Inquisition in Europe: what they hide.

[rupol2000]

Apparently this name is associated not with Rome, but with Romania and the Roma Gypsies
The gypsies just have a genre of romance, which the hussars also had, and this is the same style of musical performance

 

[rupol2000]

And here, in addition to this, the question arises regarding the Frankish state. If it was then where is their style in art?

Most likely the state of the Franks was invented for the same reasons.
There was no franc state at all

 

[rupol2000]

The Inquisition came along with Gothic art and the Christian Church, and this meant a change in the political regime from around the 12th century.

 

[rupol2000]

Most likely it was only the beginning of events. Apparently, the main events developed closer to the 14th century. There was an epidemic of plague, at this time there was an attack on the golden Horde of the Timurids. Apparently only by the 15th century the Germans established themselves in Europe, and it seems that it was not even the Franks, but the peoples closer to the Baltic. Perhaps even the Balts, close to the Prussians and Litvinians. This was exactly the place of the Teutons.

 

[rupol2000]

Obviously, this was a very protracted process, with the resistance of the knightly orders and the complex policy of their interaction with the church, which attracted some of them to their side. It ended only in the era of the Reformation. It was from this time that canonical scriptures was reliably recorded in Christianity. Apparently it was introduced into Christianity just then.

 

[zaangalewa]

once again: the native language of these peoples is Celtic Latin.

Ignoramus, ignorabimus. The language of this people is and will forever be unkown. No one has any source whic malke i possible to reconstruct their language.

Before the Franks, this land was known as Celtica.

What a nonsense expression. The area around Bohemia and Bavaria is the center where all Celts once came from and "Celtica" was once nearly everywhere.

It seems there was also an intermediate Old French.

There is always an intermediate forn between old forms and new forms of a language- between the langauge of yesterda and the language of tomorrow. Languages "live" - together with us.

 

[zaangalewa]

This is a controversial statement

For "to be a soldier" is "to be an idiot" not a bad qualification. Perhaps you should read from time to time a book of your own Slawic culture.

 

[zaangalewa]

Most likely they had no cavalry at all. As a rule, they hired Sarmatians as cavalrymen. In any case, the bulk of their troops were infantry. These are Macedonian phalanxes and Roman legionnaires

Do you ever think about anything what you say?

 

[zaangalewa]

And in fact, the Huns and Avars were not the first eastern peoples?

¿Eastern people? Huns? Turks? Mongols? Chinese? Red Indians? New Yorkers?

on this land,

In the East-Rome (=Orient) of West-Rome (=Occident)?

this is just a new influx of people from the East, where their fathers arrived at the time of the arrival of the Celts during the Hallstadt culture or earlier, this is the land of their fathers.

Question: Are Turkish people Celts in your view to the world? Are Turks Slaws?

 

[rupol2000]

For "to be a soldier" is "to be an idiot" not a bad qualification. Perhaps you should read from time to time a book of your own Slawic culture.

This only applies to soldiers of the German-Macedonian type, these soldiers were ordinary slaves, and did not have the initiative in battle.
This is still practiced in European non-professional armies.
In professional armies, the opposite is true. It is no coincidence that the intelligence requirements for US Marine Corps officers are very high, and 99% of the population filtered by tests. True, now it is fall, but still it is much higher than average.

 

[rupol2000]

Attila also spoke contemptuously about the Roman legionaries.

 

[rupol2000]

For slave armies, stupid soldiers are even more convenient, because they are obedient and follow all orders without asking about politics. Such an army does not threaten the power of the priesthood.

 

[rupol2000]

And the knights were highly professional warriors. The Avars spent all their free time on military exercises. At least 10 combat infantrymen were fielded against one cavalryman. But it also happened that one knight defeated a hundred or more rabble
In general, the art of war requires the maximum from a person. In our time, any well-read crammer can pretend to be an intellectual, and no one can test his real abilities.
But war does not forgive mistakes and weakness

 

[zaangalewa]

And besides, there, in the original names, it is not the Franks that appear, but the Teutons

Teutons?

and presumably Dans (Deutscher)

Dans=¿Germans?. Never any German or any Dane ever did say so as far as I know.

Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Teutonicae/Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation

With "Teutones" has "German" absolutelly nothing to do. The word "teutones" is only an onomatopoetic expression for the German word for German = "deutsch". And this word "deutsch" (which came from the Germanic word "thiot") means practically nothing else than "united" (by being a member of any group of German language such as for example the Frisian language or the Bavarian language). Example: Three friend of mine - from Friesland, Hessen and Bavaria - vistted a shop. The Friesian said to the Hesse "La da tid!" - The Hesse asked the Bavarian: "What did he say???" - The Bavarian answered "Lou da'ra mal dahoi!". He also did not undertand this. The standard German expression had been: "Lass dir mal Zeit" In English this mean something like "Take your time!".

So the "Holy Roman Empire of German (=united) nation" is not a nation !!!

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, Prussianism was synonymous with stupid soldiers. This was also the case in Russia in the 18th century, especially under Paul. He completely adopted the Prussian model, and it was complete submission, they were all in wigs and sprinkled these wigs with some kind of shit. They required impeccable accuracy and punctuality, complete obedience. They permanently marched in sherengs and so on
And they usually used the most primitive tactics of a linear system.

 

[rupol2000]

Such armies were made possible by firearms. Even women and children could participate, physically, all that was required of them from the warior's skills is reloading a musket.

 

[zaangalewa]

This only applies to soldiers of the German-Macedonian type, these soldiers were ordinary slaves, and did not have the initiative in battle.
This is still practiced in European non-professional armies.
In professional armies, the opposite is true. It is no coincidence that the intelligence requirements for US Marine Corps officers are very high, and 99% of the population filtered by tests. True, now it is fall, but still it is much higher than average.

I hope you know that it is impossible to speak with you reasonable !!! Between fantasy and reality seems not to exist any difference in your "thoughts".

Short: To think a nation is intelligent because it has many soldiers and many weapons is nonsense. Take Rome as an example. Rome had very few soldiers.

This graph says by the way absolutelly nothing. You had to compare this test-IQs (which tests - which middle and deviation? - how many tests were made? ... and so on ... ) with the average test results of the whole population in this years. For the people in 2014 are other things important and motivating and their knowledge is different from the people in 1980. If they used always the same test then I would not expect any other result. The result means: The test grows older.

 

[rupol2000]

In general, the word "Prussianism" was synonymous with dull cohesion and a slavish mentality of obedience to orders, punctuality and accuracy, diligence, not only in the army.

 

[rupol2000]

I hope you know that it is impossible to speak with you reasinable !!! Between fanatsy and realiyt smenton to to eist na differnce in your "thoughts".

Short: To think a nation is intelligent because it has many soldiers and many weapons is nonsense. Take Rome as an example. Rome had very few soldiers.

This graph says by the way absolutelly nothing.

It's a lie. The Roman army since the time of the republic always consisted only of stupid slave infantry and they always fought with combat units, were armed only with short swords, drotics and shields. It was sharpened for battles against cavalry with bows. If their formation was violated, they were immediately destroyed. For this, heavy riders were required from the very beginning.

This type of army should always be numerous, because they have weak striking power and a large expenditure of manpower. This is true even today for ordinary infantry.

 

[rupol2000]

So, quick and easy, let us attack the enemy, for the one who strikes is always courageous. Scorn these multi-lingual tribes gathered here: a sign of fear is to defend yourself by the allied forces.
Look! Already before your onslaught, the enemies were struck with horror: they are looking for heights, occupying mounds and in late repentance pray for fortifications in the steppe.
You know how light the weapon of the Romans is: not only the first wound is painful for them, but the dust itself, when they go in battle formation and close their formation under the turtle's shields.
But you fight, inspired by perseverance, as you are accustomed to, while neglecting their formation, attack the Alans, fall on the Westgoths.

From Attila's speech before the Battle of the Nations