Talk:Cimbri

[Untitled]

These Prussian entries seem to be more a bilingual dictionary of proper names that assumes that any etymological connection is meaningful than actual encyclopedia entries. --MichaelTinkler

---

The Cimbri lived on the Jutland peninsula some 2000 years ago.

The Rome said:

The Cimbri lived by the a bay near Heligoland and near Elbe.

The Cimbri disappeared after a flood some 2000 years ago.

A crazy Dane about 1500 said: Cimbri lived on Jutland becorse Jutland have at place name Himmersyssel, which have two letters in common.

who are most credible?

13:23, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

User:Haabet, you are a serious problem to Wikipedia, since I have to verify everything you write. I am beginning to understand why you are the most banned user ever on Danish Wikipedia. I have checked with other encyclopedias and there is nothing but Jutland.--Wiglaf 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Grimm's law

If Himmerland is from that tribe's name, but they were defeated as Cimbri in 100 BC, Grimm's law would have been active in Denmark after 100 BC. That seems rather difficult to believe; cf. Negau helmet: If this is the case, Grimm's law has to be dated to precisely the 2nd to 1st centuries BC (a soundlaw may remain active over 200 years, I suppose, but hardly over 500 years). This is not impossible, of course, but it would mean that the Germanic tribes in the 2nd century BC still lived in close enough contact to be affected by it without exception. (the Cimri would then be the last pre-Proto-Germanic tribe...). dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

their leaders being called Lugius and Boiorix, clearly Gaulish names -- I think it is dubitable that they were a "Proto-Germanic tribe" as asserted. They may have been composed of Germans and Gauls under Gaulish leadership, but it seems too confident to say they were Proto-Germans from Jutland. dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Celts were in Galicia, Asia minor, Germany, etc. No reason Cimbri need be German because of area.

The Cimbri are very unlikely to be Celtic, however Wikipedia has become a Celtophile farce. The most logical conclusion is that teh Cimbri, like the Belgic Germanic tribes, had Celtic influence and the leaders used Celtic names as a status symbol or were part Celtic. It would be very hard to find any evidence that Celtic tribes lived in Denmark, but I wish these Celtophile dreamers the best of luck! - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.0.195 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Any evidence" - well, maybe Celtic tribes didn't live in Denmark, but artefacts from the relevant period show a high degree of Celtic influence in their design, and some of them, like some of the many waggons found, was even made by other Celts from other areas and imported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.206.42 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in Mr. 83.93.206.42 but then what is your point? If you agree that "Celtic" tribes probably didn't live in Jutland then why say "but artefacts from the relevant period show a high degree of "Celtic" influence in their design, and some of them, like some of the many waggons found, was even made by other Celts from other areas and imported." as if to prove they did. Especially since no one is saying that there is no "Celtic" influence in Jutland (though you'll need a good source if you are going to make the claim of "high degree" of "Celtic" influence that many other Germanic peoples of the area do not have...bearing in mind the cultural dominance of the Celts in what is now Germany and Western Europe for many years). You admit that the "artefacts" (in this case wagons) found are imported. You can import objects from another culture without being one or you could say Assyrians are actually Iranians\Persians because they were influenced and imported goods from Persia, or you could say that the Romans are Greeks because of the influence on Roman culture (such as the Greco-Roman religion amongst other things), or indeed that Europeans are Canaanite peoples because of the influence of Jewish religion (via its Christian off-shoot) on certain aspects of European culture (at least in the past). So it must be said we don't have any real evidence that Celtic tribes lived in Jutland at any point. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

merge

I removed the merge tag for merging with Cimbrian War (present since January 2006); both articles are long & well-developed at this point and should probably stay separate. The corresponding tag had already been removed from Cimbrian War some time ago. Please discuss here if there are alternate view -- phoebe 06:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cymry means the same as Cumbria and Cvm, not Compatriot

The meaning given for the name of Wales is a folk etymology and has nothing to do with reality. The Combes, Coombes or Coombs, are hollows of Britain, especially on the western coast. Perhaps this error is repeated elsewhere, but I will not fix it for you lot. Rhode Islander 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...can someone find any real proof (citations..etc..) that the Cimbri are a Germanic/Celtic tribe rather than just Germanic (other than fanciful notions connecting the name to Wales). I have to admit that my knowledge of the Cimbri is limited but I have never really seen a realiable source that said they were anything other than Germanic. - A. Person

