Talk:Cherusci

[Untitled]
Is that permission granted under the GFDL?

Celtic origin paragraph
I deleted the following paragraph:

The name "Cherusci" may also point to a Celtic origin for the tribe as it ends similarly to the names of other Celtic tribes such as the Norisci, Taurisci, Scordisci. Celts were known to inhabit Germany from early times before Germanic migrations changed the ethnic makeup of the region. Germanicization of these pre-German Celtic tribes would have occurred gradually. Other tribes in Germany known to be of Celtic origin include the Cimbri, Ambrones, Sicambri, Volcae Tectosages and Boii (in Bohemia).http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a12020.htm http://www.runestone.org/armin.html
 * Possible Celtic Origin

The Cherusci might have had a Celtic origin. But the argumentation is nonsense in my opinion. The name ending tells nothing. The names are not in Celtic form but in latinized form. Other names are likewise written in this form, like the Falisci, who are Italic people. This would mean that the Cherusci and the Scordisci are also Italic tribes, while the Atrebates, the Carnutes and many other Gaulish, Brythonic, Caledonian and Irish tribes are not Celtic. Furthermore this paragraph claims that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Sicambri are of Celtic origin, though their name endings are different.

Another argument of this paragraph is that the Volcae Tectosages and the Boii are also of Celtic origin. But they are Celtic tribes anyway, so what? Also it claimes that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Sicambri are known to be of Celtic origin. I have often read articles about them, but never encountered that this would be known. The question of which origin they are is rather useless. According to archeological excavations the area of the Sicambri has formerly been inhabited by people of Celtic culture. The excavations show people of Germanic culture in later times. So Germanic people have migrated to this area and by number or by force subdued the local population. Thus the Sicambri were of Celtic and Germanic origin. You can now question of which origin the former Celtic population was, because other people lived there before and other people migrated here before and other people invaded here before.

The original area of settlement of the Cimbri and Ambrones is always located in Danmark, a region which is always described as Germanic and never as Celtic culture area. Thus it's most likely that these Germanc tribes are of Germanic origin. I only heard sometimes of speculations that these tribes are of Celtic origin because of some linguistical and cultural similarities. But these speculations are only speculations and don't tell anything factual. Similarities can alos be due to adoption of Celtic words and habits through trade and other contacts of neighbours.

Truchses (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed mostly nonsensical. We don't know the Cimbri are Celtic, that is an outdated theory based on the similarity between the Latinised form of their name (which would have probably been something like *Ximbra in Proto-Germanic) and the much later Cymru and Cumbria, which would have been *combrox at the time and only meant "compatriots" rather than being an ethnic denonym. And that is why most historians do not think of them as a Celic tribe (that and the fact they are from Denmark that lacks certain features such as Celtic derived place-names that point to Celts never having occupied that region). As for the Sicambri they are not thought of as a Celtic tribe but a Germanic one though they were in the Celtic sphere of influence and thus would share some affinities with the Celtic tribes to the south of them. Some people (generally not historians) have claimed that the Sicambri are Celts however this is again due to an alleged similarity between Sicambri and Cymru, Cumbria, Cambria et cetera but that ignores the fact that their name has been written as many forms such as Sugambri, Sigambrer, Sugumbrer et cetera. Ambrones are claimed to be Celts by some because they shout their name as a war-cry (Celts have a monopoly on such a practice according to some it seems) and because a Celtic people have a name that resembles theirs when written in Latin.

Wikipedia's Celtic Romanticism obsession is rather ridiculous. But that is what you get when anyone can edit the place and use any source from the net, including many that reference Wikipedia itself, thus using a source that is taken from an "opinion" on Wikipedia (which many things on Wikipedia are) to "back-up" the "opinion" on Wikipedia. Nonsense! 86.132.4.70 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, it is mistake to remove the Keltic (not Celtic) theoretical origin for the name Cherusci, or to not even consider it as a possibility at all; -rusci appears to be tangentially related to the word rufus or "red hair". Either way, archeological evidence seems to reinforce the historical account that the Kelts or Galatians migrated from the outskirts of the Hellenic world specifically from the central Anatolian periphery of Asia Minor to the "Macedonian Greek Frontier" (the Balkans) toward what later becomes Saxony and to the British Isles. Although the Keltic populations were decimated, they were widely known before any Germanic contact. Also many theories state that the Germanic tribes also migrated to Northern Europe from Scandinavia and Asia, at least that is what most schools teach in European History classes. These are all sporadically written ancient accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.118.41 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The removal is perfectly correct, the theory is highly dubious and the passage was completley unsourced. I believe the references at the end of the passage are only accidentally attached through poor editing over the years.  But even taking them at face value, the first is to Tacitus, who only says that the Chatti were scared of the Cherusci, and the second is a (now deadlink) page of the Asatru Folk Assembly.  In my opinion, contributions from anyone who believes that organisation is capable of producing a reliable source should be deleted with extreme prejudice without bothering to read.  But in the spirit of WP:AGF I searced for archive copies of the page, which told me only that the Cherusci no longer exist.


 * And will contributors to this page please read WP:INDENT, you have turned the page into an unreadable wall of text.  Spinning Spark  09:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal suggestion from Oldrik9.
Did anyone ever consider it simply being from *harjaz *askaz? 'Haraskii', with a meaning of 'armytrees'. Anyone familiar with the Norse myth knows that 'askr', a tree, is a kenning for a man (pretty sure Snorri mentions it in his Edda). As it is told that men were created from trees, see Völuspá. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldrik9 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Map
Tacitus's accounts are of the era of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, not even of the year 100. There's no attestation for the tribe surviving the mess it was left in by its royal line imploding and the AD88ish defeat by the Chatti. They shouldn't be illustrated with a map of Hadrian's reign in the next century. This article should be using a map of Augustus or Tiberius's empire and any map of Hadrian's empire shouldn't have the Cherusci included among its neighbors. — Llywelyn II   16:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Arminius

 * (known in modern German as "Hermann der Cherusker", although his actual Germanic name was more likely Erminaz )

Leaving aside that Geocities pages aren't reliable sources even if they did still exist, (a) the German slang for the guy's name is entirely irrelevant here and belongs on his separate page and (b) the "actual German name" seems to be a idea that is entirely disputed by the sources and discussion at Arminius's own page. Flavus and Italicus have nothing to do with their German names, and Arminius's very likely didn't either. Even if it was somehow an allusion to an Old Germanic original, it would need better sourcing than this and should just be discussed on the Arminius page. — Llywelyn II   17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's good have this thrown out. FWIW, it's nor "German slang", but a deliberate and thoughtless identification of the two names that was hugely exploited by 19th and 20th century ideologists. For some strange reason, media editors (but not necessarily writers!) keep this usage alive to the present day (cf. this egregious example that was published just yesterday; note the different usage in headings and the main text). To the history-minded, it sounds either old-fashioned, naive, or right-wingish, depending who says it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)