A.D 1: Ethnic groups of Europe

[diegosimeone]

So I was looking at this now and I was wondering what the actual landscape was.

Obviously, Rome absorbed a bunch of ethnic groups and most are documented for, though a significant part ceased to exist or were 'absorbed' by 'Roman' identity.

I'm more interested in the ones that got away and are independent or semi-independent.

So basically, a list of tribes in Europe in Year 1 A.D (other eras during Rome's prime are welcome too, but I prefer the focus to be this period).

Some are also arguable such as the Thracians who were sort of distinct from Greeks but eventually became assimilated yet sort of non-Greeks still as some simply were too distinct even until the late middle ages. Or the Cappadocians who were similar but had Persian kings and temples of Persian/Zoroastrianism and earlier Greek called them White Syriacs or something like that (Leucosyrioi) who for a long time actually spoke Greek.

Maps are also helpful, eveyrone loves maps.

Questions that follow are of the sort 'where did the Germanic people that invaded Rime really come from? I'm talking about the Goths (Visi, Ostro etc), Vandals, Franks and then the Angles, Saxons etc that went to Britain. I'm confident that these could be straight forward answers, but there might be interesting discussions coming from this. Other questions would be "where did ethnic group A go?". And that sort.

P.S: Let's also agree on what 'Europe' actually is at that point. As north as Scandinavia should still be the limit but south should be the southern coast of the Mediterean. West towards the British Isles I guess, then east up to the Parthian Kingdom to the south/east and the Steppes to the north/east? Something like that.

P.S.2: I'll start with this map, but not sure if it's accurate enough:

 

[Arilou]

There's just no way of telling. Roman accounts are of very limited usefulness (both of "What do they know" and "How much do they wtist things to fit their own ideas of how things are?") outside of their borders, and archeology is very tricky.

You'll also need a cogent definition of "ethnic group", since that's pretty much impossible to do even in modern day, then we get into instances of foreign ruling classes, multiple languages, etc.

 

[Yakman]

Yup. There's just plain old no way of knowing.

The Romans weren't anthropologists. The locals didn't exactly say "TEUTON 4 LIFE" on their t-shirts in time capsules.

 

[diegosimeone]

Oh, I do realize that ethnicity and such weren't as prominent as they've became later on. But most tribal groups derived from a common group, ie the ethnic group, and shared language, culture, 'blood' and religion. Which was the original definition of ethnicity by Herodotus. The fact that the 'known world' was mostly made up of empires that basically enslaved or assimiated other ethnic groups makes things harder as well.

But we do have a common understanding that there were Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes in the north of the Roman Empire, the Picts and Caledonians in the British Isles (Scotland in particular) who were different from the Celtic groups in the other parts of the islands etc. Sure, we don't know that much, but we should have an understanding of how some particular tribes and ethnic groups emerged. Unless we're going by 'the Slavs came in the 9th century while the Finnic-Ugric people descended to central Europe and that was pretty much it'.

 

[diegosimeone]

Some other things of note are the names of some tribes or regions.
Iberia for example is found in both modern day Georgia/Armenia and in Spain/Portugal, which is still in use today.

We have some tribes, such as the Phrygians, who were originally called Bryges, that bare strong similarity - in name - with the Burgundians and the Brigantes. A germanic and celtic tribe respectively, whilst the Phrygians are Thracian/half-Illyrian/half-Greek/Luwian whatever, no one can tell for sure.

Also, Ligurians seem to have called themselves Ambrones, a name shared with a northern tribe from the Jutland(at least that's where we know of their existence historically).

 

[Arilou]

The romans tended to repeat names of people they met. The "names" are also often exonym taken from the neighbours of people they talked to. (Hence the number of people called "friends" and "enemies" in various languages) As we know from other instances these kinds of outsider-descriptors don't neccessarily line up very well either with political considerations or with local self-identification.

