Poll
Question:
Just read the fucking thread title.
Option 1: Romans
votes: 34
Option 2: Barbarians
votes: 15
Option 3: Jaroni
votes: 4
I don't think we've had this one yet.
Which era? Which barbarians?
370-480 AD. All the hairy Germans and their Iranian pretty boy friends. Not including the Huns.
Oooh, toughie. Good one, Yi.
Leaning Romans, but gotta think about it.
Wuaah! Brave celtic secessionists! Dumnorix is a free man in a free state! :3 Gaul united, animated by a common spirit, can defy the universe!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGdBzL.jpg&hash=9a669f5ee00b4e6132fe98ec3d7e0df36173ab2b)
So there's the one vote for the Jaroni.
Damn it! I voted before you gave me a date. I was thinking of Classical Rome like Ceasar vs Gauls, so I voted for the Barbarians. Later Rome I'd go for the Romans.
Barbarians. Mein peepz. :showoff:
Seriously, more than likely I have a very high percentage of Alemanni and Frankish blood. :cool:
Quote from: Lettow77 on September 15, 2012, 01:33:08 PM
Wuaah! Brave celtic secessionists! Dumnorix is a free man in a free state! :3 Gaul united, animated by a common spirit, can defy the universe!
Well, that solves that. Romans.
Romans.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
Damn it! I voted before you gave me a date. I was thinking of Classical Rome like Ceasar vs Gauls, so I voted for the Barbarians. Later Rome I'd go for the Romans.
Sorry the question wasn't clear.
Lettuce, I was unjust to you. Your support for the people of the checked trousers was not as ridiculous as I made it out to be.
Quote from: Lettow77 on September 15, 2012, 01:33:08 PM
Wuaah! Brave celtic secessionists! Dumnorix is a free man in a free state! :3 Gaul united, animated by a common spirit, can defy the universe!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGdBzL.jpg&hash=9a669f5ee00b4e6132fe98ec3d7e0df36173ab2b)
Gaul wasn't interested in secession at this time period. They were getting invaded by Germans.
Romans.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2012, 02:06:14 PM
Gaul wasn't interested in secession at this time period. They were getting invaded by Germans.
The resolute alliance between Hannibal and the Cisalpine Gauls was the auspicious conjunction of its day.
I voted. ;)
Quote from: Lettow77 on September 15, 2012, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2012, 02:06:14 PM
Gaul wasn't interested in secession at this time period. They were getting invaded by Germans.
The resolute alliance between Hannibal and the Cisalpine Gauls was the auspicious conjunction of its day.
You are still off by a several hundred years.
Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
Barbarians. Mein peepz. :showoff:
Seriously, more than likely I have a very high percentage of Alemanni and Frankish blood. :cool:
That would be true if you were descended from Italians as well :)
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2012, 02:52:27 PM
That would be true if you were descended from Italians as well :)
Frankish or Alemani blood in Italy? :hmm:
More likely to have Ostrogothic or Lombard blood.
By the late empire, were the romans still together enough to be worth "cheering for"? There was a lot of convergence with the germanic tribes too. I'd answer that in the republic/earlier empire, I think of the Romans as a civilizing and organizing force. By the late empire, it's not so clear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2012, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2012, 02:52:27 PM
That would be true if you were descended from Italians as well :)
Frankish or Alemani blood in Italy? :hmm:
More likely to have Ostrogothic or Lombard blood.
Alright, though there's been a fair amount of fucking around since then - especially in Italy. Between the Normans in Sicily, Barbarossa and his people, and the various French invasions, I think the descendants of the Franks and Alemanni probably sowed their seeds in Italian soil to a reasonable extent.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2012, 03:14:29 PM
By the late empire, were the romans still together enough to be worth "cheering for"? There was a lot of convergence with the germanic tribes too. I'd answer that in the republic/earlier empire, I think of the Romans as a civilizing and organizing force. By the late empire, it's not so clear.
Wouldn't the "fall of Rome" be better described as a coup? Odoacer was a Roman general who took power from the nominal sovereign and became a hereditary ruler.
