Jump to content

Talk:Suebi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew Lancaster (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 17 August 2024 (→Was there a Greek tradition: indent tweak for clarity as per threading norms on WP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Names

Poles refer to all Germans "Shvabs" or "Shkops", (both terms being extremely derogatory); not just to Ukrainian ones, of whom knowledge in Poland is practically non - existent.

The official slavonic name for Germans - Nemce, or Niemcy meant: "mutes" or "dumb people".

Space Cadet

"Shvab" is probably "Szwab", likely from German "Schwab", a demonym for people from Scwabenland (German -- English Swabia).

Polish is not an easy language for Germans to learn, and it is hardly unique to Poles to see foreigners struggling with the local language and having strange ways of life to be seen as "dumb", and it's easy to understand that people who seem awkward in adapting to the linguistic ways of a new land to quite talking. The proverb that it is wiser to stay silent and seem stupid than to open one's mouth and leave all doubt is not strictly American.

Now for a more relevant question: are the Suebi in any way connected to Schwabenland (Swabia), a former region of Germany now split between Bavaria and Baden-Wurttenburg? Pbrower2a (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the german name of the region is Schwaben NOT Schwabenland178.210.114.106 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Schwabenland kommt nur einmal in einem Gedicht vor ,da war ein Herr aus Schwabenland, von hohem Wuchs und starker Hand'. Ist also dem Reim geschuldet und nicht historisch. 213.165.185.130 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suevi = Sueones = Svear?

The Svear of Sweden and the Suevi/Suebi/Suabi were all closely related Germanic people. What evidence or probability exists of the Suevi and the Svear being identical, i.e., a single tribe, during the first few centuries A.D.?

Why not give your Swedish quotes of Svear and their sources (dates are important), and leave the question open? --Wetman 04:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suebi tied to Sorbi?

The tribal names (etymology) for Suebis and Swedes are identical, their homeland was along the German Baltic coasts and perhaps are connected with Sweden by Jutland (Denmark) and the island of Bornholm. But to think about the Suebi may have possible Slavic origins is another possibility to rule out. The Sorbs or Sorbians are West Slavic-speaking inhabitants of modern-day Saxony in eastern Germany. They are closely related to the Serbs of Serbia in the Balkans, the two tribes separated when another moved south in the 7th century AD. For the Germanic Suebi to have a partial Slavic component if not by similar enonyms is in need for further investigation before any inclusion of my ethnological theory, it's what I have in mind. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sueve" or "Suebic"?

Which is the better adjectival form in English? --Wetman 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Suevi", but if not that, "Suebi". I wouldn't use Sueve or Suebic, but I've never before seen Sueve, and what do I know? What is the basis for the massive edits by a recent unnamed user? I have a feeling many should be reverted and some info retained and rewritten. Srnec 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article is being anonymously rewritten. "Elbe-Germanic" is a linguistic category—and not a widely-used category at that (Google it!). Its application to identify a historical population needs to be introduced for the general reader. New edits show a tenuous control of English: "Sueve" is not the adjectival form: "Suebic" is. Take the following:
Part of the Suebi, called Nord-Schwaben (northern Suebi) were mentioned in 569 under Frankish king Siegbert I. in areas of today's Saxony-Anhalt. In connection to the Suebi Saxons and Langobards (Lombards) returning from Italy in 573, are mentioned.
No text of 569 mentions "Nord-Schwaben", as the reader is being told. The reader is being given someone's POV reading, with dates adding a tone of credibility. A sounder approach: to identify the Chronicle entry then quote it, and then to report on the usual inference drawn from the brief chronicle entry. Once the "Sueve" (!) warbands split up, two threads have to be separately traced, in Germany and in Galicia. This article needs professionalizing: out of my competence, to be sure. --Wetman 15:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use the modern German word "Schwaben" as some readers might confuse it with some of the inhabitants of the modern German states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. Furthermore, to use "Schwaben" in the context of the 6th century or earlier is unhistoric. It would be better to use an anglicised Latin form.Ekki01 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ambuguity of Drusus

the link of Drusus must be "de-ambuguiated"

Done!--Berig 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tacitus' "misunderstanding"

The following is incomprehensible without some enlarging: "[Tacitus] included all North Germanic and East Germanic tribes that were not directly annexed by the Romans, but this was due to a misunderstanding." What misunderstanding? What then were the actual facts, according to modfern historians? --Wetman 09:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drusus securing the frontier

