12
   

Third century battlefield found: Romans fought the Germans later than expected

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 08:36 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:


What a putz. A good thread until this moron comes in and trys to ruin it.


You can correctly say I ruined the thread for you, and/or others, in your opinion, but your ascribing "intent" to ruin it is incorrect. And "trys" is spelled "tries." Where is the Golden Horseshoe in Canada?
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 09:39 am
No Foofie. You deliberately are trying to ruin every thread Walter opens up.
If you're not interested in the subject, then stay out of it - it's that simple!
There is no need to tell us over and over again that you're ignorant and have
no interest in Europeans. Stay away!
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 09:51 am
The only way to deal with a troll like Foofie is not to feed him. Just ignore him, don't respond to him.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:12 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

No Foofie. You deliberately are trying to ruin every thread Walter opens up.
If you're not interested in the subject, then stay out of it - it's that simple!
There is no need to tell us over and over again that you're ignorant and have
no interest in Europeans. Stay away!


"Ruin" is your subjective interpretation of my comment. There is no "intent," other than pointing out to readers that some Eurocentric thread themes do not interest everyone. Sort of like Yankee fans going to a Boston Red Sox game to boo the Red Sox when the Red Sox have a big game with some team other than the Yankees. I might just be exhibiting obnoxious New York behavior of a certain genre? I may be giving veracity to all those late night jokes by Johnny Carson about some New Yorkers?

I understand that this behavior antagonizes more than a few posters. It certainly does not reflect genteel behavior as many people know it. But, I find the Eurocentric themed threads offensive to me; you obviously do not. Nor would I expect them to. It offends you, if I point out that they offend me?

And few posters would also fit in in my environs. Sort of the downside of the internet, perhaps. No way to be restrictive/exclusive, other than demanding that someone "stay away!" Your saying to me, "stay away" is silly, in my opinion.

Now let us all Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 12:15 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The only way to deal with a troll like Foofie is not to feed him. Just ignore him, don't respond to him.


He might just be a skooch a menz.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 01:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
What I remember of German history, as taught, was that it was not taught until Germany became a unified country (with Bismarck?). Oh, there were some Empires: Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Austria-Hungarian? But, how many high school students find it of interest at all? America in the 1960's was the only place most could be interested in.

Then came WWI, and then we learned (early 1960's NYC public schools) that the Treaty of Versailles, and its punitive reparations insured that WWII was coming, since no country that is paying off the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles can prosper. That stuck in my head, because it really seems the vindictiveness, that made for the Treaty of Versailles, made fertile soil for the Nazis to gain power.

I do not remember to what depth WWII or the Korean War was covered? I did not take history in college. To me history is only of value to know why some countries are prosperous today, and others are not. The details of battles, etc. is a waste of time for me. As you are aware, I would guess, that in the U.S. there are folks that take great interest in each battle of the American Civil War. Everyone has his/her own tastes/interests.


Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 02:10 pm
@Foofie,
You can't know that, Foofie, because it's nothing what is of any interest for you.

But here, in Europe, we learn at high schools/grammar school or what ever the name for a school of higher education is. (In German speaking countries it's a "Gymnasium".)
And after 12 or 13 years, that's finished.
Afterwards, you study, at a 'college', a university. Those subjects, which are relevant for your degree.
History is relevant if you study history.


As far as I know - you certainly can be informed better - history as science was taught at German universities from 1810 onwards (> W.v.Humboldt, Niebuhr, Ranke). Before, it was taught at e.g. law or philisophical faculties, depending on the university.

At schools, it was taught ... well, I can't give you a specific date but in my native town, it was taught at the "preparatory seminary" for Cologne university since the 14th/15th century. It can be considered that the two elementary schools (one by the monastery and the other by the town) gave history classes as well. [Source: Germania Sacra, Bd 50, Das adlige Kanonissenstift St. Cyriakus zu Geseke. Bearb. von Ulrich Löer. de Gruyter, 2007.]
I know for certain that my old "Gymnasium" had history classes from its first days in 1686 onwards - I've seen the sources in original (but if you don't believe it: it's mentioned in the above book as well).


I think, you've a rather narrow, specialised interest in history. But each to his own. Keyner iz nit azoy toyb vi der vos vil mit hern.


Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 06:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:


As far as I know - you certainly can be informed better - history as science was taught at German universities from 1810 onwards (> W.v.Humboldt, Niebuhr, Ranke). Before, it was taught at e.g. law or philisophical faculties, depending on the university.




