Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Frankreich & Allemagne

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Frankreich & Allemagne
    Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 12:01
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Often in assimilation the elements of one culture disappear.


well i'm not going to waste more time with you...
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 12:13

You are free to do as you like, however I recommend you to waste your time with some books, dictionaries, encyclopedias or so on. For instance, from the free-to-use GoogleBooks:

 
The term "assimilation" describes a process whereby members of an ethnic group take on the cultural and structural characteristics of another ethnic or national community.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Sep-2007 at 12:14
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 12:37
thats not what you said before. what you meant with "assimilation" before was cultural genocide. and by what else you worte it seems you believe in superior and inferior cultures theory, which makes you a fascist in my eyes even though it's more a "leftist" idea. and that gagauz live isolated somewhere in ukraine actually supports what i said (few in nubmers; run away rather than assimilate) as opposed to your idea of "assimilation".
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 15:49
I've never spoken of "cultural genocide" and in most cases I've described there is no such thing (i.e. a programme followed by a centralized institution in order to eradicate a culture).
 
Where did Gagauz run? A theory of eternal running (instead of assimilation) would have to find all the presumed extinct languages in some other corners of the world where they ran. Where are they or who killed them? But more to it, which is the evidence of the proper running/migration?
 
I expect you to apologize for calling me a fascist or to produce irefutable evidence I am one.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 06:12
I don't see a great deal of point in carrying this on. You've gone from flat denial of even the possibility of Alamanni settlement in the Moselle valley, calling it 'insulting', to merely claiming it it possible that the Alamanni presence north, east, south and west of it might simply be militaristic, and I guess that's as big a conversion as I can hope for.
 
However, I'll make a few comments and add some new points, and then I'll probably shut up.
 
Originally posted by Temujin


with central france i mean the locations of battles like Lingones and Reims.
I accept they represent the military reach of the Alamanni. However Lingones is about as far west of Mulhouse (in Alsace) as Reims is west of Thionville (in Lorraine/Luxembourg). Granted they are both outside the zone of Alamanni settlement, they're about the same distance away. That seems perfectly in accord with my thesis. In fact it's pretty much what one would expect. (Zlpich is also about the same distance NNE of Thionville.)


there are no German speakers in Italy, there are also no German speakers in Germany. everyone in Germany speaks a certain dialect even though in the age of mass media ever more children grow up speaking high-german as mother tongue. I already posted a map of the Alemanni language border and Luxemburg is by far not part of it. as for Italy, there are Alemanni speakers in the Aosta valley. besides, later Germanic tribes didn't contested themselves in languages, they just replaced each others, sometimes with a couple of words remaining. but in our case Alemanni tongue and Frankish tongue are in direct contrast. they can only speak either one of it and Luxemburgers speak an obvious Frankish dialect.
"there are no German speakers in Italy" "as for Italy, there are Alemanni speakers in the Aosta valley." No comment.
There is no 'Alamanni tongue' and no 'Frankish tongue'. There are multiple dialects that are classified as Alamanni and multiple dialects that are classified as Frankish. And they are all 'German' along with many other dialects that are neither Frankish nor Alaman.
Anyway language is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would claim that there were no Gauls in the Moselle valley, or that they don't form part of Luxembourger ancestry. But no-one in Luxembourg speaks any kind of Celtic language.


That doesn't show anybody in the area. 


in that case you cannot read maps correctly. the map shows Hun presence in all of eastern europe and as you corretcly pointed out "no one else".
I said it doesn't show anybody in the area. That is correct. The area is blank.
 
this points at the difficulty at locating a certain tribe, even as well-known and dominant as the Huns to a specific location. we know of the campaigns of the Husn and according to your theory most of eastern europe shoudl claim Hun heritage "because they were there once and fought a battle there"...
I never said that, so I don't see why you are using quotation marks. All of the battles mentioned (apart from the raids on Trier by the Franks) took place well outside the area I am talking about.

Part of my point all along is that when the Franks did take control, they did not actually eliminate all the Alamanni living there (or for that matter the Treveri and other Gauls who were still around).