The statement is made that the Suebi remained a threat until Drusus secured the frontier. I can't imagine what that can mean; it is an oversimplification by far. Which Suebi did he secure it against? Troubles on the Suebian border went on and on right to the end of the empire. The gains of Drusus were soon nullified; his brother Tiberius had to campaign again. Shortly the Marcomanni required military operations and they were under the name of Suebi. That region between the Rhine and the Danube was the most heavily fortified with 3 or more big bases, walls and river commands. If the border was secure, why maintain this apparatus? Well, I looked at the citation on this and it requires me to learn Swedish and buy access to the Swedish national encyclopedia! I bet, even if I did so, I would not find the statement there and if I did it would not mean what it implies in the article, that Drusus achieved a permanent security of the Rhine-Danube border against the Suebi on the other side. So, I am taking the liberty of changing a couple of words to make it fit.Dave 19:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia says:
De förblev ett hot mot romarna vid Rhen tills Drusus d.ä. säkrade gränsen 9 f.kr.
Translation:
They remained a threat to the Romans at the Rhine until Drusus the Elder secured the border 9 BC.
It's referenced, so if you disagree it's better that you find a source that also disagrees.--Berig 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word ethnic

Hello Wetman. This is just a theoretical observation; I don't yet see where it impacts the article seriously, but "ethnic" even though you don't like it has a fairly concrete meaning in English and often nothing else will do. The classical writers certainly believed in it and used it often, and it formed their observations and beliefs, so we can't just drop it from the classics and from modern English. I understand why you don't like it as it has all sorts of unscientific and often deadly connotations and denotations and is vague and imprecise. Nevertheless we use it and so did the ancients. So any identity is likely to be a "race" or a "people" or a "tribe" on any basis whatever and it is up to us to figure out what they meant. We can't just excise ethnic from English.Dave 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reader may wonder at this! I had removed "ethnic" from the remark "...Indo-european root *swe-. Some related English words are: sibling, sister, swain, self, ethnic." Why? In this list the derivation of "ethnos" from PIE *swe- is remote enough to distract the ordinary reader— while goosing the well-informed amateur PIE linguist with a little self-congratulatory flush. I deleted it simply to strengthen the point that was being made. As to Dave Botteville's other deletion, I know and Dave Botteville knows, and you all know, that the asterisk in front of *swe- indicates that it is a reconstruction. Dave informs us "You don't need the postulated; all IE roots are reconstructions, which is designated in linguistics by the *. Nothing is being asserted or 'postulated.'" Needless to say. But there's no reason to hang on quite so tight to information that may orient the Wikipedia reader through this thought. --Wetman 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The polarities

Removed from article:

"as it was intended as a hortatory essay for a Roman public that set up cultural polarities,"

Objection your honor! The prosecutor is leading the witness! In the first place we have no idea at all what you mean by hortatory essay. And second, how can you say what it was intended for? That is a long and arduous task of scholarship for which you have not given a source. If it is your opinion, well, it is an interesting opinion. Publish it somewhere else, tip me off, and I will make sure it gets in there. As for the Roman public setting up the polarities, really, that goes too far. You are giving sociological conjectures as the reason why the words of Tacitus might not be taken at face value nowadays, thus involving yourself in cultural relativism. We don't care if he or they happened to be bipolar or if this condition mandated a hortatory approach, what we want to know is how trustworthy are the statements of Tacitus with regard to the truth. He himself admitted that he was relying on different sources with contradictory stories. You make it sound as though just now after 2000 years we are discovering that because of the sociology Tacitus can't be trusted, a fact never ever revealed before in the long history of Tacitean scholarship. Really.Dave 23:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "scholarship" that is news to Dave Botteville should be referenced under Germania (book), not here: I haven't looked at that article recently, but it is not news, even to an amateur like me, that Tacitus' purpose in Germania was an exhortation directed to Romans, not the supposed geographical and ethnological treatise for which the hundred-year-old pop references still being quoted in this article would mine it (following Th. Mommsen, I understand). I think we could unclench a little and let the information flow: Tacitus is indeed the classical source: in removing that fact, Dave Botteville says "What about Caesar, Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy?" Yes indeed! Let their passing references be added by David Botteville, then, in a footnote: they have not yet appeared anywhere in this article. The article's footnotes are a bit strained: the remark that "Suebi" covers a large number of tribes in central Germany is supported by a 1912 annotation of a line in Widsith! Land sakes alive! --Wetman 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble following you, Wetman, but I will reply to what you seem to mean. Whether or not Germania is an exhortation IS an opinion. The question is whether it is exclusively your opinion. If it is, then it is either basic knowledge that does not need a reference or it is not. I deny that it is basic knowledge. It is NOT obvious to the general reader. As it is not basic knowledge and if someone else has it, how about a note? You can't just say "following Mommsen I understand." You need a citation with a page number and I would further suggest you quote a phrase as I did, but in the article on Germania. The latter needs reworking and expansion but so do most articles in this area and I would face the same problem if I were to do it, which, if no volunteers come forward, I may have to. For the rest, Tacitus is not THE classical source. I deny that. The other classical authors do not appear in the article because no one put them there yet (I did not write the article). I do plan to cover them but I'm going sequentially so I encountered these statements by you first. And for the "land sakes alive", I got no idea vis a vis the subject why you would have that reaction. The reader needs to know the classical sources are equivocal. That note on Widsith actually is rather extensive even though the Suebi are mentioned in one line of the poem. It does present the issue fairly with ancient sources. It is not a new or obscure issue. In case the book is not available to you, it can be previewed on Google. And, I don't know what you mean by strained notes, but that brings me to mind, would you mind using proper citation format on your citations?
One last thing. This has been building up for some time has it not? We've often been in each other's sphere of interest ever since I got on Wikipedia 1.5 years ago, and you were one of the very first to demand references and get my first article deleted out of hand. You did that before I even had a user page. That's all right. I forgive you. Maybe it needed deletion. I can't remember that you ever had anything good to say about my editing, even though I have gotten some recognition from my other peers. Your remarks generally border on ad hominem, not quite enough to attract the attention of the administration. I am sure you are a valuable contributor and I appreciate you for many things you have done. As I gained more experience I thought you were often peremptory and wrong with a tendency to belittle rather than guide. However I accepted your comments with no complaint. What I am not going to do, though, is be belittled out of working on an article that needs work and in which I am interested. My apprenticeship is over. My notes are not strained. Your opinions are not obvious information. I know as much if not more than you about the topic. So, I'm not going to be belittled out of it. You might as well drop that tone. I think I'm a reasonable man and can work with reasonable men. If you do not reply reasonably I wiil stop responding to you in any way at all.Dave 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the rest of it does not make any sense either:

