What do you want to know about German history?

[Stone Chapel]

That is quite a general question you are asking here...is there anything specific I can help you with?

Are EU Students required to pay Tuition Fees in order to attend Universities in Germany?

 

[Freodin]

Are EU Students required to pay Tuition Fees in order to attend Universities in Germany?

They would have to pay Tuition Fees, in the few cases that German students also had to pay fees. There are still some limited cases for such fees.

But as far as I could find, there are only tuition fees for non-EU students in Baden-Württemberg right now and potentially in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

I hope that answered your question. You might learn more by doing a quick Google search... that's all I did, and it took my just a few seconds.

My own university days were long before they started to experiment with Tuition Fees, and I have no personal interest to follow this topic. I am always willing to share any informations I have about Germany... but this isn't a question about German history.

 

[Stone Chapel]

They would have to pay Tuition Fees, in the few cases that German students also had to pay fees. There are still some limited cases for such fees.

But as far as I could find, there are only tuition fees for non-EU students in Baden-Württemberg right now and potentially in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

I hope that answered your question. You might learn more by doing a quick Google search... that's all I did, and it took my just a few seconds.

My own university days were long before they started to experiment with Tuition Fees, and I have no personal interest to follow this topic. I am always willing to share any informations I have about Germany... but this isn't a question about German history.

Then, let me ask you a different kind of question:

Why did SS Veterans of WWII try to appeal the Government's decision not to pay them Army pensions - Are military pensions paid in addition to State pensions, or is it because military pensions have more monetary value than State pensions?

 

[Freodin]

Then, let me ask you a different kind of question:

Why did SS Veterans of WWII try to appeal the Government's decision not to pay them Army pensions - Are military pensions paid in addition to State pensions, or is it because military pensions have more monetary value than State pensions?

I'm not quite certain I understand correctly what you are referring to.
The SS wasn't part of the army, so they wouldn't get "army pensions". But then, there are no special "army pensions"... soldiers - today as well as in the last German state - were employees of the state, and payed into the social security system. This is where their pensions come from (at least partially, for the time served in the military, and there are some legalities for things like time spend as prisoners of war and such).

That is the standard old age pension system.

Now there is an additional "State pension" paid according to the "Kriegsopferentschädigung"... payments for victims of war. This does - basically -apply to anyone who suffered injuries or such due to military service... and it used to apply to anyone regardless of their criminal status due to the Nazi era.

That led to the - legal, but not "just" - situation that people who acted criminally during the war got more money from the state than their victims. This was considered wrong, got some attention when brought up to the public and was changed in the respective law.
Voluntary membership in an organization like the SS was now a reason to be excluded from this type of pension.

And again, I welcome your interest... but again this isn't a question about history. If what I described was indeed the topic of your question, I am aware of the general issue, but the issue itself is a question for a legal expert, not a historian.

 

[LucasWhite]

On what grounds do you claim that the Germanic tribes did not have a concept of unity based on ethnicity and race? How could anyone possibly know this? We have crumbs and fragments and of course your statement is a supposition, but what are your sources driving this supposition? I want to consult Tacitus' Germania, but as we know this is enemy literature and limited in scope.

From reading ancient sources, it seems to me that in the old world in general, ethnicity and race were the main factors of unity.

Do you deny the often repeated concept that Charlemagne had an eye on uniting all the Germanic people under one Christian Kingdom?

 

[LucasWhite]

So, yes, the question of German unification had been an issue for some time in 1870... but much less than you imply, and not in the form that you imply.

Again, how could you or anyone possibly know how much the question of unification was batted around in Charlemagne's court, or in the talks of the ancient Germanics. We barely know anything about any of them. It is all a supposition how much or how little, in this form or that form. You seem to me to have a slant in one way and me in the other way, but there are very little solid historical writings to back up either.

...and no, I don't imagine the ancient Germanic warriors sitting there discussing it much, but in hindsight, it was a major problem for thousands of years. The Latins were united behind Rome, and a united Teutonic nation could have dealt with them even more sharply. Thankfully, Charlemagne did bring many of them together. Thankfully he put into motion the Holy Roman Empire, as the Germans became the Emperors of Rome.

 

[Freodin]

On what grounds do you claim that the Germanic tribes did not have a concept of unity based on ethnicity and race? How could anyone possibly know this? We have crumbs and fragments and of course your statement is a supposition, but what are your sources driving this supposition? I want to consult Tacitus' Germania, but as we know this is enemy literature and limited in scope.

From reading ancient sources, it seems to me that in the old world in general, ethnicity and race were the main factors of unity.

What kind of ancient sources? There are no written sources from the germanic tribes to tell us what they think about "german unity". But we do know, from archeological sources, of the "unity" in culture, cult, language, even some societal structure, that happened outside of what you would consider "ethnicity and race". There was no "germanic race", there wasn't even a "germanic ethnicity". The distinction between "germans" and "celts" was an arbitrary roman one, perhaps marginally backed up by linguistics... and even here the differences between different germanic languages are just as large as between "germanic" and "celtic" as a whole.
There is no evidence of anything demonstrating something like a "germanic unity". There is often evidence of a structural - tribal - unity between groups of different "ethnicities"... huns, ostrogoths, alans, suebes, gepides. Many of the later "germanic" tribes were conglomerates of germanic and celtic elements, many even incooperating altaic, hunnic or romanic groups.
The tribes that we know of also nowhere show any kind of regard towards a common "germanic" identity. There is absolutely no system for that, beyond a similar language... and that is very vague.