Ok then explain to me why the Frankish duchy of the Alemans did not include Luxemburg but only territory that are still Alemanni today? since Fransk controlled most of modern France and Germany and the countries inbetween there would have been no problem to establish the duchy in ethncially appropriate borders. or why did they have set up such a duchy at all, and not establsihed their own, random provincial borders if people really mixed as strong as you suggest back then?
They set up the Duchy of Lorraine where the population was mixed, and where the Franks had taken control from the Alamanni. But this was all later anyway.
 
 
Within less than a century, the Burgundians, a small tribe compared to the Alamanni, moved from the Vistula basin to the Rhone and southern France. They were established in the Worms area for about 20-30 years at the turn of the century (in the middle of the period of Alamanni occupation there.) That's what I meant by they 'passed through'. The Vandals had already done the same thing. The Vandals were moving even faster, since they crossed the frozen Rhine in 406 and in 409 were already crossing the Pyrenees.


we also know of migratory movements of the Cimbri and Teutons which moved through a lot of areas and eventually were slaughtered wholesale by the Romans including women & children (or comitted suicide).
I don't consider that evidence that the Franks did the same thing. Otherwise what's the relevance? I was just explaining that the Burgundians and Vandals, while they passed through the area, didn't stop there for other than a short time.
 
anyways, we know exactly that this tribe extinguished and i'm not going to believe they litterally f**ked their way through Germany, the Alps, northern Italy and southern France leaving their traces all along the way. especially if we considder that they took their womenfolk and children with them all the time. leavign old and sick behidn is negligible sicne no sane person would have copulated with a sick or old person from a foreign tribe.
I have no idea which tribe you are talking about here. Certainly the Alamanni were not extinguished.
The Alamanni did not migrate in the way the Burgundians and Vandals and Goths migrated. They stayed in contact with their original homeland, and simply spread out from it. More on the importance of the difference below.
 
The point is that up until the late 5th century the Alamanni were undoubtedly established
(a) on the right bank of the Rhine up to more or less the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine.
(b) on the left bank of the Rhine in modern Alsace (probably also in modern Lorraine, though that may be more disputable)
(c) on the left bank of the Rhine west of Mainz.
In addition they were finally defeated by the Franks at modern Zlpich which is as far north as Lige and Aachen.


(c) is incorrect, they were present there but not established:
 
Plot those areas on a map and you get Alamanni presence in a big arc with a hole in the middle including the areas that have formed historic Luxembourg, at a time when no other major Germanic tribe was in the area. It seems to me likely to the point of obvious that the Alamanni would have filled the gap.


no, i think the wikipedia map was pretty good
But if you bring in wikipedia here you have to accept that wikipedia also, in the entries on Thionville and the province of Lorraine, specifically refers to Alamanni settlement there.
 
 in showing 1. the actual area of Alemanni tribal settlement and 2. the maximum range of military camapigns outside their territory. if you look at the battle of Zlpich, Reims and Pavia, you get a pretty clear idea what the limits of Alemanni reach were, they are all appx. the same distacne from the Alemanni heartland. i mean come on, do you think Alemanni can't expand beyond their own territory militarcially...?
I dealt with the battles issue above. You are overlooking the fact that Rheims and Zlpich are only the same distance from Lorraine/Luxembourg as Langres, for instance, is from Alsace, or Pavia from the Allemani settlements in Switzerland. That would indicate therefore that the Moselle valley was indeed part of the heartland.
On the military reach vs migration vs extended settlement issue:
Armies and migrating peoples are driven by a different mechanism than groups that are simply expanding their area of settlement. Migrating peoples look for physically easy routes to traverse: armies do something similar but are more ready and able to traverse difficult terrain where necessary. People who are spreading out however follow the fertile routes - the areas where the 'grass is greener'.
 
In this context the Eifel-Oesling-Ardennes area is significantly infertile and also difficult to traverse - even for a modern army, which is why the Allies were taken aback by the German counter-attack in December 1944. It divides the country downstream from around Bonn, from the country upstream, and the migrating Vandals and Burgundians stayed south of it, while even the Franks outflanked it on the west, rather than move straight up the Rhine.
 
