If I understand you correctly you are asking if crusades reduced (potential) manpower these countries had thus weakening them vis-a-vis other European countries, their potential rivals. If so then no, not to great extent. First crusade was more noble driven and royal power wasn't involved. That happened with later ones when the purpose was defending Jerusalem and attacks on Egypt.

Might not answer your question directly but for a good background about recruitment, financing and such I highly recommend God's War: A New History of the Crusades by Christopher Tyerman

Yes, that was the main reason the pope called for the crusade. There were constant tiny wars going on and people were pretty over it. The Pope hoped that by creating a common enemy he could get all the Christian kingdoms to stop killing each other for 5 minutes. If a bunch of the craziest ones died fighting and you got the holy land back then all the better.

Also worth noting after the First Crusade it became more popularized to send second, and third (etc) sons as the first was usually landed and tending the estate

(Not an expert.)

I think another factor to consider was that the church was actively protecting the property of people who took the cross. That would have atleast somewhat reduced the amount of armed conflict going on within the feudal system. The church also preached peace in Christendom most times crusade letters were issue.

Another major part of the soldier count especially for the Germans was mercenaries. As the crusades went on more and more mercenaries were employed. So that shifted things around a bit as nobles and the laity started to defer their service. The alms they paid would purchase fighting men or equipment in their stead.

I am sure that they were and the responsibility of the revanchist France, the US and its policy of the Big Stick and the English policy of seeking European balance were ONE of the main causes of the 2nd World War. The uncontrollable inflation of the German Weimar Republic, abhorrent to 99.99% of the German people, and the great crisis of 1929 were the other converging causes for the outbreak of the "unnecessary war" as defined by Churchill.

Martyn Rady also did a book on the Habsburg Empire in Oxford University Press’s ‘Very Short Introduction’ series which might be worth checking out

Hengst and Horsa, as representatives of the two tribes of the time, Juta and Angle, were together Saxons, after arriving on the island at the "invitation" of Vortigern, they made the first impact, but after that, the tribe of Dan had the greatest impact on the genetic and linguistic change. When we talk about the period of the Danites conquest of Britain and the period when Britain was called the Dan Law, given that the Danites stayed for so long as well as the fact that during their conquests and stay in Britain they massively rapped and exterminated the islanders of that time, it is clear to you where the fact that 80 % genes of today's Britons is of Vikings origin, comes from. Just look at a map of Britain from the 1st-2nd century AD and you will see how many different tribes existed on the island, the purity of their genes is the best evidence of the extent to which they exterminated all people and how much rape there was at that time.

The fact that Hengst and Horsa have been Danite gods since then is also interesting, that is to say who these Saxons really were, if you don't know how these gods are symbolized, google it and you will immediately remember where you saw all their symbols before.

[removed]

Equal, I am not a professor or academics in nothing, I am just someone who wants to know the origin of things and I do not pretend any revealed truth if perhaps there is such a thing! If your opinion about Churchill and on Keynnes is a majority in the current UK that amazes me and a lot. Churchill was an amateur historian, it is possible that he had misconceptions and as a minister during the war, he certainly made some mistakes although in the essentials he was wrong. He had the premonition that Stalin was not identical to Hitler. Stalin was a mass killer psychopath with which he could talk and even to negotiating, Hitler was the beast on the dark side with whom he could not even speak! That distinction always caught my attention and at some point he said to someone nearby: "I am an anti-communist since 1917 and after the war is finished, I will continue to be an anti-communist but now I say alive the USSR!" And he was not desmaminated in his intuition that with Stalin and with the USSR could be talked out and agreed. With Keynnes perhaps it was not influence but the shock he received when reading the work of Marx and Engels not in the sense of admiration but quite the opposite he just as Churchill sniffed that something bad existed in the classical liberal economy from Adam Smith until the great recession of 1929 and that it was necessary to investigate and raise a new economic theory. And he did it.

They did, multiple times (Valentinian did one in the 360s, for example). However, Germania was too poor and backwards for a proper Roman occupation to be profitable (too many forests, too few proto-cities), and so the empire at first preferred to play the German tribes one against each other, with the occasional raids andpunitive expeditions. Later, things got out of hand, but at that point the empire couldn't have conquered the Rhine permanently even if it tried

Historians like Peter Heather (Empires and Barbarians) are good on this. For the first 250 years, Rome regularly extended its power across the Rhine and Danube. It negotiated treaties with the German and other groups, on free access for Roman traders (and slave-merchants), access to Roman goods and markets and so on. Bad behaviour was punished by legionary punitive expeditions, cutting off trade, diverting access and favoured treatment to rivals or just inviting the chief to dinner to discuss issues and then killing him. Rome levied drafts for the auxiliaries and took families in and distributed them to provinces short on labour. In other words, all the usual imperial playbook.

