Talk:Batavians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Germanic, not Celtic!

Shame to see 'savage and barbarous nations' in the description of the Tribes in the Rhine area. I dont know where to begin attacking that statement!! The Batavi were very Germanic and not Celtic. Archaeological and Historical evidence shows a group with a solid, well defined social structure, that could continue being used under Roman Overlordship. The many Roman artifacts in this area can be found in Nijmegan (mostly 2nd cent as the AD69 revolt distroyed eariler Roman bulidings). The name Batavi was also used extensivly to encorage dutch soldgers fighting with spain, to remind them of a Free Holland. I have written 'The Causes of the Batavian Revolt AD69-70' as my dissertation subject for my archaeology degree a few years back-i beleve its the only work on this subject written in English.--User:Elguid 6:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Batavii were clearly Germanic, indeed the horse guard that Julius Caesar recruited among the Batavii were known as the Germani! --Nantonos 02:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, to have stated that the Batavii were a Celtic group under the control of a Germanic group, the Chatti. Quite simply, here's why: Tacitus locates the island the Batavii inhabited at the mouth of the Rhine "on the extremity of the coast of Gaul". Caesar puts them at the mouth of the Meuse/Maas. Dio Cassius mentions "some Celts who were practised in swimming fully armed" that I thought were generally identified as Batavii, and Batavii were among the garrisons along Hadrian's Wall. The most extensive description of Batavii is in connection with the uprising of Gaius Julius Civilis: is he considered Germanic? I'm sorry to see a "disputed" tag: if this is one of those football-fan nationalist history issues, I'll just be removing Batavii from my watchlist now, and let you all sort it out. --Wetman 03:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, reasoned discussion works best if you try to concentrate on the facts rather than searching for undesirable motives. No, its not one of those football-fan nationalist history issues (I could of course have asked you the same, but chose instead to ask what your facts were. Better that way, no?) so instead of leaving in a huff, consider it might be one of those historical accuracy and verifiable sources issues instead. Thank you for pointing to the reasons that led you to believe they were Celtic. Since the previous text was Germanic or possibly Celtic presumably you felt hat it was 100% certain that they were Celtic?

You seem to use the east-bank west-bank dividing line, without noting that Germans were settled from east to west bank after the Gallic wars, as buffers. The Ubii are a case in point. It would be odd for Caesar's equites Germani and Augustus's Germani corpores custodes to have been Celtic, no? --Nantonos 14:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Batavians, while they dwelt on the other side of the Rhine, formed a part of the tribe of the Chatti. Driven out by a domestic revolution, they took possession of an uninhabited district on the extremity of the coast of Gaul, and also of a neighbouring island, surrounded by the ocean in front, and by the river Rhine in the rear and on either side.

Tacitus, Histories Book IV Chapter 12: The Batavians

They had also at home a select body of cavalry, who practised with special devotion the art of swimming, so that they could stem the stream of the Rhine with their arms and horses, without breaking the order of their squadrons.

Tacitus, Histories Book IV Chapter 12: The Batavians

Of all these nations, the Batavians are the most signal in bravery. They inhabit not much territory upon the Rhine, but possess an island in it. They were formerly part of the Cattans, and by means of feuds at home removed to these dwellings; whence they might become a portion of the Roman empire.

Tacitus, Germania Chapter 29: Batavians and Mattiacians

Moreover the Hercynian Forest attends for a while its native Cattans, then suddenly forsakes them. This people are distinguished with bodies more hardy and robust, compact limbs, stern countenances, and greater vigour of spirit. For Germans, they are men of much sense and address

Tacitus, Germania Chapter 30: The Cattans

So the Cattans (Chatti) were Germans, and the Batavians were part of the Chatti who now lived somewhere else because of a feud. I have not found a single source that says that they were Celts subdued by the Chatti.