Do you deny the often repeated concept that Charlemagne had an eye on uniting all the Germanic people under one Christian Kingdom?

Err... yes? Where did you get that idea from? Karl definitly strove for domincance over the whole Frankish kingdom... but that was, like much of "germanic" politics a family affair, not an ethnic or race issue. He excerted his dominance over the neighboring realms, as far as he could... regardless of ethnicity. And regardless of the legends about his coronation, he definitly wasn't averse to use the position of Roman Emperor to his advantage.

But uniting all Germanic people under one Christian Kingdom? As all Frankish kings before him, and as his son after him he would have divided his "one Christian Kingdom" under his sons... had more of them survived.

So, no. He didn't attempt to create a "germanic" empire. Race or ethnicity never showed up as important in his politics.

 

[Freodin]

Again, how could you or anyone possibly know how much the question of unification was batted around in Charlemagne's court, or in the talks of the ancient Germanics. We barely know anything about any of them. It is all a supposition how much or how little, in this form or that form. You seem to me to have a slant in one way and me in the other way, but there are very little solid historical writings to back up either.

...and no, I don't imagine the ancient Germanic warriors sitting there discussing it much, but in hindsight, it was a major problem for thousands of years. The Latins were united behind Rome, and a united Teutonic nation could have dealt with them even more sharply. Thankfully, Charlemagne did bring many of them together. Thankfully he put into motion the Holy Roman Empire, as the Germans became the Emperors of Rome.

Because there was no concept of "the germanics". Karl was a "Frankish" king. His people were the Franks. He also ruled over Romanics, Langobards, Wends, Avars, Bavarians, Thuringians, Alemans, Visigoths, Bohemians, Croats, Saxons. Bretons... wherever his forces would march. He didn't rule over a lot of other "germanic" people. The Langobards in southern Italy. The Visigoths in Spain. The British kingdoms. All the North-Germanic countries.

We know quite a lot about Charlemagne's kingdom... and "uniting the germanic tribes" did indeed never come up. It wasn't something that was even considered important at that time... ethnicity played a very minor role compared to cultural - and religious - dominance.

Yes, Charlemagne "brought many together". Many people of many ethnicities. Of many cultures. The "Latins" hadn't been united for centuries at that point... and "The Latins" (the romanic people) were in themselves at that point a huge conglomerate of many, many ethnicities.
There also was no need for a unified "Teutonic nation" (which is a completely wrong usage of that term "Teutonic" as well as a completely unhistorical usage of "nation".) to "deal with the Latins". The Old Western Roman Empire had fallen three centuries earlier. Germanic kings had ruled Rome since then. There were no "Latins united behind Rome".

The main non-germanic politcal opponents would have been the Byzantines and the Spanish Arabs. But Karl never attempted to dominate either of them... for good political reasons.

Rome itself was never an ethnically united empire. Not even Italy was. Ethnicity and race just wasn't that important in these times, compared to culture and your willingness to submit to a ruler.

I would really like to know where you get these ideas from. You are correct, for many cultures and times we do not have "solid historical writings"... but for a lot of them we do, and ethnical/racial "unity" never features in any major way in them.

Even the "ethnic group" that most proudly proclaimed the "unity" in antiquity (at least culturally, never politically)... the Greeks... even they weren't a united ethnical group. Their unity was based on their common language.

 

[gomerian]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

The ca. 700 B.C. Indo-germans?

 

[Freodin]

The original Germans from Gaul? or the ca. 700 B.C. germans?

Rather the 900 A.D. germans.

I think I have said it before... there is a confusing way the english speaking world uses the term "Germans".

On the one hand that is the "germanic" group. A big, diverse, cultural group with a basic common linguistic unity. It's rather difficult to clearly define them.

In German, these group is called "die Germanen".

On the other hand, there is the political structure, derived from the Frankish empire, limited to the eastern parts that had a predominantly germanic language, but was still seperated into several tribes. This realm, and this population became known, by adapting the latin term, as the "Germans". In German itself, these are called "die Deutschen".

The difference, especially in historical terms, is as large as between "the Anglo-Saxons" and "The English" or "the Franks" and "the French".
But due to the similarities of the "german / germanic" terms in English, many English speakers tend to mix and merge these two.
Yes, there is a relationship. But in a way it would be like talking about the History of the United States and asking about the visigoth conquest of Hispania.

I am always willing to talk about history as good as I can, and answer all kinds of questions.

But "German" history, for me is the history of the Germany... starting somewhere around 850 to 920.

Hope that clarified some things.

Tacitus wasn't describing the Germans, btw, he was talking about the Slavs.

Whoops, missed this the first time.
Nope, Tacitus was talking about the germanic tribes living in the region east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Tacitus might have mentioned one slavic tribe, the Veneti... but it is not clear if these were indeed Slavs. Confirmed mention of Slavic wasn't until the 6th century.

The ca. 700 B.C. Indo-germans?

And for your changed question....
"Indo-germans" is not a description for a people, or a culture. It is a linguistic term. The original speakers of this "indo-german" (so called for their most eastern and western examples) are said to have existed somewhere around 4000 to 3000 B.C., perhaps somewhere in the Black SeA / Caspian Sea region.

At 700 B.C. the people living in the later "germanic" area might already have spoken germanic languages. But earliest mention of "germanic" tribes is from around 300 B.C.

