Talk:Teutons

Spelling
Why does "Teutones" appear so often in this article? Can I reach the Teutones at 867-5309? Shall I ask for Jenny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroglider (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Mass Suicides?!?!
Even from the quote only 300 in that given conflict, commited suicide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.181.241 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the Teuten / Tödden / Tattare: possibly there is a connection with the fact mentioned by Caesar in "De bello Gallico" (2,29), that the Cimbres and Teutons had left 6,000 men (then called "Atuatuci" bei the population of the region) to guard a part of their luggage in the region of Namurs. (Vittorio Ferretti, 07.03.07)

For this reason I would like to retain the comment on the possible link with these people

(Chris Geets, 07.05.30)


 * Please consult WP:OR. According to this source tattare is derived from Tatars. Consequently there should be no connection.--Berig 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some research on this, and I found that the connection between Tattare and Tatars is very dubious. The Tattare are a (despised) minority, and as such not well studied. They are associated with the Roma (gypsie) people, other times even with the Tatars, as you say, but also put apart as a seperate group of the Scandinavian wandering people. This being said, I have no special personal interest in the Wikipedia quality, and you can add/remove/modify articles as you like, I don't care. Db-inf 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is linguistic. The modern Swedish and Dutch forms of Teutonic are not Teuten or Tattare, but Tysk and Duits. Consequently, there is not even a connection name-wise between the Teuten and the Teutones.--Berig 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be very shure of the things you say, but other autors are more reserved about the origin and the commonness of the origins of the words Teuton and Deutsch. I suggest you do some research on this, or at least some reading. The current supposed ethymology of the word 'Teuton' in the Wikipedia article does not go beyond the level of the good willing village pastor with a hobby in local history. Db-inf 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited
I've cleaned up the text to make it clearer, more direct and concise. I commented out a passage at the end, written by someone who hadn't read the article: it needs to be integrated with the text. Wetman (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European Roots for "Teuton"
Teuta- [hard "a"] - Tribe. 1. Germanic *theuda- [hard "a"], people, with derivative *theudiskaz, of the people, in Middle Dutch duutsch, German, of the Germans or Teutons: DUTCH, PLATIDEUTSCH. 2. Suffixed form *teut-onos [hard second "o"], "they of the tribe," in Germanic trival name *theudanoz [hard "o"], borrowed via Celtic into Latin as Teutoni [hard "o" and "i"], the Teutons:  TEUTON. 3. Latin *totus [hard "o"], all, whole (?<"of the whole tribe"):  TEETOTUM, TOTAL, TUTTI; FACTOTUS. [In Pok. teu- [hard "e"] 1080.] Note: linguistic convention - astericks indicate reconstructed form not attested in documents. Tesseract501 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice original research but wrong.--Echosmoke (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph
I deleted this paragraph:
 * The Teutons appear in the video game Medieval 2: Total War's "Kingdoms" expansion as a playable faction.

As a matter of fact the faction the writer meant was in fact the Order of the Teutonic Knights, not the Germanic tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.212.189 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________

"Teutones"? Isn't it the Spanish word for Teutons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.119.136 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.147.131 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Teutons" does not usually refer to the Teutones!
In English, it usually refers to the Germans, another group entirely. I believe most recent scholarly sources refer to Teutones, not Teutons, and the Teutons page should probably be a dab page with Teutones to refer to the tribe best known as the Teutones. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Some of this text is a mess...
"although the distinction between Celts and Teutons is not clearly realized by some earlier historians."