As to everyone living in Gaul being Celtic and not Germanic:-

The Treverians and Nervians aspire passionately to the reputation of being descended from the Germans; since by the glory of this original, they would escape all imputation of resembling the Gauls in person and effeminacy. Such as dwell upon the bank of the Rhine, the Vangiones, the Tribocians, and the Nemetes, are without doubt all Germans. The Ubians are ashamed of their original; though they have a particular honour to boast, that of having merited an establishment as a Roman colony, and still delight to be called Agrippinensians, after the name of their founder: they indeed formerly came from beyond the Rhine, and, for the many proofs of their fidelity, were settled upon the very bank of the river; not to be there confined or guarded themselves, but to guard and defend that boundary against the rest of the Germans.

Tacitus, Germania Chapter 28: The Germans in general

OK, swimming troops from Cassius Dio:

The barbarians thought that Romans would not be able to cross it without a bridge, and consequently bivouacked in rather careless fashion on the opposite bank; but he sent across a detachment of Germans, who were accustomed to swim easily in full armour across the most turbulent streams. [...] Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood-tide forms a lake. This they easily crossed because they knew where the firm ground and the easy passages in this region were to be found; but the Romans in attempting to follow them were not so successful. However, the Germans swam across again and some others got over by a bridge a little way up-stream, after which they assailed the barbarians from several sides at once and cut down many of them.

Cassius Dio, Roman History Book 60:20

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/60*.html

Perhaps, though, you got this from the part-translation, part-commentary Roman Britain, by Edward Conybeare (1903), here http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_rombrit_ch3.htm which seems to use rather patchy and ancient (Cymbeline, rather than Cynobellinus) translations, and switches between Ptolemy and Dio Cassius and perhaps other authors without clearly stating where he gets which information.

Maybe someone has, and can read, the Greek original to be sure? Its not online, seemingly. A useful comparison of source manuscripts is http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/dio_cassius.htm

Dont trust any Roman writer when they say Celtic because as im sure you know, Celtic is the Greek word for 'non greek' (Keotli)this was adopted by the Romans to mean non Roman (therefore uncivilised). In the case of the Batavi, they may be called celtic because they were under the spheres of Roman influence. and was easyer for the Roman reading public to understand. they where a germanic tribe, there is no doubt of that archaeologically speaking. See Roymans (many) Carrol 2001, Dyson 1975, Westerwield (many)Enklevoort (many)and me! of course. they probably migrated from a larger tribe (sorry i dont rember the nmame) that where in this area around 200 B.C. after the revolt we can see a rapid Romanisation of this tribe-hense the use of their horsemanship in Britain and use in the Praetorian. Interestingly the leader of the Auxillarys in Briton was the same general (cerials) that suppesessed their revolt.

Interesting to note that football was mentioned. i was at NEC Nijmegan to watch them a while back and i saw a few Batavii Flags.

In fact the 'Roman writers':

• differentiated Greeks, Germans, Celts, Scythians, etc
• didn't say 'Celtic' in this instance

"In the case of the Batavi, they may be called celtic because they were under the spheres of Roman influence" well, as mentioned above, the actual quote does not call them Celtic. "they where a germanic tribe, there is no doubt of that archaeologically speaking" - right, agreed. The larger tribe that they were a member of is the Chatti (Cattans) as mentioned above.

I'm not sure what your '200 BC' refers to - the revolt was 69 AD, yes? --Nantonos 01:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

i strongly suggest you READ the books ive pointed out to you before contiuing this discussion.

Thanks for your partial references to books, which may or may not put forward the view you propose that "Keotli)this was adopted by the Romans to mean non Roman (therefore uncivilised)". However, your attempt to use those boks to explain why "the Roman writers" called the Batasvii Celtic is pointless since, as already explained above, the roman writers called them Germanic instead! Try to at least read the preceeding discussion before commenting further :) --Nantonos 14:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What happens to the Batavians? What is their history after the rebelion?

