Pre-christian settlements in Germania

Ptolemy's map is not accurate. Third hand information isn't usable without a primary source to back it up. No college would take such as a cited source.

Unless it is firmly contradicted by evidence elsewhere then it can be used to provide a useful premise for discusion.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
I'd like to point out that, really, due to the very simplistic agriculture and cold temperatures in Northern Germany and Jutland, most of the proto-Saxons/Ingaevones and their kissing cousins along the Baltic to the east, didn't really even have villages to speak of, much less towns and cities. Community gatherings took place in the wooden halls of tribal leaders, and there were no "capitals" as the court of the King/High Chief was mobile (something the Saxons took with them to Britain).
 
To me the agricultural thing doesn't matter. They can all be farmers, not have agricultural, whatever, as long as it is a settlement where a sizable number of people (more than 50 in the absolute smallest sense probably), live full time.
In that case you have a very wide choice of sites. Give how in England (same climate) I know that communities have come and gone almost any locations would be suitable for your TL.
 
In the South (mostly Hesse, BW and Franconia) you have many Celtic hillforts. The bigger ones have been partly identified with Ptolemy's places, and many of these identification are still accepted as plausible.
In the lowlands in the north, there are far less, but still some ancient places, mostly at crossings over rivers or through marshes.
For example, the place where the Alster meets the Lower Elbe is good for crossing, and probably has been some kind of settlement since the time of the amber roads. It might be the place called Treva by Ptolemy.

Or look at the place called Heidenschanze ("Pagans' Earthwork") near Sievern at the Weser Estuary. 2 hectares within the inner wall, 10 hectares within the outer wall, that is not nothing. Existed from c. 50 BCE until 100 CE.
It was probably a small trading port of the Chauci, quite possibly the Fabiranum of Ptolemy.
 
Probably the closest things you'll get to large-scale settlements would be examples like Neolithic/Iron Age Dresden, where grave sites and sacred-spaces were used as long-term centers of short-term settlement sites. As others have already stated, these settlements were never permanent, as the terrain and advancement of agriculture in the region made large-scale settlements unprofitable, especially with the German tendency to raid other tribes/settlements in order to acquire wealth/food.

Maybe if you can find a way to provide wide-scale agriculture that doesn't require large forms of manpower in the removal of forests for agricultural land, then you could see the Germans settling down and acting more like the Gauls to their west.
 
The point is that it shouldn't be used as a source, especially in light of nothing showing up on the archeological record

I did post such a disclaimer in my post (making your warning redundant), and a simple glance at my Join Date in the top right corner of my posts can show you I've been here long enough that I know how to post here, but thank you for your concern.

By your standards, pretty much every ancient text should be thrown in the trash. Did Tacitus actually travel to visit all of the Germanic tribes that he recorded in his writings? Did Herodotus have first-hand knowledge of all the histories and cultural descriptions in his famous book? Where are their source? Yet scholars continue to analyze these texts today

I'm of the camp that generally, even the most fantastic stories recorded by ancient geographers and ethnographers have some basis in reality - No one just pulled the information out of a hat. Those stories about gold-digging ants living beyond India that Herodotus entertained in his writing? Maybe they're marmots native to the Tibetan plateau, which did dig up gold dust when they burrowed underground. Those half-man, half-animal hybrids living in the far northeastern regions of Europe that even Tacitus scoffed at as improbable? Maybe they were simply people dressed in animal skins. Who knows? We're still allowed to contemplate.
 
I did post such a disclaimer in my post (making your warning redundant), and a simple glance at my Join Date in the top right corner of my posts can show you I've been here long enough that I know how to post here, but thank you for your concern.

By your standards, pretty much every ancient text should be thrown in the trash. Did Tacitus actually travel to visit all of the Germanic tribes that he recorded in his writings? Did Herodotus have first-hand knowledge of all the histories and cultural descriptions in his famous book? Where are their source? Yet scholars continue to analyze these texts today

I'm of the camp that generally, even the most fantastic stories recorded by ancient geographers and ethnographers have some basis in reality - No one just pulled the information out of a hat. Those stories about gold-digging ants living beyond India that Herodotus entertained in his writing? Maybe they're marmots native to the Tibetan plateau, which did dig up gold dust when they burrowed underground. Those half-man, half-animal hybrids living in the far northeastern regions of Europe that even Tacitus scoffed at as improbable? Maybe they were simply people dressed in animal skins. Who knows? We're still allowed to contemplate.

