Talk:Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism

Notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL unsubstantiated term. There is a single hit on all of the internet, a review of / ad for Unveiling the Amazing SECRET Behind Germany’s Historic Role as a Leading Nation by one Craig White, at originofnations.org. It this has any notability at all, make it an article about Craig White (author) or originofnations.org. Else, mention this in a single sentence at Biblical literalism or someplace. This isn't a valid topic for an article on grounds of WP:FRINGE. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the title of the article after the name he used in his book, there are a lot more who support this theory beside Craig, though they haven't called it "Assyria-Germany connection", but you will find a lot of sites advocating this theory. By the way, no, you got that wrong, they actually support their theory of descent by comparing both Empires. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:43 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

then can you please cite books, not random websites? What's in Gardell p. 372, btw? Who is he talking about there? dab (𒁳) 11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Look man, I'm trying, can you at least give me some credit here? I'm doing what I can, this isn't exactly the most renowned subject in the world. Anyway, Gardell is talking about some Edward Hine, who supposedly claimed that the Germans are descendants of the ancient Assyrians. I'm trying to look up sources now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:06 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

sure, take it easy: I didn't Afd it, did I. You'll need to figure out who exactly proposed this where and when, and then we will be able to decide whether it can stand on its own, or whether it should be merged into an article on a particular author or ideology. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, Edward Hine is a "British Israelist" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Perhaps this is best treated as a quirk of British Israelism, then. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems related to British Israelism. I think however we should continue to work on it and see if we can make an independent article out of it. If not, then merge it to British Israelism. Oh and about Hine, not sure about it, but it seems he established this theory, but others have picked up on his ideas. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:26 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Trebeta

Have a look at History of Trier. There is an interesting thesis that Trier was found by the assyrians. It should be mentioned in this article. But my english isn´t good enough.---- DanielMrakic (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is also mentioned in the Trebeta article. But 'Dbachmann the Great' removed it. What dab fails to understand is that this myth isn't only based on the stupid bullshit of Herbert W. Armstrong, it also has some support from other legendary Germanic myths. For example:[1] All in all I find this to be an interesting theory (albeit most likely false) that needs to be expanded upon. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it works like this, "Aššur-bāni-apli": if you have a source to cite, I will be most happy to keep the factoid in the article. Until you have a proper source to cite, how about you accept the burden to provide one lies on you and stop making snide comments against me. You do your homework and I do mine, ok? --dab (𒁳) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, how about this source? He mentions very clearly that there is a connection to Trebeta/Trier. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And here's that Armstrong guy talking about Trier/Trebeta. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more here: [2] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's actually a book covering it: [3] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More from the Church of God.[4] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another book:[5] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another source:[6] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This one seems interesting:[7] — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

merge

ok, I think it has become clear that this has no notability whatsoever. It is a side-topic of British Israelism with some quirks involving the far lunatic fringe of Biblical literalism. It should be merged into British Israelism. dab (𒁳) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a law. Wait and see what others have to say about it. Last time you tried to merge it with some other article, they disagreed on the talk page. Also, you are obviously not willing to work on it from the sources we have. This topic definitely has notability. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Austrian Chronicle

I think I figured it out: Assyria doesn't look good in the bible, and Germany was never identified with Assyria in German nationalism for this reason. In fact, there has been "German Israelism" in 15th century Austria (Austrian Chronicle of 95 Seigneurs), but this was abandoned as a fable in 16th century historiography. The idea was revived in British nationalism, which began to identify Germany with (evil, biblical) Assyria as Germany was beginning to become a threat to British interests. In the 1960s, this British idea of Germany=Assyria (viz., as the major threat to Britain=Israel) was taken up by US crackpot Christians such as Herman L. Hoeh, this time in order to "prove" that "European civilization is as old as Egypt's" -- you got to love how these authors make the Austrian Chronicle an "ancient manuscript" in the best tradition of kookery. I'm impressed how the Chronicle suddenly is "an ancient record, just one volume out of a great and monumental German work of over one hundred volumes" (by which I guess we are to understand the Monumenta Germaniae Historica series in which the chronicle was edited) after only a few years of being thrown around in US Christian crackpot literature,

"An amazing document reveals the interesting events of Abraham's life before his call. It is the fascinating old World record, the Austrian Chronicle" (Roy Schulz 1967)