It's more similar to Napoleon taking over France than to, say, Genghis Khan's invasion. Yet we do not describe the raise of Napoleon as a war of Corsicans vs. Frenchmen. :P
Whomever Grumbles didn't fight for.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2012, 03:14:29 PM
By the late empire, were the romans still together enough to be worth "cheering for"? There was a lot of convergence with the germanic tribes too. I'd answer that in the republic/earlier empire, I think of the Romans as a civilizing and organizing force. By the late empire, it's not so clear.
Huh. I think of the early Romans more as a pillaging and conquering force. I find the late Romans more sympathetic as they were less prone to killing people for fun.
Romans include Byzantines?
Romans 100%
Barbarian women = smelly?
IIRC, beautiful Roman women were well-groomed and bathed all the time naked with each other? :)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2012, 06:29:45 PM
Barbarian women = smelly?
IIRC, beautiful Roman women were well-groomed and bathed all the time naked with each other? :)
If you are into hairy Italian gals, sure.
And Roman men also bathed naked with each other. Pass.
Aetius, Stichico, Aegidius and Majorian rock.
Vandals are poopheads.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2012, 07:19:49 PM
And Roman men also bathed naked with each other. Pass.
Barbarian men spent even more naked time together, including in battle?
Female sweat contains a lot of pheromones that get masked by deodorants and perfumes. One whiff of those she-scents and you'll forget the smell to the sudden awakening of other primal senses. . .
Quote from: Jaron on September 15, 2012, 07:29:42 PM
to the sudden awakening of other primal senses. . .
Yes, that's called the "vomiting reflex".
Gotta support the ancestors. Barbar.
I voted Romans, definitely.
Went barbarians as hands down that's how we ended up the people we are today.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2012, 06:41:14 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2012, 06:29:45 PM
Barbarian women = smelly?
IIRC, beautiful Roman women were well-groomed and bathed all the time naked with each other? :)
If you are into hairy Italian gals, sure.
Breaking News Raz, humans have been hairy for all of history up until about 1985. :hmm:
Indeed. Iirc, armpit shaving (in America, Muslims already did it, duuno about Asians) was largely invented by Macy's in particular and high fashion in general in the early 1900s. Dunno about leg shaving. Pubic hair is like 1985, as Mongers says, spearheaded in equal measure by porn and revealing bathing attire; I think it's probably a fad. We'll still have trimming forever, but straight up baldness, I dunno. It's not something I think enough people really give a shit about to go to extreme measures for it, other than perhaps professional sexual performers.
What about excessive arm and leg hair?
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2012, 07:54:29 PM
Gotta support the ancestors. Barbar.
Britain was a Roman province.
Maybe the legions didn't interbreed with the coal miners?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2012, 05:26:17 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2012, 07:54:29 PM
Gotta support the ancestors. Barbar.
Britain was a Roman province.
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:32:34 AM
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
The Romano-Britains weren't exterminated.
It's interesting that Squeeze self-identifies with the Anglo-Saxons. Given his birth place and class origin I'm willing to bet he has more Romano-British blood than Anglo-Saxon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2012, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:32:34 AM
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
The Romano-Britains weren't exterminated.
It's interesting that Squeeze self-identifies with the Anglo-Saxons. Given his birth place and class origin I'm willing to bet he has more Romano-British blood than Anglo-Saxon.
For some reason I thought he was from the Danelaw.
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
And beginning in 800 AD, the barbarians (rulers) started calling themselves Roman. :lol:
Major population movement from Central Europe to the West was inevitable.
At least I would hope, if the Romans really succeeded. I'm 6'4 and Blonde-seems more than likely that I'd be Danish or Holsteiner if the Romans had defended a few beaches better.
Rome, until they abandoned the West. After that, it was a question of who would raise up civilization again.
Napoleon came fairly close to unifying Europe, that would make a pretty good spring board to conquer the rest of the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
Napoleon came fairly close to unifying Europe, that would make a pretty good spring board to conquer the rest of the world.
