Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2008 2:12:25 GMT
The so-called "barbarians" who were in many ways more civilized and advanced then the Romans at that point? ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I'm actually considering building a pike. I'd have nowhere to keep it though, unless I made it collapsible.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 2:14:33 GMT
yeah the tercios were equally vicious in their sacking of Antwerp in 1576
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 2:15:33 GMT
Ah that took me a while to get ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Interesting notation by you, I'd never thought of it like that! Ah, the irony.... My 8-9 foot viking spear barely fits in my room. I've got no idea how you'll fit an 18 foot wooden rod in your house as anything but a makeship support pillar ![:P](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) Wow I'm impressed with the amount of people asking for the PDF file. Glad you all are so interested!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2008 2:20:59 GMT
It was the germanic tribes after all that spread out and eventually formed what became medieval Europe. The concept of Chivalry could have been developed from the Goths and their legends.
They also refined the armoured cavalryman into the force that dominated the battlefield until the late 13th century.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 2:22:59 GMT
Silly goths. Eyeliner's for girls!
There is an account (which I unfortunately can't remember) that I read of a roman criticizing the german barbarians for using soap in their hair and bathing.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 2:24:22 GMT
i was under the impresion "chivalry" was more from the french traditions..im probably wrong in that assumpion, but they did adhere staunchly to chivalrous combat.sometimes to their demise. i.e Crecy
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 2:27:58 GMT
Technically that's true, but I tend to imagine that as being more of a tool of the Franks who, as you know, were the pope's henchmen to some degree. They were germans, but they fought for the Roman church and, by all practical purposes, were roman. Considering the name of their empire "The Holy Roman Empire," they could be either side. The Normans, who were vikings (germanic) that merged as Frenchmen, were the epitome of the mounted knight, but they got that from the exposure to the french. When they encountered the "untainted" Saxons, their enemies fought on foot in a shield wall.
Somewhat answered by the above, which I was typing when you entered that message - It's hard to define the french. They are of undoubtedly germanic stock, but their heritage and traditions were Romanesque. Actually, another good example of this was the Batavian tribe of germans in the Pax Romana. They kept their germanic heritage but adopted many Roman traditions and was an essential force in the roman army, being the official attachment to Legio XIIII (not XIV) Gemina Martia Victrix.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 2:33:51 GMT
hahaha...while I agree with you (Normans being norse and germanic) I would love to see someone walk up to a frenchman and tell him hes of germanic stock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2008 2:36:26 GMT
Edit: you posted during mine, which I took far to long to do. The Franks were the most barbarous group of the entire migration period, if I recall. Then Charles the great welded the entire continent into one unified force, more or less. After his death, everything sortof fell apart, and the stage was set for Medieval Europe. Anglo-Saxons in England, Normans in Normady and the north lands, Norse farther up, Franks in France, ect.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 2:43:46 GMT
Dangit, I deleted my response when I saw you deleted yours ;D
In summary - The most barbarous group is highly debatable and depends on if you ask an ally of the group or someone they've sacked. I recommend the history channel series "Barbarians." Just don't watch the combat, they prefer spins and somersaults to actual fighting....lol.
Charles the Great unified "some" of the continent, but certainly not all of it. Essentially just france, northern italy (not sure about sothern), and germany. Frederick barbarossa claimed Italy as his own due to his (self bestowed) title of Holy Roman Emperor. He could have very well claimed france, but that would have been suicide on his part - no one wanted to fight the cream of european chivalry.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 2:50:03 GMT
im lookin at a map of chalemagns kingdom and it is vast..all of france, germany, italy, and into eastern europe,now poland czech republic, austria, and all that was yugoslavia...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 3:27:09 GMT
www.fsmitha.com/h3/map04chrls.htmNormandy, spain, denmark, southern europe, NE Germany, almost all of all of eastern europe -untouched. It's not very vast compared to what once was. Not trying to slight it at all, it's just not "that" grand. But I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Charlemagne's unification occured a bit after the many tribes which romed the lands.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 3:54:01 GMT
no, no slight taken..actually ive got a stack of history books in front of me just to keep up with you and DI, lol ![:P](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 3, 2008 4:00:57 GMT
Yes, on our own we are dealt with well enough, but together... DI and I tend to get a bit too enthusiastic about history ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 3, 2008 4:09:23 GMT
thats cool, ive always been into history and read it recreationally but its only certain periods or events that i tend to retain knowledge
|
|