This is just a funny side-note to the Austrian Chronicle of 95 Seigneurs, British Israelism and Worldwide Church of God; I don't think there is enough material here to warrant a full article. Another funny note is Jerome's precedent of "Roman Israelism" with his "Rome=Israel" and "Germanic tribes = evil Assyria" identification quoted. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Where do you find all these sources? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way dab, I think this is a lot more notable than we think. Googling for Germans Assyrians gets a lot of hits. Of course not all are about this specific topic (some hits actually deal with modern Assyrians living in Germany, i.e. no crack pot theories). However, a significant portion are about this pseudohistoric Assyria-Germany connection. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, if we extend this to not just to the (pseudohistorical) "hypothesis" of the flavour of Hoeh-Armstrong, but include discussion of the comparioson of Prussian and Assyrian militarism in British sources, this may in fact turn out to be a topic after all. Sources? I just started with the "ancient manuscript" of an "Austrian Chronicle" from your crackpot sources and googled around to identify the actual text. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another nice crackpot essay [8]. And here is a fine example of "the German-Assyrians will strike again!"[9] I think we can see the shape of this now. Your other hits just concern either modern Assyrians or German excavations in Syria. The Trier legend is interesting because it is attested surprisingly early. The "Austrian Chronicle" is a case of Israelism, not "Assyrianism". The remaining sources are actually from the Anglosphere, i.e. the Germans are likened to the Assyrians from an outside perspective, by Anglo-Americans who self-identify with ancient Israel. dab (𒁳) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should look into the Trebeta/Trier legend. That seems to be the only one (so far) not based on religious crackpots and their weird hallucinations. It seems to be an actual German legend (although, I'm not sure about that, since I'm no expert on Trebeta). Perhaps these myths are somehow derived or inspired from the Trebeta legend? Also, check de:Trebeta, it actually seems to be some kind of German medieval legend. By the way dab, for the record, this article is somehow making me lose my faith in God. These religious morons are somehow scaring me with their delusions. I don't know, perhaps I'm being rational or something. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the Austrian Chronicle actually influenced the early British Israelists? I can't find any mention of it in Hine.--Pharos (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I never intended to claim anything like that. I am just pointing out that the motivation for the construct is exactly parallel. The AC is a precedent of, not an influence on BI. dab (𒁳) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About all the links

Is an article with three paragraphs improved by 12 external links? Especially considering most of them are editorials / commentaries in support of the theory that is supposed to be presented NPOV by Wikipedia? Flies in the face of what WP:LINKS is hinting at. Many should be removed. Brando130 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Those links are there for Wikipedians to read them and add whatever valuable information available about this topic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, are they kept to a minimum per Wikipedia policy? Brando130 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, minimum per Wikipedia policy? The links are related to this article's topic. That is why they are under External links. How is that against Wikipedia policy? Be specific. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LINKS -

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

Important points to remember

1. Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

...

Links normally to be avoided

...

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

...

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

...

Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."

Also, not necessarily related to the external links, from Use of electronic or online sources...

"Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.

Brando130 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. — As you can probably see, this entire subject isn't what we call 'exact science'. It's listed under categories:pseudohistory, so the links shouldn't be interpreted as hardcore facts. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Brando, this article is a work in progress, as you may conclude from this talkpage and the edit history. We need the links to get any grip at all on this not very simple topic. You are most welcome to inundate us with scholarly literature that will yield the links superfluous, but just bickering with us about guidelines instead of actually helping improve the article is not very constructive. dab (𒁳) 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This feels very weird writing it down, but I perfectly agree with dab :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article, by suggesting it should be brought into conformity with Wikipedia policy. Links should be kept to a minimum, links to personal web pages, etc. should be avoided. Those are standards that do improve articles, according to the Wikipedia community, not me. So would I be improving the article by going ahead and removing them myself? Or might that warrant a little discussion on the talk page (like this, oh wait, that's just bickering)

Also, as the creator of the page, it is extremely discourteous for you to revert and restore information that is challenged for not having a proper citation. Wikipedia editors should not be the ones saying "This ancient author's quote here, supports or rebuts theory X" - that is the very definition of original research. Rather, you should be quoting reliable sources that say themselves "This ancient author's quote here, supports or rebuts theory X."

So no offense, but telling me, "Let's see you fix it then, otherwise don't bicker that it doesn't conform to that silly policy thing," that's really a cop out. Brando130 07:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

whatever. I am not sure how you can think anyone claims the "theory" is "supported" by the Jerome quote. Nobody wants to suggest such a thing. This article concerns a topic of legend and pseudohistory, and generally a meme that "Germany is like Assyria". Now the material we have collected so far could certainly do with some re-arranging and clarification, but, I'll say this again, just blanking stuff is not helpful. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, as the creator of the page, it is extremely discourteous for you to revert and restore information that is challenged for not having a proper citation. — You deleted content without discussion. Does that comply with Wikipedia policy? ;) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN may be frowned upon, but I've never heard that the inverse is supposed to apply, i.e. that just because you wrote an article, you are not allowed to look after it. Brando, how about you come back and haunt us with details of external links policy once the article is developed and we try to get FA status or something. To waste time over minor issues like that for a new article for which we haven't even yet decided whether it should step separate is a blatant violation of WP:UCS. I really fail to see what Brando wants. This is an article on a crank topic. We were already discussing whether it is notable enough to stay separate, and I still tend towards merging with British Israelism. As long as we do keep it separate, links to crackpot websites advocating the "theory" under discussion are perfectly on topic. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed dab. This "theory" is not exactly something the CIA is backing and we're providing links to crackpot sites. It's a crackpot theory and we're proving links to the crackpot sites supporting it. To quarrel over this is a waste of time. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