He did not have enough siblings.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
But then the reign of the builder of the Hagia Sophia probably did more than any barbarian to set back civilization in the west.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
Napoleon came fairly close to unifying Europe, that would make a pretty good spring board to conquer the rest of the world.
Not that close.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2012, 05:58:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
But then the reign of the builder of the Hagia Sophia probably did more than any barbarian to set back civilization in the west.
Doesn't matter; had Hagia Sophia.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 16, 2012, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
And beginning in 800 AD, the barbarians (rulers) started calling themselves Roman. :lol:
To be fair, a lot of Barbarians entered the Empire because they wanted to be part of it.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2012, 06:08:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
Napoleon came fairly close to unifying Europe, that would make a pretty good spring board to conquer the rest of the world.
Not that close.
Closer then most.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 07:57:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2012, 05:58:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
But then the reign of the builder of the Hagia Sophia probably did more than any barbarian to set back civilization in the west.
Doesn't matter; had Hagia Sophia.
It is a good Wonder to build.
Sadly, Justininian, for his genius, overreached.
The Line between Romans and Barbarians gets really blurred as time goes on.
Nothing is more puzzling than the continuous need of nations to invade Rome and China. And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
The Line between Romans and Barbarians gets really blurred as time goes on.
Nothing is more puzzling than the continuous need of nations to invade Rome and China. And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
On that line between Romans and Barbarians--yeah towards the end I don't think there was so much difference.
Don't you think Rome and China were invaded because a) they had cool stuff to take, and b) invading each other is what ancient people did (and not so ancient people too).
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
The Line between Romans and Barbarians gets really blurred as time goes on.
Nothing is more puzzling than the continuous need of nations to invade Rome and China. And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
:mad:
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
:mad:
Ok fine the Mongols. But that was a respite of almost 600 years.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 17, 2012, 03:57:03 PM
Don't you think Rome and China were invaded because a) they had cool stuff to take, and b) invading each other is what ancient people did (and not so ancient people too).
There were other ancient states and Empires and none of the others had those sorts of constant pressures.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
:mad:
Ok fine the Mongols. But that was a respite of almost 600 years.
Magyars and Vikings get no respect. :(
Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2012, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
:mad:
Ok fine the Mongols. But that was a respite of almost 600 years.
Magyars and Vikings get no respect. :(
The beetlords and the IKEA store owners. Nope, no respect.
Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2012, 04:19:57 PM
Magyars and Vikings get no respect. :(
Fine nitpick all you want. But that period of massive tribal confederation after another was just nuts.
I remember hearing about when the Mongols invaded the Jin Empire in northern China. It was a Chinese Empire being ruled by a conquering Nomadic Tribe...who had conquered it from another Nomadic Tribe. So the Mongols were the THIRD major Nomadic tribe to conquer Northern China in the recent history of that area.
Sort of like the Huns invading Roman Gaul to fight Goths ruling over Franks. Only in China or Rome.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2012, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
:mad:
Ok fine the Mongols. But that was a respite of almost 600 years.
Magyars and Vikings get no respect. :(
The beetlords and the IKEA store owners. Nope, no respect.
You'll be singing a different tune when IKEA stocks its "FÄRGRIK" line of drinking skulls. :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2012, 04:24:55 PM
You'll be singing a different tune when IKEA stocks its "FÄRGRIK" line of drinking skulls. :mad:
I searched IKEA and I couldn't find one Dragon Ship.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 04:05:47 PM
There were other ancient states and Empires and none of the others had those sorts of constant pressures.
I don't know...from 100BC to ~175AD I don't know that the Romans were under all that much external pressure. I'm not aware of too many ancient states and empires that went so long without a major invasion or two (egypt excluded due to obvious geographical constraints).
Quote from: alfred russel on September 17, 2012, 04:31:43 PM
I don't know...from 100BC to ~175AD I don't know that the Romans were under all that much external pressure. I'm not aware of too many ancient states and empires that went so long without a major invasion or two (egypt excluded due to obvious geographical constraints).