[edit] falsely regarded as eponymous ancestors

Hi Rex_Germanus, you've editted Batavians a while ago. This sentence "The Batavians became regarded as the eponymous ancestors of the Dutch people." became "The Batavians falsely became regarded as the eponymous ancestors of the Dutch people.", can you explain why you added falsely? Even with the Migration Period, as far as I know there is no mentioning of the Belgae or Batavii moving out of the area. Thanks. ShotokanTuning 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the Batavians were a relatively small group of people, living around the rhine. There are indeed no records of them leaving (although the men hired for the roman army often never returned) but they were simply too small to be regarded the sole ancestor of the Dutch. As the migration period progressed new, more powerfull and less romanized peoples (the batavians never fully gained controll of the Low Countries) entered the Low COuntries, the Franks quickly made it their new homeland, conquered the Frisians in the North and the Saxons on the North West and never gave up their dominant position again. Hence they are regarded as the main ancestors of the Dutch. The Batavians quite possibly might have contributed, but only margininally compared to others. Early modern Dutchmen however read about the heroic revolt of the Batavians against the all powerful Romans and saw a link to their own fight against Spain ... Rex 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. The Franks were a gathering of Germanic tribes including Chatti. The Batavii once were a part of the Chatti. The Franks moved west from central Germany and the Southern Netherlands, settling in northern Gaul. It seems logical the people in the conquered areas would be called Franks (a Germanic federation) no matter how many Batavii or Belgae lived there. This becomes more evident with the Frisians, who were ‘conquered’ much later and their name and people never disappeared. Since the Batavians build the first settlements and never stopped living there, while the Franks (gathering of various tribes) just moved in what are now various different countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France). The Franks added tribes to their gathering as they went. It’s not illogical to call Batavians ancestors of the Dutch people, better words would be that they are an important part of the ancestry. This also goes for the Belgae in Belgium. Naming only Batavians as ancestors is obviously not true, like they did at the time of war against Spain, this makes it easy to say it’s entirely false. Do you agree we explain "falsely", as that they were only a part of the ancestry of the Dutch people?ShotokanTuning 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The thing is that untill the 1960 it was taught to children that the Batavians were the sole Dutch ancestors, that the reason of the "falsely" comment really.Rex 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the information. It's was nice to discuss this with you. May I paste this at the talk page Talk:Batavians? ShotokanTuning 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course.Rex 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Small addition to the 1960 note of Rex;the original idea that the Batavii were the origin of the Dutch was a typical post-medieval era idea. With the start of nation states in the 18th century a common (proud) ancestry became more important, and at that time the Batavii were pulled forward as the ancestor tribe. And indeed the romanticised history has been taught as truth in Dutch schools untill fairly recently (of course actual history is much messier ;-) Arnoutf 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another small edition, if the Batavians hadn't (succesfully) rebelled against the Romans, and would have remained the swampdwelling fish eaters they were for most of their history, it's highly likely all but a few Dutch people would be aware of their existence.Rex 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Even without reference to that rebellion (wich wasn't so succesfull after all) the Romans wrote quite a lot about the Batavians. They really liked them I guess. Krastain 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here with the same remark Batavian < Chatti < Franks, but that point has already been made. I still think the text can be clarified. At least it could be noted that the besides Batavians (Bataven) more frankish tribes lived in the area. The south of Limburg + adjacent Belgian and German provinces ( Aachen region, but also the Caroligians probably orginated in what now is the Liege province) is a Frankish heartland even. Also, in the list of Dutch tribes I mis Saxons, though later conquered by the Franks, they were most definitely not either Franks or Frisians. And of course the Celts weren't probably all immediately buried, but were absorbed into the populace, so a Celtic bloodline is probably also still there. 88.159.72.36 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge batavian rebellion back in?

In the Batavian_rebellion piece are several inaccuracies: this batavians article seems to be more generally monitored and hopefully someone with more of an understanding of the rebellion than me can take a look at it; perhaps it should be merged back into this article?

I've searched for references on why the Batavians didn't have to pay taxes but I haven't found any and if anyone can reference material on why they were exempt I think that would make a valuable contribution in our understanding of the Roman Empire. They could field keen horsemen with locally bred horses; and the Betuwe area of the Rhine delta at the time flooded annually so the alluvium must have made the land a dependable source of crops, horses and cattle for the legions of Germania_Inferior. It might have paid not to tax them.

In reference to the discussion on whether the Batavians are falsely seen as ancestors I think very interesting also is the discussion about the influence on Dutch literature, propaganda and nationalism of the Batavians ref [1] (in Dutch). To call the republic formed after the French revolutionary invasion the 'Bataafse Republiek' is a fine example of both early European nationalism and propaganda. Wikimam 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)