Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Galloglaich" data-source="post: 5413618" data-attributes="member: 77019">Well, it seems to be a cultural / military barrier, in all three cases. I wasn't as aware of the trade angle until reading the speigel article, (can you elaborate on that?). But as much as we tend to think of them as the same today, the Scandinavians and Germans are quite different and were even going way back when the Danevirke was originally built (when that was precisely isn't sure, maybe during the Migration era, maybe earlier) and I think the Danes definitely wanted to keep the Germans out as they often continued to need to do for the next thousand years.&nbsp;During the migration era obviously a big wall is a especially a plus. It won't keep roaming armies out but it will make it trickier and more dangerous for them to cross (especially trying to get back across it with loot). &nbsp;I think the distinctions between Norse and German got much more marked after Charlemagne converted the Saxons ... the brutal nature of that conversion also apparently alarmed the (still pagan) Danes. As we know back then pagan Europeans and Latinized Christian Europeans were basically oil and water. Somewhat less so for the Irish for example who while Christian were not entirely latin in their culture until later in the Middle Ages, but there was clearly a kind of 'ethnic' hatred on both sides. &nbsp;Similarly the Romanized Britons were &quot;oil and water&quot; with the Picts and other wild tribes of the far north, as were the Han Chinese from the various nomadic barbarians of Mongolia and Siberia. They couldnt' understand each other and couldn't come to some peaceful long term stable arrangement - the Monarchy / State and the tribal societies just don't mix.&nbsp; So there needed to be a wall.&nbsp;Can you elaborate on what you mean about the roll of walls and trade a little bit? What they said in the article seemed to make sense though it's the press not an academic writer so precision or context is frequently off...&nbsp;EDIT: I should add, I thought it was interesting that they had a brothel right next to the front gate. Truck drivers are truck drivers even 1000 years ago I guess....&nbsp;G.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Galloglaich, post: 5413618, member: 77019"] Well, it seems to be a cultural / military barrier, in all three cases. I wasn't as aware of the trade angle until reading the speigel article, (can you elaborate on that?). But as much as we tend to think of them as the same today, the Scandinavians and Germans are quite different and were even going way back when the Danevirke was originally built (when that was precisely isn't sure, maybe during the Migration era, maybe earlier) and I think the Danes definitely wanted to keep the Germans out as they often continued to need to do for the next thousand years. During the migration era obviously a big wall is a especially a plus. It won't keep roaming armies out but it will make it trickier and more dangerous for them to cross (especially trying to get back across it with loot). I think the distinctions between Norse and German got much more marked after Charlemagne converted the Saxons ... the brutal nature of that conversion also apparently alarmed the (still pagan) Danes. As we know back then pagan Europeans and Latinized Christian Europeans were basically oil and water. Somewhat less so for the Irish for example who while Christian were not entirely latin in their culture until later in the Middle Ages, but there was clearly a kind of 'ethnic' hatred on both sides. Similarly the Romanized Britons were "oil and water" with the Picts and other wild tribes of the far north, as were the Han Chinese from the various nomadic barbarians of Mongolia and Siberia. They couldnt' understand each other and couldn't come to some peaceful long term stable arrangement - the Monarchy / State and the tribal societies just don't mix. So there needed to be a wall. Can you elaborate on what you mean about the roll of walls and trade a little bit? What they said in the article seemed to make sense though it's the press not an academic writer so precision or context is frequently off... EDIT: I should add, I thought it was interesting that they had a brothel right next to the front gate. Truck drivers are truck drivers even 1000 years ago I guess.... G. [/QUOTE]

Verification