Oh they were under pressure just their enemies were disunited and more easy defeated or they were Persians but for our purposes Persians do not count. And of course your dates just cut off the massive invasion that nearly destroyed the Rome and made Ed Anger's favorite Roman famous.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
The Line between Romans and Barbarians gets really blurred as time goes on.
Nothing is more puzzling than the continuous need of nations to invade Rome and China. And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
If the Romans had remained strong and rich, wouldn't that have inspired barbarians to keep on trying?
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
Eh? The Muslims held Spain, Sicily and the Balkans at various times for hundreds of years. And the Mongols conquered Russia(though not sure if that counts).
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2012, 05:58:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 16, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
Romano-Byzantines. Barbarians didn't make Hagia Sophia, wouldn't make anything close to it for nearly a thousand years.
But then the reign of the builder of the Hagia Sophia probably did more than any barbarian to set back civilization in the west.
:yes: Not to mention that Hagia Sophia had a role in converting Russians to Orthodox Christianity. Poor Vladimir, he chose: poorly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 09:59:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
Eh? The Muslims held Spain, Sicily and the Balkans at various times for hundreds of years. And the Mongols conquered Russia(though not sure if that counts).
And the Turks that came off the steppes of Asia at the time... Europe didn't really settle down until the High Middle Ages and then it was narrowly spared the Mongol Hordes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2012, 07:20:42 PM
Aetius, Stichico, Aegidius and Majorian rock.
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2012, 07:20:42 PM
Aetius, Stichico, Aegidius and Majorian rock.
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
I didn't vote. You do get a Ed Anger hug for knowing that stuff though.
I haven't taken my shower today though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
I call foul. The Roman Empire from the very beginning was assimilationist. Romanness was a function of shared cultural values, not of belonging to the proper gene pool.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:02:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
I call foul. The Roman Empire from the very beginning was assimilationist. Romanness was a function of shared cultural values, not of belonging to the proper gene pool.
And Stilicho lost his life during the Empire's anti German purge in 408(I THINK. going on memory). Which weakened the army enough to allow Alaric to break into Italy and sack Rome. Honorius sure wasn't going to do jack shit about Alaric. He was too busy playing with his chicken behind the walls of Ravenna.
Recommended reading on topic:
Fall of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Fall-West-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0753826925/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1348111547&sr=8-6&keywords=fall+of+the+west) by Adrian Goldsworthy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:02:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
I call foul. The Roman Empire from the very beginning was assimilationist. Romanness was a function of shared cultural values, not of belonging to the proper gene pool.
I agree but you are calling foul on the entire premise of your poll that there is a clear dialectical opposition between "Roman" and "Barbarian". The Franks of the Late Empire for example were pretty reliable imperial allies for much of the period and wanted to carve a place for themselves within the imperial structure. Theodoric was a Roman in any cultural sense that matters and his kingdom was just as Roman (if not more so) than the regimes of the later emperors - even down to the legal fiction of accepting appointment as the Eastern Emperor's magister militum and election to the consulate.
The important part of Roman history is the Early Republic.
Quote from: Syt on September 19, 2012, 10:27:32 PM
Recommended reading on topic:
Fall of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Fall-West-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0753826925/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1348111547&sr=8-6&keywords=fall+of+the+west) by Adrian Goldsworthy.
I have that book though apparently title was changed for US.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300164262
The Inheritance of Rome (Europe 600-1000) makes for good follow up reading, though. :)
Quote from: Syt on September 20, 2012, 09:42:47 AM
The Inheritance of Rome (Europe 600-1000) makes for good follow up reading, though. :)
Peter Heather's two books are nice adjuncts as well:
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 20, 2012, 09:42:47 AM
The Inheritance of Rome (Europe 600-1000) makes for good follow up reading, though. :)
Peter Heather's two books are nice adjuncts as well:
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe
I'd say those three are better than Goldsworthy's.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2012, 09:36:06 AM
I agree but you are calling foul on the entire premise of your poll that there is a clear dialectical opposition between "Roman" and "Barbarian". The Franks of the Late Empire for example were pretty reliable imperial allies for much of the period and wanted to carve a place for themselves within the imperial structure. Theodoric was a Roman in any cultural sense that matters and his kingdom was just as Roman (if not more so) than the regimes of the later emperors - even down to the legal fiction of accepting appointment as the Eastern Emperor's magister militum and election to the consulate.