First, I can't figure out which "Teutons" the text refers to: the Teutones? the Germanic peoples generally [who may or may not include the Teutones]? hopefully not the modern Germans. Second, if this refers to the Teutones, then it assumes that they were not Celtic. Third, "not clearly realized by some earlier historians" is hard to make sense of. Is the whole thing saying that the earlier Roman historians didn't necessarily distinguish Celtic and Germanic peoples? And even when they did, that they didn't always do so in the same way modern historians would have done so? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a mess; the citation for Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy points to a Norse saga! I've removed this. Paul S (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Teutons → Teutones – Clarity/precision. "Teutones" clearly refers to the tribe. "Teutons" usually refers to the modern Germans or, sometimes, to many or most of the Germanic peoples, and rarely only refers to the Teutones themselves. To exclude the use of "Teutons" in the other sense, I suggest comparing Google scholar results for "Teutones" "Cimbri" (1520 without citations, 468 since 1963) and "Teutons" "Cimbri" (777 without citations, 193 since 1963). --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  12:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC) 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment so then, "Teutons" would become a disambiguation page? As it appears according to your nomination, that it should. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment that was what I was thinking, yes. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Against to my it looks like teutones is just an archaic version. Reiftyr (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if it is archaic, why is it more common in more recent sources? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, otherwise Teutons will become a hideous disambiguation page. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment what about it would be hideous? to me the mislabelling seems obnoxious. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no mislabelling. The only possible encyclopedic topic for "Teutons" is the original tribe. I could abide a change of title as long as Teutons still redirected there, but I fear that it won't. For an example of hideous, see Teutonic. Srnec (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't usually refer to the tribe.


 * Clarification I see two problems here.
 * First, "Teutons" has a variety of meanings only rarely refers to the tribe of the Teutones.
 * Second, the tribe of the Teutones are more often called "Teutones" than "Teutons."
 * (At least in recent scholarly sources; see my frequency notes in the original.)
 * Each of these should be good reason for the move. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historians guess at their ethnicity
Chances are better that the Teutons were ethnically celtic. Anti-Germanic historians just call them Germanic because it is beneficial for celtic people to say that the reason why the romans went to war with the celtic tribes of Europe and destroyed celts and enslaved them is because Germanic tribes sacked rome. Historians often lie to make the Celts look like they are nice people who never did anything wrong while assigning blame for everything that is considered bad to Germanic males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.28.100 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pytheas
Their is no real evidence that Pytheas referred to the Teutons. All his work is lost and The "Gutones" is a simplification of two manuscript variants, Guttonibus and Guionibus, which would be in the nominative case Guttones or Guiones, the Goths in the main opinion. This is not the Teutons and is only wishfull thinking it means Teuton.