", but it is now read with increasing caution for its passing remarks on geography and ethnology; nevertheless,"

Why would the caution be any greater now than it ever was? Are you trying to say the students should not necessarily take it at face value? That's an editorial opinion and is not necessary. If the topic is the unreliability of Tacitus' Germania it seems to me you would want to take that up under Tacitus' Germania. I don't think we are neglecting the problems in the sources. Its nothing new. They've always been there. Tacitus' remarks have been passing around for a couple of thousand years. You fail to present enough detail to make your assertions anything more than your opinion on Tacitus. And anyway anyone who reads the Germania from the beginning is already tipped off by Tacitus himself that he does not have a consistent picture.Dave 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the caution be any greater now than it ever was? I don't know about "the student" but apparently Dave Botteville does take Tacitus at face value. --Wetman 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you can draw that conclusion. No, I don't take Tacitus at face value. I repeat, Tacitus himself pointed out the inconsistencies in his information. They have always been there and have always been considered with the widest possible spectrum of viewpoint. There is no new information leading to new suspicions and no need to caution the reader that now, as opposed to some theoretically credulous past, we have to be even more careful than ever in suspecting Tacitus.Dave 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt we all feel more memorable than we really are: I'm sure I do. So I try to treat every goose as a new goose; often, I find, it's the only kindly way. More seriously, I added the following quite sensible note, deleted by Dave Botteville: "The modern view of the Suebi is laid out in two volumes stemming from papers delivered at a series of seminars at Göttingen in 1986 and 1987, Günther Neumann and Henning Seemann, eds., Beiträge zum Verständnis der Germania des Tacitus, (Göttingen) 1989, 1992." Even skimming the English-language reviews of the two volumes would bring one up to speed. Well, almost anyone.--Wetman 06:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The modern view

I removed this for now:

Modern historians[1] consider this an over-simplification.[2]

What it seems to say is exactly the opposite of what the scholars think. They think Tacitus has too many tribes in the Suebi. Thus Tacitus' view is not over-simple but over-elaborate, implying that the scholars have a view yet more elaborate of which Tacitus' is an oversimplification. I suppose you could argue that Tacitus is being oversimple in being overelaborate. This seems rather indirect to me. Now, the reference is on the oversimplification. What oversimplification? You have not in any way said and so the reader has to read the 2 volumes to find out what you mean. Unfortunately they are in German, so he has to learn German. We expect too much of him, don't you think? Moreover, the volumes are presented as "The modern view." Oh really? Is there any other or is it all there in those two volumes? Do they present one view or many? By what world-wide authority did it get to be "the"? This is really a weasel word, isn't it? You are trying to weasel out of saying anything.Dave 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The modern view of the Suebi is laid out in two volumes stemming from papers delivered at a series of seminars at Göttingen in 1986 and 1987, Günther Neumann and Henning Seemann, eds., Beiträge zum Verständnis der Germania des Tacitus, (Göttingen) 1989, 1992.
  2. ^ The article Sveber in Nordisk familjebok.