The examples you are citing are from the time when the Western Empire had been reduced to a rump state. Up until that time it was clear who was who. When the Visigoths attacked the Vandals and Alans that didn't make them Roman, that made them temporary allies of Rome.
On the Heather note, this poll was prompted by my purchase and reading of the 2nd book mentioned. I think the book fails. Incredibly repetitious. Could have been compressed to 150 pages.
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
Woah déjà vu.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:57:01 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
Do you ever think about anything that isn't race?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 01:26:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 09:59:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 02:51:15 PM
And just to add insult to injury after the Slavs rolled in nobody ever invaded Europe again. The Romans just needed to hold out for two hundred more years.
Eh? The Muslims held Spain, Sicily and the Balkans at various times for hundreds of years. And the Mongols conquered Russia(though not sure if that counts).
And the Turks that came off the steppes of Asia at the time... Europe didn't really settle down until the High Middle Ages and then it was narrowly spared the Mongol Hordes.
Not to mention, afterwards Turks made pretty succesful inroads into the Balkans too, and even almost conquered Vienna.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 05:03:27 PM
The examples you are citing are from the time when the Western Empire had been reduced to a rump state. Up until that time it was clear who was who. When the Visigoths attacked the Vandals and Alans that didn't make them Roman, that made them temporary allies of Rome.
I don't know what the rump state comment means in this context. The first reference was to the Franks under Childeric in the 460s when the Western Empire was still quite live and kicking as a de jure state (albeit sans Africa). The second reference referred to a time when there no Western Empire at all; the point is that nonetheless there is a clearly identifiable Roman society and state covering Italy and the Balkans that is just as "Roman" as any other imperial regime of the 5th century.
When we talk about "Visigoths" and "Vandals" etc during this period we aren't really talking about clearly defined nations in the modern sense but rather warbands and hangers-on of varied and shifting compositions held together by a leader. The distinction between a "Visigothic" warlord like Atulf and a "Roman" warlord like the Romano-British legionnaire turned imperial pretender Constitine III is not that sharp - both used their command over armed men to carve out domains of territorial control and build alliances with other players, and from the point of view of the de jure emperor in Ravenna, the opportunities and threats they posed were similar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2012, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:32:34 AM
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
The Romano-Britains weren't exterminated.
It's interesting that Squeeze self-identifies with the Anglo-Saxons. Given his birth place and class origin I'm willing to bet he has more Romano-British blood than Anglo-Saxon.
No-one identifies with the Romano-British :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2012, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:32:34 AM
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
The Romano-Britains weren't exterminated.
It's interesting that Squeeze self-identifies with the Anglo-Saxons. Given his birth place and class origin I'm willing to bet he has more Romano-British blood than Anglo-Saxon.
No-one identifies with the Romano-British :blink:
King Arthur? DNA? Archeological record?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2012, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:32:34 AM
That was before the Angles and Saxons came over.
The Romano-Britains weren't exterminated.
It's interesting that Squeeze self-identifies with the Anglo-Saxons. Given his birth place and class origin I'm willing to bet he has more Romano-British blood than Anglo-Saxon.
The north east is the truest English area of England (bloody southern Saxons stealing our lovely Angle name!) :p
My family name is Cumbric and thats where that line comes from so I probally do have a larger than normal amount of Welsh blood. Then of course I am quarter Irish so...yeah.
But screw blood, that isn't important, its culture that matters and my ancestral culture is Germanic.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2012, 11:18:14 PM
But screw blood, that isn't important, its culture that matters and my ancestral culture is Germanic.
Your blood determines your ancestral culture. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:21:26 PM
Your blood determines your ancestral culture. :huh:
Not the culture of my ancestors, the ancestors of my culture.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2012, 11:26:05 PM
Not the culture of my ancestors, the ancestors of my culture.
I suppose that makes more sense.