disputed opening lines
there has already been some discussion on your talk page, and now several back and forth edits. This insistent reinsertion of your very specific speculation seems very inappropriate to me. As explained on your talk page, I think it is your own personal WP:OR. You are claiming that the Romans were confused by their geographical term "Germania". This is clearly nonsense. The geographical term Germania clearly CAN'T be presumed to be the reason Julius Caesar called some peoples Germanic, as that concept seems to have solidified LATER (though it is true it is apparently based on Caesar's way of writing of it as being east of the Rhine). In other words Caesar himself certainly wasn't confused about the changing differences between the north and south of what is now Germany. He is one of our only sources for explaining this change! My understanding is that modern scholars like Walter Pohl suggest that Caesar compared the Cimbri and Teutons to the Germani under Ariovistus in order to explain the similarity of the danger Rome and Gaul were facing, to the danger they had faced from the same general direction in the past. In any case, please remember that on WP we are summarizing what published sources say. You are NOT doing that. You have already mentioned that the text you are inserting "doesn't apply to the references presented since the sources themselves [...] I added a footnote without sources, until I found the time to make it in more appropriate "referenced" form. If you have no source, you should not insert something in a case like this where there are already sources. OTOH, just to be clear, I do agree with your original concern that simply asserting the Cimbri or Teutons to be Germanic, implying for most readers today that they spoke a Germanic language, is not what WP should be doing either. We should be reporting the uncertainty though, and not replacing one fake certainty with another?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, Andrew. I see that you know a lot and are well versed in the ancient history of Continental Europe. I agree that it is necessary to represent different points of view of researchers, but again, uncertainty doesn't mean that a particular point of view is "fake". I think you and many others quite specifically view that these tribes were Germanic (in the modern sense) and originally from Jutland (since from among the Indo-Europeans mainly Germanic people always lived there), and I and many others quite specifically view that the Romans were mistaken about "original homeland" and they were Celtic (in the modern sense). It is necessary to maintain a parity of views on this. And no, I don't think that the Romans "were confused about who is the Germanic" this is really nonsense and I haven't written about it anywhere. Me myself interesting in the ancient Germaninc people as they are my ancestors and perhaps i myself "wanted" these tribes to be Germanic, but I doubt this case because of the clearly "Celtic" names in the description of the leaders in the article "Cimbrian War", as well as archaeologists doubts in the issue of immigration. This is why I have MY doubts. In any case, I am pleased with your work and the addition to the articles, thanks.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * please read what I said more carefully. I did not say your POV was fake. (I do not even know what that would mean.) My point was that when there is uncertainty, then writing as if things are certain is bad. I do not know what "wiev" is. I do not care at all whether the Cimbri were Germanic or Celtic (or, what is a different thing, whether they spoke languages which would be classified by a modern linguist as Germanic or Celtic), and I think in this period these concepts are not straightforward to begin with so they need explanation in the article. To be honest, I also think that the neutral study of ancient peoples is very difficult for people who concern themselves with the idea that they personally have a special genealogical connection, so if that is your interest maybe you should consider keeping away from the topic. (We are talking about a period more than 2000 years ago.) I also did not say we have to use Caesar as a source, but rather that scholars such as Pohl see him as an important turning point in the history of the way the terms Germanic and Teuton are used. Pohl is certainly not a "questionable source". Now, if you really want to make serious proposals, PLEASE bring citations from reliable published sources. FWIW the German article contains more references to some good sources. Also, on English WP, many of the issues this article needs to deal with have been the subject of more editing on the Cimbri article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While we may need more recent sources for this article, this edit is completely unacceptable. Changing what sources say or removing quotes that disagree with one's opinion does nothing to improve the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree (for the reasons explained above) but just to confuse the issue the revert you just did is not just a revert of that edit? Undoubtedly more work is needed in any case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't see anything you (or anyone else) had added to that particular paragraph, but if you did feel free to reinsert (diff for reference). At any rate, we need sources for any new wording, as neither source supported HernanCortez1518's edit. As said, more recent sources may offer more nuance (the Cambridge Medieval History is from 1957, and Beck is from 1911. The "Encyclopedia of European Peoples" is from 2006, but is a very general encyclopedia.)