 

[LucasWhite]

Where do I begin with this? You are for the most part just posting to contradict what I say with no sources to back up your claims. Your argument structure is often that you take a clearly true statement (as I have made many times here), then you make some assumption of some incorrect underlying details that were not in the original statement, and then you tell why your invented details are not correct to try to look clever. This is becoming somewhat a waste of time, and I'm moving on soon although I may post some legitimate primary sources as I promised to see your reaction. You can argue with Bismarck, Tacitus, and Caesar instead of me, and that will be fun to see.

There was no "germanic race"

This is where I began to lose all faith in what you are posting here. You are smart and knowledgeable, but you are going against the obvious for the sake of going against it. I mean this is documented 1000 times over that those ancient people are considered a race today, and although we don't know much about their thoughts, it is likely that they considered themselves a Germanic race as well. At least give me some modern books that disagrees, although that doesn't prove anything. Those tribes were clearly similar in their dna/physical appearance, as Caesar and Tacitus documented, besides all others who documented the later ancestors. They knew they were cousins and racially different than the Romans, no doubt in my mind about that. What my original point was is that if they united as the people in Rome did, they could have exercised their will more and defended themselves better.

As I said before, maybe not clearly enough, I was referring to ancient sources in general. Race and ethnicity were huge in the ancient world per my estimation. Yes, we do not have good sources of the ancient Germans. That was my earlier point. Why then do you pretend that you know what they thought or said? It's all speculation, yours vs. mine. Perhaps you derived it from some modern authors, if so at least source that and I will check it to where they got their ideas.

Where did I get the idea from concerning Charlemagne? Einhard's Life of Charlemagne, mentions him being German in every way as I recall. Maybe I can post this per my promise above. Where do you get your ideas from? That was my question posed to you first and you didn't answer it. In your response, you cited absolutely zero sources except a vague mention of archaeology which often makes wild assumptions anyway.

We know quite a lot about Charlemagne's kingdom... and "uniting the germanic tribes" did indeed never come up.

"Indeed"? Oh wow. Now there is no way that you could possibly know this. We do know a good amount about it relative to say, Indian history, but not to that detail! For example, we know that he had a liking for Augustine's City of God, according to Einhard. However, we do not know any more books that were ever read in his court, to my recollection. We don't have the minutes of his court. We have a subpar biographer who wrote after his death, who wrote a short biography and probably romanticized a lot of it. There is a ton that we do not know about Charlemagne, and anyone from that long ago, and there is no way anyone in the world today knows "indeed", from the ancient sources, and certainly not from archaeological speculation, if Charlemagne considered those tribes to be a Germanic race.

The "Latins" hadn't been united for centuries at that point... and "The Latins" (the romanic people) were in themselves at that point a huge conglomerate of many, many ethnicities.
There also was no need for a unified "Teutonic nation" (which is a completely wrong usage of that term "Teutonic" as well as a completely unhistorical usage of "nation".) to "deal with the Latins". The Old Western Roman Empire had fallen three centuries earlier. Germanic kings had ruled Rome since then. There were no "Latins united behind Rome".

I never said that they Latins had been united for the centuries immediately before Charlemagne. As you can see from my post, I was talking about back when Rome was in control, and trying to take over the Germanic lands no less. The Latins most certainly were united behind Rome at that time, as you concede above ("hadn't been for centuries"...which admits they were before that), and could have been again. That is all I was saying and it is true. Yes, races are a conglomerate, most such things are, no argument there.

 

[LucasWhite]

All of this because I was defending Moltke. Hope he is grateful.

 

[Freodin]

Where do I begin with this? You are for the most part just posting to contradict what I say with no sources to back up your claims. Your argument structure is often that you take a clearly true statement (as I have made many times here), then you make some assumption of some incorrect underlying details that were not in the original statement, and then you tell why your invented details are not correct to try to look clever. This is becoming somewhat a waste of time, and I'm moving on soon although I may post some legitimate primary sources as I promised to see your reaction. You can argue with Bismarck, Tacitus, and Caesar instead of me, and that will be fun to see.

Bismarck didn't live in ancient times, so he wouldn't know any more than we do.
Caesar didn't write ethnological studies, he wrote political propaganda (which contains a lot of pretty good history, if you acknowledge his bias and motives.)
Tacitus mostly did the same. There is no evidence he had direct knowledge of the described people at all... much of what he wrote cannot be backed by other historical or archeological research. But we do know: he wrote for a Roman audience.

We don't know much directly about the germanic tribes. Archeology can tell us something about how they lived, but not much about what they thought. Every written document we have about the early germanic tribes is from outside sources, and most of the late germanic tribes as well.

None of these historical references mention a "germanic race"... the highest oranizational form is the tribe. Any mention of a higher order is always cultural or linguistical.
Yes, often this is refered in the form of "ancestry"... but this isn't a "genetic" relationship in ancient times.

This is where I began to lose all faith in what you are posting here. You are smart and knowledgable, but you are going against the obvious for the sake of going against it. I mean this is documented 1000 times over that those ancient people are considered a race today, and although we don't know much about their thoughts, it is likely that they considered themselves a Germanic race as well.

You already admitted that we don't know what they "thought"... but you think it likely that they considered themselves "a Germanic race". What do you base that on?

And I would like to see these "documented 1000 times over" that those people "are considered a race". This concept would not even be used today - outside of (false) Nazi propaganda. At most, they would form an ethnic group, divided into several subgroups... and there is no evidence that they considered themselves to be in some way "united" or "seperated" from other groups.