Over time the balance shifted. Germania developed, the tribes coalesced into bigger federations, the better to resist Roman pressure (the Alamanni, Franks, Goths, Marcomanni). Roman wars with these were tougher and more expensive, and paid less dividends. The treaties became less one-sided. As civil war, plague, agricultural exhaustion and so on weakened the Empire, the balance shifted. For the last hundred years or so, the Germans were trying to participate in Rome (often as defenders against other groups also wanting a piece), and Rome needed them too much to dictate terms. Then in 350-400 it fell apart under Hunnic and Gothic pressure.

> the infamous Treaties would be the cause of another war with Germany and much worse than the 1st.!

But they weren't.

English, just like all other Germanic languages, has its roots in Old Norse, which is otherwise the language of the tribe of Dan, Anderson Peterhaper explained it best in his book Blue blood secret, as well as the settlement of Britannia itself.

[deleted]

I can't speak on the subject with any great authority. However, your two sources as questionable. Im an admirer of Churchill, but he is questionable as a historian of the age. There are also criticisms of Keynes, that he was unduly influenced by, I think, one or two of his close sources on the continent. Again, I'm not saying who is right and wrong here, just that it is an ongoing debate.

The Romans retaliated with excursions well into the third century CE. There is a battlefield in lower Saxony that is dated to 235 CE, the Harzhorn battle. There is a museum there now with a very detailed description of this site, which seems to have been a major battle, not just a skirmish, between Romans and Germanic tribes. But the Roman empire at this point did not to have the resources to occupy and romanize Germania east of the Rhine.

​

sources: https://roemerschlachtamharzhorn.de/

They couldn't even fund themselves, not to mention a sufficiant army. I think if they could get an army off the ground, that could counterattack, wouldn't they have had a lot less problems? It's because they couldn't, that the empire disintegrated piece by piece.

[deleted]

So the Romans did campaign along the Rhine for a very long time. You have Julian's Campaigns as Caesar against the Alemanni, and his successor Valentinian and Gratian campaigned along the Rhine.

The only problem was after that period, the Gothic War drew Roman military power towards the Balkans and the majority of Roman Gaul was left under the protection of the Franks.

However once the barbarian invasions of the early 400s happened. The empire in the West was too busy dealing with that to engage in campaigns into Germania.

There are several factors involved including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. All of this made the western half of the empire weak and vulnerable. They didn’t even deal with the non-Romans who crossed the Rhine, let alone those who remained on the other side.

Because the Late Roman Empire had several economic, demographics and military problems. Plus the land of Germania was a wild and "poor" land for Roman standards, there wasn't anything to gain from conquering warmongering tribes on the other side of the Limes. Also the Romans thought of Germania as part of the empire actually, just unruled. At least de jure they considered the province of Germania their territory anyways

If supplying fuel for a labor-saving machine (for instance a sawmill) takes just as much or more slave labor as is saved by the machine (sawing), it is prefereable to just put the slaves directly to sawing instead of gathering fuel because it requires less oversight over the slaves.

In roman times the most efficient to move a large amount of fuel would have been a trireme with slaves at the oars and a very basic sail. In the 18th century the same would have been possible with a ship manned with just a handful of sailors. From this perspective the wind power revolution in the age of sail contributes to the preconditions for the industrial revolution.

For your information, I refer you to two admirable English personalities for me and for the World who were the opposite of those who, like you, justified the war indemnities imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaties. I am referring to Winston Churchill and the 1st chapters of his book "The 2nd World War - (1951) in particular the 1st chapter entitled: The follies of the victors. And the other Englishman was John Maynard Keynnes, former secretary of the Royal Treasury and his book: The Economic Consequences of Peace (1920) They will tell you better than this humble citizen of Uruguay because they had not only the fear but also the conviction that the infamous Treaties would be the cause of another war with Germany and much worse than the 1st.!

Every cannonball needs to fit the barrel as closely as possible to maximize the power of the cannon. This leads to two big technical problems: firstly precision, and secondly metallurgy to keep the cannon from exploding when you achieve the desired tight fit. Precisely the two key problems you need to solve for interchangeable machine parts.

The Japanese successfully fast-tracked themselves for Industrial Revolution with a decades-long program trying to replicate the range of European cannons. And this was with access to European scientific and technical knowledge through the Dutch trading post (Deshima) in Nagasaki. Otherwise it would have been even more difficult.

This thread just gives me the chance to brag that I once found an old roman coin in Germany with a metal detector.

I literally just opened the thing from amazon and found it in 15 minutes.

Haven't found anything since.