Naked Women

Do you think of the Goths as Slavic or Germanic ?

They are an East Germanic tribe.

Then I dont understand your meaning :
Can you expand that please ?

Well, of course it might be that the Germanic tribes had had contact with the Goths before . But that is doubtful since they didn't 'import' anything.

Generally, it is thought that the Runes developed independently in central/northern Europe .... and from different sources then from there the Goths got their alphabet.

Do you have (serious) sources with other opinions?

Wouldn't that just be inviting the other guys with swords to try to cut their weenies off??

They didn't have such thoughts as you have - it happened quite a few centuries ago, in a different culture, with different ideas ...

Typical American...

Googling "Cutting the balls off" Celtic tribes: 0 hits.

Googling "Cutting the balls off" American: 6,360 hits.

No, I am just trying to determine why you distinguish between german tribes and Goths, if the Goths were a german tribe.

I will stand naked in front of you, and we will have period weapons. If you are stupid enough to try :
You will have a sword in your guts (the preferred method because the sword doesnt get stuck) and then I can undress you and cut your weenie off. Any sort of blow that is "mucking around" and not a serious effort to take out the opponent, but rather to injure him in some way, will get you killed by a more serious opponent. The Aztecs tried to wound so they could sacrifice prisoners, and had to totally rethink their methods when fighting the Conquistadors who simply wanted to kill.

I didn't mention German tribes.

The Goths originated in southern Scandinavia (all Germanic tribes originate from the Baltic Sea area/Scandinavia).

According to their own legend, reported by the mid-6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, they crossed in three ships under their king Berig to the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, where they settled after defeating the Vandals and other Germanic peoples in that area. Tacitus states that the Goths at this time were distinguished by their round shields, their short swords, and their obedience toward their kings. Jordanes goes on to report that they migrated southward from the Vistula region under Filimer, the fifth king after Berig and, after various adventures, arrived at the Black Sea.

This movement took place in the second half of the 2nd century ce, and it may have been pressure from the Goths that drove other Germanic peoples to exert heavy pressure on the Danubian frontier of the Roman Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Throughout the 3rd century Gothic raids on the Roman provinces in Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula were numerous, and in the reign of Aurelian (270"275) they obliged the Romans to evacuate the trans-Danubian province of Dacia. Those Goths living between the Danube and the Dniester rivers became known as Visigoths, and those in what is now the Ukraine as Ostrogoths. (Source: Encyclopædia Britannica)

I asked:

You replied:

I said:

You replied :


You are making a distinction that is lost on me. I want to understand what you are saying. Explain please...

check out Eupedia

http://www.eupedia.com

Ionus, the problem may be one of language, English is not Walter's first language. The Goths were a Germanic people, but they weren't a German tribe. They arrived on the south shore of the Baltic from what we call Sweden in historic times, perhaps 500 BCE. Under pressure from the then existing tribes in the western portion of what is now Germany, they were pushed into the east, which might be why Walter refers to them as an East German tribe (EDIT: i.e., a tribe of East Germany, rather than a German tribe). They continued to the east, to central Asia, and only returned under pressure from the Huns in the 3rd century.

The Swedes still referred to themselves as Goths as late as the 14th century--they may have had the habit longer than that, but i know of inscriptions and documents from that period in which they referred to themselves as Goths.

Thanks Setanta...that clears it up. I didnt want to be rude to Walt, who I have always found to be knowledgable and a true gentleman...but I love my history too much to go away confused.

I know a little of the Huns from the military history point of view. On their tough little ponies they could appear from nowhere, destroy or steal everything and everyone, then ride away sleeping on their horses whilst one stayed awake to lead them. If being pursued, they would even drink blood from the veins of horses to keep going, a practice more known from the Mongols but rather common amongst the people of the vast grasslands. No wonder people like the Goths couldnt beat them, they couldnt find them.

The Huns were actually no different from the Mongols who appeared a thousand years later. In both cases, the term was applied from without. The Mongols were just one tribe of many in the Ordos Desert, Yellow River Loop area. The Huns were probably called that as a corruption of H'siung-nu, a Chinese epithet, probably meaning horse barbarians (an alternative translation is barbarian slaves).

The Goths, like most Germanic people, relied on the spear, and a spear with a long, broad head. Among the western German tribes, this eventually evolved into the seax for which the Saxons named themselves--the long sword associated with the Franks (who actually probably copied it from the Celts). Among the Goths, though, it became a lance. Responding to population pressures, they had move out into the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, and from there to the area north of the Caucasus. They learned horsemanship from Turkic speaking tribes, and used their spears as lances. The pressure by the Huns was a centuries long affair. The Goths were driven to the borders of the Roman empire by the early 3rd century--the Huns did not arrive there until the late 4th century. The Huns did not become a threat to the Empire until Attila removed his rivals and consolidated his power over the Hunnic tribes.

You're rather oversimplifying things here. Goths both threatened the Empire, and sought refuge there. Some of the Hunnic tribes petitioned the Romans to let them in for refuge, and Attila attacked the Empire on a politic basis, the object being to get tribute--such nomadic war-like tribes were all about the plunder, and tribute was as good a way as any to get it, and didn't cost the lives of horses and men. When Aetius defeated Attila (or his deputy), probably near Orleans, in the mid 5th century, with the aid of the Visigoths and the Franks, it was simply evidence that no military force was invulnerable, no army would remain indefinitely undefeated.

Feel free to correct me....I always thought the term Hun came from the Hsiung-Nu people who annoyed China but DNA testing of the Hungarians find they are more Turk than Mongolian. The term Hun is probably a mis-identification for the people who raided the Goths or the term has been correctly used and the people who annoyed China were Turkic.

The Goths themselves probably had a good deal of Turkic blood in them--they lived in central Asia for centuries. Turkic languages are Altaic languages, and two other examples of Altaic languages are Korean and Japanese. It is as ill-advised to insist upon specific ethnic origins for any one people as it is to insist upon specific linguistic and cultural origins.

Thanks again Setanta...you make for an enjoyable read.