How technologically advanced were the german "barbarians"?

[caketastydelish]

If I understand correctly, the classical definition of "barbarian" simply means anyone that does not speak Latin or Greek. In this regard, being a "barbarian" does not mean much.

From the way history is often taught, with a Roman bias, the german tribes were "barbarians savages", where as Rome was very sophisticated.

The point of this thread is to discuss:

1. How technologically advanced were these german "barbarians" compared to Rome?

2. How sophisticated where they in general?

I ask this because of the new "Gods and Kings" expansion pack coming out for civ 5, and one of the new civs are "the huns". I really don't know much about them, and would like to learn more.

edit: Ok, the more you know. The huns were NOT germanic. Regardless, the question still applies to both the Huns and germanic tribes, although I understand they are not interchangeable. Questions 1 and 2 apply to either/or the Huns and the Germanic tribes, as I don't know a whole lot about either one of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well "Barbarian" [which is the barbarian term for Barbaros (Βάρβαρο&#962 ] simply meant someone who did not speak Greek, and appeared to produce sounds which seemed like "Bar-Bar-Bar" in the ears of ancient Greek speakers. Romans were deemed as Barbarians as well, and so did Persians, so the term itself does not mean any level of sophistication.

That said the germanic tribes were primitive in relation to the med civilizations.

 

[Louis XXIV]

While the Greeks might have included the Romans (this actually varied, as Rome rose in power, the Greeks came up with theories that they weren't barbarians), the Romans certainly included themselves in the Greek sphere.

 

[sophie]

If I understand correctly, the classical definition of "barbarian" simply means anyone that does not speak Latin or Greek. In this regard, being a "barbarian" does not mean much.

From the way history is often taught, with a Roman bias, the german tribes were "barbarians savages", where as Rome was very sophisticated.

The point of this thread is to discuss:

1. How technologically advanced were these german "barbarians" compared to Rome?

2. How sophisticated where they in general?

I ask this because of the new "Gods and Kings" expansion pack coming out for civ 5, and one of the new civs are "the huns". I really don't know much about them, and would like to learn more.

I'm just going to hold off on this because I imagine Dachs is already hard at work on a several thousand word response explaining why the term "barbarian" in the sense you are using it is a load of bullcrap. Until then, I'd recommend you read some of Guy Halsall's blog here, or just peruse some of the topics in the EBII subforum here. The latter deal primarily with Roman republic era stuff, but topics do occasionally stray further afield if you do some digging.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I doubt he would care about the barbarian term. What's really going to ruffle his feathers is the idea that the Huns were Germanic.

 

[Veles]

You want first-hand info on Huns, you read Priscus of Panium.

 

[Masada]

Ehhhh, I think he's going to be more pissed at the use of "Germanic" and "German" than anything else; both of which are meaningless except as descriptors of the languages people spoke.

 

[MajKira]

barbaric means just another culture, which were different to those popular cultures rome, greek, and standing rather underdeveloped to those becoming empires
whereas huns are coming from Asia under Attila being mongolic barbarians and not germanic barbaric tribes like goths

the so called barbarian invasions are undertaken to conquer developed nations or empires to get their richness during the Migration Period

 

[Mize]

You all seem to be missing the question and talking about Dachs' eventual response, which I also impatiently await.

Basically all "barbarians" were just as developed as the Greeks or Romans, it's just that they weren't as aggressive in their expansionism. They had their roads, gods, pots, gold and whatnot, but were far from the idea that their culture is "the best". And that is understandable, since they probably didn't have a real notion of what culture or barbarianism is.

 

[say1988]

I doubt he would care about the barbarian term. What's really going to ruffle his feathers is the idea that the Huns were Germanic.

Of course the Huns were Germans. Clearly Wilhem II was a direct descendent of Atilla. After all the French and British governments would never have lied in their propaganda during WWI.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course the Huns were Germans. Clearly Wilhem II was a direct descendent of Atilla. After all the French and British governments would never have lied in their propaganda during WWI.