In particular settlers north of the mountain complex have no motivation to move into it, because you can only grow things there with difficulty. If you have a choice between setting up new farms (or taking over existing ones) in the Oesling or in Limburg, you choose Limburg. Which is how come even the Ripuarian Franks moved around the obstacle rather than go over it. 
 
For the Alamanni south in Alsace the situation was very different. The headwaters of the Moselle are in Alamanni territory, and the valley does not only provide easy movement northwards (until it meets the foothills of the Oesling and bends sharply eastward) but is fertile enough to provide easily for expanding farms and setting up new ones.
 
A couple of quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica (CD-ROM version):
 
On Clovis:
"Three years later he undertook a campaign against the Alamanni of the middle Rhine, and at Zlpich (Tolbiac) his forces faced defeat. Only at this point did he think of invoking the help of his wife's god; and defeat was turned to victory."
 
Note that Clovis was 'undertaking a campaign' against the 'Alamanni of the middle Rhine'. Tolbiac was not an Alamanni raid into Frankish territory, it was an assault the other way around.
 
"In 506 Clovis was still active in the Rhineland against both the Alamanni and the Thuringians."
That kind of underlines the fact that Clovis was on the offensive in the Rhineland, rather than defending Frankish territory.
 
On barbarian migrations:
"These migrations were in no way nomadic; they were the gradual expansions of a land-hungry peasantry. Tribes did not always migrate en masse. Usually, because of the loose political structure, groups remained in the original homelands or settled down at points along the
migration route."
Land-hungry peasantry expand along rivers and through fertile valleys: the don't willingly move into barren country like the Oesling.
 
On Frankfurt:
"The name Frankfurt ("Ford [Passage, Crossing] of the Franks") probably arose about AD 500, when the Franks drove the Alemanni south, ..."
 
Out of the immediate area of course, but an indication that the Franks were pushing into Alamanni territory everywhere.
 
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 12:47
first, there is no such thing as a  German, if you don't know that you know nothing about German history. and i hope you believe me more than Hitler. also, something as a German language does really not exist in reality. high german today is the Hannover dialect which was adopted as official language in the later 19th cenutry.

if you noticed some articles at the wiki also have the alemanni language option, so Alemanni is a real existing langauge. i would recommend you to refrain from using "German" to describe the language of the German Swiss but rather use Alemanni instead, you'll make more friends this way, i guarantee...

second, it would be intresting for me how you describe the ethnogenese(sp?) of the Palatinate. in case you don't know palatinate is a different frankish from that used in Luxemburg and the rhine area. furthermore, this kind of frankish is classified as "middle german" while Alemanni is "upper german" while the frankish used in modern franconia is classified as upper german as well.

also, Alemanni custom includes a native form of carneval, which does not exist in areas other than those traditionally alemanni. and this is a dominant cultural element that would not dissapear after Frankish occupation. if the Luxemburgers, and even the palatinate people would have such customs, i would give this idea a secodn thought. but seeing as the rhine has its own distinct form of carneval, which developed in the 19th century, i cannot possibly believe they were ever Alemanni for a time long enough to warrant saying they are Alemanni.

as for our "discussion" you still failed to bring evidence as to why there was a migration in the direction you indicated as the Alemanni were not pressed and had an established migration area where they settled. if anything, Alemanni moved from the middle rhine area southwards, eventually occupying Swiss Alps. but i see no evidence of Alemanni settlement beyond the middle rhine and definately not migrations from the leftbank upper rhine northwards.



Originally posted by Chilbudios

I've never spoken of "cultural genocide" and in most cases I've described there is no such thing (i.e. a programme followed by a centralized institution in order to eradicate a culture).


you used the word assimilation in a way to express a form of genocide, here you even deny the existance of something as a cultural genocide. if that doesn't make you fascist i don't know what.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 12:56
you used the word assimilation in a way to express a form of genocide
I've already told you I haven't. Repeating your accusation doesn't make it true.
 
here you even deny the existance of something as a cultural genocide
I am not, I only told you I haven't spoken of it.
 
if that doesn't make you fascist i don't know what.
I'm bored of your inabilities and frustrations. Good bye! (anyway you said you don't want to waste your time with me, so I'll help you with that)
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 18-Sep-2007 at 12:59
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 10:00
   
Originally posted by Temujin

first, there is no such thing as a German,
I have a lot of German friends who would disagree with you, and I guess they have as much right to consider themselves Germans as you have to consider them whatever you feel like. 
 