--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not too worried by your edit, just pointing to the fact that HernánCortés1518's concerns are not entirely misplaced. (I am guess that they are not so experienced with our policies etc though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the refs you are defending, we probably should put them in perspective. Eg. It seems the google books url we are using for Waldman and Mason is actually The Cambridge Medieval History from 1936, which is the next footnote (but we give that as being a 1957 work). This type of thing is common on all WP articles wherever the word Germanic is been inserted. The same types of material have been inserted in various mass edits over the years. Waldman and Mason is not a fantastic source, but more to the point it is NOT true that it disagrees with the idea that some scholars believe the Teutones were Celtic. See p.797. That source and others are among the typical bundle that are used selectively all over WP and frankly you can assume that 99% of the time they will NOT match what we report them to say. So we can't treat our past work on WP as safe to trust I'm afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that they are 'generally discussed as being Germanic. It may mean we need to offer more recent sources on the Celtic idea, however. The whole article could use more recent sources. But I checked both sources for that, and they say the opposite of what HernanCortez1518 wants them to say (that the Teutons definitely were Celts). We can't accept willful distortion of what the sources say because an editor is convinced that they are right.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that of course. But the edit you did was not removing that claim. It was removing "classified as either a Germanic people or as a Celtic people" and "Certain ancient writers classify the Teutones as Celts." These are uncontroversial statements. Anyway, concerning better sources I have not found the T volume of the Reallexikon online which the German WP uses, but there is some good discussion in Pohl's Die Germanen, and I've pulled my copy off the shelf. It is easier to find sources for the Cimbri. I wonder if would be interested to make a name section? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I say, if you have any improvement, please (re-)insert them, it was not my intention to remove anything that's properly sourced.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Teutones' has a transparent etymology. It stems from the Indo-European stem *teuteh₂- ('the people'; perhaps the 'people under arms') attached to the suffix -o-no-. I'll make an etymology section. Alcaios (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * it would be great. The interesting discussion about this case is apparently the fact that it is not in a pre Grimm's law form. So there are various proposals going back over a long time about whether it is Celtic, or a Celtic reinterpretation, or a sign of an IE language community something like the supposed Northwest block, still living in northern Europe at that time. It seems people have been inserting remarks into the current Origins section but it is all a bit messy and I think it could better be broken out. If we could have this explained properly, then other discussions needed in the article can be read more correctly in that context? My apologies for always calling you into these, but you've become the respected expert on writing these up in a correctly technical way, which helps create a non-controversial anchor on some of these articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure that the name not of Germanic origin, especially since the dental /d/ is missing. Both Orel and Kroonen reconstruct the Proto-Germanic stem as *þiudō-. Compare with Proto-Celtic *towtā- ('people, tribe'). The Reallexikon writes that it can be either Celtic or pre-Germanic (i.e. an unknown Indo-European language spoken in the region before the Ancient Germans). Alcaios (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be great to get this summarized in a clear neutral way, as it seems previous editors of this article have added bits and pieces. Do you have any link to the Teutones article from RGA?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can access the article from this link via the Wikipedia library. That said, it doesn't imply that they didn't speak a Germanic language. I'm French, an ethnonym of Germanic origin, but I speak a Romance language. The most common name of French kings, Louis, is also of Germanic origin. You can only conclude from these facts that a Germanic language (in that case Frankish) had an influence on the French language and people. The Teutones may have been influenced by Celtic speakers, but we'll probably never know which language they actually spoke. Alcaios (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm both very pleased but also sort of depressed to learn that the Wikimedia library has access to the Reallexikon when my university library does not...
 * The Reallexikon explicitly supports some of the text that's been removed by HernanCortez1518 here and at articles related to the Cimbri, namely: Da sowohl der Name der Kimbern als auch der der Teutonen in Jütland fortleben (Thy mit Hauptort Thisted n. und w., Himmerland s. und ö. des Limfjords), besteht kein Grund, die ant. Nachrichten von der Herkunft der beiden Stämme zu bezweifeln (so auch Neumann Kimbern S. 493-495). He has yet to show any sources saying that there was no migration from Jutland.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It might have been me that placed a suggestion to get access to RGA, but how can I use that? I'll try the link. I already had some idea about what it said from the German WP. BTW, RGA articles are written by people with specific positions, so while we should probably never ignore their positions, we can't say that anyone which disagrees with it, e.g. Walter Pohl, should be ignored either. (And of course it can't have been a justification for anyone's past edits because it was not cited before.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * THANKS. Got that working! The sentence you quote is a bit hard to use, at first sight. It does not parse, and the article is disappointingly short. It says "There is no reason to doubt X because Y", but there is no further explanation about where proposal X (about where the Teutones lived) comes from, or what precisely it even is, or why we should believe Y, or why anyone doubted it. But anyway, was the place they originally lived in the main thing you were concerned about in recent edits? I thought the main concern was about their language? That is not really addressed. I notice one remark in the article about Ptolemy - also very short - matches the Schütte remark I added today. I think I'll need to follow leads in other articles because this one is so short. Anyway, that is just first quick notes. In short, we are on to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about the sentence not parsing. In English, it means: Since both the name of the Cimbrians as well as that of the Teutons lives on in Jutland (Thy with the main settlement of Thysted to the north and to the west of Limfjord, Himmerland to its south and east), there is no reason to doubt the antique reports on the origin of the tribes (thus also Neumann Kimbern pp.493-495).
