Cherusci History?

[jbd_29349]

After doing a little research I have found little to no evidence about this Germanic tribe. The only information that is out there is that Arminius, the leader of the Germanics in the Teutoburg Forest diseater, was the leader of this tribe, and their main settlement was Veubingen near the Weser river.

I can not find any information about the Veubingen settlement or the Cherusci before or after the Teutoburg battle.

Can anyone help me? I now there is probably more information out there but with my limited resources I can't find any.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

as i recall, after the Varus battle the Cherusci-allaince quickly fell apart. After the invasion of Germanicus Arminius was assassinated by his own people and the Cherusci were soon wracked by internal divisions. By Tacitus' time they had declined in power and influence and eventually found themselves at the mercy of more powerful neighbours. They are rarely mentioned even in passing in the sources for the Second and Third Centuries and their remnants seem to have been absorbed by the later Saxon confederation.

Tacitus mentions them.

[authun]

Hi Joshua,

There is a question mark about the Cherusci, Hermanduri and Chatti and the likes of Hachmann, Kossack and Kuhn propose that they were not germanic speaking at all. Hachmann's book 'Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten' (People between Germans and Celts) proposes that they belong to an older lingusitic group and had only just started to become germanicised shortly before the time of Arminius.

Linguistically, the Nordwestblock may be connected with the belgic groups who are also little understood around the time of Caesar. Simply put, groups of people who were between the expanding linguistic areas of germanic speakers in the north and celtic speakers in the south. The belgae became celticised, the Cherusci, Hermanduri and Chatti becoming germanicised.

There are several theories about the language, Venetic, Illyrian, Old European and one termed 'folkish'. There is no concensus however.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Martin Wallgren]

Is this in anyway connected to the Baskian language?

This was very interessting. Hmm ... going to search for topics on this or start a new one on languages...

[authun]

Probably not, though we can't be sure. The Basque language is the last remaining language of the Vasconic group of languages. Theo Vennemann sees a Vasconic substrate in several IE languages but he is ploughing a lonely furrow.

My guess is that, if the Cherusci did indeed speak a non germanic language around 200 BC, it would have been an earlier indo european language, or at least the language which gave us Don, Dneippe, Danube, Rhone etc.

cheers

authun

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Does anyone have any idea what relation ancient German (Roman Era) would have in relation to medieval, or even modern German?

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

as i recall, after the Varus battle the Cherusci-allaince quickly fell apart.

That depends on what you mean by “quicklyâ€

[authun]

[quote]This sounds pretty speculative, since the only evidence we have of the language of the Cherusci is the names of their chieftains and they are all definitely Germanic in form. So is the word “Cherusciâ€

[authun]

Does anyone have any idea what relation ancient German (Roman Era) would have in relation to medieval, or even modern German?

Try reading this:

Fadar unseraz þu ez ezi ana hemenamaz
sejai naman þín gahaligad, to kwemai þín kuninga-ríkjan,


In addition to what Tim wrote above, the spoken germanic language during the roman era, say 1st cent. AD would appear to be quite different. Take a look at the opening lines of the Lord's prayer for example:

Our father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come,

Northumbrian version circa 950 AD:

Fader usær ðu arð [bist] in heofnu [heofnas],
sie gehalgad noma ðin, tocymeð ric ðin,


Old Allemanic (Saint Galler Paternoster 8th cent.)

Fater unseer, thu pist in himile,
uuihi namun dinan, qhueme rihhi din,

Forgetting the different forms, eg 'blessed' rather than 'holy' or 'hallowed', the low germanic northumbrian version and the high germanic allemanic version are still recognisable.

A reconstructed jutlandic version, based on the scant runic evidence for the time, would look something like this circa 350 AD:

Fadar unseraz þu ez ezi ana hemenamaz
sejai naman þín gahaligad. To kwemai þín kuninga-ríkjan,

It looks quite different. You will probably recognise it having seen the english, old english and allemanic versions above but to begin with, it does look quite alien.

Some words haven't changed, name, noma, naman and namun, modern german Name; father, fader, fater and fadar, modern german Vater

Some have changed in form, eg. modern german Königsreich and from the above, kingdom, ric, rihhi and kuninga-ríkjan though the modern german prayer would drop the 'King' element and use just 'Reich'.

Some haven't changed much but look different, come, tocymeð, qhueme, and kwemai, modern german komme;

Grammar is different of course.