At least give me some modern books that disagrees, although that doesn't prove anything. Those tribes were clearly similar in their dna/physical appearance, as Caesar and Tacitus documented, besides all others who documented the later ancestors.

Caesar and Tacitus didn't write ethnological studies. Their works are interesting as sources for the mention of certain people, which hints at the existence of certain groups that were identifiable later... but as "descriptions"... especially DNA... they are ludicrous.
The image of German warriors as blonde giants who were always drinking and fighting is stereotyping of the worst kind, and not evident from archeological research.

They knew they were cousins and racially different than the Romans, no doubt in my mind about that. What my original point was is that if they united as the people in Rome did, they could have exercised their will more and defended themselves better.

Yes, they knew they were different than the Romans. Culturally. Sociologically. There is no mention, not the slightest shred of evidence that ever mentions "race" in any form.
They also know that they were different from all the other germanic tribes around them. Tribal disunity is in evidence everywhere. "Racial" unity nowhere.

As I said before, maybe not clearly enough, I was referring to ancient sources in general. Race and ethnicity were huge in the ancient world per my estimation.

Then I am sure you can present such a source. Any of them.
Yes, in some regards "outsiders" might be described as completely different, sometimes as not even human. The Huns are a good example here, and their description is contemporary sources.
Yet in all cases, these differences where fixed on cultural differences... and the "racial" differences tended to disappear with cultural assimilation.
Do you think that all the Gauls that Caesar fought turned into ethnical Romans in the later Empire? Or were replaced by ethnical Latins?

Yes, we do not have good sources of the ancient Germans. That was my earlier point. Why then do you pretend that you know what they thought or said? It's all speculation, yours vs. mine.

In some cases, we do have sources, from later times mostly. We know what these sources say... and they talk about different germanic tribes, never about any from of germanic identity.
And we do know what they didn't say: something about germanic identity.

Perhaps you derived it from some modern authors, if so at least source that and I will check it to where they got their ideas.

The concept of ancient Germans as forebears of a modern German state, of German unity in whatever form is an interpretation of ancient writings by authors of the 16th and later centuries, in its most nationalistic form presented in the 19th century, as support for the political ideas of that time.

Where did I get the idea from concerning Charlemagne? Einhard's Life of Charlemagne, mentions him being German in every way as I recall.

German? Or germanic? Karl was a Frank. Franks are a germanic tribe. But the Franks as a tribe were quite different from the Alemans or the Bavarians or the Saxons... or the Danes, Jutes, Angles or Langobards... which were also germanic tribes.

And Karl was the ruler of the Frankish Empire and later the "Roman Empire". He rules over all kind of people, of different cultures and ethnicities. The most developed part of his empire was mostly romanic... that's why "French" (Frankish) today is a romanic language.
There are passages in Einhard's Vita that suggest Karl tried to germanize his whole kingdom... but this is, as a lot of Einhard, legendary. On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that in many parts of this multi-cultural empire, the common language was a form of Latin.

Maybe I can post this per my promise above. Where do you get your ideas from? That was my question posed to you first and you didn't answer it. In your response, you cited absolutely zero sources except a vague mention of archaeology which often makes wild assumptions anyway.

If you have sources that talk about any kind of germanic unity... please post them.

"Indeed"? Oh wow. Now there is no way that you could possibly know this. We do know a good amount about it relative to say, Indian history, but not to that detail! For example, we know that he had a liking for Augustine's City of God, according to Einhard. However, we do not know any more books that were ever read in his court, to my recollection. We don't have the minutes of his court. We have a subpar biographer who wrote after his death, who wrote a short biography and probably romanticized a lot of it. There is a ton that we do not know about Charlemagne, and anyone from that long ago, and there is no way anyone in the world today knows "indeed", from the ancient sources, and certainly not from archaeological speculation, if Charlemagne considered those tribes to be a Germanic race.

Indeed... we do not know if Karl considered all those tribes "a Germanic race". In all that we do know about him, there is no hint that he did.

So you assumption that he did is based on... what? Because you think it likely? Contrary to anything about what we know of ancient concepts?

I never said that they Latins had been united for centuries before Charlemagne.

The time of Charlemagne was quite different from the time of Arminius. So please stop jumping from one to the other.

As you can see from my post, I was talking about back when Rome was in control, and trying to take over the Germanic lands no less. The Latins most certainly were united behind Rome at that time, as you concede above ("hadn't been for centuries"...which admits they were before that), and could have been again. That is all I was saying and it is true.

Yes, the "Latins" were united behind Rome in the first century. As were the Greeks, the Numidians, the Hispanians and the Gauls (and a number of others). That didn't make them a "race" called the "Latins" or the "Romans".

And interestingly, a Germanic noble who had served in the Roman army did indeed try to from a united front against the Roman advance into their territories... a union of the tribes that were affected. Regional. Not ethnological. Arminius didn't fight as "German" vs. "The foreign Romans"... he fought as Cheruscian against an oppressor of Cheruscians... and allied with neighboring tribes who had the same problem.
Arminius himself had absolutely no problem fighting against other germanic tribes... and several other germanic tribes stayed on roman side in these days. Other germanic tribes weren't even involved.

Yes, races are a conglomerate, most such things are, no argument there.

And just as "races" (let's stay with "tribes" in this context) come together... as the Franks, the Bavarians, the Alemans, the Goths are all conglomerates of different groups, often of different ethnicity, so they can divide. It is not "cousins", not "DNA", not "physical appearence" that formed or divided these groups. In many of these later cases, it wasn't even culture or language. It was just common interest.

