Mass grave of Caesar's victims found, remains of 150-200,000 Germans

[Eddie Teach]

Plenty of Germans still around.

[Syt]

As my sister put it:

[jimmy olsen]

The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.

I don't think they engaged in any systematic whipping of these tribes - too busy fighting them.

You know what I meant!

[Tonitrus]

As my sister put it:

[ugly portrayal of Germans]

I am sure the Germans have a "Jews"-as-boogeyman equivalent.

[The Minsky Moment]

On the OP, that website looks pretty dubious as a serious source of accurate archaeological information.  The linked article reads as if translated from another  language.

[alfred russel]

Plenty of Germans still around.

He wasn't targeting germans or germanic tribes, but the Tencteri and Usipetes, who may have actually been Celtic.

But there are also plenty of Jews still around.

[Eddie Teach]

But there are also plenty of Jews still around.

Not in Germany or Poland.

Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.

[alfred russel]

But there are also plenty of Jews still around.

Not in Germany or Poland.

Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.

Well, those tribes are extinct, and the Celtic speakers now extinct from that region of Europe.

I think the question is to whether a "kill everyone" command when attacking a tribe qualifies as a genocide when resulting in the death of between 150,000 and 200,000 people, including women and children out of a population of maybe two or three that (I would tend to doubt the numbers). Can a single incident be considerable enough to qualify as a genocide even if not extended for a long period?

[Norgy]

So Germanic tribes are Germans?

I think the Saxons, Jutes, Goths, Rugians etc would have disagreed.

Or the mysterious Heruls, who according Eastern Roman sources had come from the north to Dacia and Crimea, only to mysteriously trek back to Gothia later.

[crazy canuck]

But there are also plenty of Jews still around.

Not in Germany or Poland.

Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.

Well, those tribes are extinct, and the Celtic speakers now extinct from that region of Europe.

I think the question is to whether a "kill everyone" command when attacking a tribe qualifies as a genocide when resulting in the death of between 150,000 and 200,000 people, including women and children out of a population of maybe two or three that (I would tend to doubt the numbers). Can a single incident be considerable enough to qualify as a genocide even if not extended for a long period?

I think the answer is likely yes.  The intent was to kill off the entire tribe - 100% of that population.  No need to extend it beyond killing 100% of the group.  I think where you go wrong is assuming other tribes were part of this group.

[The Minsky Moment]

I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.

[alfred russel]

  I think where you go wrong is assuming other tribes were part of this group.

I'm not assuming that.

I was answering ET's presumed argument that this was not genocide because the germans still exist by pointing out that:
a) the tribes targeted do not exist today
b) the tribes were likely celtic rather than german speaking (despite being labeled germanic tribes by caesar, likely due to their geographic origin), and that in that part of europe those languages are indeed extinct

The obvious counterargument is that the tribes in question continued to be mentioned in historic sources after the battle/massacre/genocide, and a punitive action against an enemy with "kill everyone" orders applicable for a limited time was hardly unknown in ancient times and was not a serious attempt to eliminate the entire enemy's population. Rather, it was an attempt to send a "don't fuck with us" message.

[The Minsky Moment]

I was answering ET's presumed argument that this was not genocide because the germans still exist by pointing out that:
a) the tribes targeted do not exist today
b) the tribes were likely celtic rather than german speaking (despite being labeled germanic tribes by caesar, likely due to their geographic origin), and that in that part of europe those languages are indeed extinct

No tribe from that period exists today.  No language spoken at that time is still spoken today.  The Romans did not eradicate the Gauls or Iberian (Celtic speakers) and yet Celtic languages are not spoken in most of the area once comprised by pre-Roman Gaul or Iberia.

[Admiral Yi]

No language spoken at that time is still spoken today.

Basque.

[alfred russel]

No tribe from that period exists today.

I realize that--but ET is the one bringing up that germans still exist, unlike the jews in that region.

No language spoken at that time is still spoken today.  The Romans did not eradicate the Gauls or Iberian (Celtic speakers) and yet Celtic languages are not spoken in most of the area once comprised by pre-Roman Gaul or Iberia.

Obviously languages evolve into new languages, but the the celtic languages largely died out on the continent (I think Brittany is the exception) while say latin evolved into the romance languages. The eradication of a lot of the gaulish and iberian languages had to do with Rome, and someone (I wouldn't) could conceivably argue that their policies were genocidal even if they didn't try to physically exterminate the members of the group.

That is different than the case with the incident with the Tencteri and Usipetes discussed in the article, where those specific tribes were apparently generally targeted.