I'm pretty sure 'Teuton' was a romanisation of the proto-germanic word that eventually developed into the modern 'Deutsch'
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
@ Kerry & Buczkowski: Yep, Buczkowski has the right of it. "Deutschen" is the equivalent of "Teutons" and "Germanen" is the equivalent of "Germans." Modern Germans use the former to refer to themselves and the latter to refer to ancient peoples like the Germanic tribes, considering the term to be an exonym. What makes things even more confusing is that that Latinized term (from which we get "Teuton") passed back into German as "Teutonen" to refer to that specific ancient Germanic tribe, while "Deutschen" was retained as an endonym. The original Germanic prefix "þiuda-" (that first letter is pronounced like "th") from which the terms are derived simply means "people." Interestingly enough, some other European peoples refer to the Germans with exonyms based on the Alemanni, yet another individual Germanic tribe.
Last edited:
Err, excuse me, but no.
"Deutsch" is not equivalent to "Teuton". If you are interested in the ethymology of the word "deutsch" you might find ample material in any good library or on the internet. In some instances, the old german word for "deutsch" was latinized "teutonicus" (most likely making a connection to the ancient germanic tribe that was fighting the Romans in classical time), hence the translation Teutonic Knights. But this doesn't make the English expression "Teuton", "Teutonic" equivalent to "Deutsch".
Edit: I see, you looked up the ethymology while I wrote. Still, your conclusions seem a bit of. The name of the ancient tribe of the "Teutones" or "Teutoni" might be derived from the same root as "deutsch", but this is not sure at all.
Last edited:
Right back at you. (I fear I've only read dozens of books on this stuff. Don't worry, I have to practically live in the library while writing my thesis.)
Philology is fun. From a dictionary:
"Teuton," noun.
1. A member of an ancient people, probably of Germanic or Celtic origin, who lived in Jutland until about 100 b.c.
2. A member of any of the peoples speaking a Germanic language, especially a German.
Thus the term is properly applied to peoples speaking a Germanic language, especially the Germans, which was my original usage in the first place.
Your assertions are puzzling. The Teutonic Order had nothing to do with the ancient Germanic tribe "Teutons," so there would be no reason to associate them with what would be an unnecessarily archaic term. The German term is simply "Deutscher Orden." The Latin "Ordo Teutonicorum" is a direct translation. The English "Teutonic Order" is also a direct translation.
Morphologically it is the same word. Trust a German.
Languages are funny. The root passes back and forth through different permutations in different languages like a double helix.
So while the root passed into modern German as "Deutsch" and through Latin into English as "Teuton," speakers of these two languages interacted and cross-translated, giving the terms "Teutonisch" and "Dutch" respectively, moving farther and farther away from the original root. Italians use "tedesco" which is also morphologically the same.
Last edited:
Why are you fixated on settler cultures? There are tons of nomadic/semi nomadic cultures/tribes that have had huge impacts.
One project at a time. Nomads are next (granted they're harder to do as they don't leave as much behind, at least not in the same place, being nomads).
There's still plenty of sedentary urban-dwelling cultures that I have yet to cover. I've been looking at the Igbo recently. But sub-Saharan Africa is a bit of a weak spot for me, so I'd love it if someone with a bit more knowledge on that region could provide some greater perspective there.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say Dutch is necessarily further removed from the root than German Deutsch or Dutch Diets. Ancient names with the root tend to end up as having Theod- rather than Deut/Diet/Dut-, although that may be an artifact of transliteration (Theoderik vs. Dietrich), but given that variability I'd say Dutch fits as well as Deutsch and Diets.
Still, the name Teutons sounds completely odd for use as referring to the Deutschen, even if technically correct in English... I'd just use Germans.
Are you German? Kerry is, and so am I.
"Teuton" really is a highly unusual word in German, it's not used anywhere except when mocking Germans, like when the British newspapers write about an upcoming football match, or when a journalist wants to throw a slur at the chancellor: "teutonic sternness", "teutonic aggression". "Teuton" implies savagery, primitiveness, narrowmindedness, aggression... it's quite negative really.
The only usage I am aware of that does not carry negative connotations is among some student fraternities and football clubs: They often have names like "Vandalia-Teutonia" or "Teutonia Berlin" which are taken from national-romantic late 19th century fantasies.
Its usage as a translation of "German" was only common in the middle ages. For example the 15th century term for the HRE was "Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae". Obviously you can name things any way you want, but it's bound to provoke controversy.
Fair enough. All of said terms are pretty far removed from the root by this point anyway.
Oddly enough, my original usage was meant to avoid controversy, since "German" has become a loaded term associated with a fairly recent polity. Try telling a Swiss person or an Austrian that he is really just a German. It's not pretty. The word "Teutons" isn't politically charged in the same way, despite having a closer linguistic link to "Deutsch" than "German" does.