About Megalommatis

Dab: [10] I know he's not exactly talking about modern Germans being Assyrians, and we both know what's inspiring him to write this crap. But shouldn't we include him in External links since he is in fact pretty much basing his article on this theory and British Israelism? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what he is trying to say in this piece (I haven't read all of it). I really fail to see this is at all notable, but then it isn't me insisting on pruning the EL. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoeh (1963)

This piece is so crazy I really wonder how anyone can write it or read it or post it on the internet with a straight face. Is the Worldwide Church of God some sort of parody religion? So this thing was presented to the Ambassador College "In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy"? Can crackpot institutes just hand out doctoral degrees like that in the US? This would mean that an US PhD in general isn't worth the paper it is printed on... I mean, seriously, already the exclamation marks,

Yes! Jerome said so! But how did he know? He saw them! He was an eyewitness to their migrations from Mesopotamia and the shores of the Black and Caspian seas!

Is this how you present a hypothesis you yourself take seriously? Never mind that Jerome's "eyewitness account" of the Assyrians crossing over from Mesopotamia (Assyrians? in the 4th century AD?) don't sit very well with the claim that Shem himself, father of Ninus, in the neolithic, or then again in the 21st century BC, was really an "Early King of German". Some people do things to their brain that would frighten Timothy Leary. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. So these crackpots have PhDs too? This really makes me worried. By the way, about Shem, he of course didn't exist, neither did Aram, Assur and other so called Sons of Noah. Some people do things to their brain that would frighten Timothy Leary — lol, good one :) It's just a matter of time before Fred Phelps latches on to this Assyria-Germany theory. That would really be funny though. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

So what should we call this article? German Assyrianism as opposed to British Israelism? Assyria-Germany connection is what's found in Herbert Armstrong's book. Do advocates of this theory use a different and perhaps a more proper name? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

well, the scope of the article should include the mere comparison, as a simile or literary metaphor, not a "theory", of Germany and Assyria. The WWCOG hilarity is really just a funny footnote to that. Perhaps "comparison of Germany and Assyria" -- but this sounds as if we were doing the comparison, as opposed to reporting on it. Perhaps "Assyria as metaphor for Germany". Something like that. dab (𒁳) 15:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good points. Actually, I've always though that there is indeed a historical similarity between the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Nazi Germany as far as the Jewish populations are concerned (Ten Lost Tribes = Holocaust). But that's probably it. It seems those who advocate this theory have continued finding traces and patterns of similarities between two different empires, based on the connection with the Jews. Who knows, maybe they're on to something. But the name needs a change IMHO. We'll stick with this one for now and perhaps we'll come up with something better once the article is developed a bit more. By the way dab, great work on the article. Not everyday I tell you this :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the scope should be the actual pseudohistorical theory, and the rest just included as ancillary information. We can't have articles on comparisons between different cultures just because there are a few examples in the literary record — imagine the OR mess we could get into with United States-Roman Empire connection. I'm not sure about the title — maybe something straightforward like Assyrian origin of Germans would be appropriate.--Pharos 07:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is still under construction and the title is just temporary anyway. Once the article shapes up and we know more about this pseudohistorical theory, we can decide a better name. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

it's a question of WP:RS. If we can cite sufficient literature comparing the US with Rome, there is nothing OR about having such an article. Until we do, we'll need to keep it in userspace :p dab (𒁳) 08:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

informed by the material now accumulated here and at Edward Hine, I'm trying Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism, which really sums up the topic. Feel free to revert or move somewhere else if you disagree. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: did you take care of the redirects? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

the bots do. No need to do this manually. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Neat. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really liking the new title. Its NPOV. Good job you two. Chaldean 19:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Early history of the theory

According to the excerpt we link to by Edward Hine, John Wilson (historian), who more-or-less started British Israelism, first conceived it as applying to all the Germanic peoples. It was Hine, apparently, who split them up into the English as Israelites and the Germans as Assyrians. I think this deserves mention in the article.