It only takes seconds to find examples to show how out on a limb you are here - for instance: http://www.g-8.de/nn_90704/Content/DE/Artikel/2007/07/2007-07-12-eurobarometer.html
"Fr 65 Prozent der Deutschen ist es eine gute Sache, zur Europischen Union zu gehren"
If there are no Germans, how can there be 65 percent of them?
 
if you don't know that you know nothing about German history. and i hope you believe me more than Hitler. also, something as a German language does really not exist in reality. high german today is the Hannover dialect which was adopted as official language in the later 19th cenutry.
By that count, there is also no English, Spanish, French, Russian.... language.
 
The convention that says a particular variety of human speech/writing shouod be considered a 'language' and which should be considered a 'language' is artificial. Ltzebuergesch is officially considered a 'language', but the other Moselle dialects aren't. Why are Dutch and Afrikaans officially considered different languages, while French Canadian and French, or American English and English English aren't?
 
There is, formally, a German language that is studied by foreigners and that is written by Germans. It may not be spoken, except formally, by Germans, but it exists.


if you noticed some articles at the wiki also have the alemanni language option, so Alemanni is a real existing langauge.
Hardly proof. By that criterion, again, Walloon is a separate language from French, but Picard isn't. Scots English is a separate language but Geordie and Scouse and American English aren't. I don't think too many people consider Lombard a separate language from Italian either: or if they do they probably think Calabrese or Sicilian are too.
 
i would recommend you to refrain from using "German" to describe the language of the German Swiss but rather use Alemanni instead, you'll make more friends this way, i guarantee...
I spent a lot of time in Switzerland, mainly in Appenzell, as a teenager because I had a pen-friend there. Everybody was happy to call it Schwyzerdtsch (and to refer to what is spoken in Germany, and mostly what they spoke with me, as 'Deutsch'). I'm pretty sure that most of the  boys in the school would have only known of the Alamanni as long-ago ancestors, as I would have known the Anglo-Saxons.


second, it would be intresting for me how you describe the ethnogenese(sp?) of the Palatinate. in case you don't know palatinate is a different frankish from that used in Luxemburg and the rhine area. furthermore, this kind of frankish is classified as "middle german" while Alemanni is "upper german" while the frankish used in modern franconia is classified as upper german as well.
This issue is confusing, since when you wrote 'Pfalz=Palatinate' that isn't true in English. Not only are/were there several German 'palatinates' ranging from the Rhine to eastern Bavaria, there are/were palatinates in Poland, and Durham, Cheshire and Lancashire are palatinates in England, and had there own palatinate courts until the 1970s, though most of the other privileges were lost in the 19th century. Tipperary was a palatinate in Ireland under English rule.
 
The word comes from 'palatinus' in Latin, so I guess there may have been others elsewhere in Europe.
 
So I would have thought there was no particular ethnic basis for a palatinate. As to the ethnicity of particular palatinates, I probably don't know. I don't see what it has to do with anything we've been discussing though.


also, Alemanni custom includes a native form of carneval, which does not exist in areas other than those traditionally alemanni. and this is a dominant cultural element that would not dissapear after Frankish occupation.
Carnival is a religious festival, apart from that in Cologne, which is modern anyway. We're talking about the time before either the Franks or the Alamanni were Christian.
 
 if the Luxemburgers, and even the palatinate people would have such customs, i would give this idea a secodn thought. but seeing as the rhine has its own distinct form of carneval, which developed in the 19th century, i cannot possibly believe they were ever Alemanni for a time long enough to warrant saying they are Alemanni.

