Alemannic subgroup of the Germans, but with substantial Dutch and French influence in their culture and traditions."
ibid., pp. 251-252: "The Flemish, also called Flemings, are a Germanic people closely related to the Dutch of the Netherlands."
ibid., pp. 732-733: "Insulated from the war by their mountains, the Vorarlbergers were unprepared for the defeat and collapse of the empire in November 1918. The strong separatist movement in the Tyrol caused the Vorarlbergers to separate administratively and to proclaim themselves a separate non-Austrian, Germanic people."
Höffe 2007, p. 124: "States with a high ethnic homogeneity do exist, of course. The Japanese population does not trace its roots back to the same set of forefathers and they are therefore not ‘manger fellows’ in Aristotle’s sense (Politics I 2, 1252b18). However, despite owing its origins to Mongolian and Malay immigrants, the Japanese population is ‘racially’ and culturally exceptionally uniform. It arose from a long process of fusion undisturbed from the outside since the fifth century. Similarly homogenous are the countries of China (with 92% Han Chinese) and Korea, as well as Scandinavia, in particular Sweden (where more than 95% belong to the North Germanic people of the Swedes). Iceland, which is even more homogeneous, was settled by the Vikings almost a thousand years ago, has remained unspoilt by outsiders ever since, and is now comprised almost exclusively of Icelanders in the ethnic sense." --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it is very much appreciated and personally I find it interesting. My impression is that most of these texts are using the term as shorthand for "Germanic-speaking Europeans"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Germanic DNA does not exist.
This discussion is closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, but it is impossible to develop any concrete ideas about the article based on the above message. It is too vague and unclear, concerning:
what parts of the current article need changing,
what changes are being proposed, and
what published sources outside of Wikipedia and other websites, that we could use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The above rant is patent nonsense. For one thing, Germanic and German are two different words with different meanings. (And "German" itself arguably has multiple meanings.) And the assertion that the majority of Englishmen once spoke Latin is ridiculous. Even when the Romans were in Britan the majority of people spoke something other than Latin. Just because Latin was for a long time the preferred medium for writing does not mean that it was used as the everyday spoken language by common people. This is repeatedly attested by various observers. On top of that English in its various forms is attested since something like 500CE. Also the idea that a project has to have a website with a certain suffix in its domain name is absurd. I am stuffing this whole discussion into a hat as it's a waste of everybody's time. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Needs a fix
I can't edit the article. There's a "the" ("the the Norwegians") too much. --Gabbahead. (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for noticing the error. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In Herodotus's History
The Persian nation contains a number of tribes as listed here. ... : the Pasargadae, Maraphii, and Maspii, upon which all the other tribes are dependent. Of these, the Pasargadae are the most distinguished; they contain the clan of the Achaemenids from which spring the Perseid kings. Other tribes are the Panthialaei, Derusiaei, Germanii, all of which are attached to the soil, the remainder -the Dai, Mardi, Dropici, Sagarti, being nomadic.
—Herodotus, Histories 1.101 & 125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the subject of the present article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
call for opinions about the source in the controversial part of the lead in this article
WHART IS WRONG WITH THE CREATORS OF THIS RIDICULOUS CELTIC FANS LIES . GERMANIA IS FROM IRMINONES OF HIRMINONES THE FEDERACY OF GERMANIC PEOPLES,INCLUDING SUEBI AND HESSEN OR OTHERWISE KNOWN CHAUSSI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.132.211 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Charlemain note was the first German king in 8th century. The language did not exist until the 8th century but explain Slavic sorbs tribes living there in 6th century!: http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm
Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii).
Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day Czech Republic.
Furgisatis u České Budějovice,
Meliodunum in the sand,
Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany,
Casurgis is Prague,
Redintuinum u Loun,
Nomisterium in Litoměřice,
Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav,
Budorgis in Cologne,
Coridorgis in Jihlava,
Eburum u Hrádku is Znojmo,
Parienna in Breclav,
Eburodunum is Brno,
Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov,
Felicia is Vyškova,
Asanca is Kojetína,
Carredunum is Rýmařov
I have supplyed many links below to verify.
Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century.
Casurgis from Australia is watching
12.07.2014 And yes I am part English. The Mythicial Saxons are from here:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm and:http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/lang/english/history-politics/history/ . You still believe that there was a mass migration??. All your old documents from 5th century in Britannia where in Latin and you where mostly Christians. Germania Magna where Pagans as even your Danish vikings were:http://denmark.dk/en/society/history/ to the late 10th century. Remember your King Alfred from the 8th century went to Rome to be crowned king:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100255437/king-alfred-was-a-roman-catholic-lets-bury-him-in-westminster-cathedral/ .Forgive me i was not taught this at school but at least I am capable to still learn and educate myself except for my bad grammer and spelling. Thou knows nothing!. Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.240.50 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ptolemys map from 2nd century only show Germaina and Germania Magna
The first I note FIRST German king was Charlemange of the 8th century!. So old English was latin as ins Bede's writtings, to King William of 1066 the dooms day book just to name a few examples. German did not exist in the 5th century it is IMPOSSIBLE!. So please if OLD English existed before the 13th century NORMANS that brought it to England. Please show some evidence. Also northen Germany near Holstein was part of Germany Magna, and they where not part of the Roman Empire, so they where not belivers of Christ. You need to do some research and stop writing dishonest lies. Atilla the Hun went up the danube and rhine and was killed in France 454AD. Avars had bases in Hunguary and Bugaria in the 8,9th century. Who ever wrote this of low intelligence. So please show the world!. Ohh sorry I believe some else wrote some thing simlar but you keep deleting his comments. Propaganda machine is at work here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.98.184 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
All you do is tell your lies here. Engish language did not exist until the Norman's( Orginally a tribe from Scandinavia) brought it over from present day France over sometime in the late 13th century. Facts are
1. German language did not exist until 8th century!. Why see ptolemy's maps from 2nd century AD, Germania (Mostly Roman, Christians and where latin speakers and writers, and Germania Manga which includes the area's of Schleswig-Holstein ( East and northern side, Non Christians, most likey did not speak latin). Charlemange was note: First German king in mid 8th century who started the use of the German language see Monk "Abogran". So how could these Anglo Saxon mythical tribes speak OLD ENGLISH when the German language did not exist in the 5th century its IMPOSSIBLE!. Attila the hun also traveled up the Danube and then the Rhine and was killed in Gaul (France) no where near the Angles. No Huns made it that far ever, And the later Avars around the 8th and 9th century had bases in Hungary and Bulgaria. Mongols in the 13th century also never made it to Schleswig-Holstein area. Please supply some artifacts some copies of the actual documents from 1000-1500 years ago. And shame me in front of the whole world. Also the slavic tribes see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Saxoniae. Arrived in 9th century but yes all the Germanic and Germans tribes left for Britannia in the 5th century AD. My history is not the best but I believe only two unarmed Saxon tribes arrived by ship in the city of present day Wessex around 460,470AD but Saxony is near Czech Republic?. All English old documents like the dooms day book 1066, Bede the Monk, as example are in latin, all your churches before say the 16th century where all christian and later Catholic. I could go and on but you really should know better. OLD ENGLISH. Thou shall be quite now.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=germania+magna&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VYZ5U5ziGcnikAWAsoG4DQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=684#q=magna+germania&spell=1&tbm=ischhttps://www.google.com.au/#q=britannia+latin+cities+nameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_place_names_in_Britain
ROMANS spoke and wrote in latin.
SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN WAS IN GERMANY MANGA they where not Christens like you!. OLD ENGLISH is mostly a latin based language
GERMANY MANGA, that says it all ;-) 84.227.238.19 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Special role of England
The article stated: Because of its comparative isolation and the heavy invasion by Germanic tribesmen from a part of northern Europe outside the reaches of Roman influence, Anglo-Saxon England was thoroughly Germanic and would remain more Germanic in culture than the rest of Europe through the greater part of the Middle Ages. John Blair argued that a good deal of what Tacitus wrote of the early Germans in the first century A.D. applies accurately to the Anglo-Saxons and that even their conversion to Christianity left much in their customs and outlook intact.[1]
I do not see any reason to believe why England (not even thinking of the strong Romanic and Celtic influences) should stay more Germanic - whatever that is - than, say, Norways. The references certainly do not make up for the strength of the claim. -- Zz (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes that sentence seems over the top!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Germanic tribes in central Europe
The article indicates that during the iron age the Germanic people were spread east to the Vistula river. This is clearly contradicted by the current genetic evidence <Juras A, Dabert M, Kushniarevich A, Malmstro¨m H, Raghavan M, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the
Last Two Millennia. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110839. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110839> and any archeological evidence needs to be very carefully checked to its source as it may be politically motivated. Whitecygent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecygent (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has found it difficult to use articles of that type because there are lots of them and they do not necessarily agree with each other. Anyway matrilineal continuity would be consistent with many scenarios. From what I have read looking at this subject in the past there is at least no doubt that at least one Germanic language (as opposed to Germanic "genes" whatever they would be) which reached to at least some areas east of the Vistula. Consider the Goths and Vandals for example. It is possible, even likely, that the populations ruled by these groups spoke several languages and had a mixed ancestry, especially as they moved (apparently) further inland/south.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Objective sources lacking
Tacitus and Caesar are mentioned.
Clearly they are the two main people who wrote about the Germans.
However...For years now their accounts have been known as propaganda typical of Roman writings.
The Romans often embellished or demonized peoples, with no relation to reality, depending on their political goal.
Tacitus & Caesar's accounts should be listed as a Roman account, nothing more.
Numerous objective research shows their accounts to be flawed.
For instance, detailed analysis of DNA and other Germanic bodies in Germany, has definitely concluded that the diet of the Germans was not "exclusively milk, flesh, and cheese" as per Caesar, but an overwhelmingly vegetarian diet made of cereals!!! Probably the Romans ate more Cheese & flesh than the Germans!
It has also been proven through archeological research that Germania/Germany was highly agricultural and the German tribes were not nomadic but deeply sedentary, in a culture similar to the German culture of the middle ages. When the Germans moved...It was because of outside event.
The interesting bit is why the original tribes left Scandinavia to settle Germany.
But once in Germany they stayed there and did not move until the Volkerwanderung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:E80:17E:BDB9:CF4:1217:E4C5 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, when we report Roman descriptions we should (and I think we do) attribute these and where appropriate we can mention modern criticisms. Where you have a specific example, please give a source and ideally a proposal for an improved wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Since when are Scots a Germanic people. They are a Celtic people. Some will say that they speak English and have Germanic influence. Of course. What about Jamaicans then? Pipo.