Are you German? Kerry is, and so am I.
Yep, a card-carrying member of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Yes, I know this. "Germania" also has negative connotations after Mr. H.'s misuse of the term. "Deutsch" is infinitely preferable within the context of the German language. Unfortunately English only has "Teuton," "German," and "Dutch," all of which mean multiple things and can lead to misunderstandings. I chose "Teuton" precisely because it's the farthest removed from modern politics.
Yes, I know. See what I wrote to Avernite above. I've had a couple of arguments in years past with Austrians, etc. who were highly offended at the notion that they could be considered "German" people, because the word is linked to the nation-state just as much as to the shared culture.
I have no intention of offending anybody, but because the nomenclature is imprecise by nature, there's always somebody who'll get upset. Not everybody is as reasonable as the folks here in the Paradox community.
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you at all.
I wasn't originally objecting to your use of Teutonic, although the use of the term in English is rather unusual. But your statement that Teutonic is equivalent to Deutsch was just too imprecise, especially when supported by Teutonic Order = Deutscher Orden.
BTW, English has the term "Germanic", which is different to "German" and covers the (modern day) Germans and Austrians, german speaking Swiss, Scandinavians (well, the speakers of a nordic language), Dutch/Flemish, Frisians and the Anglosaxons (I forgot somebody, didn't I?).
I wasn't originally objecting to your use of Teutonic, although the use of the term in English is rather unusual. But your statement that Teutonic is equivalent to Deutsch was just too imprecise, especially when supported by Teutonic Order = Deutscher Orden.
BTW, English has the term "Germanic", which is different to "German" and covers the (modern day) Germans and Austrians, german speaking Swiss, Scandinavians (well, the speakers of a nordic language), Dutch/Flemish, Frisians and the Anglosaxons (I forgot somebody, didn't I?).
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you at all.
You didn't. Internet conversations are sometimes difficult because they don't capture vocal inflection. Hope I didn't upset you either.
Yes, I know the difference between "Germanic" and "German," though it was actually in reference to my use of the former that my Austrian acquaintance was getting upset. As I said above, not everybody is as reasonable as the community here generally tends to be. There's also no good plural of Germanic, it being an adjectival form.
I think we were just talking past each other.
You know, oddly enough I wasn't actually expecting a huge discussion on how best to define my own culture when I started this thread.
I was mainly hoping for some pointers on sub-Saharan Africa, non-Andean South America, India and other regions where I have less knowledge. But I guess we're all mostly of European extraction here at PI, with some notable exceptions.
Last edited:
Hi Did you ever get to update this list I contacted you about a year ago and you said you would. I don’t see the Jiahu or Norte Chico on there would love to see your updated list
"Civilization" is way too much of an ambiguous term for something like this to work. Unless you go for really broad groups one could easily argue that every single population with a distinct enough culture counts as a civilization, and at that point one might as well make a list of ethnic groups rather than "civilizations".
Also, 7 year necro.
Also, 7 year necro.
So I am guessing they will be no updated list. I thought it was a great idea. It is very hard to find something like this list online.
Adding every population with a distinct culture would only make the list much better.
Adding every population with a distinct culture would only make the list much better.
Necromancy!
It does look like a pretty good list overall, in my uneducated eyes.
I'm wondering if there should be more North American civilizations like the Algonquins, but that's where you really run into the settled/ nomadic issue (with plenty of sophisticated systems in their government and society, art, but not quite as "settled" as old worlders or Mesoamericans). Really a (perfect) list of civilizations would probably have to include all the nomads as well; the cutoff between them and the more settled people seems very much an old school, "Romans vs Barbarians" kind of thing (although I know the OP didn't mean it that way). I'm just wondering if the divide between nomads and sedentary cultures means anything at all, when we're talking about human civilization in broad strokes.
A little surprised the OP got so much pushback, back in the innocent days of 2012. I wonder if they're ever gonna see this thread again.
It does look like a pretty good list overall, in my uneducated eyes.
I'm wondering if there should be more North American civilizations like the Algonquins, but that's where you really run into the settled/ nomadic issue (with plenty of sophisticated systems in their government and society, art, but not quite as "settled" as old worlders or Mesoamericans). Really a (perfect) list of civilizations would probably have to include all the nomads as well; the cutoff between them and the more settled people seems very much an old school, "Romans vs Barbarians" kind of thing (although I know the OP didn't mean it that way). I'm just wondering if the divide between nomads and sedentary cultures means anything at all, when we're talking about human civilization in broad strokes.
A little surprised the OP got so much pushback, back in the innocent days of 2012. I wonder if they're ever gonna see this thread again.
Really? This thread is older than I am (I think? Or maybe not...e: definitely not.) and that Dutch/German thing still annoys me. Just makes no sense ^^
- Status