News Briefs Concerning the Identification of Edom
Contents:
1. Germany as Edom. A Warrior
3. Germanic populations in Talmudic and other Rabbinic Texts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. Germany as Edom. A Warrior
The place-names Ingleton and Ingleborugh that you mentioned in North Yorkshire in association with the Angles is of interest.
An interesting work that we have recently come across is:
"The Blitzkrieg Myth. How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II" by John Mosier, USA, 2003.
Amongst other matters this book contains remarks of interest concerning the military aptitude and idiosyncrasies of the French, Belgians, British, Americans, Russians, and Germans.
Extract p.287
##Even before the war there had been an English prejudice to the effect that the Germans were simply automatons, incapable of independent action, and that their officers were feudal relics unsuitable for modern warfare. Once the war began this idea quickly became an unchallenged -and unchallengeable assumption, as it has been ever since. But the idea is purely and simply mythical...
##The German army was, as we have noted, the least mechanized of the major armies. But it was the most mobile; not because of its vehicles but because of its brains. The Allies do not appear to have understood this at any point during the war.The Americans routinely criticized the British for what they saw as inordinate delays to refit and regroup. As our account of Market-Garden makes clear, there is some truth to this criticism. On the other hand there is a good deal of truth to the British criticism of the American tendency to rush headlong into battle without engaging in the sort of careful preparation that would minimize casualties; Bradley at Omaha Beach, Patton at Metz. The reality, however, is that neither army really grasped how quickly the Germans could put together offensives, how quickly they could reorganize a shattered position, and how effectively they could use the terrain over which they were forced to fight.
The author emphasizes that an appreciation of German military qualities cannot be divorced from the fact that on the whole their senior officers acquiesced in or actively supported the attempted extermination of the Jews and atrocities against other peoples.
Other works expand on this issue.
The German soldier man-for-man may have been a better fighter due to his superior training, the level of his leadership, and ideological motivation.
He did however have weaknesses on a relative scale such as not being so good at hand -to-hand combat and fear (or at least avoidance of fighting in) the dark.
Many of the qualities under consideration are an outcome of training, tradition, social cohesion, etc.
They are not inherited qualities.
Nevertheless there may be some inherited aspect to them.
In the past we noted that different Israelite Tribes developed differing military specializations that may have emanated from their tribal characteristics.
An interesting work that we have recently come across is:
"The Blitzkrieg Myth. How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II" by John Mosier, USA, 2003.
Amongst other matters this book contains remarks of interest concerning the military aptitude and idiosyncrasies of the French, Belgians, British, Americans, Russians, and Germans.
Extract p.287
##Even before the war there had been an English prejudice to the effect that the Germans were simply automatons, incapable of independent action, and that their officers were feudal relics unsuitable for modern warfare. Once the war began this idea quickly became an unchallenged -and unchallengeable assumption, as it has been ever since. But the idea is purely and simply mythical...
##The German army was, as we have noted, the least mechanized of the major armies. But it was the most mobile; not because of its vehicles but because of its brains. The Allies do not appear to have understood this at any point during the war.The Americans routinely criticized the British for what they saw as inordinate delays to refit and regroup. As our account of Market-Garden makes clear, there is some truth to this criticism. On the other hand there is a good deal of truth to the British criticism of the American tendency to rush headlong into battle without engaging in the sort of careful preparation that would minimize casualties; Bradley at Omaha Beach, Patton at Metz. The reality, however, is that neither army really grasped how quickly the Germans could put together offensives, how quickly they could reorganize a shattered position, and how effectively they could use the terrain over which they were forced to fight.
The author emphasizes that an appreciation of German military qualities cannot be divorced from the fact that on the whole their senior officers acquiesced in or actively supported the attempted extermination of the Jews and atrocities against other peoples.
Other works expand on this issue.
The German soldier man-for-man may have been a better fighter due to his superior training, the level of his leadership, and ideological motivation.
He did however have weaknesses on a relative scale such as not being so good at hand -to-hand combat and fear (or at least avoidance of fighting in) the dark.
Many of the qualities under consideration are an outcome of training, tradition, social cohesion, etc.
They are not inherited qualities.
Nevertheless there may be some inherited aspect to them.
In the past we noted that different Israelite Tribes developed differing military specializations that may have emanated from their tribal characteristics.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did Ancient Semites Father the Germanic Languages?
https://pintsofhistory.com/2015/01/09/did-ancient-semites-father-the-germanic-languages/
Fully one-third of Proto-Germanic vocabulary has no relation to other Indo-European words. But it does often resemble Semitic vocabulary. The Proto-Germanic word for maiden, for instance, is something like magath. The early Semitic version was makhat. Just as interesting, the ancient Germans worshiped a god named Balder, while many ancient Semites worshiped Baal Addir, which they shortened to Baldir. Plus, Germanic languages have a lot of breathy consonants, as well as an unusual verb-shift for the past tense — in both cases unlike other Indo-European languages but like Semitic languages.
Proto-Germanic branched off from the Indo-European family tree around 500 B.C.E. What ancient Semites could have lived in northern Europe that far back? The Phoenicians came from cities in Lebanon and Syria, and they were the Mediterranean’s great sailors. We know they reached Portugal. They could have sailed on from there to northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, where Proto-Germanic formed. Plus, the Phoenicians worshiped Baal Addir (to the horror of their Hebrew cousins, who moaned about Baal in the Old Testament). And Proto-Germanic’s odd, Semitic-sounding vocabulary includes just about all its words for the sea, fish, and ships.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. Germanic populations in Talmudic and other Rabbinic Texts
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/84189/germanic-populations-in-talmudic-and-other-rabbinic-texts
Extracts:
In the 11th century, Hai Gaon and Rashi refer to the country and language of 'Ashkenaz' (referring to the area around the Rhineland, northern France and Germany). By the 12th and 13th centuries, equating Ashkenaz (and to a lesser extent Gomer) with the Germans/Germany becomes commonplace (eg, by Radak, Raaven, Rashba, Rosh, Tur, Rivash, the Machzor Vitry, etc), ...
B. Megilla 6b says, 'R. Yitzaq says again: What is meant by the verse, 'Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked man, do not further his plot, lest they exalt themselves, selah [Tehillim 140:9]? Yacov said before the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Master of the Universe, grant not to Esav the wicked the desire of his heart, do not further his plot.' This refers to Germamia of Edom, for should they but go forth they would destroy the whole world. R. Hama b. Hanina says: There are 300 crowned heads in Germamia of Edom and 365 chiefs in Rome; and every day one set go forth to meet the other and one of them is killed and they have all the trouble of appointing a king again.' Rashi interprets 'Germamia of Edom' as the name of a kingdom that descends from Edom (although the Talmudic context seems to indicate that Germamia and Edom are enemies and not related to each other; cf. Bereshit Rabbah 75:9 and Midrash Tehillim 25:19 above). The Yaavetz in his commentary on Rashi suggested that 'Germamia' refers to Germania.
See Also:
Scythian-Barbarian: The Permutations of a Classical Topos in Jewish and Christian Texts ofLate Antiquity DAVID GOLDENBERG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/e/185/files/2016/10/scythian-barbarian_as_published-17jr2m5.pdf