Herodutus made a bunch of shit up for his book. My History Professor for Classical History called him "The Father of Lies" Rather than the Father of History.
 
Herodutus made a bunch of shit up for his book. My History Professor for Classical History called him "The Father of Lies" Rather than the Father of History.

Please prove that he "made shit up" as opposed to simply writing down inaccurate information provided to him from his sources. That's a pretty strong defamation of character toward someone who lived thousands of years ago with no means to defend himself.

Anyway, my point is simply, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." Yes, the data wasn't all that reliable but there's a lot that we can gleen from Ptolemy's Geographia that does correlate to modern information, and there are plenty of researchers working with it, analyzing the geographic locations and the provided names to find Germanic roots that might offer insight.

The Burgundians, for example, appear as an obscure tribal name in northern Germania without much to suggest they're anything other than a name pulled out of thin air. Yet, we know that these were obviously a real people because the works of other ancient writers corroborate in establishing the name of these people, who show up again and again, eventually founding a kingdom in the Dark Ages and supplying their name to a region which played a significant role in medieval history and continues to exist to this day.
 
Last edited:
Herodutus made a bunch of shit up for his book. My History Professor for Classical History called him "The Father of Lies" Rather than the Father of History.

Guys I think the Germania could advance to the point of being similar in tech to the Romans. In my TL I had a powerful Germanic warlord (basically German Cyrus) take over the previous empire (Suebi) and establish a kingdom across the black forests. They made raw materials such as wood, copper, salt, etc. and send the stuff down through the Danube to eastern markets. This means the Germanic people have a time when Roman merchants and explorers can influence germanic culture. This could therefore lead to the Germans going into a symbiotic relationship with Rome. Germania makes cheap materials and sends it to Rome for money while also getting wheat grown in the empire, Rome doesn't have to worry about administering it and gets the materials such as salt at a cheap price.

Agriculture wouldn't be a problem since the Romans would supply it to them, causing a boom in the united German population. Eventually the plows will be used by the Germans once the forests are cleared and trade introduces the plough. Thereby making small towns of at least 100-800 people which trade through narrow caravan routes. Think what you may but I think this could actually work There have been peoples in worse positions, like the Tocharians. But even they survived for a while as independent city-states. Another example could be the Tibetan empire and native Americans on the Mississippi must be working for them so why not germania?

Speaking about Tarim basin...
 
Last edited:
I'd like to point out that, really, due to the very simplistic agriculture and cold temperatures in Northern Germany and Jutland, most of the proto-Saxons/Ingaevones and their kissing cousins along the Baltic to the east, didn't really even have villages to speak of, much less towns and cities. Community gatherings took place in the wooden halls of tribal leaders, and there were no "capitals" as the court of the King/High Chief was mobile (something the Saxons took with them to Britain).
Saxons having no towns doesn't mean the Region is Not Fit for them. Slavs centuries later were Not So much more advanced, yet they created hillforts all over the place.
 
G They made raw materials such as wood, copper, salt, etc. and send the stuff down through the Danube to eastern markets. This means the Germanic people have a time when Roman merchants and explorers can influence germanic culture.
No value in shipping timber from Germania to Greece/the Black Sea. They can grow their own. Copper and salt have possibilities in that they are low bulk high value. In the ancient world travel times were so long that with rare exception such as grain for Rome only luxury goods were transferred long distances and very often via middle men. That means that there was no single caravan carrying silk all the way from China to the Levant. It was moved by stages with people taking a cut on the way.

Compared with land transport riverine transport reduces coast by 80%. An ancient city can normally be supplied within a radius of 30 miles by land, 150 miles by river. The Danube is over 1000 miles long. Therefore it can not be used to suppy Greece/the Black Sea with German staples.

As an aside note, the importance of water communication to the Romans was so that that many legionary camps were placed near rivers. Which of course raises the interesting Pod that had the Rhine had a major tributary running east into Germany what it have acted as a highway for Roman invasion?
 
I could only see any towns being formed in Germany by Romans as a way to push their influence into Germany so they have less chance of being attacked and as to say "We conquered our age old enemy!" like they did with Carthage and loot everything.

But if they wanted Lumber the world was at a point where it was more common and for minerals like copper they'd be better off taking Britain as they have Tin Which is very rare, Britain also had Lead which was essential for piping and there was silver there too. On the Borer of Germany and Czech Republic there is some Tin sources but it's Inland and Hard to reach where as Cornwall and Wales are next to the sea and have much more favorable terrain for agriculture and troop movements.
 
Top