The references is to the Scots language (i.e. English, as it is spoken in the North). It's a Germanic language. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well if it is talking about the 3rd sentence it actually calls the "Scots language speakers" a "Germanic people". (Germanic peoples is also what this article is about.) This seems to be a complex point to be just throwing in a list like that. That list has been controversial for a long time, because people keep adding things to it which I think add nothing to the quality of the article. I think to most experienced Wikipedians who watch this article "Germanic Peoples" concerns ancient ethnography and not modern peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to call Scots "a dialect of a Germanic language (English) spoken by a culturally Celtic people".Kortoso (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would we say that Scots speakers are more Celtic than English speakers in England, Wales and Ireland? What does "culturally Celtic" even mean? Is the term commonly used and clearly defined in reliable published sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Lowland Scotland, especially to the east and south of Edinburgh are of Anglo-Saxon origin, and are therefore Germanic. Obviously, there is a lot of Celtic mixing in throughout Scotland, but this is no different with Anglo-Saxon integration with the Welsh/Briton people south of the border in England. Furthermore, Scotland had a significant import of Normans as a result of English politics/developments, and Flemish traders. Additionally, many Scottish highlanders had intermixed at times -- culturally and maritally -- with Norse peoples; especially true in the northern and western islands, but also parts of the northern "mainland" of the country. So, based on that, all of Scotland has some degree of Germanic heritage -- although it is clear that this is a joint Celtic heritage overall. 98.177.159.174 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Chicken or the Egg
Not sure if this has been discussed, but I recently discovered that very large portions of this article are found verbatim and/or near verbatim from the following webpage: http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html Whether the authors of the The Order of The Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital in Jerusalem - 1190-2012 site copied its information from Wikipedia or vice-versa is likely a matter of debate, but I suspect that somebody extracted information thereby and failed to attribute it. Such an organization has a vested interest in Germanic history and tradition and is considered Christian in nomenclature. That does not mean the site's authors are above reproach but it at least needs investigated. If found to be true and some Wikipedian is guilty of overt plagiarism, much of this page will need to either be rewritten or cited accordingly. Anyone else encountered this site before and the suspicious mirroring on the Wiki-page? Maybe this has been discussed before? Anyway - one of you admins should take a look at this. --Obenritter (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I doubt any admin will look just based on that. I guess thousands of Wikipedia articles have multiple "mirrors" all over the internet, without any explanation, so my normal assumption would be copying from Wikipedia? Is there a reason to think otherwise? Trying to think how we can check in a quick way: maybe looking at old versions of Wikipedia to see if the passage in question was inserted as one big block?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andrew. In this case, the webpage is not a mirror but a site for a religious order. It's not impossible that they borrowed information from Wikipedia but my inclination is uncertainty. You're right about looking for large edits where information may have been extracted as this would be a clue, although not necessarily definitive. Honestly, I am not super concerned either way, but thought it worth mentioning. As an academic who deals with plagiarism from college students regularly nowadays, my view on this matter could just be jaded. However, using the method you suggested, I encountered a very large edit which confirmed my suspicions and here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=3078000&oldid=3001697 Now the question is what to do? (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Not had much experience in that, but see WP:PLAGIARISM. On the other hand, I notice that the immediately preceding edit was a mass deletion of the same material by the same IP editor? BTW by "mirror" I just meant a site copying large slabs of material which was probably not precise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If no admin has caught it after all these years, perhaps we just leave it be. It's not really my fight - by that I mean, I am not grading a paper when I am on Wikipedia. My time here editing is at my leisure and I have no intention of making it into a job by going overboard. :-) --Obenritter (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Understandable, but if I will look to see if there is a noticeboard anywhere on WP with volunteers who track such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There are several avenues to take and this is the first step. If one of the contributing editors, or some other editor, does not look into this, and one of you do not wish to tackle it, Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations gives options.
If you have interest in the article you might decide to attempt edits to rectify the issue. After this point the results can include content (whole sections) being blanked or some admin removing much content reducing the thing to a stub. On copyright violations it does not take an admin. If content is removed and the edit summary reflects something like "edits to remove copyvio content", another editor may think twice before attempting a revert.