Most of the culture of Hispania after the Great Migration was dominated by germanic groups... Vandals, Suebes, later the Visigoths. Oh, yes, and the Alans. Not a germanic groups at all. The northern kingdomes preserved this germanic heritage, in a culturally romanized form.
Germanic tribes. Like the Franks, who founded "Frankreich".
If you consider the "German" unity a problem of "germanic" origins... why don't you include Spain, France... and Italy as well? And if that is a "germanic" question... what is with all the romanic and celtic roots of all these countries?

 

[Freodin]

All of this because I was defending Moltke. Hope he is grateful.

No. All of this because you propagate a rather unhistorical view of a political question of the 19th century.

The nation states of the late 18th and 19th century were a developement of the entirity of European history. But from an ethnological point of view, especially one based on the pre-mediaval era, none of that should have happened. So any view that proposes that cannot be valid.

 

[LucasWhite]

Freodin, again you cite zero sources other than the ones I mentioned, with some vague suggestions of archaeology and "what we know". Why can you not provide one source to backup what you have posted?

To answer your question, there are many sources that suggest the importance of race in the ancient world. A classic one is the Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander where he talks of the racial rivalry between the Greeks and Macedonians. Then, when Alexander integrated the Persians into his army, it created some angst among his Macedonians. I think you would have a hard time finding any such ancient source that does not have some sense of the racial factor, whether explicitly mentioned as above or implicit.

Let me recap German and Germanic (have to be that specific) history by Freodin for anyone who is interested:

- The ancient Germanic tribes were not part of a Germanic race. Did not consider themselves different than Romans, Gauls, Chinese, etc, in this regard. If you could put a 4th century anglo and a 4th century saxon in a room with a 4th century Chinese man, the anglo and the saxon would only recognize tribal and cultural differences, and not racial differences, no feeling of unity based on that. We somehow know that the tribes that united behind Arminius in the 1st century did not have any racial comradery.
- If the Germanic tribes had joined together, it would not have helped them against Rome. (nevermind that was Gaul's problem in their war)
- We can know for sure "indeed" what the ancient Germanic tribes thought or did not think, even though we do not have written sources. We know they never considered joining forces.
- Charlemagne belongs to neither French nor German history (even though German kings were descended from him?). Why? Well, the nation concept was invented later you know, so that invalidates origins.
- Prussian militarism was not exceptional. Maria Theresa, Napoleon I, and Napoleon III did not feel the wrath of it much. The military achievements of Solder King and Friedrich The Great were not that great.
- Bismarck...a passive guy. Did not incite a war to unify Germany.
- Moltke...a tool.
- The situation of the southern German States "after the victorious war was exactly the same as before the war". The formation of the German Empire in 1871 was inconsequential to them.
- The Franco-Prussian War was not a cause of unification.

I reject all of these propositions.

Freodin, my analysis of you is that you are well studied in German history and a smart person. I think however that you are, for the most part, arguing points here that I did not make, but that you extrapolated from what I wrote. You are also denying some basic truths of German history, on the basis of some details that suggest otherwise, but do not overtake the support (logical, historical) to the contrary.


My friend, if you ever meet Thomas Carlyle in the afterlife, please do not try to tell him that Friedrich the Great's military achievements were not exceptional.

 

[gomerian]

Rather the 900 A.D. germans.

I think I have said it before... there is a confusing way the english speaking world uses the term "Germans".

On the one hand that is the "germanic" group. A big, diverse, cultural group with a basic common linguistic unity. It's rather difficult to clearly define them.

In German, these group is called "die Germanen".

On the other hand, there is the political structure, derived from the Frankish empire, limited to the eastern parts that had a predominantly germanic language, but was still seperated into several tribes. This realm, and this population became known, by adapting the latin term, as the "Germans". In German itself, these are called "die Deutschen".

The difference, especially in historical terms, is as large as between "the Anglo-Saxons" and "The English" or "the Franks" and "the French".
But due to the similarities of the "german / germanic" terms in English, many English speakers tend to mix and merge these two.
Yes, there is a relationship. But in a way it would be like talking about the History of the United States and asking about the visigoth conquest of Hispania.

I am always willing to talk about history as good as I can, and answer all kinds of questions.

But "German" history, for me is the history of the Germany... starting somewhere around 850 to 920.

Hope that clarified some things.


Whoops, missed this the first time.
Nope, Tacitus was talking about the germanic tribes living in the region east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Tacitus might have mentioned one slavic tribe, the Veneti... but it is not clear if these were indeed Slavs. Confirmed mention of Slavic wasn't until the 6th century.



And for your changed question....
"Indo-germans" is not a description for a people, or a culture. It is a linguistic term. The original speakers of this "indo-german" (so called for their most eastern and western examples) are said to have existed somewhere around 4000 to 3000 B.C., perhaps somewhere in the Black SeA / Caspian Sea region.

At 700 B.C. the people living in the later "germanic" area might already have spoken germanic languages. But earliest mention of "germanic" tribes is from around 300 B.C.