Repetitious or wrong text

I removed this:

Tacitus hypothesized that other tribes emanated from it, such as the Quadi and the Marcomanni and probably also the Hermunduri.[1] The Suebi tribal group also included the Alamanni and the Langobards,[2] but whether the latter group were part of the Suebi is doubtful.[1]

In the 1st century AD, the Suebi were concentrated at the Elbe river, but the Huns would make some of them cross the Rhine and reach the Iberian Peninsula[2].

Tacitus makes no such implication and the on-line Britannica - what we can see of it without buying - does not mention the topic. As for the Swedish ref, most of us can't read that so I don't know what it does say. If it says Tacitus says these tribes "come from" the the Suebi in the narrow sense, it is wrong. More generally, the problem with hypothesizing that all these tribes come from Caesar's Suebi is that first of all Tacitus does not take that view and second Suebia is a very large territory, over half of Germany. Although you can argue that the Marcomanni and Quadi came downstream from Caesar's Suebi, you can't deal at all with Suiones, the Balts and the Finno-Ugrians in this way and have no choice but to arbitrarily reject all parts of Tacitus except those that fit that narrow hypothesis; hence, the need to invent a great skepticism of Tacitus. But if Tacitus is unreliable in those parts, why would he be reliable in all the rest? We need to take the most general and open interpretation here and in fact all the articles on the Balts take Tacitus seriously about the Aestii and the etymologists do connect Suebi with Suiones. So, whatever the prehistoric migrational situation was we can't assume it all happened just before Caesar got there. Either we just throw Tacitus totally out as some kind of hortatory propaganda or we have to consider everything he says. I don't say we can't find evidence to dispute it. But in fact Tacitus corresponds more or less to Ptolemy and the other sources, which I will be bringing in below. As for the part about the Huns, well, that information is covered in the parts of the article that deal with that time, which is at the very end of the classical Suebic identity. Understand, the population of the Suebi did not suddenly vanish, they only started assuming other identites, such as Alamannic, Alsatian, Bavarian, Swiss, eventually Austrian, what have you. In any case only some of them were concentrated on the Elbe; that is, the statement takes the narrow view. On to the rest of the article.Dave 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b The article Sveber in Nordisk familjebok.
  2. ^ a b The article Suebi in Encyclopædia Britannica online, retrieved January 26, 2007.

Talessman's map

Mr Talessman: what your map's contribution? There are better executed and more precise maps already in the article.Andrarias (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Andrarias, have you actually looked at the maps, or are you just sockpuppeting for Srnec? They show the location of Suebian Kingdom, along with other nations. What's wrong with that? I'll be replacing them with zoomed-in versions soon, but for now I have to waste time with bigoted editors who think they are wiki-gods because they get to be anonymous here. Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring. I appreciate that a new map is included, showing both Suebian areas at once, in Portugal and at the Rhine, but then huge a "one size fits all" map that covers half of Africa and Asia, too, is a temporary solution at best. Please crop to relevant area, cutting non-relevant parts. Also, the spelling "Alammania" is new to me (and Albania at the Kaspian Sea). -- Matthead  DisOuß   15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed

The following sourced information might be valuable, though it's been deleted twice: John of Biclarum, however, places the Suebic conversion later and ascribes it, not to a Suebe, but to a Visigoth, placing it alongside that of the Goths, which occurred under Reccared I in 587–589. John of Biclarum might not be any more credible than Isidore of Seville, but wise readers of Wikipedia don't neglect to read the Talk pages. --Wetman (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletions were accidental. The text is in there now, albeit in bulletted form. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Srnec. I should count to a hundred before using the verb suppressed. And a wiser head than mine could begin each edit perfectly fresh, not letting irritants from utterly unrelated editing encounters accumulate in unwarranted suspicions. You've nicely accepted my apologies before. I hope you'll do so now again, --Wetman (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Council of Braga and The Conversion

Well, I`m a little upset now -and when I say little I mean it-. Recently I modified the article, adding a reference to the Second Council of Braga. It was a catholic council celebrated the Spanish Era 610, i.e. 572 A.D., under king Miro. Here is the headline "CONCILIUM BRACARENSE SECUNDUM DUODECIM EPISCOPORUM habitum anno secundo regis Mironis, die Kalendarum Iuniarum, aera DCX." So, the first council is not the only contemporary record, and there is some evolution from the first to the second one.

