How technologically advanced were the german "barbarians"?

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Veles

Call me biased or whatever, but since we're just lightheartedly discussing this stuff, I can't help but mention how similiar all those customs are to Slavic customs.Or, of course, this could be any other tribe or ethnos.

Yeah, the only thing from that list that strikes me as distinctly Slavic (as opposed to "about any woodland nation between Ladoga and Baikal") is the haircut.

Originally Posted by Lord Baal

The really entertaining part is that even then, the source is inaccurate. 300 years does not equate to "right after."

I am not supporting "Huns= Qiongnu" theory, but the "300 year gap" really isn't such a great counter-argument. I mean, a nation disappearing from the records for 300 years is not greater stretch than one appearing just completely out of blue.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by Yeekim

I am not supporting "Huns= Qiongnu" theory, but the "300 year gap" really isn't such a great counter-argument. I mean, a nation disappearing from the records for 300 years is not greater stretch than one appearing just completely out of blue.

No, it isn't. For the simple fact that we know of groups that have appeared out of the aether but we know of few-to-no groups that have vanished for 300 years and reappeared half of Eurasia away. Besides which, the evidence linking the two groups together is so sparse we would be as justified maintaining that the Goths were Mongols. The evidence would be about as strong.

[Lord Baal]

Originally Posted by Masada

No, it isn't. For the simple fact that we know of groups that have appeared out of the aether but we know of few-to-no groups that have vanished for 300 years and reappeared half of Eurasia away. Besides which, the evidence linking the two groups together is so sparse we would be as justified maintaining that the Goths were Mongols. The evidence would be about as strong.

This.

We have plenty of evidence of what happened to other nomadic groups who traversed Eurasia during the time period, such as the Scythians and Sarmatians, even the Khazars. It's usually 'they travelled across the steppe until they hit European/ Middle Eastern polities with the size and power to stop their advance, they built a sizable but limited empire in the area which assimilated much of the culture of their predecessors, then they fell prey to the next nomadic group to reach the area, which repeated the process ad infinitum until the rise of Muscovy pretty much ended the process.' Why is there then no evidence of a Xiongnu crossing of the steppe?

For that matter, we actually know where the Xiongnu went, and it wasn't Europe; it was Northern China, which is where they always wanted to go, the reason for which they battled successive Chinese dynasties for several hundred years. Now, the Xiongnu seemed to be a multi-national confederacy - much like the Mongols were - but there's still no evidence whatsoever linking them to the Huns, even as a member-nation, except for a practice that isn't exactly exclusive to the two groups, and which the Huns may not have even practiced. There is, however, plenty of evidence against them being one and the same.

With this information at our disposal, we therefore, according to Occam's Razor, use the explanation which fits the evidence the best; that being, that the Huns and Xiongnu were not the same people, and quite probably bore no relation to one another. That's not one hundred percent conclusive - though it's embarrassingly close - but it's the best you can do when proving a negative from several thousand years ago.

[Veles]

Also, bear in mind, that 'Huns' first appeared in Western written sources as ounnoi (Greek) and only later in Latin the 'h' appeared. So even the 'somewhat similiar sounding names' argument isn't relevant.

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Masada

Besides which, the evidence linking the two groups together is so sparse we would be as justified maintaining that the Goths were Mongols. The evidence would be about as strong.

As I said, I don't think they are the same, you don't need to convince me
My point was "the complete lack of evidence is enough to debunk that, you don't need to bring the "missing for 300 years" argument to the table". Because that particular argument by itself ain't too strong imho.

[Domen]

Maybe let's rate their level of advancement basing on tech tries from games of Civilization series?