X: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic Advantages

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Hello Dirk,

Do you know if the term "Byzantium" was actually used during
those years? I think I've seen that during the Middle Ages it
was usually called "Constantinopolis" and not so much "Byzantium".

But when we read modern historians, they seem to like the name
"Byzantium" so much that they even put it on the cover.

I also recall reading that Charlemagne had extensive diplomatic
exchanges with the Emperor in Constantinopolis. Thus, when Charles
was crowned Emperor (was it Xmas 799 or 800?), as we learn in
school, it must have caused some sort of conflict with the
Emperor in Constantinopolis, who must have thought of himself
as the holder of that title.

With regard to cavalry, I saw a photo of an eastern horserider
standing next to his horse - but right now I don't recall where
I saw it. I will look for it, because I thought it was interesting.
It was a kind of stone statue. It shows very clearly an example
of what kind of horses + gear the eastern horseriders of those
days had. Perhaps you know what statue I am referring to?

It is now a long time ago since I first read about the importance
of European horse breeding for the emergence of the Medieval
armored mounted soldier, or "knight". The Medieval horse races
were just bigger and heavier than the races that had been used 
in antiquity. And this dramatic increase in size was achieved
through selective breeding - in Europe.

You know, basically there are, according to horse specialists,
two types of horses, and those are the "cold-bloodes" ones,
and the "warm-blooded" ones. I think it was the cold-blooded
races that were used by the Medieval knights. According to what
I read, these "Ritterpferde" were amazing animals: The present
Belgian and German brewery horses are supposed to descend from
them. Their hooves are almost the size of elephant feet.

Accordingly, the horses you see in the so-called Medieval
filmatisations are about as wrong as can be, since they
use mostly typical riding horses of Spanish descent.

Also the introduction of the stirrup was a landmark.
Before the stirrup the rider would be only very loosely
mounted, and was therefore unable to use the "Stoßlanze".
The typical cavalry attack of Antiquity consisted of
a number of riders, the more the better, suddenly racing
up to the enemy lines at great speed, and then every rider
would trow a javelin. After the javelins had been discarded,
the riders had to return to safety as fast as they could.
They used no stirrups, and had only very small horses.

In classical sculpture and painting, you can also see the
size of the horses they had in those days, when horses
are depicted in sculpture groups - or in paintings -
together with men.

There also is a famous statue of Charlemagne. It was probably
made long after his demise(?). But on it you can see that
his feet are almost touching the ground. Whether this is
supposed to signify that Charles was a big man, or that 
the horses of his day and age were small - this we cannot
know. But I think it perhaps signifies both these things.

Best regards
keth





>--- In gothic-l at y..., "Lada" <smntpk at p...> wrote:
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: faltin2001 <dirk at s...>
>> To: <gothic-l at y...>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:28 PM
>> Subject: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic Advantages
>> 
>> 
>> > Dirk,
>>     But in 553 AD there was , de facto, no roman empire, it was 
>only the
>> eastern empire, Byzance, which was economicaly much better 
>standing. They
>> could emply heavy cavalry, and they learned how during the later 
>Partian
>> wars.
>>            Il Akkad
>
>
>
>Hi Il Akkad,
>
>there is considerable uncertainty as to when the Roman Empire ended 
>and when it is best to use the term Byzantine Empire instead. I found 
>that most authors speak of the Byzantine Empire with the beginnig of 
>the Heraclide dynasty which came to the throne in about 605AD and 
>amibitions to regaine control over the West started to abate. Before 
>this terms like Eastern Roman Empire etc. seemed to be more 
>frequently used and more appropriate. However, even after the 
>Heraclides the Byzantine rulers were also called Romaneion rules etc. 
>signifying the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East. In the 
>west contemporaries would likely not have perceived the end of the 
>Western Empire in the same way as we do. Thus, when Karl/Charles the 
>Great was crowned Emperor of the Roman Empire in 800AD this was seen 
>as 'natural' continuation or resumption of Rome, with the centre now 
>shifted to Aachen, as it had shifted before to Trier, Arles and other 
>more northern places. At any rate Justinianus was very much a Roman 
>emperor and his reconquest of the West Roman territories demonstrates 
>well that he saw himself as ligitimate ruler of the entire Empire. 
>Thus, to say that there was 'de facto no Roman Empire in 553AD' as 
>you said is not justifiable in my view. In fact, in 553AD there was a 
>Roman Empire that could still effectively push its claim to the 
>Western territories. But I agree with you, the Eastern Empire had a 
>much better economic standing than the West. At the time of the death 
>of Anastasius, the coffers were filled with some 28 million gold 
>solidi. A vast amount of money against which the sums paid to Goths 
>and other barbarians look like pocket money.
>
>cheers,
>Dirk
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- In gothic-l at y..., "Bertil Haggman" <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
>> > > Ingemar and Tore,
>> > >
>> > > American Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was a leading
>> > > civilizationist and Professor of History at the Foreign
>> > > Service School of Georgetown University, having taught
>> > > at Harvard and Princeton.
>> > >
>> > > He remarked in his outstanding _The Evolution of
>> > > Civilizations_ that Rome's weakness put it in a terrible
>> > > situation in face of mainly the Goths.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why mainly the Goths? The most exhaustive wars were likely the 
>once
>> > against the Parthian Empire and internal wars with Western 
>usurpers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > The Roman Legion could
>> > > no longer withstand the charging Gothic horsemen.
>> >
>> >
>> > An increase in the use of cavalry was obvious in the the 4th and 
>5th
>> > century. Many Roman fortresses in modern south Germany were turned
>> > into mobile units after the Alamannic wars, which started from 
>213AD.
>> > Most of them were recruited from among the 'barbarians'. Famous 
>was
>> > for example the Dalmatian cavalry. Had they appeared in time at 
>the
>> > battlefied of Hadriannopel the outcome would likely have been
>> > different.
>> >
>> > Rome's policy was to recruite barbarians; first into Roman units 
>and
>> > later as complete ethnic groups. Thus, Theoderic and his Goths had
>> > been commissioned by the Roman Emperor to drive out the ursurper
>> > Odoacer. This was not a matter of Goths against Rome, but of Goths
>> > employed by Rome to drive out other Germanic groups.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > This was new because Rome had not to face this earlier. Adequate
>> > > rain on the Northern Grasslands, century after century, reduced
>> > > the tendency for barbarians to move. But decreased rainfall
>> > > after AD 200 created a pressure of moving pastoral peoples
>> > > that became irresistable.
>> > >
>> > > Rome would have to shift from infantry to cavalry quickly. This 
>was
>> > > of course impossible because the weakened Classical economic
>> > > system could not support a large number of horses. Being grain-
>> > eating
>> > > animals they competed for food directly with man. Agriculture 
>in the
>> > > Mediterranean economy was weak. It was based on 
>institutionalized
>> > > slavery and could not produce such a surplus. Yet without 
>cavalry
>> > society
>> > > could not resist the Goths.
>> >
>> >
>> > What about the battles of Taginae, Busta Gallorum and the final
>> > annihilation of the Goths at Mons Lactarius in 553AD? What had
>> > happened to their great advantage by then? In short, the Goths 
>could
>> > ultimatively not withstand an onslaught by the imperial troops and
>> > their allies. They were safe as long as they recognised Roman
>> > suzerainty. When this failed the Empire 'dismissed' its former 
>allies
>> > and annihilated them.
>> >
>> > Dirk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a 
>blank email
>> to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at e...>.
>> >
>> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Full setup in 2 minutes! - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MxtVhB/2XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/