Then, also, in the Third Council of Toledo, that met the year 589, the visigothic king expressed about the recent conversion of its kingdom: "Nec enim sola Gothorum conversio ad cumulum nostrae mercedis accessit, quin immo et Suevorum gentis infinita multitudo, quam praesidio caelesti nostro regno subiecimus." That is, king Reccared celebrates not only the conversion of the Goths, but also of an infinite number of Suevi.

So, I would say that John Blicarense's Chronica is second hand to this conversion, thought it is a primary and reliable source for the time.

Accordingly, I`m changing again the article, trying to be respectfull with other editors choices.--Cadroiolos (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

currently working on this article

In case anyone is wondering. I do not have lots of time but I am working on this article in a non-random way. The classical sources section has been improved but I guess many people will agree with me that such a summary of every primary source is not really a great way to approach this subject on WP. But my idea is to start with what we have, get it right, and then move the classical information into more logical sections such as concerning maybe origins, locations, tribes and a I think definitely a section on classical historical events involving the Suebi. In the longer run of course more secondary sources would be desirable, but as with any such classical subject known only from a few classical snippets, it can be helpful to improve a poor article by first building a foundation which recognizes those snippets. (The secondary literature in classical subjects is enormous but a very mixed bag. So starting with that can make it hard to think straight.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement areas

"The Germanic invaders settled mainly in the areas of Braga (Bracara Augusta), Porto (Portus Cale), Lugo (Lucus Augusti) and Astorga (Asturica Augusta)."

I do not trust this sentence after reading some information and understanding the naming of localities of supposed suebi origin. The suebi inhabited rural areas, not urban ones, as the article is trying to hint. --user:PedroPVZ (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suebenheim

It should be mentioned that a district of Mannheim is called Suebenheim. Mannheim is located near Rhine. --2.245.79.34 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suevi = Suavi = Slavi?

Just a quick note to say that I removed a paragraph suggesting that Suebians were Slavs, and that the language of the Suebians is unknown, etc. For example compare to our language version, which is sourced. (And just using common sense, Adam of Bremen is hardly a good source for a striking etymological proposal that the word Suebian is the same as Slavian.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Slovak i can confirm that word Suav/Suev is the same as Slav. I can not say that anciet Slavs(Suevi) are the same nation(or sub-nation) as present day Slavs(Suavi). But it is clear, that it is the same name. Surely more clear than English=Angles. Present day Russians arent considered to be old russian vikings, but they still use their name. Present day English arent clean Angles, but it is the same name. Same for Macedonians, Bulgarians, ... .
Its the same for Suobeni=Suoveni=Sloveni, Slovak=Suouak, Slavian=Shwabian. In some Slovak dialects L is said as (english) W. In combination with other vowels it creates uo, ua, ue, ui. B is often replaced by V like varit=barit (cook/boil/... in slavic). In today Slovak dialects i have seen only L=W. But by looking on some words (like barit=varit) you can see, that in the past V and B were also swapped. Also S and (english) SH can be swapped. Summary: L=W, V=B, S=SH. You can also look at inter-slavic and slavic-german and local differences in languages.
If you dont agree with something, it doesnt mean that you should remove it. There were also other sources besides the one you criticised. I have not seen any reason to delete that article. There was nothing worser than in other articles. I could say that originating Suevi from Proto-Germanic root *swē- meaning "one's own" is very manipulative, because it is EXACTLY the same word in slavic languages. I can say that it originates from slavic root *swē- meaning "one's own". But it is still not a reason to delete Proto-Germanic version, is it? I think that banning and slowing down information gathering about this topic will surely not solve it. You should be either more interested in this topic, try to know how the world (or at least Europe) looks like, or slow down and re-think your delete actions.
Another indication of slavic presence in central Europe (and connection with Suevi) could be Iazyges. Iazyk means tongue/language in slavic languages. Suevi=Slavi article on this discussion page is really needed. ;)
--Wolfy SK (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words sound like words in other languages. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing our own ideas, but ones which have been published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced writers probably wrote (published) something. Majority of deleted part doesnt look like an "opinion". It was mostly summary of references.--Wolfy SK (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned, the sources are few, and not appropriate. You can raise this on WP:RSN if you think I am misunderstanding Wikipedia policy about what sources are appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was much Slavic settlement in what is now Germany, mostly in the lands that became the former DDR. Cities with names such as Chemtitz, Zwickau, and Leipzig attest to Slavic populations. The House of Mecklenburg was originally Slavic. Even Berlin was originally a Slavic settlement! But note well: these Slavic populations did not move west. Connection of the Suevi to Slavs is strictly a folk etymology. The other tribes entering Iberia during the collapse of Roman authority were all Germanic peoples, including Goths, Vandals (Andalusia). The Suevi have a likely connection to Swabia, then pronounced by the people as something like "swabben" The modern German pronunciation of Schwaben involves regular linguistic change.