You should be able to see the progression of the language but, if someone was to speak these lines to you, it would probably be incomprehensible. I think a Frank during the time of Charlemagne would too have had no idea what a 2nd cent german from Jutland was saying either.

best
Harry Amphlett

[Martin Wallgren]

Fadar unseraz þu ez ezi ana hemenamaz
sejai naman þín gahaligad. To kwemai þín kuninga-ríkjan,

Fader vår som är i himmelen
Helgat vare ditt namn, tillkomma ditt rike!

This is the 1800 century Swedish version!

(Here is the modern version...

Farsan som häckar i stratosfären
skjysst namn du har och så ere i ditt plejs med! (Moooaahahahaha)

(above is a swedish joke) Just for the others here who might understand it))

[Vortigern Studies]

Try reading this:

Fadar unseraz þu ez ezi ana hemenamaz
sejai naman þín gahaligad, to kwemai þín kuninga-ríkjan,

Not thát different from the not-so-modern Dutch version:

Onze Vader die in den hemelen zijt
Uw Naam worde geheiligd, Uw Koninkrijk kome

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Fascinating! I love languages and how they developed.
I wonder,also,about the names mentioned in Roman(Latin) texts for other
peoples. They all seem Latinized(?) to me. Cherusci has a very Roman ring to it and I've wanted to know what they called themselves.
(I hope this doesn't degrade into another DNA debate). Let's try to do this one linguistically. Probably doesn't help Josh much,though.

[authun]

They all seem Latinized(?) to me. Cherusci has a very Roman ring to it and I've wanted to know what they called themselves.

It's simply because most of the contemporary sources are roman or gallo roman. The 'Saxons' of the 5th cent would probably not have referred to themselves as such. They may appear in texts as saxons but this for the reader's benefit. Even as late as the 20th cent. we have some irish referring to the english as 'saxon huns'. Saxon is how the irish, welsh and scots refer to the english, sasna etc. and oddly enough, the finns too, but the word 'hun' is not there as an ethnic description but one of behaviour.

We see the same in the Merowingian period where the germanics in modern day Belgium are referred to as 'Jutish Saxons'. We simply don't know what they called themselves. Even as late as Charlemagne, the Nordalbingens, those north of the Elbe, itself a germanicised form of the roman name for the river, Albis, probably thought of themselves as Dithmarscher, Holsten or Stormanen even though Nordalbingen is reputed to be the homeland of the saxons. They simply mean marsh folk, men of forest and men of the (river) Stor.

The Bohemians get their name from the celtic speaking tribe of the Boii who settled briefly in the area. The area gets its name from the romans who termed it Boii haemum, home of the Boii. However, haemum is a romanised german word, modern day 'heim'. The latin word would have been 'domus'. The area probably got it's name from the Marcomanni who knew of the Boii and who named the area as their home. Marcomannic contacts with the romans gave them the geographic knowledge which they subsequently latinised.

On the plus side, the romans did actually write stuff down and in spite of their tendency to latinise everything, they kept the elements more or less intact. So, the river Rhine, Rhein in modern german, is derived from roman Rhenus but it is because they didn't change too much that we know it comes fom Celtic Renos.

We have too from the area a large number of names from the Matronenkult, a triad of mother goddesses. The cult spread with the romans, so we get again, latinised names such as Hiheraiae, Ifles, Udravarinehae and Vataranehae. These names appear on altars and votive offerings, but we have no idea what the names mean. Are these names indicative of an unknown langauge?

cheers

authun

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

They all seem Latinized(?) to me. Cherusci has a very Roman ring to it and I've wanted to know what they called themselves.

It was probably "*Heruzkoz" = "The Sword People"

It's simply because most of the contemporary sources are roman or gallo roman. The 'Saxons' of the 5th cent would probably not have referred to themselves as such.

The English placenames "Essex", "Sussex" and "Essex" indicate that they did refer to themselves as Saxons.

[Vortigern Studies]

It's simply because most of the contemporary sources are roman or gallo roman. The 'Saxons' of the 5th cent would probably not have referred to themselves as such.

The English placenames "Essex", "Sussex" and "Essex" indicate that they did refer to themselves as Saxons.

Essex twice?
If you meant Wessex, that's not correct. The people of Wessex originally referred to itself as the Gewissae.

[authun]

The English placenames "Essex", "Sussex" and "Essex" indicate that they did refer to themselves as Saxons.

These are likely terms used by those living outside of the area to describe the peoples living there and not the term that they they used to describe themselves. We term the inhabitants of present day Germany as germans and the french term them allemandes whilst they themselves use the term Deutsch. It would be wrong to look only at the french term and conclude that all the germans thought of themselves as having descended from the allemanni.