The Anglo-Saxons are thusly descended from this Hunnic-Germanic bloodline; else we could not have the verse in The Foggy Dew:

And from the plains of Royal Meath strong men came hurrying through
While Britannia's Huns, with their long range guns, sailed in through the foggy dew

 

[Lord Baal]

Mistaking the Huns for Germans is an easy mistake to make, fellas, considering the popular use of the term 'Hun' to describe Germans in WWI. Cut him some slack.

The so-called "barbarians" who "invaded" Roman territory in the 4th and 5th centuries AD weren't even really non-Roman - if that term can even be said to exist, given that 'Roman' was not an ethnicity, but rather simply a description of a member of the Roman state - so much as simply Roman troops who happened to have a few "Germanic" leaders in key position - and whether these "Germans" were actually non-Roman themselves, or simply a few elites who decided to take a Germanic-sounding name and/ or title in the same way that a Russian might take the title of 'Czar,' despite their notable lack of descent from the Julio-Claudian line (that is, because it sounds cool and dignified) is another question entirely. Obviously, as they Roman themselves, their technological capabilities were equal to those of the Empire.

To focus your question on the peoples outside of the Roman Empire who were never conquered, specifically those in Germania and its neighbouring territories, who we'd refer to today as Germanic peoples - in other words, those who spoke Germanic languages - they were definitely technologically inferior to the Romans, but how much is debatable. Certainly, those who invaded Roman territory very quickly adapted to Roman methods and culture, and the Scandinavian peoples were using variations of the Viking longboat, a far superior vessel to those of the Mediterranean Romans in many ways, during the lifespan of the Western Empire. More likely than not, the apparent technological inferiority of the non-Roman groups was a result of their lack of manpower compared to the Romans. This manpower enabled the Romans, like the Chinese, to undertake huge engineering projects such as roads and canals, which simply weren't possible for a semi-federated group of tribes engaged in intermittent warfare with their neighbours.

The small size of these "barbarian" polities also tended to result in inferior weaponry and armour to those of the Roman legions; they couldn't afford to field professional armies, and therefore operated under the same procurement method as the old Greek city-states; the wealthier you were, the better your armour and the more likely you were to be cavalry, since you paid for your equipment yourself.

 

[Agent327]

If I understand correctly, the classical definition of "barbarian" simply means anyone that does not speak Latin or Greek. In this regard, being a "barbarian" does not mean much.

From the way history is often taught, with a Roman bias, the german tribes were "barbarians savages", where as Rome was very sophisticated.

The point of this thread is to discuss:

1. How technologically advanced were these german "barbarians" compared to Rome?

The answer depends entirely on what era you want to know. Because of cross border cultural and economic exchange, Attila´s Huns employed siege weaponry - which they could only have learned from the Romans. However, the main reason the Roman empire didn´t expand into Germania wasn´t military, it was economic. Compared to Gaul, Germania was much less densely populated and much more forested; conquering Germania wouldn´t expand the empire´s economy.

 

[Lord Baal]

The answer depends entirely on what era you want to know. Because of cross border cultural and economic exchange, Attila´s Huns employed siege weaponry - which they could only have learned from the Romans. However, the main reason the Roman empire didn´t expand into Germania wasn´t military, it was economic. Compared to Gaul, Germania was much less densely populated and much more forested; conquering Germania wouldn´t expand the empire´s economy.

The Romans had almost no concept of economics. They also tried to conquer Germania on more than one occasion, extending their borders to the Elbe at one point. So your point is pretty ridiculous. Military (and to a lesser extent, political) concerns were behind both the lack of Roman expansion into Germania and its withdrawal whenever it did so.