as for our "discussion" you still failed to bring evidence as to why there was a migration in the direction you indicated as the Alemanni were not pressed and had an established migration area where they settled. if anything, Alemanni moved from the middle rhine area southwards, eventually occupying Swiss Alps. but i see no evidence of Alemanni settlement beyond the middle rhine and definately not migrations from the leftbank upper rhine northwards.
No more than you have provided any evidence that there wasn't. As Chilbudios pointed out, this is a question of plausibilities and likelihood not absolute proof.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 14:53
German exist modern day because a german nation exists. and thats about the end of the story. before that there were small states and before that there were tribal duchies, unlike other nations were one ethnicity was dominant or where everything got centralized and standardized in middle ages or at least early modern period. of course towards foreinger everyone would introduce himself as German, but not within. if you don't know about this you'll never be able to understand the situation of germany before the middle 19th century.

if Luxemburg is Alemanni then Palatinate (which lies inbetween) would have to be too but it isn't, and you'll not find anyone from there who woudl claim so, same as the other Rhinefrankish territories akin to Luxemburg. this seems to be a purely Luxemburgish fantasy. btw i know about the otehr palatinates and the thymology, but if you would be familiar with what i'm talkign about you would know that there is only one palatinate, all others are called differently (Oberpfalz=Upperpalatinate). if you say THE palatinate, everyone will know what you're talkign about, besides even in english the dialect is called as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatinate_German

it got famous in particular because of Helmuth Kohl.

Swabian-Alemannic carneval only exists in Alemannic regions (Alsace, Switzerland, southern half of Baden-Wrttemberg, Swabian district of Bavaria, Vorarlberg). it is a heathen tradition even thought he modern variant is not like every old pagan tradition.

you cannot simply say everythign that was not Frankish was automatically Alemanni, because thats what you're doing. it is possible they were either native Romano-Gauls (i see no reason why major towns & regions could not be independent in a way similar to Syagryus duchy) or alternatively occupied by other Franks (considderring the size of the Franks, not all Franks were politically controlled by Clovis).
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 17:16
Originally posted by Temujin


you cannot simply say everythign that was not Frankish was automatically Alemanni, because thats what you're doing. it is possible they were either native Romano-Gauls (i see no reason why major towns & regions could not be independent in a way similar to Syagryus duchy) or alternatively occupied by other Franks (considderring the size of the Franks, not all Franks were politically controlled by Clovis).
 
Have you heard of the European ethno database?
"The European ethnohistory database is a unique resource which describes the movements and locations of 891 ethnic units (each a "gens" or an archaeological assemblage) from 2200 BC to 1970 AD. The data were abstracted from a total of 191 secondary or tertiary ethnohistorical/archeological literature sources, as well as 91 historical maps. A total of 6161 records was originally captured from these materials, but only 3460 remain as accepted records after numerous checks to correct records, avoid duplications, and improve logical consistency between records.

Over the past five years, the dataset has been subjected to three separate correction cycles. The records were first examined for consistency within a single named group (e.g., the Goths). Quite a few records were removed because they clearly duplicated other active records in the dataset or occurred too early in time (earlier than the 2200 BC cutoff date). Note, however, that there are 37 records that start between 3000 BC and 2200 BC. These were included for a variety of reasons to round out the database. The next logical step was an examination of all gens/archaeological groups, within a language family (e.g., examining all the Slavic or Germanic speakers, etc.). This check allowed for correction of synonymous gens names, resulting in greater consistency between the data of ethnically or linguistically related groups. The final pass-through for consistency required a global examination of all data records which fell into one of eighty-five 5 x 5-degree-quadrat land areas. To accomplish this final step, the geographic area described by each record was drawn by hand on a map, digitized on a computer screen, and then plotted to check for accuracy. The verbal text decriptions resulted in geographic outlines which can be plotted on a computer screen. (The LINMAP program will allow the user to view the outlines assigned to any record of interest. Please see the LINMAP documentation for more details on this point.) This final correction pass resolved errors not visible in the first two checks--those between groups occupying the same territory (when they should not), missing "vacant" areas (which should have been inhabited), etc. While it is impossible to guarantee that this (or any other dataset like it) is error-free, we have taken great pains to insure that the data are accurate within the limits of our expertise.