Both Germanic and Celtic is fiction without contents. If you accept Germania as a territory. The inhabitant had nothing together except your name of there territory. A tribe from Germania is not a Germanic tribe, because the originally Germanic tribe was a tribe in Gaul. In the same way as the originally Gaul tribe was a tribe in north Italy.Håbet 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The language of Wales is in family by some languages of Persia and in family by languages in most of Europe. If two tribes had the same name, it was often a coincidence. A new tribe, mixed of people from many tribes had need of a new name different from all the originally tribes, and a language have a limited number of word suitable for to a tribe name.Håbet 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No a 'Germanic' Tribe is one that spoke a Germanic Language (Or Teutonic if you prefer) not as you say someone from Germania (though many did live in what is now Germany)...hence some came from Scandza (Scandinavia). Infact the Germanic language and culture originated in Scandinavia (or so goes the most popular theory)...not Gaul as you claim.

The Nazi sad the Germanic originated in Scandinavia, of that cause all other people was weeds who ought to gas. If you say "the Germanic language and culture originated in Scandinavia" your are a Nazi.Håbet 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gauls were from Gaul however as the Gaulish language is a part of the Celtic brach you could say they (as a culture and liguistic group) originated in either Germany (where the first Celtic speakers may have originated) or the Caspian Steppes where the Proto-Celtic Langauge is thought to originates. So sorry you are in this case slightly mistaken.

The language of Cimbri is unknown. The Scandinavia Languages is mixing language of two original Languages. Nearly all fact about Celtic and Germanic and Gaulish Language is fiction, because they had no written language. The legend tell as three boats from Scandza and founded the Ostrogothic kingdom, but was all the Germanic Language in that three boats as the legend is fact?Håbet 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea about the Celtic branch of the language tree had the root in the Bible. The earth is 3000 year old and the language was created of God by the Tower of Babel.Håbet 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you dense or what, Håbet? The Nazis had no problem with Celts, some Slavs, Brython (who some consider Celtic), Latins, Greeks etc... none of these would be face the gas. The Nazis did know of Indo-European studies and ardently (and cruelly) followed it.

Actually, many non-Nazi scholars believe that the Germanic language developed fully in Scandza. Anyway, believing that a language developed somewhere isn't akin to Nazism, so don't play the tiresome "You are a Nazi" card, it won't help your argument. The Cimbri are most likely Germanic with Celtic elements, just live with it. _ Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.0.195 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Proto-Germanic language is likely to be from southern Scandinavia due to that area being the only part of Europe without non-Germanic placenames. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The generally accepted etymology for Welsh Cymry is that it comes from Brittonic *Combroges "Fellow countrymen". It cannot be related to the ethnic name Cimbri.Cagwinn (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The text of this section as it stands is nonsense. It may be characterised in this way: "The name may come from A or from B but under no circumstances will we entertain a connection to C." And this notwithstanding that A and B are mutually exclusive and not withstanding that A includes the concept "inhabitant" and C the concept "countryman". This is a parade of prejudice and wilful myopia. If you cannot choose between A and B it stands to reason that you have not got much of a clue and on that basis you cannot exclude C. Yet this does not stop eg Cagwinn pronouncing ex cathedra that it "cannot be related.....".

The underlying problems with the thrust of the argument are (a) that it presumes that the Cimbri were aboriginally Germanic - ie they did not "come from" anywhere - which is assertion based on precisely nothing and (b) that it takes no account of the migration/evolution of meaning.

I do not (as yet) have a firm view in this matter, but I am predisposed to take seriously the idea that the origin of the name Cymry (for "British") does indeed lie in/with the Cimbri - on the basis that the Cimbri may well have been PCeltic speakers even if they were living amongst Germanic speakers. Freuchie (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

I have come up we this - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (1008 members).

http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?uid=&letter=&lastname=Belgae&viewuid=AX6GA&p=0

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

Investigating the contribution that archaeology has made to accounts of human evolution

Accounts of human evolution usually revolve around well-publicised discoveries of the bony remains of our ancestors. These do allow us to piece together our family tree and to paint - at least in broad outline - a picture of the ancestors who appear on that tree. But it is the archaeological record that preserves actual traces of our ancestors' activities and intuition suggests that these ought to be fundamental to our accounts of human evolution. However, this is far from being the case and this project is designed to explore why this is so.