Suebi is consistent with Schwab-i, with the "S" representing the early German sound, and "u" as the usual Latin depiction of a "w"-like sound where it still existed. "e" was much more common following "u" in Spanish, and vowels are infamously unstable. "a" going to "e" in early Spanish dialects can be explained by the commonness of "ue" in Spanish and the scarcity of "ua". "b" and "v" have been confused in Iberia as a whole since Roman imperial times. The final "i" is a Latin plural for nouns in the nominative, and the tribe was known in a way to fit Latin norms in writing.

The Spanish would have later encounters with Slavic people as esclavos -- slaves.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Suebi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALLARIZ BEARIZ MONDARIZ

In Galicia there are different villages with names ending in IZ, like Allariz and Beariz (Ourense) and Mondariz (Pontevedra), which origin comes from the Swebian tribe. Allaritz, Bearitz, Mondaritz....like Austerlitz--90.162.24.163 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Suebi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Suebi the peoples who brought Germanic languages to modern Germanic speaking continental regions?

This question seems to me to be something suggested in some sources, but I can't quickly think of one that says it outright. If it is true or even thought to be likely, then it would be very notable and even deserving note in the first sentences. Does anyone else know of any sources which are clear about this? (By the way for anyone wondering about the Franks, it was stated in classical sources that at least two of the border tribes were descended from the Chatti, and the others were apparently mixed within alliances with the Cherusci for a while.) If my remark here is easier to source for "Irminones" than for "Suebi" then the question of the notability for this article still does not go away?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Germanic languages were initially brought to continental Europe by the Jastorf culture, which preceded the emergence of the Suebi. Germanic languages were however not brought to Southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland until the Marcomanni, Alemanni, Quadi etc (who were part of the Suebi) settled there at the expense of Gauls around the 1st century AD. In that sense one can say that the Suebi brought Germanic languages to this part of continental Europe. This is already mentioned in the lead. Krakkos (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but apparently I phrased my question badly. Just for the sake of getting it on record for future consideration: 1. I think your explanation is also not quite right. Germanic is a branch of the European family of Indo-European languages, so it presumably came into being as a dialect, in Europe itself. 2. While you may be right about the Southern German and Alpine area, there are certainly some linguists who doubt that we should be confident about whether the early NON-Suebian (or perhaps non Irmionic is a better term) Germanic tribes, actually spoke a language which would be categorized today as Germanic, even if it was a kind of lost cousin for example. Remember we have very little evidence for that and in fact Celtic seems to have been the cultural language that comes across in "German" names etc. The Suebian (and presumably related Chatti and Cherusci) German seems to have over-run the earlier languages of northern Germany or else they would be more distinct. (The consonant changes and other things which distinguish north and south German mainly happened later.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you would be able to explain the difference between inhabitants of Scandinavia and speakers of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages? There is an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:North Germanic peoples, and my efforts to explain this difference has so far been without success. Krakkos (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Some guy just edited the beginning of the article to interpret the Suebi as Moors. Can we put the article under protection from future vandalism? Bornoutofsteel (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very small incident, and not worthy of emergency action?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree. Krakkos (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Cassius Dio say the Suebi were called Celts?

The article says: 

 Nevertheless, Cassius Dio wrote that the Suebi, who dwelt across the Rhine, were called Celts.

However, searching Roman Histories by Cassius Dio online (freely available here: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/ ) returns no such excerpt.