History as science? I thought history is part of a liberal arts education? How can it be a science? There are no reproducible experiments? And any original source documents that historians study could have false information?

Archeology is a science, but the history that we learn about the 18th, 19th, and 20th century? That is arrived by reading original documentation (books, journals, diaries, newspapers, letters, etc.) That is a science?

So let us say it is a science. Is it a science with the same stature as physics, biology, chemistry - the physical sciences, I believe.

Is it a science because elucidating new information is very time intensive for historians, and therefore it does not fall into the creative arts?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 12:51 am
@Foofie,
Well, Foofie, I really suggest that you start an own thread with your questions you want to ask me.

In Germany (and most if not all other countries, as far as I know) historical studies are the scientific work with persons, objects, events, developments etc of the past, with all and everything that is commonly known as history.
Opposite to e.g. the U.S.A., archeology is closely connected to history in Europe, taught at many universities at departments, which are (or were) part of the history faculty.

"Science" here is a bit different then what you call it in the U.S.A. We use it in the hunanistic way = what scientia word actually means.

But I really suggest, you either stay to the topic or ask your private and here unrelated questions elsewhere.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 01:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

But I really suggest, you either stay to the topic or ask your private and here unrelated questions elsewhere.


Sorry, Foofie, but this is of course related to your interest in English history since if Arminius hadn't united some Germanic tribes and defeated Varus 1999 years ago, perhaps I wouldn't speak German and you not English.
And since this battle happened 250 years later, the questions about it are part of your interest as well.

And it's certainly a legitimate question to critically analyse the way how that's done and if it fulfils the criteria you have.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 09:42 pm
@Foofie,
Those who ignore history will live to repeat it.

English is derived from Anglo-Saxon and Norse. The Angles, Saxons, Norwegians and Normans are Germanic tribes.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 01:44 am
There is a very strong affinity between the languages spoken by those people living in Northern Europe, Denmark and Norway. You will find that English is closest to that spoken by the peoples who colonised post-Roman Britain - probably closest today to the Platt-Deutsch of my grandmother and what you would hear in nth Holland or Norway.

The Normans were group of vikings that settled in France. By the time of the Norman invasion, however, they had become Franco-fied to the point that none of their original language remained. They introduced French, but could not stamp out the Anglo-Saxon roots of English. Meanwhile, under the Dane Law - vikings again introduced their language to the areas they controlled. Many of these words have easily slipped into modern English - that with the use of French has created a divide with contemporary German. The flow is probably back the other way at present - for instance, my aunt now goes 'shopping'.

Other borrowings: das Baby, der Babysitter, babysitten (to babysit), das Bodybuilding, das Callgirl, der Clown, der Cocktail, der Computer, fit (in good shape), die Garage, das Golf (der Golf is “the gulf” or a VW model), das Hobby, der Job, joggen (to jog), der Killer, killen (to kill), der Lift (elevator), der Manager, managen (to manage), das Musical, der Playboy, der Pullover, der Rum, der Smog, der Snob, der Streik, das Team, der Teenager, das Ticket, der Tunnel, der Trainer (coach), der Waggon (train car).
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:54 pm
One of the things about German History is there were many peace loving and cultured tribes: The Romans wiped them all out: the more suspicious and savage ones survived: The Romans never held Germany entirely: I believe they regularly sent forces into the area until the 4th Century: When Alaric and Atilla forced them to abandon any hope of romanizing the Germans.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 06:14 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
The Romans mainly destroyed the Keltic culture that stretched from probably Asia Minor (present day Turkey - maybe even further as some blond blue -eyed mummies found in the Sinkiang desert in China had hats worn that resemble the 'conical witches hat') to Southern Germany, France and the British Isles. The weakness of the Keltic culture was the Druid religion that they followed. Their leader was the priest who kept and passed all the knowledge verbally. Nothing was written down. Julius Caesar exploited that knowledge. He took out the Druid leader and the whole congregation was vulnerable. That is how he conquered Gaul.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 06:23 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
It was the dense forests that protected Germany from the Roman legions. Roman weaponry and tactics were not suited for forested areas. If they had more archers it would be a different story. The foot soldiers of the Roman Legions were no match for the Huns on horse back besides more and more of the Legions employed mercenaries from the Huns and the Goths as Romans left the hard stuff to foreigners.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/26/2021 at 11:58:50