Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Germanic Tribes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: Which is the most important Germanic tribe to European history?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [6.67%]
1 [3.33%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [6.67%]
1 [3.33%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [10.00%]
18 [60.00%]
2 [6.67%]
1 [3.33%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Germanic Tribes
    Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 07:21

 

 Well were the Franks truely germanic? I believe the Franks were highly "germanised gauls".  Here is what James Edward found out about the Franks

1. Frank means free or courageous, but if we take free for the meaning, then this is very possible, the Franks were gauls who were pushed into germany by the romans. So they kind of call themselves free.

2. Old frankish although a germanic language has many celtic words and has little in common with other germanic of the Goth, vandals and teutones. Old frankish influence + latin give rise to romance (some sort of early french)

3. The Franks drank wine rather than beer unlike other germanic.

4. In a recorded drawing of romans, there was a small group of franks with them, and the Franks were referred to as galli (gaul rather germani). (the trademark axe proves they were franks). but what is a Germanic, it is just someone living in the area define by germania, so the alans were germanic too .

5. A Frankish tribe called the aeti settled in France under roman rule, in fact prior to the barbarian invasion 20% of grave in northern France (neustria) were germanic (definiteyly Frankish).

 Germanic Graves in France (different to gallo-roman, who don't bury their dead with weapons and jewellery)

BurialsiteinFrance.jpg

Frank4.jpg

6. Why is there so many agricultural tools in France that is directly derived from old frankish names. This is amasing, it seems the Frank were not at all an invader but settlers in northern France. the Frankish and gallo-romans peasants interact, there was no line of separation but a dynamic interaction like if they were one peopel.

7. Many historians claim the Franks overran northern France, this is wrong. During the barbarian invasion, the Frank dissapeared on the radar. In truth the Franks along with the romans were defending against the barbarian invasion, but they were also overan by the barbarians and went into obscurity for sometime. But, later it seems the Franks gathered momentum, and you have the feeling that northern France belongs to them by right. they actually fiercely chased all barbarians out of France with the exception of the burgundians , which they couldn't defeat.

8. Why was the Frank so widely accepted in France, why did Clovis so easily unified all the tribes of neustria rather than that of germany. Why did the Franks easily convert to christianity. Why should they feel it was their destiny to rule Gaul.

 i tell you the Frank were probably a remnant of gallic tribe that was pushed into germany by the romans. but they interact a lot with other germanic and took mnay of their characteristics.

 

 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 07:26

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

I would have to choose the Franks for having Germany and France during Charlemagne and the Normans for their conquering of parts of Italy and the British Isle making it actually a part of Europe. No other Germanic tribe conquered this much area at one time. So, my vote goes to the Franks.

 What you are saying Normans were germanic, you are crazy.  The normans are from Normandy mate, they come no where from Germania. A typical normans would be racially celtic, very similar with a bretons but in addition with Frankish, romans and scandinavian blood.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 07:32
Quetzalcoatl:

The second resource you provided claims the Quadi were a Frankish tribe. You propose that the Franks were at least a largely Gallic force pushed north by the Romans. The Quadi were situated around Bohemia and Austria, which is a long way from Gaul and pretty much heavily in the Germanic cultural sphere. How then can the Quadi be considered a remnant of Gaul?
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 11:56
One should have clear that most of Germania was Celtic just before the Roman Imperial age. Germans, originally from Scandinavia, Lower Germany, Friesland. had expanded over the Celtic territories of Upper Germany, Bohemia, etc. since c. 200 BC. This proccess was still in march when Caesar intervened in Gaul. In fact Rome intervened largely because the Germanic invasions had caused the organized migration of the Helvetii who threatened Roman allies. So, in fact, we can surely say that Southern Germanic tribes were largely assimilated Celts.

I'd rather think in that when Q. says that Franks were refered as Gauls by some, rather than speculating with the lost Gaulish tribe, pushed out by the romans.

