�Vandals" - a character assassination

this is difficult. the area inhabited by Bavarians today was first inhabited by Rugians, then they either renamed or were replaced by Bajuwars (never heard Boyars before, Boyars are Russian nobles...). and Rugians/Bajuwars never really major clashes with Rome, if any at all... I think i also once heard a theory that Bajuwar comes from Awars (Baj-awars) but i think this is just another wordplay...

Does then the name Bavaria/Bayern come from the Celtic tribe of the Boii, like neighbouring Bohemia?

I have another etymology question which I am sure a certain member who happens to be fairly German may be able to answer. Do we get Bavaria from Barbaria? Are Bavarians named because they were considered barbarian? If not, where do they get such a name? Being partly of Bavarian stock myself, I wonder if perhaps these relentless scourges of Pax Romana might have resembled me just a little bit

I agree with the above. In recent discussions on the influence of Rome, it's been clear that Gaul and Britain were virtually the only beneficiaries of the "civilizating" influx of Rome, no matter how limited and opressive it may have been. The conclussion was more or less that the world hardly needed Rome but that Gaul and Britain did benefit in many aspects from its influx and that otherwise they would have remained marginal for longer probably. 

 

 Funny how some would accuse the Vandals of savagery, but nothing is said about romans tyranny except as a civilising force. The Gauls of Brennus and the vandals were altar boys compared to the savagery of the romans. The romans were more systematic and radical in their way of making warfare. I've always hated the roman, the best that had ever happed to France is the invasion of the Franks, otherwise France would have always been in the shadow of oppressive romans.

 

 Did France need rome? Definitely not, the Gauls and Franks had mastery of metal than romans didn't possess. They just needed better organisation for warfare.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

And Byzantine has a connotation of being lost in trivial elaborated discussions about nothing. 

 I think its been demonstrated by now with little room for doubt that the Venetians hijacking of the crusade was both short-sighted and greedy.

 By removing the only thing that had stopped the Muslim tide from sweeping through europe, the 4th crusade doomed people who had for centuries been protected by Byzantium (inadvertantly or otherwise) what resulted from the 4th crusade was to leave the Balkans a total mess. 

 A mish mash of shortlived crusader states and greek successor states to Byzantium, given the chance for the Bulgarians and Serbs to cause chaos, and opening the door for Turkish involvement across the Hellaspont. All it caused was a series of seemingly never ending wars between these relatively small states that emerged after 1204, by weakening and inevitably fighting each other they only sealed their own fate as the Turks continued to advance.

 A balance which had existed in some form or other for 6 centuries was destroyed utterly, even after Constantinople was recovered and some Emperors tried desperately to recover the situation it was futile as the state was bankrupted and internally shattered.

 These are the facts of some of the consequences of the 4th crusade.

 If youd like to make a final counter argument Maju then feel free.

  After that though both sides of the argument have been made well and even though I disagree with Maju I think he still made a good and consistant argument for his point, I think this particular issue has been practically exhausted now as all has been covered.

It's a comforting thought, that the Venetian inspired sack of Constantinople in 1204 was in the long run a spectacular own goal.
As we have discussed before, the conquest of Constantinople through the Crusaders and the consequent formation of the Latin Empire, was a blow from which the Byzantine Empire never fully recovered, and thus an event that contributed immensely to the end of the Empire in 1453.
The Ottoman ascent to the most powerful state in the Levant, not only diminshed the Venetian trade and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but also inspired the quest for an alternative route to the resources and markets of Eastern Asia.
With the traditional land routes via Constantinople no longer secure, Central Europe had to find a different trade route, and the nations on the Atlantic coast went off to find it.
And that was the end of Venice as the predominant trading nation in Europe, although they could hang on for a couple of centuries, Venice's significance never was the same after 1453 and 1492.
Serves them right!

 Nothing youve just said changes the fact not only did the crusaders and venetians break the crusading ideal utterly and were actually excommunicated for it, but they then attacked an empire that had absolutely nothing to do with them.

 If Venice believed that by hurting Byzantium as it did they would suddenly gain all the trade with no opposition they were even more short-sighted than Id thought originally. Had they not heard of the turks? did they think by removing the only thing that united an entire region that everything would turn out ok? that the Greeks would just die, the bulgarians and serbs just vanish and turks turn away?

 You remove a power base and you leave a vacuum of power that was not in this case filled, and I say again the consequences of this unprovoked attack were catastrophic for the Balkans.

 

 Theres a difference between the Sack of Constantinople and destruction of Carthage.

 Rome had suffered horrendously during the punic wars REGARDLESS of the reasons why the wars began etc. Italy was ravaged from the top to bottom, well over 100,000 men will have died on the field of battle.

 Its unsuprising rome finished Carthage for good, but remember like ive actually said in an earlier post Scipio did not want further war against Carthage, it was a man Cato who was basically racist towards the carthaginians that stirred up tension and made war inevitable. His influence started the war, however did Carthage ever destroy anybody? I think so.

 Constantinople had nothing to do with the objectives of the 4th crusade had nothing to do with the money troubles of the crusaders and nothing to do with the problem this caused Venice. That is fact.