Stopping slavery was the end of Roman EmpireSlavery didn't stop completely even after christianity but yeah was greatly reduced and that caused troubles.
Slavery didn't stop completely even after christianity but yeah was greatly reduced and that caused troubles.
Also in times of food shortages you could eat them(click to show/hide)
Swords were weapons for the elite Germans and were not two-handed (not 100% sure on this one). 2 Handed swords came about in high middle ages for countering the heavily armored sergeants and knights.Well gauls did use overhead strikes in 2h mode, but i don't think we can call their swords two handed, they were quite short compared to medieval swords and could be used without troubles with one hand.
Were the Vandals horse archers? That doesn't sound right, though I suppose after they have moved to Carthage. But that migration happened during the dark ages.No, most of vandals fought on foot, as all germans tribes did. They migrated to Carthage before the fall of rome and the dark ages, the romans tried many times to reconquer it.
Germans and Celts charging in with two handed axes etc. is a myth. Yeah sure there might be some individuals but all ancient descriptions or images show them using shields. :rolleyes:
That view is just Hollywood. And the falx was used by the Dacians not the Germans.
Franks, Goths etc. weren't two handed trowers. Franks were known to trow the Francisca which was an one handed axe. And probably other Germanic peoples also used this trowing axe though probably to an lesser extent.
Germans and Celts charging in with two handed axes etc. is a myth. Yeah sure there might be some individuals but all ancient descriptions or images show them using shields. :rolleyes:
That view is just Hollywood. And the falx was used by the Dacians not the Germans.
Franks, Goths etc. weren't two handed trowers. Franks were known to trow the Francisca which was an one handed axe. And probably other Germanic peoples also used this trowing axe though probably to an lesser extent.
Actually the last battles of the roman empire hadn't many romans in it, in most of them after the 400 you would see 2 barbarian armies fighting each other.yes u true
Cimbri known for their two handed axes and clubs? What source? Are your talking about Roma Surrectum 2? And as I said I'm sure some tribes perhaps used a two handed sword but it would only be a small minority of the entire army. Not everyone charging in with two handed weapons.Spiked and regular clubs were quite wispread among the germanic peoples, swords were not common because of lack of iron, and a club is a more effective weapon then it seems at first glance. With some spike they could also used to pierce the lorica Hamata, that was not good at all against thrust attacks. There is even an account of germans (fighting in the roman army) with spiked clubs piercing parthian chatafract cavalry.
Early Germanics would also have good archers, seeing hunters generally used bows.
Spiked and regular clubs were quite wispread among the germanic peoples, swords were not common because of lack of iron, and a club is a more effective weapon then it seems at first glance. With some spike they could also used to pierce the lorica Hamata, that was not good at all against thrust attacks. There is even an account of germans (fighting in the roman army) with spiked clubs piercing parthian chatafract cavalry.
Anyway, i'm not trying to suggest that "barbarians" used mostly 2h weapons.
I agree that the majority of guys used 1h weapons, 2h weapons weren't very effective until the age of plate (shields became useless because the plate was the shield).
But 2h weapons were used too, while celtic people have a "bastard sword" most celtic swords could be used effectivly both in 1h mode and 2h.
You know "the age of plate" as you call it lies 12 centuries ahead of the roman empire from the first to the third century yes? The so called barbarians used lamellar armorActually romans did use plate armours but yeah, i meant the 15 century stuff :lol:. Armours so good that you could forget the shield and use some big 2h weapon effectively.hundredfew years before the roman empire, especially the Alemmanic tribes who battled the west roman empire. Also they used short swords like Sax (which evolved into Langes Messer) and spears, its not called the Iron Age for nothing.
Its always about money who wins a war.Of course wealth is very important, but sometimes who had the most $ didn't win. Vietnam War, Greeks and macedonians beating persians multiple times, mongols conquering the chineses (and then most of the world) afghan resistance against british and russians for example.
Economical might = victory.
Rome got sloppy economically, became broke and died.
Trust me some of the germanic tribes could afford anything after their many conquests, the saxons for example got whole of britain when they were asked by the britons to defeat the picts from scotland (funny the romans couldn't beat the picts). Also the vandals came out of nowhere and conquered whole of spain and africa from the romans and drove the western empire into crisis, they practically forged a civilization out of nothing. And dont forget the visigoths also kicked roman ass big time, but thats common knowledge by now :pI don't want to enter in a discussion of who were cooler, and we are talking about different times anyway. Roman superiority in the army was just in republican and early imperial time, then there were no roman army, instead germanic tribes were hired to fight for rome. Germany of 400 wasn't the same of germany of 50 bc, '400 germany was much more populated, well organized and wealthy, knew well roman tactics (a lot of germans were indeed at some point a roman soldier, like arminius the guy that kicked roman asses at teutoburg).