 

[Masada]

barbaric means just another culture, which were different to those popular cultures rome, greek, and standing rather underdeveloped to those becoming empires

No, it doesn't. The Romans were quite content to tar other Romans with the epithet. Stilicho is the stand-out example.

the so called barbarian invasions are undertaken to conquer developed nations or empires to get their richness during the Migration Period

No, the 'barbarians' did not 'invade' the Roman Empire to get at its wealth. The Thervingi entered the Empire, for instance, peacefully seeking what amounts to political asylum; it was subsequent Roman bungling that turned a routine receptio hostile and into something of a crisis after Adrianople. The Greuthungi however did come across the border uninvited though for the same reasons as the Thervingi, namely to seek safety across the Danube though there's little indication that they did all that much prior the Thervingi rebellion. This was not what either group had wanted; the Romans had wanted to settle some cheap manpower, while the Goths just wanted a safe place to live. Even the Vandals, Alans and Sueves didn't cross a border to invade the Roman Empire, whose writ had ceased to run that far into Gaul, but crossed instead into a vacuum and were opposed it seems by Franks. That those groups subsequently ended up ruling what-is-now-Spain owes less to some kind of overarching plan and more to events running out of control.

 

[Agent327]

The Romans had almost no concept of economics.

Which isn´t the point.

They also tried to conquer Germania on more than one occasion, extending their borders to the Elbe at one point.

Unlike Caesar´s Rhine crossing - another singular event - the expedition towards the Elbe was poorly conducted. Nevertheless thereafter the limes was established. No significant gains were made beyond that, except for the conquest of Dacia, which turned out to be a profitable province. (Interesting to note that the Dacians were related to the Celts, rather than to the Germanic speaking tribes.) The whole area of Germania was generally underdeveloped when compared to, say, Gaul, which already had towns and was largely agricultural. (Similarly, Roman expansion in Brittannia stopped at the Scottish Highlands. And in the south the Roman border ran along the Saharan desert. In the east the Parthians basically prevented further expansion. What remains in-between are client-states, either of Rome or Parthia, depeding on what particular period one looks at.) Yes, there were expeditions into Germania, but this can be said of any Roman border. Sending expeditions was one part of the divide and rule policy, the other being diplomacy (and simple bribery).

Military (and to a lesser extent, political) concerns were behind both the lack of Roman expansion into Germania and its withdrawal whenever it did so.

The latter seems obvious, but if military concerns were paramount, Rome should have established, say, an Elbe limes. It failed to do so and did not try again. Not because it was unable to, but simply because it wasn´t worth the effort, when the same pacifying effect could be achieved by diplomatic means. The paramount concern of Rome wasn´t military. (For instance the Punic Wars had no military justification, since relations with Carthage had always been good. But there was fame and fortune to be won from a war with Carthage. When having established Sicily as its first province, Rome took advantage of domestic disturbances in Carthage to annex Sardinia and Corsica as well - thereby inadvertantly laying the basis for the Second Punic War. The Third Punic War was utterly unnecessary, since Carthage had by then effectively been reduced to a client state.)

 

[MajKira]

butBut the origin of huns lies in Asia/mongolia and thus originally not a germanic tribe, they migrated later

but ok it seems you knw more than mee all

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Could we agree on these technological markers?

- Romans had the technology (intellectual property) for an agricultural tax system: Germanians (beyond the Rhine) didn't
- Romans had permanent hot and cold running water systems; nowhere in Germania did
- Romans were mass-producing a readily re-usable and flexible writing material; no-one in Germania was
- Romans had permanent sports teams in urban areas; no one in Germania did.

Obviously it's the last one which is pretty much universal in today's world.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

- Romans had permanent sports teams in urban areas; no one in Germania did.

Obviously it's the last one which is pretty much universal in today's world.

Except in the USA when teams "relocating" seems to be the norm . It's quite barbaric .

 

[Masada]

butBut the origin of huns lies in Asia/mongolia and thus originally not a germanic tribe, they migrated later

We don't know where "the Huns" came from; but it unlikely to have been Mongolia or even Russia past the Urals.

Obviously it's the last one which is pretty much universal in today's world.

The Romans were also inveterate slavers and genocides; which isn't universal and is far and above more repellent to modern sensibilities than a lack of hot water, sports terms and papyrus.