By contrast, Goths, Vandals and Burgundians belonged to the Eastern Germanic branch, that had settled in proto-Slavic lands (Poland), while Teutons were original from Schlewig-Holstein (North Germanic, the most genuine ones). This would also explain why he refers to Quads as Franks (Gauls), because Quadi, Marcomanni and other tribes also occupied the former Celtic (Gaulish) lands of southern Germania and therefore were surely culturally mixed. All these Southern Germans were not only living in formerly Celtic lands, having probably a strong Celtic component, even if secondary, but they were also in direct contact with the Celtic and Romanic world of the other side of the limes, so they were psychologically closer to Romans (and Galo-Romans) than the major invaders from the East.

We tend to think of ancient Germans as a monolithic bloc but surely the linguistic differences mean more than just geography, they reflect the different substrati on which they were stabilished: Celtic for the Western Germans, Slavic for the Eastern Germans being "pure" only the Northern Germans.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 13:17
You have succumbed to a little linguistic confusion here, that the English language is prone to if one discusses these matters.
In the German language, as in many others, this couldnt happen that easily, here is a clear distinction between germanisch = Germanic and deutsch = German, the first referring to people and cultures that belong to the Germanic family of languages, the second one to the past and present state of Germany as we all know and love it. Complicated it only becomes, when one applies the term Germanic or germanisch to other historical phenomena, like the entirety of Germanic tribes the Romans encountered in or around their provinces of Germania, or the migrating Germanic tribes in the middle of the first millennium. Using the term like that one shouldn't forget that it refers to the language family as well, clear it will only become in the context.
If Emperor Barbarossa thus claims that the Normans were a Germanic people, he didnt claim that they originally came from what the Romans or we nowadays understand when we use the term Germania or Germany, but that they originally belonged to the Germanic group of people. Indeed they were a mixture of the Germanic Danish Vikings that settled in Northern France in the 9th century and of the indigenous Romano-Gaulish and Frankish population. That the Viking element was somewhat more dominant indicates the name, Norman as in Northern Men, or Men from the North.


Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 00:18

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Quetzalcoatl:

The second resource you provided claims the Quadi were a Frankish tribe. You propose that the Franks were at least a largely Gallic force pushed north by the Romans. The Quadi were situated around Bohemia and Austria, which is a long way from Gaul and pretty much heavily in the Germanic cultural sphere. How then can the Quadi be considered a remnant of Gaul?

 Well number 1 there is no concrete evidence that the Frank originate that far east, just assumption, then again the gauls were assumed to have originate in the same place as the Franks but much earlier. But as i said the franks were a loose federation which have many germanic elements. The Ripudian franks would be almost germanic but not the Salian who came to France even before the barbarian invasion, they were definitely different, they even claimed trojan heritage. Infact the Franks played an important role in shielding gaul from the germanics. they fought with the romans against the huns, but as roman empire crumbled the Franks might have also been overran by the Barbarians. You have to admit it, the Franks weren't similar to the other barbarian.  According to one roman description of the Salian Franks.

1. Grey eyes or silvery blue eyes, red hair were not rare (like the celts).

2. No beard, hair like a monk except not shaven in the middle. This fashion would be spread thoughout France, but never became fashionable in germany.

3. Also there is a song about the romans killing a thousands Franks, referring to them as galli again.

 

 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 00:34

Originally posted by Komnenos

You have succumbed to a little linguistic confusion here, that the English language is prone to if one discusses these matters.
In the German language, as in many others, this couldnt happen that easily, here is a clear distinction between germanisch = Germanic and deutsch = German, the first referring to people and cultures that belong to the Germanic family of languages, the second one to the past and present state of Germany as we all know and love it. Complicated it only becomes, when one applies the term Germanic or germanisch to other historical phenomena, like the entirety of Germanic tribes the Romans encountered in or around their provinces of Germania, or the migrating Germanic tribes in the middle of the first millennium. Using the term like that one shouldn't forget that it refers to the language family as well, clear it will only become in the context.
If Emperor Barbarossa thus claims that the Normans were a Germanic people, he didnt claim that they originally came from what the Romans or we nowadays understand when we use the term Germania or Germany, but that they originally belonged to the Germanic group of people. Indeed they were a mixture of the Germanic Danish Vikings that settled in Northern France in the 9th century and of the indigenous Romano-Gaulish and Frankish population. That the Viking element was somewhat more dominant indicates the name, Norman as in Northern Men, or Men from the North.