What aspects of current English culture do you ascribe to the Anglo-Saxons? Apart from the soccer hooliganism of course.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 11:35:08 PM
I suppose that makes more sense.
What aspects of current English culture do you ascribe to the Anglo-Saxons? Apart from the soccer hooliganism of course.
Most of it.
Beer, democracy, individualism, language, etc...
We have more in common with the other north European nations than we do the Latin nations. Much of this will of course be down to geography moulding culture but there is a lot of it which has routes in our heritage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:02:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Aeitus was raised by Huns. Stilicho's father was a Vandal. Aegidius led predominantly Frankish armies. Majorian's forces were a veritable rainbow coalition of the barbarian world.
So I guess you are voting Barbarian?
I call foul. The Roman Empire from the very beginning was assimilationist. Romanness was a function of shared cultural values, not of belonging to the proper gene pool.
It was but for some reason, and a huge reason for the fall of the West IMO, the Western Empire suddenly began to be quite bigoted towards the Germans. Barbarians also served in the East but they continued to be assimilated in the old fashion. It was fatal that Stilicho and Alaric could not be Emperors like the Illyrians in the 3rd century. Ridiculous really.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2012, 11:51:36 PM
Beer, democracy, individualism, language, etc...
English has far more latin words than Germanic ones. It is just that the words we use most often are Germanic.
Are individualism and Democracy really Northern European Germanic values? That is sort of mindblowing I have never associated that with Germans or Dutch or Scandies before. I mean no more than i would with Italians and Frenchmen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
No-one identifies with the Romano-British :blink:
Not even the Welsh and the Bretons? That is odd...why wouldn't they?
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:36:58 AM
Are individualism and Democracy really Northern European Germanic values? That is sort of mindblowing I have never associated that with Germans or Dutch or Scandies before. I mean no more than i would with Italians and Frenchmen.
:blink:
Germanic tribes were more "democratic" at the time of the invasions because they were at a more primitive level of political organization than the Romans. Tribal organizations always include a consultative aspect, and have lower powers of coercion.
It's also true that northern European states developed democratic accountability earlier than southern European states. But I don't see how you can argue that this is a function of their German-ness. By the time accountability had been established the states in northern Europe had evolved for centuries and had virtually no recognizable relationship to the early Germanic proto-states.
Individualism I see no support for whatsoever.
Spoken like a fucking anthropologist.
Damn straight.
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2012, 04:07:48 PM
Spoken like a fucking anthropologist.
Never really bought it. As soon as a tribe or band adopts a more despotic government it immediately stops being a tribe or band. I can think of lots of tribal societies that were in fact pretty despotic. For instance the Zulus.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2012, 04:07:48 PM
Spoken like a fucking anthropologist.
Never really bought it. As soon as a tribe or band adopts a more despotic government it immediately stops being a tribe or band. I can think of lots of tribal societies that were in fact pretty despotic. For instance the Zulus.
Youse both wrong - Germans and Zulus were not "tribal" in organization, but examples of "chiefdoms" in anthro-speak. :smarty:
QuoteAnthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated through research that chiefdoms are a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone to cycles of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again. An example of this kind of social organization were the Germanic Peoples who conquered the western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE. Although commonly referred to as tribes, anthropologists classified their society as chiefdoms. They had a complex social hierarchy consisting of kings, a warrior aristocracy, common freemen, serfs and slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom
Yeah, yeah. As soon as we give them a close look and find they aren't really noble savages they get bumped up to different social structure.
Quote from: citizen k on September 27, 2012, 11:13:33 PM
King Arthur? DNA? Archeological record?
And that's the basis of self-identification with the past? :blink:
QuoteWhat aspects of current English culture do you ascribe to the Anglo-Saxons? Apart from the soccer hooliganism of course.
More or less everything, certainly everything good - the class system, snobbery, absurd titles and feudalism were the Normans.
With the exception of a couple of city names and a few (still used) roads, I don't think there's any legacy of the Romano-British. They don't have an identity in the popular imagination. Our olive oil using, villa-dwelling, wine quaffing Romano-British ancestors have never had a great hold on English sense of self.