Masters Thesis

I would like to enroll into the Masters Thesis Research Degree

This is a link to my Research:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

I could also research to what degree of social assimilation occurred between native European groups of people throughout the history of Australia - through dna?

The focus of the project is to gather a representation of evidence and interest in Native Scandinavians and Native Celtic-Iberians found in ‘all’ parts of Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.247.252 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Cimbri-Cymry?

This is not a popular view at all and is unlikely. The name looks similar to Cymry but that doesn't mean a connecting. Celts and Germanic people are both Indo-European. If the words are related they could be to do with the Indo-European language.

Also, old sources mention nothing about them being Celtic and historians and most etmologists don't either. So we shouldn't start off saying "they are a Germanic-cross Celtic' tribe! This is filled with weazel words trying to steer the article towards the conclusion that they were a Celtic tribe...which is unlikely. DR. Martin Hesselius 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been familiar to me in print for years, since you are a fictional creation Martin, your opinion probably won't matter. Btw it is etymologist

" Appian of Alexandria who wrote his “History of Rome: The Gallic Wars” about 130 AD. Here he discusses “Gauls”, “Celts” and “Germans”. Of the Cimbri he said they were a most numerous and warlike hoarde of Celtic tribes (Epit.2), whereas Ceasar overcame the Germans under Ariovistus (Epit.3)."

....

Er, couldn't etmologist just be a typing error of etymologist? Wow, talk about intellect! I guess you have never heard of a typing error...

So Martin is a fictional creation is he? What the hell are you then? I know we are all aliases (and thus fictional) which makes ALL of our opinions pointless. Lets close down the internet.

Anyway, what Martin was saying has nothing to do with opinions but facts. There is no great work of academic research that claims the Cimbri as Brythonic (etymology goes against thsi view) only ridiculous websites that mainly get their information from this very article! _ Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.0.195 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Please insert a proper identification instead of (Coxcomb 2007) interpolated into a sentence: it's foolishly pretentious without a bibliography directly attached. I worked out most of these little undergraduate puzzlers, but not all. I've commented out some questions where the text just couldn't be unknotted. ---- Wetman (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Germanic/Celtic

I think its intellectually irresponsible to indiscriminately write "The Cimbri were a Germanic tribe" in the beginning of the article. We have lots of sources and information saying the Cimbri are Celtic, and a few "unreferenced" claims that they are Germanic. What is the reasoning behind labeling them Germanic as a standard, when the evidence possibly says otherwise? SenseOnes (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cornelius Tacitus tell in Germania as Cimbri were a Germanic tribe. He assume as the word "Germanic" been well-known in that age then Cimbri invade. He also tell as Cimbri live in a bay, named Codan, and not on a peninsula.Haabet 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The names of the Cimbri's chiefs (Boiorix, Gaesorix, Lugius, etc.) are undoubtedly Celtic. The most famous archaeological item found on the territory of the Cimbri, the Gundestrup Cauldron, is distinctive of the Celtic art. The tribes names "Teutones" and "Ambrones" are Celtic too. The fact that the Cimbri spoke a Celtic Language is attested by Pliny the Elder, who quotes several words of the Cimbrian Language. Thus, assuming that the Cimbri are only Germanic or Germanic with a Celtic influence is uncorrect (see also David K. Faux "The Cimbri of Denmark" who mentions many other sources and "Les Gaulois" by Jean Grenier who discusses the question of the Cimbrian Chief Names eg.). As far as I know, there is no argument pointing toward the fact that the Cimbri were Germanic. For the Romans, "Germanic" did not refer to an ethno-linguistic entity, thus the fact that Cicero considered a given tribe as "germanic" isn't relevant.Kentel (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's surely not an established "fact" that a tribe-name like "Teutones" has to be Celtic. Fulcher (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Descendants

Stevo343 arbitrarily removed all reference to my work at http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf. He did this due to a long standing feud dating back over a year. This has nothing at all to do with content. As to his claim that I am a "hobbyist" that is true. However I also have a PhD in Medical Sciences and am co-founder of a DNA testing company. Please check Stevo343's credentials for editing work relating to genetics.

