Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Tungri (Was: Re: Vandals)

Expand Messages
  • george knysh
    ... the ... ****GK: This interpretation, while much more in line with available sources, and much better than the notion that Ariovistus men were the first
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 30 10:52 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
      the
      > > designation 'Germani' is of recent date and only came about a
      > > short time ago, since those who came first across the Rhine and
      > > drove off the Gauls and now (are called) Tongeren, then were
      > > called Germani ...' Tacitus refers in this passage very clearly
      > > to Caesar. In Tacitus' time the territory of the Eburones who had
      > > been exterminated by Caesar was inhabited by the Tongeren
      > > (Tungri)"
      > >
      > New proposal: 'Those who came first across the Rhine and drove off
      > the Gauls and now (are called) Tungri' and 'then were called
      > Germani' are the Cimbri/Teutones.

      ****GK: This interpretation, while much more in line with available sources, and much better than the notion that Ariovistus' men were the first Germani to permanently cross the Rhine, is still ultimately in conflict with what we can extract from the texts. If "Tacitus refers in this passage very clearly to Caesar", then we must remember the following from DBG 2.4:

      "the greater part of the Belgae were sprung, from the Germans, and ... having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions..."

      But, as we know, and as has been frequently argued, "from the Germans" does not necessarily mean "Germans". An additional assumption is needed, viz.,that Caesar's genuine Germani of Belgan Gaul (Eburones and many others listed in DBG 2.4) crossed the Rhine with the Belgae proper as their associates.

      We then run into another problem: Caesar does not mention "Tungri" among his "Germani Cisrhenani". So we need another assumption: viz., in Caesar's time, the Tungri were there, but they were a minor tribe. They did not become important until after the destruction of the Eburones. This second assumption has some support: (a)If we are to believe Tacitus they needed to be there from the beginning of the crossover, and (b) Caesar's list of "Germani Cisrhenani" in DBG 2.4 is not exhaustive: the Segni, a Germanic tribe of the area, are only mentioned in DBG 6.32 (along with the Condrusi,already known from 2.4). By analogy, Caesar mentions five lesser tribes subject to the Nervii in 5.39 which were not identified in his earlier chapters on the Nervian state (2.15-16).

      If this holds, then the earliest Germani west of the Rhine did not cross over as part of the Cimbri and Teutones, but as associates of the Belgae. Caesar writes in 2.4:

      "had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories"

      We know from Caesar that it is the Aduatici who were the Cimbro-Teutonic remnant in Belgic Gaul. We also know that the Aduatici were not considered a part of the "Germani Cisrhenani", and were perhaps not Germanic at all.

      The Tungrian capital Aduatica may, however have arisen on old Aduatic territory (the Aduatici themselves quickly disappear from history). It is not identical to Eburonic Aduatica, famous in the Ambiorix saga.****

      That would counter your objection
      > that Caesar knew of a permanent presence (without Ariovistus) of
      > the Germani: it is another people, now called Tungri (and living in
      > Aduatuci, now Tongern).
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.