The use of the descriptive term 'saxon' probably comes from the British. The irish annals invariably term all the english as saxons even though they were aware of the 'Angles'. So, Oswald of Northumbria is 'king of the saxons' and the battle of the Tyne in 918 is in 'northern saxonland'. Yet Ethelred of Wessex describes himself on his coins as 'Angle'.

In the anglo saxon charters, the mercian Æthelbald refers to them as 'suthengli' and the king of wessex is described as 'rex Suðanglorum terram' or 'rex australium Anglorum'.

cheers

Harry Amphlett

[Primvs Pavlvs]

There are those who believe that Rome never really fell. It simply traded the sword, and shield for the Cross.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

The English placenames "Essex", "Sussex" and "Essex" indicate that they did refer to themselves as Saxons.

These are likely terms used by those living outside of the area to describe the peoples living there and not the term that they they used to describe themselves.

"Likely" according to who?

We term the inhabitants of present day Germany as germans and the french term them allemandes whilst they themselves use the term Deutsch. It would be wrong to look only at the french term and conclude that all the germans thought of themselves as having descended from the allemanni.

It would be wrong to ignore this, but that still doesn't mean that the South Saxons, West Saxons, Middle Saxons and East Saxons didn't call themselves "Saxons".

The use of the descriptive term 'saxon' probably comes from the British. The irish annals invariably term all the english as saxons even though they were aware of the 'Angles'. So, Oswald of Northumbria is 'king of the saxons' and the battle of the Tyne in 918 is in 'northern saxonland'. Yet Ethelred of Wessex describes himself on his coins as 'Angle'.

Which J.N.L. Myres attributes to the probability that the first waves of invaders and settlers were substantially from Saxony rather than Jutland and Angeln. The Anglo-Saxons called all Vikings "Danes" for the same reason, but that doesn't mean those who were Danish didn't call themselves "Danes" - quite the opposite.

In the anglo saxon charters, the mercian Æthelbald refers to them as 'suthengli' and the king of wessex is described as 'rex Suðanglorum terram' or 'rex australium Anglorum'.

Just as in later centuries people throughout England refered to their language as "Englisc". That doesn't mean some of these "Englisc" speakers weren't descendants of those who called themselves "Saxons" from Saxony.

[authun]

Hi Tim,

There is no evidence that 'saxons' called themselves saxons or that any part the continent was called Saxony even as late as the time of Widukind at the end of the 8th cent. The modern states of Sachsen, Sachsen Anhalt and Niedersachsen are nothing to do with ancient homelands of the 'Saxons'.

Ptolomey places a people he terms saxon on three islands off the west coast of Jutland and also north of the Albis in what is now Holstein, but not in Schleswig. This area has never been called saxony although it contains the largest number of supposedly typical saxon place names with the 'büttel' ending. These peoples are probably the Nordalbingens (Dithmarsher, Holsten and Stormahnen) and the Aviones though the latter were largely replaced by the north frisians in the 8th cent. The Chatti, who lived on the opposite bank to the south of the Elbe and who were known to romans as north sea pirates, disappear from the records around 200AD, about the same time that saxons start to appear in roman or gallo roman sources. They are likely a constituent part of this emerging group.

Barbara Yorke points out that the term 'saxon' in later sources appears to be used to describe any north sea german who is not a Frank. Sometimes further clarification is given such as in Theudebert's letter to Justinian, where he mentiones 'cum Saxonibus Euciis', i.e. Jutish Saxons (ca. 520AD). Mattias Springer also points out in his recent book, Die Sachsen, that Paulus Diaconus' (720/30) first use of the term Anglisaxones is similar in so far as it describes saxons from Anglia. Procopius of course doesn't mention saxons at all, only angles and frisians.

Even the description of Widukind as the Saxon king is a perpetuation of a very old concept which has been passed down uncritically by historians. Widukind was the chief power broker of a group of several north sea germanic tribes, each with its own chieftain, who the Franks collectively referred to a 'Saxons'. We don't know how Widukind thought of himself but he was a Westfali which bordered the territory of the Angrarii, a tribal identity noted by Tacitus. Outsiders however, termed them all saxon.

Springer's book is only available in german but he writes the first chapter in an english language book The Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to the Tenth Century - An Ethnographic Perspective which is edited by Dennis H. Green.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Vortigern Studies]

We term the inhabitants of present day Germany as germans and the french term them allemandes whilst they themselves use the term Deutsch. It would be wrong to look only at the french term and conclude that all the germans thought of themselves as having descended from the allemanni.

It would be wrong to ignore this, but that still doesn't mean that the South Saxons, West Saxons, Middle Saxons and East Saxons didn't call themselves "Saxons".

Erm, I said that before, the West saxons called themselves Gewissae...