LL-L "History" 2008.02.06 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  -  06 February 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page.
=========================================================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "History"

Beste Ron,

You wrote:

I value your supportive stance, dear Mark. But this may not be a case of
political correctness versus the opposite. It seems to have begun with a
misunderstanding, namely with me taking Luc's and Ingmar's responses as
teasing rather than as serious, and I ran with what I thought were their
satirical ouvertures. Seeing it from their side, I totally accept Luc's and
Ingmar's sensitivities and indignation, and it makes me think no less of
them whom I've always have regarded highly.

Thanks for your praise, goes both ways, rest assured.

I've always _greatly_ admired the way you manage this list, and minor
incidents won't put a blot on your escutcheon...quite the contrary, the way
you handle them is what counts most, and as a result your star now shines
even brighter than it already did!
(See: the poor jester is naked now, since the king stole his attire...don't
shoot, the guy's walking a thin line ;-) )

Sooo...in order to avoid crossposting between "Humour" and "History", let's
just say that 1226 years ago, the result would have been different Widukind!
(THAT was ironic, just for the sake of bridging the gap of course ;-) )

Speaking of Widukind, seriously, I barely dare to ask; but could anybody
tell me in what respect the so called "Völkerwanderung" (Germanic migration,
roughly between 300 and 700) was _basically_ different from the Viking
invasions?

I'm asking because in Belgian history handbooks, the first migration has no
negative connotations, but the second one does. Sure, the motive may have
been different. Central Asians moving westward and therefore triggering the
Völkerwanderung sounds plausible. On the other hand, Vikings heading
south(west) due to Charlemagne, seems rather unlikely to me.

Another possible factor is a "youth bulge" [*sic*], which happens when the
number of young people in society is proportionally high. Latest "war
theory" apparently takes this into account in certain conflicts (not only in
the Viking case, more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid#Youth_bulge).

Would the type of "settling" just have been very different (farming vs.
looting)?

Or would there actually have been little or no difference on the ground?

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080206/0a527b18/attachment.htm>