 

This has been discussed over and over, the Normans that invaded England had minimal scandinavian blood in them. To start with only around about 10,000 vikings made it to normandy and that almost male warriors. However, the local population of normandy was very celtic and there were extremely powerful warlords there already. the vikings were to marry with the locals and basically after a few generations, racially and culturally speaking the vikings has dissapeared. The names there were in majority Frankish (like 90% of names in northern France and 50% in southern France, this is because it was a frankish tradition to have a second name). However they were a few viking names but in french version. So normans as scandinavian is ridiculous, they couldn't speak any germanic language and there culture and race werent germanic. And one thing it was not the normans army that invaded England, but combined Breton-Franks(as for early french were called) and normans. the reason for that is that normans warlords were only obliged to fight in the duchy of normandy not overseas. So William army was an army of mercenaries mostly from all other France as well as flanders (which was then part of France). In fact the breton held 20% of land in England and the rest was held by normans and Franks, anglo-saxons weren't allowed to hold any land.. .

  And the origin of the name "norman" is very unclear, to start with normandy is quite north in France. People in the north of France might have been northmen and that could have originated from old Frankish (which a germanic language). But if we have it from the anglo-saxons POV, an outsider POV, the Normands were referred as Franks (even romans in the anglo-saxons chronicles) but the viking they called them normenn. Nn the tapestry of Bayeux, the Normands alwaysreffered to themselves as Franci (as a people) and normanni is only a place. I have no doubt, the normands never thought of themselves as viking by 1066, it would as strange to them as it is to me now. With or without viking normandy was always a region with an overwhelming celtic population.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 17:43
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


And the origin of thename "norman" is very unclear, to start with normandy is quite north in France. People in the north of France might have been northmen and that could have originated from old Frankish (which a germanic language).


No, it's origin is settled without doubt. Old Frankish Normanz meant Scandinavian (ie Northmen) and like many others they got their name from what other people called them, not after what they called themselves. Might be noted as well, that not all of the population of what became known as Normandy was called Normans, only later it was applied to them all. When the colonists adopted the local language (many Scandinavian words were kept though, here's a sample) and culture, they naturally adopted the name as well, so what they called themselves is not that relevant as etymology goes. Hrlf/Rollo wasn't 'duke of Normandy' either, but count of Rouen (or as he called himself, Ruduborg jarl), though in contemporary Latin records he's called 'princeps Northmannorum', prince of the Northmen.


Another misconception presented here is that the Scandinavian colonists were male only. Sure, Rollos gang were men, but later immigrants brought wives and children as well, just as they did to Ireland and England. As in the case in other areas settled by wide-faring Scandinavians (Finland, Scotland, Ireland, England), the coastal areas got a large part of Northmen ( Map of Scandinavian settlements). However, it's indeed wrong to say that the later Normans were Scandinavian - they were a mix of Scandinavians and mainly locals, just like the Scots (esp. in the North and on the isles)have much Norwegian blood, and the east English Danish.

Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2005 at 05:38
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


  And the origin of the name "norman" is very unclear, to start with normandy is quite north in France. People in the north of France might have been northmen and that could have originated from old Frankish (which a germanic language).


No, it's origin is settled without doubt. Old Frankish Normanz meant Scandinavian (ie Northmen) and like many others they got their name from what other people called them, not after what they called themselves. Might be noted as well, that not all of the population of what became known as Normandy was called Normans, only later it was applied to them all. When the colonists adopted the local language (many Scandinavian words were kept though, here's a sample) and culture, they naturally adopted the name as well, so what they called themselves is not that relevant as etymology goes. Hrlf/Rollo wasn't 'duke of Normandy' either, but count of Rouen (or as he called himself, Ruduborg jarl), though in contemporary Latin records he's called 'princeps Northmannorum', prince of the Northmen.


Another misconception presented here is that the Scandinavian colonists were male only. Sure, Rollos gang were men, but later immigrants brought wives and children as well, just as they did to Ireland and England. As in the case in other areas settled by wide-faring Scandinavians (Finland, Scotland, Ireland, England), the coastal areas got a large part of Northmen ( Map of Scandinavian settlements). However, it's indeed wrong to say that the later Normans were Scandinavian - they were a mix of Scandinavians and mainly locals, just like the Scots (esp. in the North and on the isles)have much Norwegian blood, and the east English Danish.

