thought the same some time ago

Kind of, yes. There are some obvious similarities.

Dorothor? :-D

Kind of, yes. There are very obvious similarities.

Mit einem Mikrofon im Wohnzimmer 😂 Dankeschön ❤

Wir sind noch da, versprochen. Wir stecken nur bis zum Hals in Arbeit.

Adam hat gerade etwas Neues abgedreht und in zwei Wochen kommt es! ❤️

@@Wattebauschchen darauf freue ich mich dann besonders Doll!

@@KaptorgaVisualHistory das ist beruhigend! Freue mich jedenfalls schon euch beide dann endlich mal wieder erblicken zu können!

​@@KaptorgaVisualHistoryMacht auch mal wieder Podcast!!

Keine zentralen Strukturen, keine zentralen Ansprechpartner, dadurch zwar auch keine großen Armeen aber viele durchaus wehrhafte kleinere Gruppen. Die ganze Gemengelage war für die Römer unmöglich zentralisiert zu kontrollieren. Man konnte sich zwar in großen militärischen Expeditionen immer wieder siegreich durchsetzen, auch nach der Varusschlacht, aber man konnte die Gebiete nicht kontrollieren, weil man keine einheimische zentrale Elite hatte, die diese Aufgabe hätte übernehmen können.

Wen man einer alten ÖRR Sendung glauben kann ,Wissenschaftliche Sensation! Deutsche Städte älter als angenommen. Könnte einiges im Video vielleicht falsch sein?

Ich weiß nicht, wie "alt" die Dokus sind, auf die Du Dich berufst, aber die Informationen hier spiegeln den aktuellen Wissensstand der Forschung wieder. Offenbar handelt es sich bei den Informationen, auf die sich besagte Dokus beziehen, auf überholte Forschungsthesen.

@@jkmaxwell8836 Die Doku war mit Dieter Lelgemann sie war schon ein wenig älter !

Oh, very good questions and I could answer them all, but that would take more space as the comment section has to offer. In short: With the fall of the Western Roman Empire all the kinds of Roman government and administration disappeared. The answer was the feudalism - a system that regulated itself so to say. But as soon as Karl wanted to become and became Roman Emporer (that's what he wanted to be, not a German Kaiser), he had to find a possibility to be around and be able to meet his feudal fellowship, sign documents for them, declare all kinds of jurisprudential and administrative decisions etc. The only institution capable of writing, doing accountancy and all this was the Roman catholic church, that's why church and Nobles aka the ruling elite were woven together since the fall of the Western Roman Empire and especially since the restauration of the Empire under Karl. Through the whole period of middle ages there was a constant battle for power between church and worldly nobles but on the other hand they desperately depended on each other. Long story short: That's why there appear to be similarities between the times before and after the Romans in the germanic territories. In both cases it's because of the lack of a central power with a central administration. I hope I could answer your question in some ways and did not leave behind more question marks than before.

@@KaptorgaVisualHistory holy moly, your answer is wicked good! I understand now. Thanks a ton 🤩

Maybe to add: The concept of an Itinerant court - a travelling court as an alternative to having a fixed capital - was quite common during the Early Medieval Age. Power in feudalism wasn't that much based on rule over territory or having the biggest army but on personal relations. So now you are a king and you have your dukes and whatever all around the kingdom to rule their territories in your name. And instead of making them come to your court at some fixed place all the time (and enforcing that they have to do that), it could be more efficient to just travel around visiting them or traveling at least close enough to them that they can join you for a while. It means they have more time to actually rule the territory and be present there and they can visit your court when it's close to them which is not only a great opportunity to meet up with the king but also to meet other nobles from the bigger area you live in as well as some who come from further away and just decided to stay with the court for longer. Some kingdoms established capitals quite early - Paris and London would be quite early examples - for whatever reasons. The Holy Roman Empire on the other hand didn't have a fixed capital for all its existence (so until 1806 when it ended), but it had a bunch of cities and places like Aachen or Cologne that were more important than others - Aachen for example because most of the Kings of Germany (Rex Teutonicorum - an important step to becoming the Roman Emperor, although some were crowned king but never emperor) where crowned there. And it's also not like the king/emperor just traveled around randomly, he had personal holdings and palaces all around the empire and would use those as temporary court places. I think you could even say that in a sense that actually started in the Roman Empire, because Rome as the big important capital was more a Roman Republic thing. The existence of the Roman Emperor led to steady decline of the importance of Rome which was mostly the place of the senate, but more and more power was shifted to the Emperor which meant that the new place of power was not necessarily Rome, but whereever the Emperor was. And the Emperor was not that often in Rome but rather near the borders, near whoever the Roman Empire had beef with. Which then led to the whole thing with the tetrarchy where there were four capitals with four Emperors (two augusti and two caesares) and Rome, which surely had cultural and economic significance, but wasn't really the central place of political power anymore, was not always among them. The last proper Western Roman Emperor and Augustus Julius Nepos for example had Ravenna as his capital.

@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei Absolutely.

Das Video gibt den aktuellen Forschungsstand von Archäologie und Geschichtswissenschaft wieder. Ältere 3 Sat Dokus sind unserer Erfahrung nach eher mit Vorsicht zu genießen. Ggf bezog sich die Doku auch auf die sogenannte Weltkarte des Ptolemäus. In dieser sind im germanischen Barbaricum Siedlungen, sogar mit Namen, eingezeichnet, die heute archäologisch nicht zu finden und nachzuweisen sind. Die Genauigkeit der Karte ist allerdings strittig und die Forschung dazu dauert an.

@@Flaemingfreund Was ist an archäologisch nachweisbarer dezentraler Siedlungs-- und Sozialstruktur der Germanen ideologisch ähnlich wie 1984? Oder ist ein Unterschied zur zentralen Oppidakultur der Gallo-Kelten auch schon links-grün und unerträglich?

Das ist ja schön, dass Du das zu bezweifeln wagst. Zweifel ist der Grundstein jeglichen wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens. Es ist genau dieser wissenschaftliche Zweifel, der zur Überholung älterer Forschungsmeinungen führte und weiter führt. Auch der aktuelle Forschungsstand wird sich an zukünftigen Erkenntnissen und den daraus entstandenen Zweifeln messen lassen müssen. Die grundsätzliche Unterstellung von ideologischer Korruption gegenüber Allem, was das eigene Weltbild infrage stellt, hat aber mit einem differenzierten und gut informierten Zweifel im wissenschaftlichen Sinne sehr wenig zu tun. Auf Basis von pauschalen Vermutungen und Unterstellungen lässt sich eine inhaltlich orientierte Diskussion nämlich leider sehr schwer aufbauen.

Romeing, romeing, romeing Doesn't feel like Homing In forests we are roaming So wild Move 'em on, head 'em up, Head 'em up, move 'em on Move 'em on, head 'em up Everything's so wiiiiiild!

There is a reason you are in the bottom of this comment section @theperricum3156

Wherever I May Rome

@ViliSuutarinen Yes that is true. Finnish adopted a lot of early Germanic vocabulary and preserved it almost unchanged. Like how all Germanic languages lost their -as ending (Well Icelandic at least has -ur now), but Finnish words kept it. Rengas is another such word right?

Sort of, yes.

You can also look at how Spain colonised Mexico and the Andes and where they failed. Aztecs and Inca were easy, but Spain failed at defeating the Mapuche or Chichimecas. The British and French didn't really coopt the social structures in N. America at all.