If it's not OK to change my mind, please accept my apologies. I was concerned that I was being hurtful, and hoped not to offend. Imagine my surprise to find that door slammed shut. (blush)

Now, defination of terms. I consider Goths to be Slavic because of the language families in Gen.10. Since they were not related to Gomer who settled in Western Germany, France, Spain and Great Britain, and were in fact the tribe of the Hebrides; from there, they moved on to Scotland, where they were known as the Pictavi, and in France, as the Pictones, the Goths are not Germanic. Jourdanes picks up this tale, and shows them in little Scythia and Scythia major. I confess, I lost the tale at that point because I didn't want to learn about the tribes of which Herodotus was so fond. But the nature of the Goths cannot be disputed, can it? And since we see these same painted people in Tocharians and (memory fails me) some tribes East of the Black Sea, along with their equine worship, may I rest my case? Tacitus was describing the Goths, not Gomerian Germany. Originally Gaul existed on German lands, too.

God says Ashkenaz is from Gomer, the father of the Celts. And Josephus tells us that Gomer is Gaul. Gaul is Gael in Scotland. And in Scotland, the Goths learned Celtic language. They carried that language (at least some portion of them) back to Scythia, where Tocharian was born. And then carried some form of Celtic to Halstatt, along with the metallurgy of the Scythian nations. But their tongue changed the language, of course, so that when they arrived as the Belgians, the spoke a dialect different from the Gaels and the also modified Gaelic Aquitani. Because we see those same beehive huts in Aquitaine that we see in Ireland and Scotland near Scythia, don't we? The Goths confused the culture and languages of the entire Gomerian Western Europe.

 

[Freodin]

Freodin, again you cite zero sources other than the ones I mentioned, with some vague suggestions of archaeology and "what we know". Why can you not provide one source to backup what you have posted?

It's a little difficult to find a source for something that wasn't done. What do you suggest? A letter from a Bruktrian merchant or a Chaukian smith stating "Germans? What are those? No, we don't call ourselves that."
But let's see. (Every translation following is my own.)

From a collection of essays, titled "Zur Geschichte der Gleichung 'Germanisch - deutsch' , Sprache und Namen, Geschichte und Institutionen" (On the history of the equation 'Germanic - German', Language and names, history and institutions) (Beck 2004)

Chapter 1 by Stefan Zimmer: "Germani und die Benennungsmotive für Völkernamen in der Antike" (Germani and the motives form naming people in antiquity), page 2.

"Die Beleglage zeigt, dass der Name [Germani] zuerst im keltisch-germanischen Übergangsgebiet aufgetreten ist, möglicherweise schon im 3., jedenfalls aber im 1. Jahrhundert [v.Chr.], und ganz offenbar als Bezeichnung für eine eher kleinere Gruppe. [...] Zum Volksnamen im heute üblichen Sinne ist Germani erst durch Caesar geworden, dem die strenge Abgrenzung zwischen Kelten und Germanen ein politisch bedeutsames Anliegen war. Die Germanen selber haben sich im Altertum nie selbst so benannt."
(The situation considering the sources shows, that the name appeared first in the celtic-germanic border region, potentially already in the 3., definitly in the 1. century [B.C.], apparently as a designation for a rather small group. [...] Germani was turned into the name of a people in the modern sense only by Caesar, who had political reasons to strictly distinguish between Celts and Germans. The Germans themselves did never call themselves that in antiquity.) [My emphasis]

To answer your question, there are many sources that suggest the importance of race in the ancient world. A classic one is the Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander where he talks of the racial rivalry between the Greeks and Macedonians. Then, when Alexander integrated the Persians into his army, it created some angst among his Macedonians. I think you would have a hard time finding any such ancient source that does not have some sense of the racial factor, whether explicitly mentioned as above or implicit.

Yes, of course ancient people and societies had a distinctions between countries, people, cultures... us and them.
But who was categorized as what depended on the user... and they had a tendency to group people togther who did not consider themselves to be such a group.

"Persians" is a perfect example for that. For the Greeks - who had such an idea of "national" or cultural unity... "Persian" was everyone subjec to the Persian king.
But not all of the involved people themselves did not consider themselves "Persians"... they were Parthians and Medians and Sumerians, Akkadians, Greeks, Egyptians, Lydians....

These main distinctions weren't a "racial" or ethnical distinctions... they were for the most part political or cultural... and even then completely based on the evaluation of the one doing the description... not the described.

You mentioned the rivalry between Greeks and Macedonians. It is rather unclear if the ancient Macedonians were Hellens... they seem to have been of the same origins, and they spoke a similar language... and the considered themselves to be Hellens. Political rivalry made the city states of Greece disregard their Macedone cousins.

Let me recap German and Germanic (have to be that specific) history by Freodin for anyone who is interested:

And now it gets weird. I have no idea why you are so invested in this idea of a "national German unity" that you need to completely strawman my positions.

For "anyone who is interested"... let me clarify.

- The ancient Germanic tribes were not part of a Germanic race. Did not consider themselves different than Romans, Gauls, Chinese, etc, in this regard. If you could put an ancient anglo and an ancient saxon in a room with an ancient Chinese man, the anglo and the saxon would only recognize tribal and cultural differences, and not racial differences, no feeling of unity based on that. We somehow know that the tribes that united behind Arminius did not have any racial comradery.