I root for whoever makes the women do the housework.
:hmm:
Well, the Romans were more likely to own slaves to do it for her.
The class system is the best part of British culture. The modern tendency to worship the lower classes as if they are valuable is a mistake.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
No-one identifies with the Romano-British :blink:
The Welsh and Yorkshire shepherds?
Open question: why do the Welsh speak a Celtic language and not a Romance one?
And how the fuck did the Basques hold on to a motherfucking pre-Celtic language?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 28, 2012, 08:30:35 PM
The Welsh and Yorkshire shepherds?
I don't know why Yorkshire would. The Celts see themselves as being here before the Romans, often at war with them and occasionally beating them off.
QuoteOpen question: why do the Welsh speak a Celtic language and not a Romance one?
The Welsh are Celts :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 08:36:35 PM
The Welsh are Celts :blink:
So were the Gauls. So were the folks in Spain. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2012, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 08:36:35 PM
The Welsh are Celts :blink:
So were the Gauls. So were the folks in Spain. :mellow:
And anyone with a serious mountain range or other natural barriers to separate themselves from the Latins maintained a Celtic language, to greater or lesser degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations#Iberian_Peninsula
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2012, 08:40:05 PM
So were the Gauls. So were the folks in Spain. :mellow:
The Welsh never got properly conquered by the Romans and many of the remaining Romano-British (who often spoke a Celtic language - as would Gallo-Romans) were forced into to Wales (Old English for 'foreigners') by the Anglo-Saxons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2012, 08:35:59 PM
Open question: why do the Welsh speak a Celtic language and not a Romance one?
And how the fuck did the Basques hold on to a motherfucking pre-Celtic language?
Cmon Yi. We are bad ass people, you've met me and I'm only half basque :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
More or less everything, certainly everything good - the class system, snobbery, absurd titles and feudalism were the Normans.
Sounds like 19th Century Romantic German nationalism to me. Do you really believe that garbage? I thought those sorts of attitudes about English history had died out long ago.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 08:42:30 PM
The Welsh never got properly conquered by the Romans and many of the remaining Romano-British (who often spoke a Celtic language - as would Gallo-Romans) were forced into to Wales (Old English for 'foreigners') by the Anglo-Saxons.
Oh? I did not realize there was a distinction between British and Welsh back then. I guess I figured the Welsh was the British remnent.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Oh? I did not realize there was a distinction between British and Welsh back then. I guess I figured the Welsh was the British remnent.
You're right. But the Romans dealt with tribes in Wales that remained and never really settled like they did with England. From what I understand, it's a bit like the Normans - they built forts and military outposts but there weren't towns, or Roman life and as I say I think a fair few tribes survived and just carried on with their lives. So what was the British, joined by many Romano-British, became the Welsh.
So I think daily life was Welsh/Celtic to a far, far greater degree than England where there are some centres of Roman culture as well as simple force.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 10:19:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
More or less everything, certainly everything good - the class system, snobbery, absurd titles and feudalism were the Normans.
Sounds like 19th Century Romantic German nationalism to me. Do you really believe that garbage? I thought those sorts of attitudes about English history had died out long ago.
No one believes in it. It's like the articles you get every few years about how everyone's really a Roundhead or a Cavalier (Thatcher, Brown, Major, Attlee - Roundheads; Blair, Cameron, MacMillan, Churchill - Cavaliers). It's not at all serious, but there is that sneaking sense that the raucous, drunken, individualistic, often (especially about the French) xenophobic side of the English is our Anglo-Saxon side. The bit that's prim and proper, that bows to the Queen and still (still!) has a House of Lords where people wear ermine and stockings is the Norman side.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2012, 02:15:22 PM
Germanic tribes were more "democratic" at the time of the invasions because they were at a more primitive level of political organization than the Romans. Tribal organizations always include a consultative aspect, and have lower powers of coercion.
It's also true that northern European states developed democratic accountability earlier than southern European states. But I don't see how you can argue that this is a function of their German-ness. By the time accountability had been established the states in northern Europe had evolved for centuries and had virtually no recognizable relationship to the early Germanic proto-states.
