Author Topic: Roman Empire(western) was defeated by twohanded throwers(franks/goths/germans)  (Read 6454 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kataphraktos

  • Beggar
  • Renown: 0
  • Infamy: 1
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
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

there is no Roman in the west after 400s but name. last Roman Emperors moved to East for many reason so Eastern Roman (also True Roman Empire) survived until the age of gunpowder
Atam izindeyiz, yarın gel...

Offline Sharky

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Legione Italica
  • Game nicks: LEGIO_Sharkyborn_Sharkatron Legio_Lollia_Paolina Legio_Sharkatrower Legio_SharkaNukes
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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 09:51:26 pm by Sharky »

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Its always about money who wins a war.

Economical might = victory.

Rome got sloppy economically, became broke and died.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline Heresiarch

  • Noble
  • **
  • Renown: 11
  • Infamy: 19
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
In one respect yes, money wins wars - but also ideology.
The Merovingians (Normans) were the ones who brought down the Byzantium Empire. The Pope was of German ancestry and could therefore hire Swabian swordsmen for his empire, but they had no chance against the Norman cavalry! The Normans captured the Pope, but since they were Christians themselves they took him prisoner after receiving his grace. The Normans were in it for the money and the land that Italy had to offer, especially consumables like spices, fruits and such, but they couldn't simply roll in and take it because of ideology and religion. Also it is interesting to note that two Germanic tribes were involved in the downfall of the Roman Empire; the Normans who decended from the Merovigians and the Swabians.
The Germanic people have influenced modern civilization more than we think.

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 armor hundred few 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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 01:57:32 am by Heresiarch »

Offline Sharky

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Legione Italica
  • Game nicks: LEGIO_Sharkyborn_Sharkatron Legio_Lollia_Paolina Legio_Sharkatrower Legio_SharkaNukes
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 armor hundred few 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.
Actually 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.
Also where did i say that romans invented armours and swords? Actually their lorica hamata is probably celtic stuff.  Anyway "barbarians" did have only few armours, most of the people couldn't afford one. Instead all romans had good armour after the marian reform (the state provided good armours even for the poorest soldier).
Short swords were used not only by roman of course, and i can't think of one people in classical times that didn't use spears.

Its always about money who wins a war.

Economical might = victory.

Rome got sloppy economically, became broke and died.
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.
There are other important factors, like will to fight, technology,training, tactics, weakness to some unknown disease that the enemy could bring, etc etc.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 04:31:23 am by Sharky »

Offline Heresiarch

  • Noble
  • **
  • Renown: 11
  • Infamy: 19
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
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 :p

Also have you heard of the siegfried saga? Some historians believe it is a metaphor for a germanic tribe (personified by siegfried) slaying a whole roman legion (the dragon) in the forests of germany, thereby gaining vast riches the so called niebelungen treasure, which was cursed and is believed to be on the bottom of a lake in germany. Also some believe that the magical sword Gram was a roman gladius percieved by the germanics to be magic since it was made of steel, a then unknown material to them. Yes the treasure ended up killing siegfried so what do we learn? war for profit is doomed from the start!

~edit~

2hand axe discussion: I am inclined to believe that germanic people preferred small onehanded weapons since they were in the dense forests of europe, but for the sake of arguing I will maintain that 2handed axes were used since the bronze age :)
Oh and one account (although from 1000AD) of the battle of stamford bridge tells of a nordic axeman who held the brige against the saxons and slew 40 of them before dying, see if they knew how effective spamming was in 1000AD then why not a century before also? :p ok ok I tried
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 12:31:22 pm by Heresiarch »

Offline Sharky

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Legione Italica
  • Game nicks: LEGIO_Sharkyborn_Sharkatron Legio_Lollia_Paolina Legio_Sharkatrower Legio_SharkaNukes
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 :p
I 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).
Also the Visighots and the Saxons didn't "came out of nowhere". They served in roman armies for centuries, they traded with them, and they were really well organized by '400.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 02:31:51 pm by Sharky »

Offline Heresiarch

  • Noble
  • **
  • Renown: 11
  • Infamy: 19
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
vandals came out of nowhere they are entirely different people than saxon/goths