 

[diegosimeone]

I'm talking mostly about self-identification. At least when it comes to Brigantes and Bryges(Phrygians), the Burgundians are rather different. And they both share meaning as they mean higher class or something like that. Though one is in Scotland, historically first interacting with the Romans, the other in Asia Minor/Thrace, historically first interacting with the Greeks.

What you're saying would apply to Iberia perhaps. Or Albania maybe which also was in the Caucasus, though modern day Albania may very well be derived from the small Greek region of Arvanon, which leads to confusion between the 'Arvanites' and the 'Albanites' in the Greek war of Independence, whilst the locals identify themselves mostly as Shqiptari.

 

[Gordy]

Oh, I do realize that ethnicity and such weren't as prominent as they've became later on. But most tribal groups derived from a common group, ie the ethnic group, and shared language, culture, 'blood' and religion. Which was the original definition of ethnicity by Herodotus. The fact that the 'known world' was mostly made up of empires that basically enslaved or assimiated other ethnic groups makes things harder as well.

But we do have a common understanding that there were Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes in the north of the Roman Empire, the Picts and Caledonians in the British Isles (Scotland in particular) who were different from the Celtic groups in the other parts of the islands etc. Sure, we don't know that much, but we should have an understanding of how some particular tribes and ethnic groups emerged. Unless we're going by 'the Slavs came in the 9th century while the Finnic-Ugric people descended to central Europe and that was pretty much it'.

That's really not something that can be taken as read. When we talk about Celtic tribes, it is not a given that these tribes are particularly closely related nor is it the case that any sub-clans are necessarily homogenous either. Very likely many groupings existed that were very ethnically different but got swept up in a larger grouping.

 

[Gordy]

What you're saying would apply to Iberia perhaps. Or Albania maybe which also was in the Caucasus, though modern day Albania may very well be derived from the small Greek region of Arvanon, which leads to confusion between the 'Arvanites' and the 'Albanites' in the Greek war of Independence, whilst the locals identify themselves mostly as Shqiptari.

Albania probably derives from an Indo-European root that means "mountains" i.e. "Alps" and the Albania in the Caucasus likely has nothing to do with Albania in the Balkans other than they are both mountainous regions.

 

[Yakman]

Oh, I do realize that ethnicity and such weren't as prominent as they've became later on. But most tribal groups derived from a common group, ie the ethnic group, and shared language, culture, 'blood' and religion. Which was the original definition of ethnicity by Herodotus. The fact that the 'known world' was mostly made up of empires that basically enslaved or assimiated other ethnic groups makes things harder as well.

But we do have a common understanding that there were Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes in the north of the Roman Empire, the Picts and Caledonians in the British Isles (Scotland in particular) who were different from the Celtic groups in the other parts of the islands etc. Sure, we don't know that much, but we should have an understanding of how some particular tribes and ethnic groups emerged. Unless we're going by 'the Slavs came in the 9th century while the Finnic-Ugric people descended to central Europe and that was pretty much it'.

well, you go to something like the Agricola and the Germanica - or Herodotus himself.

Tons of mentions of this tribe worshipping horses and the tribe next door worshipping trees, and this tribe being fierce and this tribe having this custom, etc.

So, there was an understanding of this stuff. But its not like Tacitus is either spending alot of time with any of these people, or that he is giving clear reasons why he's saying this or that. He's maybe talking to some trader who was beyond the frontier, or he's getting hearsay from a local, or he's talking to prisoners, who knows? Who knows how they know? A prisoner might be talking through two or three translators, and be describing what happens in his little village, which he'd never left before Boudicca showed up and gathered all the men in the region on her doomed crusade, and doesn't happen in the village over the hill.

so, we have some sources. they are probably pretty good. but they have to be taken with salt and thoroughly considered.

 

[Arilou]

I was actually mostly referring to the number of tribes called Venedi/Veneti. ("Friends")

well, you go to something like the Agricola and the Germanica - or Herodotus himself.