I do not have the time to jump into such an endeavor at this time but will help in any way I can. The issue can be listed here and/or here. If this is a false alarm then there is no harm and someone can show cause for the tag removal. Otr500 (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Since I raised the issue, I can slowly peruse the article for remaining signs of this. Much of the original copied work has been edited over time. Whether this is a false alarm will be contingent I suppose on how much of this remains the same as the 2004 edit when the violation (by whoever the guilty Wiki-editor was) occurred. Let's all take the time to remove any verbatim content from the http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html site that still abides within the article and find alternate sources (to the extent feasible) in places where the information is relevant. The way the TAG reads, you'd think the whole article was copied and pasted which is a major misnomer. There are upwards of 140 footnotes and dozens of bibliographic entries. My assumption is that the harshly worded TAG is an incentive to editors of the article? Since I've put lots of effort into this article lately, I'd appreciate assistance in gleaning this for any editorial remnants which might be construed as questionable from a copyright perspective. My intention was not to outright 'de-legitimize' the article in totality by raising the issue but to get some help fixing it.--Obenritter (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE**** (still lots of plagiarized segments buried here and there in the text) By the way folks, I perused, corrected/edited from the beginning all the way through the segment "Linguistics" and stopped there. There is still a lot to do if we want to protect Wikipedia accordingly. If one or more of you would be so gracious as to contrast the info on the webpage: http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html against the information in this article and make adjustments/add references, delete superfluous information, remove large plagiarized sections, quote the site and attribute it accordingly or reword some of it when citing it --- that would be great. IF you do choose to participate, please use a format similar to the one I used to reference the http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html site so that we have continuity (here is an example: [1] where "The Pre-Roman Iron Age" represents the segment from which the information came.) Many hands makes light work as yours truly has had enough for today. --Obenritter (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is becoming a major job, and requiring "harsh" tagging, then I still wonder how clear the evidence is that WP copied from the website rather than the other way around. I have no look closely by the way, but am very thankful that you have made this effort!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE - Thus far I've cleaned up the "verbatim" text in this article from the page (http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html) through the Bronze Age and have cited accordingly. There's lots of otherwise substantive editing that I'd much rather be doing to this page, but we need to clean up the "suspected" plagiarism first. Having stated as much, it'd be nice if somebody besides me would also pick up this mantle and run with it.
LATEST UPDATE (24 Sept 2015). I've edited all the way to the segment Roman Empire Period where I have stopped. Regrettably, I've seen no efforts from anyone else to assist in this process. It's going to take a long time at this rate. --Obenritter (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
HOLD THE PRESSES - Update - After looking at the Wiki-page and the http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html site for some time now in the edit process, I am not so certain that some of the Wikipage content wasn't lifted by the owners of that site since the Wikipage content contains citations and the Imperial Teutonic Order page does not. This is making me think they've borrowed segments but did not attribute their site back to Wiki, giving due credit. Until we know one way or the other, I am finished trying to remove all signs of plagiarism and/or reference the http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html site, when the guilt for copied content could be with them. Hopefully somebody around here has the ability to research and ascertain which is true. In one particular case, I came across content that I personally added to the Germanic peoples page that shows up on the Imperial Teutonic Order page, which means they've lifted the content but they did not attribute it as I did on the original Wikipage. It is quite possible that both pages have borrowed from one another over time without attribution but I am starting to feel like the Wikipage on Germanic peoples is the one that was most likely copied. In the meantime, I respectfully request the removal of the harsh tag heading this article by a Wiki admin. --Obenritter (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Obenritter, I believe you're within your rights to remove the tag yourself without admin intervention. WP:DETAG. Allow me to express my admiration at your conscientious and diligent efforts to address a potential copyright violation on a huge article. HavelockWilltravel (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks HavelockWilltravel...I agree. Based on the available evidence, I am now convinced that the http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html site extracted the largest majority of its information directly from Wikipedia. Since no admins have taken this to task, I am removing it myself - particularly since I am the person who voiced concerns in the first place. Obenritter (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Origins and Early Iron Age overlap
First of all we should all thank Obenritter for the efforts being made of late on this article. Small thing. I just noticed that in its current form the first sub-section of the History section is mainly about the Iron age and therefore repeated at the beginning of the next section in other words. Indeed the Iron age section also makes reference to previous periods.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to do my part around here Andrew. Make the adjustments you feel necessary. Try to keep the cited material incorporated and delete the redundant material. That's my two-cents.--Obenritter (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem, and no criticism was intended. I mainly wrote this as a place holder for anyone who has the time to fix the duplication. It should not be done in a rush of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Damitian
In the first paragraph of the segment called 'Roman Empire period' there is mention of Damitian. Shouldn't it rather be Domitian? MartínezFlores (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be what was intended.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