 * My concern is not primarily about language (how would we know), it's about the misrepresentation of scholarly consensus about these two tribes. One of the things that HernanCortez1518 has argued is that archaeologists claim there was no migration from Jutland, but he has yet to substantiate that claim and the Reallexikon clearly believes there was a migration. The reason he is arguing that there was no migration is because Jutland belongs to the core Germanic territory during this time period, so it would invalidate his insistence that they must have been Celtic if they came from there.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes the sentence parses grammatically. I meant the logic goes nowhere because the article is so short. The X and Y, the background argumentations, are missing. The sentence treats X as doubted, but proven by Y, and Y as beyond doubt. There is no explanation of why anyone ever would believe X or Y. I just meant that ideally we want to understand the scholarly debate at least a bit, and present it with due balance. But other sources including other RGA articles will no doubt help on that, and this is a good useful source. It does not look super-complicated. BTW I agree that there is certainly no consensus they were Celtic, to say the least, and in discussions I've seen, archaeology, unsurprisingly, is not the main type of evidence anyone is arguing about. The two points of doubt and debate among scholars are where they lived, and what language they spoke. I think we have a simple decision about whether to just say it's not certain, or do we go further and say there is a clear leading position. (If there is one, I don't think it is the Celtic position as far as I have seen so far.) Archaeology is very poor at solving those types of issues. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The name section is now containing discussion of their possible homeland, which was in the older version in the "Origins" sections. So we have some doubling up as we add things. Probably the article needs some resectioning at some point. I would say that distinct sections should eventually probably exist for Name, Possible geographical origins (where we can list the classical attestations about this topic), and evidence concerning their Language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably the subject of how the term Teutonic had a second life needs its own section as well, as on the German article. BTW I am not saying other people have to do this, although that would be great, but only noting my thinking so that other ideas or concerns can be registered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment from the RGA Kimbern article: Daß Teutonen und Ambronen mit den K. zogen, beweist nun ebenfalls nicht zwingend, daß die K. urspr. aus deren Nachbarschaft stammten. Nach bereits angeführter Theorie könnten die K. auf ihrem Wanderzug nach Jütland gelangt sein, wo sie sich mit Teutonen und Ambronen verbanden, um von dort aus gemeinsam nach S zu wandern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is apparently a transcription error on the RGA online Teutones article. A corrected copy has been set on academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/3669028/2005_Teutonen . The error had me confused about Ptolemy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "We should be reporting the uncertainty though, and not replacing one fake certainty with another?" (c) Now you pretend you didn't write this: re-read what you have written, honourable one. Further, as for my typos - you have them as well sometimes like any other human, no need extra attention. At least English is not my first language. And there is no need to guess what meaning “ancient people” have for me. Neither the so-called "personal genetics", nor these so-called "haplogroups" have any meaning and value for me, perhaps they have for you so you projecting it onto me. The interest in the life of ancestors, their history and in the early version of modern culture (Germanic, Slavic etc) isn't an obstacle to the neutral study/teaching of history.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is that we should all be looking at what the published sources say, and trying to summarize what they collectively say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

would be interesting to add a remark in the Name section about the one personal name we have, Teutobod? I am reluctant to think he should have his own article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For Teutobod's name, the Reallexikon entry points to Müllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde Bd. 2 118ff. see here: teut. Teutoboduus ist vollkommen gallisch, nicht nur in seiner ersten, sondern auch in seiner zweiten hälfte. He goes on to suggest that this could be because Gauls served as interpreters, and suggests an original equivalent to Old High German Deutbato.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes which is the same challenge with ALL the personal names of Cimbri or Teutones, and both of the ethnonyms. So most published discussion about Teutobod seems to be about his name as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)