Individualism I see no support for whatsoever.
Maybe it was simply down to being more primitive that the Germanics were more democratic, however they didn't really develop themselves, they stole a lot of their modernity. Maybe. Either way they kept their tradition of democracy.
Individualism...perhaps this comes from the same roots of primitive traits holding over into more advanced times? Without a doubt Britain is a very oddly individualist country. The reasons for this I do not know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
More or less everything, certainly everything good - the class system, snobbery, absurd titles and feudalism were the Normans.
That's the sum total of good things in English culture?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 08:36:35 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 28, 2012, 08:30:35 PM
The Welsh and Yorkshire shepherds?
I don't know why Yorkshire would. The Celts see themselves as being here before the Romans, often at war with them and occasionally beating them off.
QuoteOpen question: why do the Welsh speak a Celtic language and not a Romance one?
The Welsh are Celts :blink:
Yorkshire was a Yan Tan Tethra reference. Language replacement in the North and southern Scotland was likely less motivated by outright Saxon conquest. There is a lot of remaining place names and evidence of continuation of usage of a Brythonic language until the Normans.
The Welsh are Celts but so were the Romano-British. If France could maintain split pride in their mixed Gaulish-Roman-Frankish heritage, no reason the Welsh can't.
The Welsh language doesn't invite to identifying with the Romans in the way for instance French does.
Ah, Wales.
Where the men are real men, and the sheep are nervous.
Have you ever been to Wales? It's a ghastly place.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 29, 2012, 08:00:43 AM
The Welsh are Celts but so were the Romano-British. If France could maintain split pride in their mixed Gaulish-Roman-Frankish heritage, no reason the Welsh can't.
No reason why they couldn't, but they didn't. The Romano-British don't figure. The popular view and the Welsh story is that the Romans were an invading and occupying force. Welsh cultural symbols often hark to pre-Roman times (or how we later imagined them) like the Eisteddfod, when they celebrate bards and dress as druids. I mean that's even the case in England, there's a huge statue of Boudicca right by Parliament.
The real story, as with many conquests was of mingling, inter-marriage and cultural hybridisation. But we're talking identity and national feelings so we're in myths here.
Edit: I wonder if part of it is that national identity are relatively recent creations, really unlinked to actual genealogies and no-one really wants to be a nation of collaborators, which is, I think, how the Romano-British are perceived.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2012, 08:10:51 AM
Have you ever been to Wales? It's a ghastly place.
Misquoting Blackadder. Bad Brain.
Quote
The real story, as with many conquests was of mingling, inter-marriage and cultural hybridisation. But we're talking identity and national feelings so we're in myths here.
Very true. I've known Turks who were the spitting image of an Armenian or Greek friend who have argued that all their ancestors came over in 1071, or were Balkan Turks.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2012, 11:14:29 PM
No one believes in it. It's like the articles you get every few years about how everyone's really a Roundhead or a Cavalier (Thatcher, Brown, Major, Attlee - Roundheads; Blair, Cameron, MacMillan, Churchill - Cavaliers). It's not at all serious, but there is that sneaking sense that the raucous, drunken, individualistic, often (especially about the French) xenophobic side of the English is our Anglo-Saxon side. The bit that's prim and proper, that bows to the Queen and still (still!) has a House of Lords where people wear ermine and stockings is the Norman side.
That is ridiculous. The Normans spent centuries undermining their duke and later their King everytime they got the chance, it was the Anglo-Saxons who had a highly centralized monarchy where everybody was more or less obedient even when the monarch in question was Aethelred Unread. But ok I realize you were joking now :P
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2012, 08:05:55 AM
The Welsh language doesn't invite to identifying with the Romans in the way for instance French does.
The Welsh language had alot of Latin Vocabulary though (and of course they have alot of similarities anyway both being Indo-European languages). Besides France is different because Southern France was actually full of Romans while few Romans actually moved to Britain. The Romans did not like to live places where they could not practice their Mediterranean lifestyle.