X: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic Advantages

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
> 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".



Hi Keth,

good question, but I don't know. On their coins they used 
inscriptions like 'Victoria Romanorum' etc. at least unitil the 9th 
or 10th century, probably unitl the end in 1452AD. In fact, the name 
Byzantium is never used on coins at all, as far as I know. 




> 
> 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.





I think by that time the Emperor of the East Roman or Byzantine 
empire made no real claim to the 'Western Empire'. In fact, already 
the Frankish king Theodebert (c535-48AD) had challenged the East 
Roman Emperor's claim to western Europe.




> 
> 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?
> 





Unfortunately not. BTW, I remember that two golden helmets found at 
Augsburg/Pfersee, are supposed to be Roman cavalry guard officers' 
helmets. They are of the same style as the later Vendel-type helmets, 
with nasal and neckguard. The special thing is that they were 
completely gilted.






> 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.





I am sure all horses originated from Scandinavia anyway:-))) Just a 
joke and not directed at you!!!! ... sorry, just could not resist.



> 
> 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.


I suppose very strong horses were needed to carry heavily armed 
knights. I once read an article about excavations at the battlefield 
of the 955 battle of the Lechfeld. This was one of the first events 
were heavy knights proved their superiority over lightly armed stepp 
horsemen. The skeletons of the Hungarian horses were much smaller 
than the horses of the German kinghts. 




> 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.



It would be interesting to know if the Gothic cavalryman of the 
5th/6th century had stirrups. Using a long lance as they did without 
stirrups seems not very effective.






> 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.
> 


That is correct. I suppose that Gothic horseman employed a different 
method using a long lance that was held with both hands at one side 
of the horse. This is depicted on Langobardic artefacts and on Gothis-
rider-fibulae.




> 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.


There are some problems with such a comparison. Firstly, and as you 
mentioned,  Charlemagne is said to have been unusually tall. 
Secondly, the statue probably reflected Roman ideals. Thus, 
Charlemange's figure may have been models in a Roman or Romanesque 
style after Roman horseman statues. For example, the bronze statue of 
Marcus Aurelius in Rome, which is contemporary to the 2nd century 
shows similar proportions. I also shows a fairly small horse, which 
is however no pony either.

cheers,
Dirk
















> >> 
> >> 
> >> > 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 e...>. 
> >
> >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/