09-10-2003, 06:25 AM
Hi Tim<br>
Warrior was quoting me. I don't think specific individuals are racist but I do think the warrior mystique has a great deal to do with the continuing of this thread.<br>
<br>
That warriors in germanic societies were trained from childhood to be warriors is very likely but then how many were warriors? I confess to be ignorant of ancient Irish and Germanic ways but for the moment I find it hard to believe all males were trained to be warriors.<br>
<br>
To try be more precise I DO find it EASIER to believe that many healthy males were warrior-like when the germanic peoples were on the move for generations like the Longobards, later Goths, after the bump from the Huns, or, even better example the far earlier Teutons and Cimbri. These guys had to frequently fight, or at least be credible in threatening to fight, when going thru territory of others. But the germans and goths living near the early empire were also farmers and probably had more important things to do than play warrior, like live and raise a family.<br>
<br>
To avoid argueing uselessly I think we might make progress by specifying eras. Are we speaking of republic era gauls and germans, early and mid empire<br>
germans, late empire goths, vandals, huns...?<br>
<br>
In any case, to be specific, the german warriors of the SOB of Ariovistus described by that other SOB Ceasar fought in phalanxs with shields so tightly locked that the romans legionaries had to climb ontop of the shield wall to strike from above. Ariovistus was not a peaceful King of a german community, but a War Lord, a true professional Warrior. Yes, the germans fought, like the gauls, a little more individualistically and not in the rigid macedonian or slightly less tidy Hopilitic phalanxs. But to insist, in this thread, on talking about one-on-one duels could be irrelevant to understand roman-german battles, or even german-german battles for that matter.<br>
<br>
Indeed I truely suspect the dueling capability of the Warrior was only useful in individual duels (note intentional loop) and not much in battle. In battle anything can happen and even a peasant with a pointed stick can kill a brave but momentarily distracted warrior, a bit embarssing, don't you say? (remember Kurosawa's Seven Samurais or Ford's Magnificent Seven) [a moment of silence for poor Charles Bronson]<br>
<br>
In very primitive societies this problem is solved by ritualizing the combat to take place ONLY between warriors! This problem was at the origin of the many warrior headaches even in medieval times when they thought themselves to be "Aristocratic" and felt they should be killed only by their equals.<br>
<br>
In the primtive warrior sub-culture a warrior had to assert and defend himself; in particular, the leader maintained his position by being capable! It meant that he had to climb the sub-cultural ladder by out performing others and, once at some level, fend off those from below trying to eliminate him.<br>
<br>
To summarize I really do believe the german-vs-roman one-on-one issue is bogus and profoundly false. I reflects nothing of the military (battle field) aspects of roman-german relations in two aspects:<br>
1) germans fought in groups, as everyone did in ancient times;<br>
2) warriors were good in duels but that didn't matter anyhow.<br>
<br>
p.s. The germanic warrior mystique did acquire racist overtones in recent times.This particular ideology goes back 50-80 years before Hitler's warriors trampled about. Consider also that germanic history and archelogical digs took place in that same time span. They were organized and performed also with the intention of docummenting, if not inventing, a glorious past. German intellectuals were trying to build a Nation; even Bach and his religious music was used by many to tie the new nation together! Intellectuals do almost anything to realize their plans. Racism was the next step and many german intellectuals were racist way before Hitler made his first shave. It takes time for these things to become explicitely dangerous and viceversa to filter them out again.<br>
<br>
Mystifications did and DO happen. Even if the word RACE is not clear to some it does belong to our past. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/10/03 8:36 am<br></i>
Warrior was quoting me. I don't think specific individuals are racist but I do think the warrior mystique has a great deal to do with the continuing of this thread.<br>
<br>
That warriors in germanic societies were trained from childhood to be warriors is very likely but then how many were warriors? I confess to be ignorant of ancient Irish and Germanic ways but for the moment I find it hard to believe all males were trained to be warriors.<br>
<br>
To try be more precise I DO find it EASIER to believe that many healthy males were warrior-like when the germanic peoples were on the move for generations like the Longobards, later Goths, after the bump from the Huns, or, even better example the far earlier Teutons and Cimbri. These guys had to frequently fight, or at least be credible in threatening to fight, when going thru territory of others. But the germans and goths living near the early empire were also farmers and probably had more important things to do than play warrior, like live and raise a family.<br>
<br>
To avoid argueing uselessly I think we might make progress by specifying eras. Are we speaking of republic era gauls and germans, early and mid empire<br>
germans, late empire goths, vandals, huns...?<br>
<br>
In any case, to be specific, the german warriors of the SOB of Ariovistus described by that other SOB Ceasar fought in phalanxs with shields so tightly locked that the romans legionaries had to climb ontop of the shield wall to strike from above. Ariovistus was not a peaceful King of a german community, but a War Lord, a true professional Warrior. Yes, the germans fought, like the gauls, a little more individualistically and not in the rigid macedonian or slightly less tidy Hopilitic phalanxs. But to insist, in this thread, on talking about one-on-one duels could be irrelevant to understand roman-german battles, or even german-german battles for that matter.<br>
<br>
Indeed I truely suspect the dueling capability of the Warrior was only useful in individual duels (note intentional loop) and not much in battle. In battle anything can happen and even a peasant with a pointed stick can kill a brave but momentarily distracted warrior, a bit embarssing, don't you say? (remember Kurosawa's Seven Samurais or Ford's Magnificent Seven) [a moment of silence for poor Charles Bronson]<br>
<br>
In very primitive societies this problem is solved by ritualizing the combat to take place ONLY between warriors! This problem was at the origin of the many warrior headaches even in medieval times when they thought themselves to be "Aristocratic" and felt they should be killed only by their equals.<br>
<br>
In the primtive warrior sub-culture a warrior had to assert and defend himself; in particular, the leader maintained his position by being capable! It meant that he had to climb the sub-cultural ladder by out performing others and, once at some level, fend off those from below trying to eliminate him.<br>
<br>
To summarize I really do believe the german-vs-roman one-on-one issue is bogus and profoundly false. I reflects nothing of the military (battle field) aspects of roman-german relations in two aspects:<br>
1) germans fought in groups, as everyone did in ancient times;<br>
2) warriors were good in duels but that didn't matter anyhow.<br>
<br>
p.s. The germanic warrior mystique did acquire racist overtones in recent times.This particular ideology goes back 50-80 years before Hitler's warriors trampled about. Consider also that germanic history and archelogical digs took place in that same time span. They were organized and performed also with the intention of docummenting, if not inventing, a glorious past. German intellectuals were trying to build a Nation; even Bach and his religious music was used by many to tie the new nation together! Intellectuals do almost anything to realize their plans. Racism was the next step and many german intellectuals were racist way before Hitler made his first shave. It takes time for these things to become explicitely dangerous and viceversa to filter them out again.<br>
<br>
Mystifications did and DO happen. Even if the word RACE is not clear to some it does belong to our past. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/10/03 8:36 am<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