The ancient Germanic tribes did not consider themselves as "part of a Germanic race".
They did consider themselves different from the Romans, Gauls and most likely also Chinese and Black Africans. But not because of their own "germanicness"... but because of their own (tribal association).
Angles and Saxons would consider themselves rather close, even related. Angles and Suebes or Danes and Bavarians would consider themselves very different.
The tribe of the Eburones in Belgium were considered "Germani" by Caesar. Whatever their ethnicity might have been, in their culture and language, they were Celts. They would meet other Celts from Aquitania or even Britannia and consider these to be more closely related to them than Germanic tribes from across the Rhine.
We also know that the tribes who fought with Arminus and his Cheruskians had no problems with fighting other germanic tribes... even the Cheruskians themselves were split between a pro- and anti-roman factions. We also know that there were many germanic tribes who fought on the roman side against other germanic tribes.
"Racial comradery" didn't seem to have any influence on who fought for or against whom. It was always dominated by loyality to tribe and tribal leader.

The question is not who Germanics distinguised themselves from, but who they felt united with.

- If the Germanic tribes had joined together, it would not have helped them against Rome. (nevermind that was Gaul's problem in their war)

Yes, that would have helped them. It would also have helped them to join together with the Gauls, or with the Skytes.
But the sources - especially the "De bello Gallico" - provide enough examples of tribes fighting for their own tribal concerns, over any assume "racial" identity. For and against Romans, Germans or other Celts.

- We can know for sure "indeed" what the ancient Germanic tribes thought or did not think, even though we do not have written sources. We know they never considered joining forces.

We do know that for all the informations we have, all the sources that tell us about conflicts or alliances... there is never any shred of hint at a conflict or alliance due to "race". Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence... but it doesn't give us any reason to assume presence either.

- Charlemagne belongs to neither French nor German history (even though German kings were descended from him?). Why? Well, the nation concept was invented later you know, so that invalidates origins.

Charlemagne belongs to both French and German history. But he doesn't belong to either nation (in the modern sense).
Quite obviously: France and Germany are definitly two different nations. So how can a king belong to both?
West Francian kings were descended from Charlemagne until 987... in East Francia the karolingian line had already failed in 911.
The division between "France" and "Germany" started with the sons of Louis I, son of Charlemagne. The son who got the eastern part is even known as "Ludwig der Deutsche".
Yet Ludwig's son Charles "the Fat" again reunited both parts of the Frankish Empire (plus Italy). So when did the "nations" start... and the dynasically determined kingdoms end?

- Prussian militarism was not exceptional. Maria Theresa, Napoleon I, and Napoleon III did not feel the wrath of it much. The military achievements of Solder King and Friedrich The Great were not that great.

Prussian militarism was not exceptional... which should be rather obvious when we are talking about NAPOLEON!
Napoleon won against Prussia, several times, and obliterated the famed Friderizian army at Jena and Auerstedt. It took an alliance of all other european powers to stop Napoleon.
So was "French militarism" even more exceptional than "Prussian militarism"?
The military achievements of Friedrich Wilhelm "the soldier king" were indeed not that great. In all his life, he fought one campaing, in one season, consisting of sieging and capturing swedish held Stralsund... and he did that with allied Danes and Saxons.
He did build an impressive army and military system for his country... but his reforms weren't any more "exceptional" than the military reforms of Gustav Adolf of Sweden, Peter the Great in Russia, or Napoleon in France.

Friedrich II used his fathers military to great effect, and with political ruthlessness. His father's army and Friedrich's own reforms and leadership lead to some impressive victories. Yet he also lost about half of the battles his army fought, and his victorious wars were more the result of a favourable political situation than military genius.... or "Prussian militarism".
Prussia would have lost the last of the Silesian Wars... if not for the succession of Prussia-friendly Peter III in Russia.
The prussian army of Friedrich the Great was a formidable fighting force who had at their time tactical advantages over their opponents. But so had many armies of many nations in many times.
So what makes Prussia "exceptional"?

- Bismarck...a passive guy. Did not incite a war to unify Germany.

Bismarck pursued an active policy of a prussian dominated united Germany. He used all available means towards that goal... diplomacy and war, drama and dubious deals. But he did not start the Franco-Prussian war with the goal of using it to unite Germany.

- Moltke...a tool.

What politics did Moltke institute? What historical goals did he pursue and bring to fruition?
He was a great master of military strategy and logistics and a capable tactician and leader. In this capacity, he was used towards the goals of his masters... and he knew and accepted this. He always acknowledged the "primacy of politics".
It wasn't meant as an insult or a disparagement when I called him a "tool". It is an accurate description of many great persons in history.

- The situation of the southern German States "after the victorious war was exactly the same as before the war". The formation of the German Empire in 1871 was inconsequential to them.

I already explained that, and so it seems rather... weird... that Lucas repeats this here.
The situation of the southern German States did change in 1871. But this change in situation was due to intra-german negotiations.
The war itself didn't change anything about this situation. Had the southern states not decided for themselves to change their situation... nothing due to the war would have caused a change. They could have existed exactly in the same situation as before the war.

- The Franco-Prussian War was not a cause of unification.

It was "a" cause... a minor one. But it was not "the" cause, or even a dominant one.

I reject all of these propositions.

I have explained myself, my positions and answered your questions. Now perhaps you can explain where I am wrong.

Freodin, my analysis of you is that you are well studied in German history and a smart person. I think however that you are, for the most part, arguing points here that I did not make, but that you extrapolated from what I wrote. You are also denying some basic truths of German history, on the basis of some details that suggest otherwise, but do not overtake the support (logical, historical) to the contrary.

I have studied German history for over 30 years now, up to university level. What's your qualification?

My friend, if you ever meet Thomas Carlyle in the afterlife, please do not try to tell him that Friedrich the Great's military achievements were not exceptional.

