Talk:Germanic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

call for opinions about the source in the controversial part of the lead in this article[edit]

See --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


modern day Germanic peoples[edit]

what is wrong with "Modern Germanic peoples are the Scandinavians (Norwegians, Swedish, Danish, Icelanders, and Faroese), Germans (including Austrians and Sudeten Germans), Alemannic Swiss, Liechtensteiners, Luxembourgers, the Dutch, Flemings, Afrikaners, Frisians, the English and others who still speak languages derived from the ancestral Germanic dialects."? (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that; it is self evident! (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" (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)
Since there wasn't any more input on this, I've removed it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think editors of this page should also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 27 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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.
  • Kroeber, A. L., Configurations of Culture Growth (University of California Press, 1963), p. 718.
  • 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.
--Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 08:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
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 (DiscussionContributions) 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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 (DiscussionContributions) 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)

edit request from other people[edit]

Germanic DNA does not exist.[edit]

Needs a fix[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)