LL-L "History" 2007.10.15 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com


 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.


 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L  -  15 October 2007 - Volume 03
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
 ========================================================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.10.14 (06) [E]

From: Theo Homan <theohoman at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2007.10.14 (02) [E]

The number of warriors in the Germanic armies has
always been a puzzling question mark.
But if my memory is serving me this time: in an
oldenglish text they tell us about a large army, and
then they say that the army had 80 warriors.

Those were the times!

vr.gr <http://vr..gr/>.
Theo Homan

It is very hard to put much faith in records of army sizes of those times.
There is an old saying that you "count every foeman twice".  If you win, it
sounds better if it was against overwhelming odds, and if you lose, well,
they outnumbered us didn't they?
"Iron Age" and classical economies simply couldn't support huge armies, and
as most "barbarian" societies were warrior aristocracies, the muscle-boys
wouldn't want too many of the lower orders sharing the glory anyway.

The ultimate exaggeration has to be the defeat of the Huns at Chalons, where
their army was supposed to number 400,000.  Keeping that many men in the
field would be serious challenge for the USA today.  With horse and foot
power, and communications by shouting, it would be a logistical
impossibility.

Paul Finlow-Bates

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071015/1023f93c/attachment.htm>