Also, I've found an article by John Pym Yeatman from January 1875 including the theory; article starts here and the part with Assyria-Germany is on this page. Do we know what year Hine first published his theory?--Pharos 07:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This is going somewhere. I'll try to look into it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, reading the excerpt, it appears Hine really believed in some sort of bizarre ethnic "law of conservation", whereby every people mentioned in the Bible still exists today, but just under a different name. It is unclear to me if he or others ever made significant claims for other groups in this vein.--Pharos 08:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a full-view version of Hine's book on Google Books. This should be useful. The section on Germans is pp. 96-98. In the end, it suggests that other "lost" Biblical peoples also moved to Nothwest Europe.--Pharos 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note that Hine does not at all allude to the items in the 'Precedents' section, such as the Austrian Chonicle or the Trier legend. Also, he makes a few other novel (to put it mildly) historical connections: Irish people = Canaanites, (pg. 82), Normans = Tribe of Benjamin (pg. 84), Ulster Scots = Tribe of Dan and Gaels + Welsh people = Tribe of Simeon (pg. 12), not to mention English Americans = Tribe of Manasseh (pg. 22). Also, apparently the people of India may be descended in a wayward way from the patriarch Abraham.--Pharos 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about having your brain completely brainwashed by the Bible. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review

Is this worthy of an inclusion? [11] Pay attention at the end. So far, this seems to be the only comparison not based on religious fanaticism. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bolding fragments of article title

From the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface."

languages and tribal movement

The first time I encountered this theory, that the 10 lost tribes of Israel migrated from Assyria into Western Europe was when I read a booklet written by J. Preston Eby. (Preston Eby apparently does not have his own website but can be found on other websites by typing his name into search engines.)

The oldest hint to support this theorie is given in the bible itself. In Genesis 48:19 Jacob also called Israel blesses his grandson Ephraim and prophesies over him "... and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations." After the split of the ancient nation of Israel into the northern kingdom composed of the ten tribes and the southern kingdom composed of Judah and Benjamin, Ephraim became the leading tribe of the northern kingdom. This is documented in 1.Kings 12:25.

Of course many people will argue if the bible is true or not. Fact is that many books have been published over this issue. One investigator is Lee Strobel with a number of books proving the accuracy of the bible. Over the last century numerous archaeological findings have proven the historical accuracy and truthfulness of the bible in its context. One of those archeologists is William Mitchell Ramsey.

languages

To further elaborate on the German-Assyrian theory, I want to point to the European languages. There are basically to fundamental language groups found in Europe. In the south west are the languages based on Latin. These are Italian, Spanish and French. In the center, the north and north west are the Germanic languages, which group English, German, Norwegian and Swedish together. The various languages in Europe were largely influenced by the great tribal movements at the end of the area of the Roman Empire. Various tribes from the east as far as the Black Sea and the Kaspian Sea have moved over a period of several centuries into central and eventually western Europe.

Anglo-Saxon It is well established that the Anglo-Saxon had lived in the northern parts of modern Germany. The names of two States of the German Federal Republic today still bear the word Saxon in them. The Anglo-Saxon established the English nation beginning at about 500 A.D. This further explains why the English language is related to German more than any other language. This relationship does not seem as obvious today but becomes clearer the furhter back one looks into literature in both nations. Try for instance the King James bible and the Luther bible.

Much less evidence can be found for the theory that the Anglo-Saxon migrated from the Black Sea to Germany before moving to England. W.Cleon Skousen mentions it as a fact in his book "The making of America", while explaining the Anglo-Saxon form of government. Skousen draws many parallels between the Anglo-Saxon form of government and the Israel form of government under the leadership of Moses.

However this governmental relationship between the Anglo-Saxon and Israel under Moses makes the theory between the lost tribes of Israel and the Western Europe/American people much more plausible, especially since this kind of government is found nowhere else. The easy acceptance of the Christian faith throughout England in the 8th century together with Englands political and religious independence from continental Europe only further underline the theory.

England and Nazi Germany I have to strongly disagree with above outlined theory of England representing the lost tribes while Germany representing the old assyrian enemy. In his zealous promotion of his Aryan race, Adolf Hitler considered the English part of his empire idea and tried long and extensively to pursuaded them to join his plans of future conquest of Russia. The best prove for this is the encircling of a large part of the British military in the French harbor of Dunkirk by the German army in 1940. The trapped British and French troops could have easily been wiped out by the Germans but Hitler ordered not to attack, enabling the British to evacuate about half a million soldiers across the canal. If Hitler would have destroyed those British and French forces in Dunkirk, it would have most likely been the defeat of Great Britain.

--RalfMeister (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work needed to revise the article?

I think the page needs to be massively edited, a lot removed. Most of it seems biased in favor of this extreme fringe theory (which is crazy and has no support among any modern historians), for example Raymond Capt is described as a "Biblical Archaeologist" and cited as an authority. Yet Capt had no credentials or training in archaeology whatsoever, he was merely a member of a few antiquarian societies such as the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. UlyssesVoyage (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)