Pending the actual quote that justifies this assertion, I suggest it be removed for accuracy. KindSeriousMan (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the original quote from the book. It reads:
"[the Dacians and the] Suebi fought in throngs with each other. The latter are Celts, the former a species of Scythian."
The original is:
"καὶ ἀθρόοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους Δακοί τε καὶ Σουῆβοι ἐμαχέσαντο. εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι μὲν Κελτοί, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ δὴ Σκύθαι τρόπον τινά"
Which is Cassius Dio, Roman Histories, 51.22.6, from here:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=51.22.6&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593
Which literally translates as:
"and together against each other the Dacians and the Suebi fought. And these are indeed Celts, while those are in some manner Scythians."
However, the University of Chicago includes a note in translating Dio Cassius' Roman histories, which says:
"Dio regularly uses the word "Celts" in place of "Germans"; to avoid confusion, however, the usual term has been adopted in the translation."
(Source: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/38*.html#ref9 )
"Dio's name for Germany proper is Κελτική; when he uses the name Γερμανία, as here, he refers to the provinces of that name, Germania Superior and Germania Inferior, both lying west of the Rhine."
(Source: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/53*.html#ref4 )
And thus the University of Chicago translates the same passage using "German" instead of "Celts":
"and moreover Dacians and Suebi fought in crowds with one another. The latter are Germans, the former Scythians of a sort."
(Source: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/51*.html )
Therefore the Wikipedia article on the Suebi is currently misleading the audience by having them believe that Dio Cassius was saying that the Suebi were Celts, when clearly to him the word just meant German, since to him Keltike meant Germany.
Therefore I advise changing the current highlighted excerpt for accuracy. KindSeriousMan (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit difficult to follow your reasoning. The quotes you found make it clear that he literally said they were Celts. You seem to be arguing as if this term Celt was a kind of exact translation of Germani for him? So does he ONLY use the word Celt to refer to Germani? Does he for example never use it to refer to people living in Gaul? My understanding is that several Greek writers simply didn't make a strong distinction between Celts and Germani, but this does not mean they did not use the term Celts to refer to the people of central Gaul (like Caesar did). See for example 39.49. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=39.49&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/39*.html "This river has always down to the present time been considered the boundary, ever since these tribes gained their different names; for very anciently p383 both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Celts."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)--Andrew Lancaster And 53.12 "For some of the Celts, whom we call Germans,​ had occupied all the Belgic territory along the Rhine and caused it to be called Germany". So the Germani are a subset of the Celts and the idea of saying they are not Celts is an innovation he does not always follow. (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Cassius Dio makes it clear he is avoiding calling the Germani by that name, and that the Celts to him are mainly an old western people who decided to call themselves Germani east of the Rhine:
Establishing Keltike = Gaul and Iberia:
"This land is separated from the mainland of Keltike by fifty and four hundred stadia at the shortest distance, and extends by almost all of Gaul and Iberia..." (Book 39, Dindorf-Stephanus page 13)
Establishing Keltike = Gaul and Iberia:
"Augustus also subdued the Astures and Cantabrians, Celtic nations..." (Book 44, chapter 42) and "He subdued both Keltike and Britain…" (Book 44, chapter 43)
Now with that established, read:
Establishing the Celts east of Rhine are now called Germans:
"For some of the Celts, whom we now call Germans, had occupied all the Belgic territory along the Rhine and caused it to be called Germania..." (Book 53, chapter 12) (i.e. first they were Celts east of Rhine, then they changed their name)
And finally, read:
Establishing that before Caesar, Germani were called Keltoi:
"The Rhine arises from the Celtic Alps, just outside of Raetia, and heading in a westerly direction it divides Γαλατία and its inhabitants on the left bank from the Κελτοί on the right bank, and in the end, it flows into the Ocean. This has always been considered the boundary, at least since the names of these peoples came to be differentiated; for in the very remote past, both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Κελτοί. It was at this point in time, then, that Caesar became the
first of the Romans to cross the Rhine.
Now let's re-read what is being argued:
"And so, the Dacians and Suebi fought against each other in great numbers. These ones are Celts, while those are, in a certain way, Scythians." (Book 51, chapter 22, section 6)
So, did he literally call the Suebi Celts? Yes, literally.
Did he imply with that to say that they were "Celts, as opposed to Germani"? No.
Cassius Dio is a special case in his almost-complete avoidance of the term "Germani" (he only uses it once and it is when he quotes Emperor Augustus).
In summary, it is clear that Cassius Dio is attempting to erase the Germani from existence - there is even a paper on it - and that not only he may not be used as "an example of Ancient Greek who calls people north of the Alps Celts", he may also not be used as "an example of an Ancient Geek author who considers the Suebi Celts" since he is specifically the one Ancient Greek author who does not consider anyone Germani.
Currently when Google is searched for "Cassius Dio" "Celts" "Suebi" it summarizes from Wikipedia thus:
"Nevertheless, Cassius Dio wrote that the Suebi, who dwelt across the Rhine, were called Celts. This may follow a Greek tradition of labelling all barbarian people north of the Alps as Celtic."
This as it stands is a complete inversion of reality. Not only is there no such tradition, and not only was Cassius Dio not in any way a possible example of such tradition, it is most importantly disingenuous to say "this Ancient Greek author (who I won't tell you did not think the Germani existed, but rather considered them to be either Celts or Scythians) thought the Suebi were Celts" because it does not really mean what most of the audience will hear when you under-explain it this way you currently have. KindSeriousMan (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please keep your posts short and clear, and keep all discussion about one point within one sub-section? (You are currently posting in two sub-sections and I think you created both at almost the same time?) To me it looks like you are interested in discussing much more about this topic than we need to discuss concerning these couple of sentences in our WP article here. The talk page should not be used as a discussion forum for people generally interested in the topic. (Maybe we it would be a good thing to have a forum page for some articles!)
This long new post just repeats the same position with more words, as if you have not read our previous posts? Your own words: "So, did he literally call the Suebi Celts? Yes, literally." Great, that's what you previously denied. "Did he imply with that to say that they were "Celts, as opposed to Germani"? No." Great. Our article also doesn't take that position, so no changes are needed? If you have any concrete proposal about changes to the article what would they be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article your cite is interesting but completely in line with our article, which is not about Dio specifically, or about any attempt to go further than the post Strabo tradition. It says Roman authors working in Latin quickly—and universally—adopted the Caesarian creation of the Germani. Greek writers, rather more constrained by a well-established and conservative tradition, were slower to accommodate Caesar’s apologetic ethnography and integrate this ἔθνος into their understandings of the north. Note that our article does not say how long the tradition lasted, and what different versions of it existed, and in that respect your article is quite clear that there was a strong Greek tradition until at least Strabo. After Strabo however the new tradition was to accept the term Germanoi, but just say that this is just an artificial term the Romans use. That's not in conflict our article. See the first sentence of the article and page 59. Your article uses the term "Greek tradition" 4 times. There is a tradition before Caesar, and then from Strabo onwards. Dio "creates something new out of the Greek tradition within which he was working" (p.68). On page 68 your article literally refers to a "Greek tradition" "in which there exist only Σκύθαι and Κελτοί". Isn't that all our article needs for the two sentences you are concerned about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a Greek tradition