 I doubt all these words of scandinavians origins entered french language. You have to put in mind, French is not a purely latin language and has an enormous amount of words introduce into it from old Frankish. Since old Frankish was a germanic language like the scandinavian languages, there would be confusion here. I'll be incline to think scandinavians influence would be minimal not as significant as old frankish, so they've probably confusing old frankish words with scandinavians. take the word acre, this word was introduced in french from old frankish not from scandinavian. This is just one error in your sample.  And dude the origin of northmen is not settled not at all, everyone from the north would have been referred as Normenn in frankish,  latinize the word it become normand.

 I'm not denying the local people of Normandy were mixed with the vikings but by 1066, scandinavian would be inexistent in the norman population and the elite tends to marry with other elites outside normandy. How many people do you think make it to normandy, not more than 10,000 probably, nothing to cause a shift of the population from Franco-gallo-romans to scandinavians. these settlements were not larger and overhall would amount to something like 10,000 people. it would be an extreme exaggeration to refer to the normans of 1066 as scandinavians.  In reality the invasion of England was undertaken by a combined army of normans, breton and franks from all around france by no time did they refer to themselves as a people as normans, Normanni is only a place. Definitely the population of normandy was mostly celtic very similar genetically to britanny rather than scandinavia.

 



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2005 at 13:41
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


I doubt all these wordsof scandinavians origins entered french language. You have to put in mind, French is not a purely latin language and has an enormous amount of words introduce into itfrom old Frankish. Since old Frankish was a germanic language like the scandinavian languages, there would be confusion here. I'll be incline to think scandinavians influence would be minimal not as significant as old frankish, so they've probably confusing old frankishwords with scandinavians. take the word acre, this word was introduced in french from old frankish not from scandinavian. This is just one error in your sample. And dude the origin of northmen is not settled not at all, everyone from the north would have been referred as Normenn in frankish, latinize the word it become normand.



I'm inclined to trust the PhD who made the list more than you, though I do see your point. And dude, sources contemporary and earlier than Rollo used Norman exclusively for Scandinavians.


How many people do you think make it to normandy, not more than 10,000 probably, nothing to cause a shift of the population from Franco-gallo-romans to scandinavians. these settlements were not larger and overhall would amount to something like 10,000 people.


Where did I say there was some kind of a shift?
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 04:24

 

 May I suggest never to trust any source, that's the first thing I was taught at uni,  never trust the information given to you blindly even if it comes from a PhD.

 Nice map, that's a lot of settlements. How reliable is this though.

 Just a question is this type of wooden houses common in Sweden. because you have a lot of these houses in normandy and pretty much everywhere in nothern France as far as lyon. But it is in alsace that you find this type of houses with higher frequencies.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 07:56
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


May I suggest never totrust any source, that's the first thing I was taught at uni, never trust the information given to you blindly even if it comes from a PhD.



Since you had no sources, it was either an annonymous person who calls himself by the name of a god or a French PhD. Of course I never trust sources blindly, I assure you don't have to tell me that (it's among the first thing they teach you in junior high school here btw).
[quoote]

Nice map, that's a lot of settlements. How reliable is this though.[/quote]

You see the source on the map. Monsieur Renaud is a respected author and that book is one of the most cited on the topic, so pretty damn reliable would be my amateur guess.

Just a question is this type of wooden houses common in Sweden. because you have a lot of these houses in normandy and pretty much everywhere in nothern France as far as lyon. But it is in alsace that you find this type of houses with higher frequencies.





Half-timberes houses (I think that's the term, it's korsvirkeshus in Swedish) were very common in Denmark and southern Sweden, and especially in their origin Germany (that's probably why they are common in Alsace), but I do believe the technique was developed centuries after the last Viking disappeared.


I don't know exactly when, but the oldest in Scandinavia is this one in Ystad from 1480:


Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 17:32

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Half-timberes houses (I think that's the term, it's korsvirkeshus in Swedish) were very common in Denmark and southern Sweden, and especially in their origin Germany (that's probably why they are common in Alsace),

aye, you'll see it everywhere in Germany, especially the south. if you have the original cossacks game, just play a round with Austria or Saxony and have a close look at the buildings.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 1.266 seconds.