Danvik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danvik (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Danvik's genetics speculations, FOR WHICH HE CITES ONLY HIMSELF AS THE AUTHORITY, have no place in an historical article and are in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy against publishing original work. There are no scientific studies to support his claims relative to the Cimbri and R1b1c10. Danvik is not a geneticist or an historian. His speculations are fine on his own web sites and in dna discussion forums, but they have no place in what should be a factual article. He has himself been y-dna tested and found to be R1b1c10. His R1b1c10 component of the Cimbri article is simply a transparent attempt to glorify his subclade, to somehow get it from Central Europe to Denmark and from thence to England so that Danvik can claim viking ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo343 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Irrespective of the merits of the section (which I removed), the section about R1b1c10 by Danvik violates a number of Wiki guidelines and policies, including Verifiability and No Original Research. Vineviz (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I went through Faux's work carefully and it leaks like a sieve. Particularly damning is: Børglum, Anders D., Cristiano Vernesi, Peter K.A. Jensen, Bo Madsen, Annette Haagerup, and Guido Barbujani. "No Signature of Y Chromosomal Resemblance Between Possible Descendants of the Cimbri in Denmark and Northern Italy". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (2007). pp. 278-284.

David K. Faux. The Cimbri Tribe of Jutland, Denmark: Their Origins and Descendants as Indicated by the Archaeological, Historical and Genetic Data

Gods, where to start. First, I recommend a look at the author's website, where we find that Faux does have a PhD -- in psychology, not history or genetics. Next, I started trying to track down Faux's sources.

p. 1 Markale (1976): Markdale here is undoubtedly Jean Markale's The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture (Inner Traditions, 1993; originally published in French, 1976). Markdale isn't a historian but rather a New Age poet and philosopher. This book is a slapped-together mishmash and not in any way authoritative. [The scholarly critique of Markdale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Markale] is, frankly, scathing.

p. 1 Hubert 1934: This would be Henri Hubert, The Greatness and Decline of the Celts. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltf. 1934. Hubert explains the Cimbri invasion and attacks against Rome, leaving us around 100 BC and saying that the Cimri were diverted off into Spain.

p. 2 Wells 1995: Peter S. Wells. "The La Tène Period in Germany". Different Iron Ages: Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe. eds. J. D. Hill and Christopher G. Cumberpatch. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports(International Series 602). 1995. Wells provides a thorough, well-informed review of the La Tene culture, centered in Switzerland. At this point in the paper, Faux has completely lost his mind, both asserting that the Cimbri were Celts and were not Celts.

p. 2 Ritson 1827: Joseph Ritson. Memoirs of the Celts or Gauls. London: Payne and Foss. 1827. Ritson provides a thorough review of what the ancient authors had to say about the Cimbri.

p. 4 Herm 1976: Gerhard Herm. The Celts: The People Who Came Out of the Darkness. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1975. Another review of what the ancient authors had to say, especially Strabo.

p. 4 Peter Berresford Ellis, in "The Celtic Empire" (1990) Peter Berresford Ellis. The Celtic Empire: The First Millennium of Celtic History, 1000BC - AD51. Robinson Publishing. 1990. Does not cover any history later than about 100AD.

p. 6 Suddenly we jump to the Danelaw in England ca. 880AD, with no evidence whatsoever that the Cimbri are related to the settlers of the Danelaw.

p. 7 And we jump back to 2350BC. Readers beware of timeline whiplash.

p. 16 Wildly leaps from Cimbri to Cimmerians. Associates Cimmerians with the Biblical Gomer or Gomerians, notes the Cimmerians are first mentioned in 850 BC by Homer and Herodotus c. 450 BC.

p. 17 Attempts to link Cimmerians, Welsh Cymry, Cumbrians etc. None of this holds up under modern linguistic scholarship.

p. 18 Links La Tene culture, Danish Vikings, and Merovingians in the same breath with the builders of Stonehenge. All we need now are UFOs and crop circles.

p. 19 Kristiansen 1998: Kristian Kristiansen. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. Associates the Gundestrop Cauldron, the Cimbri, and Himmerland in Northern Jutland.

p. 19 More discussion of Thracian-Cimmerians.

p. 27 Without a scrap of evidence, Faux now proposes that the Cimbri arrived in Jutland at 500 BC, which is when a marked change in the local Bronze Age culture is shown in the archaeology of the period.

p. 31 Nakedly asserts that Tollund Man is a Cimbrian

p. 47 Admits that genetic testing shows no relationship between modern Danes and the Cimbi remnant population in northern Italy.

p. 69 Roman legion monuments mention "Mercurio Cimbriano" in the 200s AD.

p. 43 Map showing proposed route for Cimbri who eventually attack Rome and are defeated in 101BC.