The article states: 

 Although, this may follow a Greek tradition of labelling all barbarian people north of the alps as Celtic.

However, no such tradition can be confirmed. Otherwise, I would recommend adding a source, or removing this statement for accuracy. KindSeriousMan (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is commonly discussed in secondary sources, so a footnote can be added. Asking for a footnote is fine, but why do you pre-empt this and say this can't be confirmed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the links you showed me corroborate your idea. Rather, I see them obviously arguing my point, as I explained above. KindSeriousMan (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. The reason I pre-empt this and say this can't be confirmed is simply that I have never read a paper where the conclusion was "the ancient Greeks had a tradition of labelling all barbarian people north of the alps as Celtic". Certainly Cassius Dio had that "tradition", but a one-man tradition isn't much of a tradition.
Besides, the links you have sent me are the ones I would have sent you to argue my case, namely, that Diodorus and Strabo, both with access to Posidonius' work, knew all too well that the Celts, the original Celts, who called themselves Celts, were in southern France, which is "west of the Alps", not "north".
Besides, the very first mentions of Celts, from Herodotus and Hecataeus, mention Celts even more western of southern France, within Iberia. So, certainly it is at least doubtful, pending evidence, that such a "tradition" of "ancient Greeks calling people north of the alps Celts" ever existed.
The point of this particular sentence is simply concerning the habits of terminology of Greek writers, and it is not up to us as WP editors to decide on this. It seems you are also personally interested to know who the proper Celts "really" but I think this is a different question and probably one we can't really answer anymore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The point of this particular sentence is simply concerning the habits of terminology of Greek writers"
That is my exact concern as well.
There is no consensus on this supposed fact that "the Ancient Greeks called people north of the Alps Celts".
My point here has nothing to do with who the Celts really were.
Unless you can point to a paper that concluded "the Ancient Greeks called people north of the Alps Celts", then how can you say that?
There is no source for that assertion.
If "The point of this particular sentence is simply concerning the habits of terminology of Greek writers" then that point is not being made here. Asserting something is not making the point. The sentence asserts something for which there is actually no consensus. Cassius Dio is one author, not "academic consensus on what the Ancient Greeks called people north of the Alps". KindSeriousMan (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the sources I cited? I should mention that I found these very quickly, and could have given many more.

  • Woolf in the Gruen book says "Greek writers struggled to contain a wide range of groups with the category Keltoi, which originally seems to have encompassed all peoples north of the Mediterranean and west of Scythia". For our purposes here it is relevant to point out that the equivalence between "Celt" and "Galatian" is a similar but distinct topic. Perhaps we could say "Celts or Gauls", but in modern English these are both considered "Celtic", which is the word we are currently using.
  • Steinacher writes about a "Greek ethnographic tradition" and contrasts it with the distinction between Celts and Germani he says Caesar originated. He says that even after Caesar, even when Greek authors were clearly aware of the distinction or even mentioned it, "most Greek writers did not take Caesar's categories too seriously and that they conceived of the Celts in the West, and Scythians in the East right up to Late Antiquity". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suebi&oldid=1240788994"