Tons of mentions of this tribe worshipping horses and the tribe next door worshipping trees, and this tribe being fierce and this tribe having this custom, etc.

So, there was an understanding of this stuff. But its not like Tacitus is either spending alot of time with any of these people, or that he is giving clear reasons why he's saying this or that. He's maybe talking to some trader who was beyond the frontier, or he's getting hearsay from a local, or he's talking to prisoners, who knows? Who knows how they know? A prisoner might be talking through two or three translators, and be describing what happens in his little village, which he'd never left before Boudicca showed up and gathered all the men in the region on her doomed crusade, and doesn't happen in the village over the hill.

so, we have some sources. they are probably pretty good. but they have to be taken with salt and thoroughly considered.

And it's hard to parse what exactly they mean by "tribe", "people", "Kingdom" etc.

Especially since it seems the romans sometimes re-used names for different groups.

 

[Gordy]

well, you go to something like the Agricola and the Germanica - or Herodotus himself.

Tons of mentions of this tribe worshipping horses and the tribe next door worshipping trees, and this tribe being fierce and this tribe having this custom, etc.

So, there was an understanding of this stuff. But its not like Tacitus is either spending alot of time with any of these people, or that he is giving clear reasons why he's saying this or that. He's maybe talking to some trader who was beyond the frontier, or he's getting hearsay from a local, or he's talking to prisoners, who knows? Who knows how they know? A prisoner might be talking through two or three translators, and be describing what happens in his little village, which he'd never left before Boudicca showed up and gathered all the men in the region on her doomed crusade, and doesn't happen in the village over the hill.

so, we have some sources. they are probably pretty good. but they have to be taken with salt and thoroughly considered.

Tacitus had his own agenda. He praised the virtues of the barbarians in order to criticise contemporary Roman society. It's likely that a lot of stuff was made up or exaggerated.

 

[Yakman]

Tacitus had his own agenda. He praised the virtues of the barbarians in order to criticise contemporary Roman society. It's likely that a lot of stuff was made up or exaggerated.

Oh, certainly. But if you read his stuff, a lot of it rings true. He has an agenda, certainly, but saying that a certain tribe worshipped horses probably doesn't figure into it.

More of his stuff than not is probably pretty accurate - at least from his perspective.

 

[Gordy]

Oh, certainly. But if you read his stuff, a lot of it rings true. He has an agenda, certainly, but saying that a certain tribe worshipped horses probably doesn't figure into it.

More of his stuff than not is probably pretty accurate - at least from his perspective.

If he said they worshipped horses then it's probably true or at least he thought it to be true but it's probably not the whole truth. I'm not sure he would have recorded a tribe throwing Roman-style orgiastic parties because it would jar with his central narrative that Rome is corrupt and decadent and should return to a "noble savage" state.

 

[Yakman]

If he said they worshipped horses then it's probably true or at least he thought it to be true but it's probably not the whole truth. I'm not sure he would have recorded a tribe throwing Roman-style orgiastic parties because it would jar with his central narrative that Rome is corrupt and decadent and should return to a "noble savage" state.

Eh.. Maybe... Again, we don't have many sources.

But it is entirely possible that Tacitus was being extremely honest and just really admired the Germans and the Britons. Who really knows?

 

[Arilou]

Eh.. Maybe... Again, we don't have many sources.

But it is entirely possible that Tacitus was being extremely honest and just really admired the Germans and the Britons. Who really knows?

I doubt he deliberately lied. But he almost certainly picked things that would agree with his views, didn't mention other things, and very likely misunderstood (or had garbled) things.

 

[Yakman]

I doubt he deliberately lied. But he almost certainly picked things that would agree with his views, didn't mention other things, and very likely misunderstood (or had garbled) things.

SCHOLASTIC BIAS!

UNHEARD OF! MY WORD!

 

[Aethis]

Romans
and
Barbarians

That's it

 

[Yakman]

Romans and Greeks and barbarians