--Gunnora (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Common Era

"Common" to whom or what?

If you say the year of the dog, we know you mean the Chinese calendar and can get our bearings there. If you say 1400 years since the birth of Muhammed, we know you are referring to the Muslim Calendar. If you say some time during the reign of Cyrus the Great, we know you are referring to the Persian calendar. If you say some time until the end of the world, you may be referring to the Mayan calendar. But please understand that the Gregorian calendar is not the Authority on what is the Common Era. It is purely chauvinistic to assume that YOUR calendar is the Common One. Get over it because not everyone is on the same page and agrees with your idea of what's common. Just cite your calendar and let me take it from there, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.31.2 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Humber

Here serious point for Cimbri in Britain.Quit possibly destroying Wales is not Cymry theory .The estuary Humber according to Grimm Law means Cimbri. It is big thing for Northumbria was named by Anglo Saxons as North of Humber .

¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC) --Edelward (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, except for the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that "Humber" and "Cimbri" and/or "Cymry"/"Cymry" are related. If "Humber" was from "Cymry" then it would be "Cumber" in English as the shift from "C" to "H" was complete in Germanic languages well before the Old English era. And in fact "Cymry" was borrowed into English as "Cumber-" (hence Cumberland and a few other place-names with "Cumber-" in them. So I am sorry but you don't get the biscuit today.

P.S. who claimed "Wales is not Cymry"? Incidently "Cymry" is "Welshmen", "the Welsh" whereas "Cymru" is "Wales". Everyone acknowledges that "Cymry" was and is used as an ethnic designation by the Welsh.Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the connection with the name of the Cimbri ? Cymru is the result of an evolution of Old Celtic *Combrogi, that is not the same as Cimbri.Nortmannus (talk)

Celtic vs Germanic

Sorry to re-arouse this debate, but we need to update how we are assessing this issue. I would argue that they were neither, with qualification. We need to ask what we mean when we propose they were Celtic, or Germanic ? Coz the recent trend of anthropology would argue that the notion of Celtic ethnicity did not exist, nor a Germanic one until at least 800s AD, but perhaps more realistically 1600 were the first of the Germanisists began writing. THus to call them GErmanic or CEltic is somewhat imprecise and anachronistic - especially that the terms are first and foremost lingusitic categories that have been (somewould argue inappropriately) extended to also refer to archaeological features or ancient tribes.

If they really did come from Jutland, the fact that they might have lived in "Germanic" long-houses or used "Celtic" swords does not, in itself, designate ethnicity, but only informs us about their socio-economic mode of existence and the trade contacts they engaged in. We actually have next to no real evidence directly associated with the Cimbri.

All one is left with is the language that they might have spoken. As it has already been mentioned above, if they were proto-Germanic speakers, then they should have been called Chimbri and Theutones. Unless the Romans got the name wrong, it would suggest that they spoke a not yet Germanized IE language. That's all we can leave it at, if we want to aviod false conclusions Hxseek (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there was definitely a Germanic identity much earlier. After all, the Germanic people had a specific word, *walhaz, to refer to a non-Germanic person. I don't know about the Celts though. CodeCat (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This discurse is irrelevant. Germanic is a oldeuropean language and much older as Cymraec or celtic. The Cimber spoken nethergermanic. *valla (not stupid *walhaz reconstruction), means a wandering. It comes from walla, wallfahrt, wallhall, valley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.159.60.41 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial v is unlikely in proto-Germanic. Initial c/k is also unlikely. Anyway, the source given for the statement that they are simply unambiguously Germanic, in the lede, is inadequate. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Preceding speech of 5.159.60.41 is completely irrelevant and shows clearly that he never studied etymology. First, Celtic is documented (inscriptions on stones, lead, etc.) a long time before Germanic. For sure, it does not mean anything about the age of the language. Celtic and Germanic are both from Proto-Indo-European and they are certainly as old as one another. Second Wallfahrt (with W, not w) is a German word, only attested in mittelhochdeutsch wallevart and is based on the German verb wallen "go, make a pilgrimage" related to Old English weallian and Dutch wallen. It is only Westgermanic. The reconstructed Germanic form is *wāđlójan not *walla. Valley does not have anything to do with that, it comes from Old French val[l]ee (mod. vallée), the Old English word is only dæl > dale. Etymology of French vallée is Latin vallis + suffix -ATA, so Gallo-Romance VALLATA > vallee, -ee is the result of -ata only in French. Walhall[a]′s first element is the same as Walstatt "battle field, battle place" from OHG wal "place to fight", OE wæl, OI valr, related to Latin vellere and Old Irish fuil "blood", all from PIE root *uel.Nortmannus (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Map

