|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
Since when are Scots a Germanic people. They are a Celtic people. Some will say that they speak English and have Germanic influence. Of course. What about Jamaicans then? Pipo.
- The references is to the Scots language (i.e. English, as it is spoken in the North). It's a Germanic language. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well if it is talking about the 3rd sentence it actually calls the "Scots language speakers" a "Germanic people". (Germanic peoples is also what this article is about.) This seems to be a complex point to be just throwing in a list like that. That list has been controversial for a long time, because people keep adding things to it which I think add nothing to the quality of the article. I think to most experienced Wikipedians who watch this article "Germanic Peoples" concerns ancient ethnography and not modern peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Objective sources lacking
Tacitus and Caesar are mentioned. Clearly they are the two main people who wrote about the Germans. However...For years now their accounts have been known as propaganda typical of Roman writings. The Romans often embellished or demonized peoples, with no relation to reality, depending on their political goal.
Tacitus & Caesar's accounts should be listed as a Roman account, nothing more.
Numerous objective research shows their accounts to be flawed. For instance, detailed analysis of DNA and other Germanic bodies in Germany, has definitely concluded that the diet of the Germans was not "exclusively milk, flesh, and cheese" as per Caesar, but an overwhelmingly vegetarian diet made of cereals!!! Probably the Romans ate more Cheese & flesh than the Germans!
It has also been proven through archeological research that Germania/Germany was highly agricultural and the German tribes were not nomadic but deeply sedentary, in a culture similar to the German culture of the middle ages. When the Germans moved...It was because of outside event.
The interesting bit is why the original tribes left Scandinavia to settle Germany. But once in Germany they stayed there and did not move until the Volkerwanderung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:E80:17E:BDB9:CF4:1217:E4C5 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, when we report Roman descriptions we should (and I think we do) attribute these and where appropriate we can mention modern criticisms. Where you have a specific example, please give a source and ideally a proposal for an improved wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Germanic tribes in central Europe
The article indicates that during the iron age the Germanic people were spread east to the Vistula river. This is clearly contradicted by the current genetic evidence <Juras A, Dabert M, Kushniarevich A, Malmstro¨m H, Raghavan M, et al. (2014) Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110839. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110839> and any archeological evidence needs to be very carefully checked to its source as it may be politically motivated. Whitecygent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecygent (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has found it difficult to use articles of that type because there are lots of them and they do not necessarily agree with each other. Anyway matrilineal continuity would be consistent with many scenarios. From what I have read looking at this subject in the past there is at least no doubt that at least one Germanic language (as opposed to Germanic "genes" whatever they would be) which reached to at least some areas east of the Vistula. Consider the Goths and Vandals for example. It is possible, even likely, that the populations ruled by these groups spoke several languages and had a mixed ancestry, especially as they moved (apparently) further inland/south.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Special role of England
The article stated: Because of its comparative isolation and the heavy invasion by Germanic tribesmen from a part of northern Europe outside the reaches of Roman influence, Anglo-Saxon England was thoroughly Germanic and would remain more Germanic in culture than the rest of Europe through the greater part of the Middle Ages. John Blair argued that a good deal of what Tacitus wrote of the early Germans in the first century A.D. applies accurately to the Anglo-Saxons and that even their conversion to Christianity left much in their customs and outlook intact.
- Young, 2008; pp 20
I do not see any reason to believe why England (not even thinking of the strong Romanic and Celtic influences) should stay more Germanic - whatever that is - than, say, Norways. The references certainly do not make up for the strength of the claim. -- Zz (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)