It is our hope that the information summarized in the records contained in the European ethnohistory dataset will be used across several, divergent disciplines. Experts in European history will no doubt find it a useful resource, as will others whose studies are focussed on the anthropology, linguistics, or genetics of Europe."

You can check it out at  
a link I'm pretty sure I gave you before.
 
It has forty-some entries relating to the Alamanni. Many if not most of them place the Alamanni in the area I'm talking about at some time or other. Sample:
 
"275 276   N Alamanni      G Rhein-Mosel RR area (Trier)"
"305 #      N Alamanni      G Meuse R area, just W of Mosel R, around Foug, E.F."
"356 #     N Alamanni        G Dieuze, betw Rhine & Mosel RR, nr   
                                        Seille R, Moselle Region, E F."
and so on. (I had to reformat entries and abbreviate some, but they're all there on the database.)
 
I don't imagine you'll pay it any attention of course, but anyone else who may be reading this may be interested in looking it up.



Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 20:44

I do not know what are the sources for the records but it is very interesting information. Actually in those records it is specified very clearly that Alamanni expanded in the Palatinate in the second half of the 5th century and stayed there several decades until they were conquered by Franks at the end of the same century (the year is 496, so I assume it is about the battle of Tolbiac).

 
I have downloaded the software and on the map it created (the program runs in a DOS box) the territory of the Alamanni prior to the conquest of the Franks was neighbouring the territory of today Luxembourg (not the Grand Duchy) in south (Lorraine) and west (Palatinate).
 
 
I've also discovered the system of references. So the information that Alamanns expanded in Palatinate is taken from:
 
Schmidt, Berthold.  1983.  Die Alamannen.  pp. 336-361.  In Krueger, Bruno (ed.) Die Germanen.  Vol. 2.  Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.


Edited by Chilbudios - 19-Sep-2007 at 21:10
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 07:00
Thanks Chilbudios.
 
I saw that mapping software was available, but chickened out of downloading it.
 
Incidentally the 'Grand Duchy' is modern Luxembourg. Historically it works out oddly that the County was bigger than the Duchy and the Duchy was bigger than the Grand Duchy.
 
As the country got smaller the ruler got a higher title Smile
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 07:22
Oh, sorry for the confusion then.
 
Anyway, my point is that one consdiders the historically extended borders of Luxembourg it certainly covers the areas that map assigns to Alamanni between 450s and late 490s.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 12:54
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Schmidt, Berthold.  1983.  Die Alamannen.  pp. 336-361.  In Krueger, Bruno (ed.) Die Germanen.  Vol. 2.  Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.


for what its worth, from the book above it seems the Alemanns did not settle down until 500, that means every territory before that is irrelevant. it also seems there are traces of alemanni settlement as far as Dijon. it is probable to me, that those other Alemanns from northern and western territories resettled in modern Switzerland, this is the only explanation of the thorough "Alemannization" of the German Swiss, which only much later became Alemanni than those of present Germany. so, as for the case with Burgundians for example, former Alemanni presence in Luxemburg can be mostly neglected, a sidenote to history.


Edited by Temujin - 24-Sep-2007 at 12:57
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 13:54
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Schmidt, Berthold.  1983.  Die Alamannen.  pp. 336-361.  In Krueger, Bruno (ed.) Die Germanen.  Vol. 2.  Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.


for what its worth, from the book above it seems the Alemanns did not settle down until 500, that means every territory before that is irrelevant. it also seems there are traces of alemanni settlement as far as Dijon. it is probable to me, that those other Alemanns from northern and western territories resettled in modern Switzerland, this is the only explanation of the thorough "Alemannization" of the German Swiss, which only much later became Alemanni than those of present Germany. so, as for the case with Burgundians for example, former Alemanni presence in Luxemburg can be mostly neglected, a sidenote to history.
 
Of course it's a sidenote. And yes, it's from about 500 that the Alamanni settled down in more or less their permanent territories. No-one ever said any different.
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 14:01
Ok then what was all the fuss about? Big%20smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.