Hi. Would it not be possible to get a better map? Cimbri is basically off the map, you can just see the name on it, but not even the whole of Cimri is on the map. Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Historians call them Germanic to place the blame of Rome going to war with the Celts on Germanic males.

Chances are better that the cimbri were ethnically celtic. Anti-Germanic historians just call them Germanic because it is beneficial for celtic people to say that the reason why the romans went to war with the celtic tribes of Europe and destroyed celts and enslaved them is because Germanic tribes sacked rome. Historians often lie to make the Celts look like they are nice people who never did anything wrong while assigning blame for everything that is considered bad to Germanic males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.28.100 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Total, unadulterated nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability

Reviewing this article's history, I note a very long-running edit war over the matter of whether this article describes the Cimbri as a Germanic people, a Celtic people, or a people of debated but uncertain origin who may have been either Germanic or Celtic. The last is the closest to reality given that the sources are still in conflict, and stood for a long time until somebody edited it last fall to describe them as purely Celtic, following which somebody else revised it just a few days later to describe them as purely Germanic while not simultaneously editing the category from "Celtic peoples" to "Germanic peoples", a major screwup that makes Wikipedia look sloppy and stupid.

The question of whether the Cimbri were Celtic or Germanic remains unresolved as things stand, with sources claiming evidence in both directions. It is not Wikipedia's role to take a stand either way as to which sources are more credible, however — until reliable sources establish a consensus one way or the other, our role here begins and ends at saying that the matter is unresolved.

TLDR: cut it the hell out. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

One improvement that could be made in this regard would be a smaller bunch of citations, focusing on the best known ones taking each position. At the moment, all sources given push the Germanic theory. An example of someone well know who accepts the Celtic idea is Walter Goffart: https://books.google.be/books?id=dM3kdRzztiIC&pg=PA282 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Useful source?

https://www.academia.edu/10287326/SOUTHEAST_EUROPEAN_INFLUENCES_IN_THE_EARLY_IRON_AGE_OF_SOUTHERN_SCANDINAVIA_Gundestrup_and_the_Cimbri I don't have time for it right now, but if anyone does...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Article is fundamentally flawed

Characterizing the ethnicities of proto-historic groups is fraught, especially migratory ones we have conflicting information about, like the Cimbri. This article suffers badly from presuming it's necessary or even possible to sort proto-historic tribes into discrete buckets like "Celtic" or "Germanic," as opposed to simply sticking to the facts at hand (i.e., the Cimbri were Cimbric and may have had layers of influence from different other ethnic and linguistic groups).

Throughout the article, the writing argues and asserts a dubious preference for the Cimbri's Germanness, even verging on original research to do so. When the characteristically Celtic linguistics known about the Cimbri come up, the writing grasps at amateurish excuses to dismiss it, or vague handwaving of unequivocal statements from scholars.

Other absurdities include the opening claim under "Origins" that scholars "generally see the Cimbri as a Germanic tribe," which appears to cite a whopping six sources but, upon inspection, half of them turn out to be all Encyclopedia Britannica.

At a minimum, to untangle this, the article should do the following:

1. Clarify its terms. Rather than treating "Celtic" and "Germanic" as self-explanatory and universally applicable concepts, articulate the distinctions between the linguistic criteria modern scholars use vs. the often merely geographic meaning such terms have in Classical sources (i.e., East vs. West of the Rhine).
2. Quit making this foolish issue permeate the entire article as if it's the most important or defining fact about the Cimbri, and relevant to every section. It should get a brief mention in the intro, it should be touched upon (properly) when the linguistic evidence comes up, and the characterizations known from Classical sources should be noted (and properly contexutalized). That's it. Really nothing more.
3. Quit priviliging simplistic and passing mentions from general-purpose encyclopedia like Britannica, while dismissing the more detailed analysis from field experts like linguists.
4. Weed out all of the argumentative and original researching passages.

— Uiscefada (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)