11-09-2009, 09:41 AM
This thread is a great read. Thanks for mentioning so many sources.
I have wondered about how Northern Europe managed to produce such a large excess population, given the agricultural conditions there. Earlier historians contrasted the "impoverished" soil of Germania with the relative fertility of Gaul, Iberia etc., and Caesar mentions vast stretches of uninhabited land. Not that Germania was literally impoverished; it produced amber and other things of value, but the one thing it seems to have lacked was the fertile soil needed to support a large population.
Did the weather change, or their agricultural methods or something else? Or were those tribes around 300 AD not really migrating by necessity, but just invading by choice?
Or maybe I just have the wrong idea about the population that could be supported there at the time.
Really, all warfare is assymetric, though the term does have its uses.
Quote:Also can we really have swarms of "Germans" (Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Burgunds, Vandals, etc. - for most of them there were postulated groups of tens or hundreds of thousands) flooding from some plentiful spring somewhere in Central or Northern Europe? Can we imagine hordes of Xiongnu (as some scholars assume) following their leaders some 5000 km west, just to find a new home near some Pannonian swamps? How many of the medieval European crusaders didn't reach their much closer destination, with all the apparent enthusiasm and having definite targets?
I have wondered about how Northern Europe managed to produce such a large excess population, given the agricultural conditions there. Earlier historians contrasted the "impoverished" soil of Germania with the relative fertility of Gaul, Iberia etc., and Caesar mentions vast stretches of uninhabited land. Not that Germania was literally impoverished; it produced amber and other things of value, but the one thing it seems to have lacked was the fertile soil needed to support a large population.
Did the weather change, or their agricultural methods or something else? Or were those tribes around 300 AD not really migrating by necessity, but just invading by choice?
Or maybe I just have the wrong idea about the population that could be supported there at the time.
Quote:On that note, the latest issue of Ancient Warfare contained an article which referred to Romans v Parthians as "assymetric warfare". I'm not sure if use of this recently invented modern American military term is another example of "buzz/pop" words, or a clever application of a modern term to an age-old problem !
Really, all warfare is assymetric, though the term does have its uses.