Context, my friend, context. The achivements that Friedrich managed to pull of were enormous. He managed several impressive victories over superiour forces, he turned some seemingly unavoidable defeats into victories. He managed to raise and lead a military force that was superiour to many of its contemporaries.

But he also made several tactic and strategic blunders that a military leader like Prince Eugen or Napoleon never would have made, his drill methods were nothing "exceptional"... just improved and his main achivements were diplomatic. His military renown was greater than the real thing... and it was that overestimation of its prowess that lead to the devastating defeats against Napoleon, only twenty years after Friedrich's death.
He was "exceptional" for his time and place. But not exceptional in history, or even european history.

 

[Freodin]

If it's not OK to change my mind, please accept my apologies. I was concerned that I was being hurtful, and hoped not to offend. Imagine my surprise to find that door slammed shut. (blush)

Now, defination of terms. I consider Goths to be Slavic because of the language families in Gen.10. Since they were not related to Gomer who settled in Western Germany, France, Spain and Great Britain, and were in fact the tribe of the Hebrides; from there, they moved on to Scotland, where they were known as the Pictavi, and in France, as the Pictones, the Goths are not Germanic. Jourdanes picks up this tale, and shows them in little Scythia and Scythia major. I confess, I lost the tale at that point because I didn't want to learn about the tribes of which Herodotus was so fond. But the nature of the Goths cannot be disputed, can it? And since we see these same painted people in Tocharians and (memory fails me) some tribes East of the Black Sea, along with their equine worship, may I rest my case? Tacitus was describing the Goths, not Gomerian Germany. Originally Gaul existed on German lands, too.

God says Ashkenaz is from Gomer, the father of the Celts. And Josephus tells us that Gomer is Gaul. Gaul is Gael in Scotland. And in Scotland, the Goths learned Celtic language. They carried that language (at least some portion of them) back to Scythia, where Tocharian was born. And then carried some form of Celtic to Halstatt, along with the metallurgy of the Scythian nations. But their tongue changed the language, of course, so that when they arrived as the Belgians, the spoke a dialect different from the Gaels and the also modified Gaelic Aquitani. Because we see those same beehive huts in Aquitaine that we see in Ireland and Scotland near Scythia, don't we? The Goths confused the culture and languages of the entire Gomerian Western Europe.

Ah, ok.
Sorry... I don't get my history from tales from the Bible.
What you explained here does not quite go conform with the ... let's call it "accepted"... interpretation of ethymological, archeological and linguistic studies that form a major part of historical sources.

You have every right to believe your version... but as it is completely different from mine, I have to say that I cannot respond to it in any way.

 

[gomerian]

Caesar didn't write ethnological studies, he wrote political propaganda (which contains a lot of pretty good history, if you acknowledge his bias and motives.)
Tacitus mostly did the same. There is no evidence he had direct knowledge of the described people at all... much of what he wrote cannot be backed by other historical or archeological research. But we do know: he wrote for a Roman audience.
...
Caesar and Tacitus didn't write ethnological studies. Their works are interesting as sources for the mention of certain people, which hints at the existence of certain groups that were identifiable later... but as "descriptions"... especially DNA... they are ludicrous.
The image of German warriors as blonde giants who were always drinking and fighting is stereotyping of the worst kind, and not evident from archeological research.
...
German? Or germanic? Karl was a Frank. Franks are a germanic tribe. But the Franks as a tribe were quite different from the Alemans or the Bavarians or the Saxons... or the Danes, Jutes, Angles or Langobards... which were also germanic tribes.
...
And Karl was the ruler of the Frankish Empire and later the "Roman Empire". He rules over all kind of people, of different cultures and ethnicities. The most developed part of his empire was mostly romanic... that's why "French" (Frankish) today is a romanic language.
...
Most of the culture of Hispania after the Great Migration was dominated by germanic groups... Vandals, Suebes, later the Visigoths. Oh, yes, and the Alans. Not a germanic groups at all. The northern kingdomes preserved this germanic heritage, in a culturally romanized form.

Dismissing Caesar as a propagandist won't get you very far, when you look at Gen.10. He sees them as languages, and languages were what divided the lands for inheritance.
...
Tacitus had Agricola who was direct evidence. However, Agricola didn't know a Scot from a Goth, since at [that] point, they were all speaking the same language.
...
The Goths were the blond giants who were always pilferers. Bad history has been calling them Germans.
...
You have that backwards, because Germans were from Gomer, not the other way around. So instead of looking at France as Germanic, you should be looking at German as Gaulish.
...
Romans only modified the languages of the lands they tried to steal, they didn't go from hut to hut, twisting Gaelic into Latin.
...
The barbarian hordes, i.e., your great migration, were Gothic, not Germanic, according to Gen.10.

 

[gomerian]

Ah, ok.
Sorry... I don't get my history from tales from the Bible.
What you explained here does not quite go conform with the ... let's call it "accepted"... interpretation of ethymological, archeological and linguistic studies that form a major part of historical sources.

You have every right to believe your version... but as it is completely different from mine, I have to say that I cannot respond to it in any way.

If history is not based upon God, history becomes mythistory. I would ask you what you mean by "tales from the Bible", but I don't think I want to know.

What you call accepted is what you also call propaganda when it comes from a source of which you don't approve? Archaeology sees what it expects to see, which is why Ur of the Chaledees ended up with Semitic people speaking Ugrian Akkadian. In what you call my version, Archaeology and Linguistics have made Tubal the father of the Shemites. Who was it that said history is a set of lies which has been agreed upon?