Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slaughter At The Bridge: Uncovering A Colossal Bronze Age Battle (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the West-European-Prehistory dept.

schwit1 quotes a report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science via Sciencemag.org: About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can't be found in any history books -- the written word didn't become common in these parts for another 2000 years -- but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology. "If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps," says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. "There's nothing to compare it to." It may even be the earliest direct evidence -- with weapons and warriors together -- of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient world.

32 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps The Acheans? by YetAnotherGeekGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Iman Wilkens makes a case for the Trojan War not occuring in the Mediteranean and tries to map it to England. http://www.troy-in-england.com... Perhaps this is another candidate location for the war.

    --

    to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
    1. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Informative

      and you believed it? The location is known and has been excavated.

      btw, The Flood was in Gloucestershire, and Noah was a boat builder on the Severn. That is why the English are God's chosen people. You read it here first 'cos I just made it up.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Iman Wilkens makes a case for the Trojan War not occuring in the Mediteranean and tries to map it to England. http://www.troy-in-england.com... Perhaps this is another candidate location for the war.

      I rather doubt it. If this really is the remains of a major battle it could have been fought for a number of reasons. Firstly, in view of the diverse origins of the fallen, it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age. This hypothesis can also be supported by the DNA results pertaining to the ethnic diversity of the dead. These Viking raids were conducted by armies that consisted of everything from small war-bands led by independent chieftains to large-ish armies led by petty kings that had organized themselves into a properly big army that was led by whoever contributed the largest force or who had the most battle experience and prestige. Thirdly, and this is the most interesting option, this battle was perhaps actually a part of an organized attempt to go beyond the 'seizing cattle, looting farmsteads and abducting women' type of raiding warfare thought to be the norm in Europe at the time. In this case whoever organized the army perhaps lured 'mercenaries' into his service with promises of plunder, cattle, slaves and even land grants of conquered territory much like William the Bastard did in the run-up to is 1066 invasion of England to bolster his army. In this case this battle may represent a well thought out and planned attempt by somebody to conquer land and thereby control the north-south/east trade route through which flowed all the amber, furs, slaves, and whatever other northern goods were consumed by the great Mediterranean cultures at the time. In any case we will have to seriously re-assess the level of social organization and industrial ability of European bronze age cultures. This is a pretty interesting and potentially very significant discovery that puts another dent into the 'ex oriente lux' cliché (which, to be fair, has been steadily dismantled over the last few decades). This is not to say that Oriental influence on European culture was non-existent or insignificant but Northern Europeans of the bronze age were nor a bunch of disorganized, louse ridden, loincloth wearing barbarians who only washed when they were caught out in the rain or fell into a river and who needed to import oriental ideas before they could organize themselves into sophisticated cultures because they were to dull to devise such concepts by themselves.

    3. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Cederic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Blasphemy! Clearly the mountains of Ararat are in Snowdonia and the ark grounded on Mount Snowdon, thus confirming the sanctity of the Welsh forefathers.

    4. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by jittles · · Score: 5, Funny

      Iman Wilkens makes a case for the Trojan War not occuring in the Mediteranean and tries to map it to England. http://www.troy-in-england.com... Perhaps this is another candidate location for the war.

      I rather doubt it. If this really is the remains of a major battle it could have been fought for a number of reasons. Firstly, in view of the diverse origins of the fallen, it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age. This hypothesis can also be supported by the DNA results pertaining to the ethnic diversity of the dead. These Viking raids were conducted by armies that consisted of everything from small war-bands led by independent chieftains to large-ish armies led by petty kings that had organized themselves into a properly big army that was led by whoever contributed the largest force or who had the most battle experience and prestige. Thirdly, and this is the most interesting option, this battle was perhaps actually a part of an organized attempt to go beyond the 'seizing cattle, looting farmsteads and abducting women' type of raiding warfare thought to be the norm in Europe at the time. In this case whoever organized the army perhaps lured 'mercenaries' into his service with promises of plunder, cattle, slaves and even land grants of conquered territory much like William the Bastard did in the run-up to is 1066 invasion of England to bolster his army. In this case this battle may represent a well thought out and planned attempt by somebody to conquer land and thereby control the north-south/east trade route through which flowed all the amber, furs, slaves, and whatever other northern goods were consumed by the great Mediterranean cultures at the time. In any case we will have to seriously re-assess the level of social organization and industrial ability of European bronze age cultures. This is a pretty interesting and potentially very significant discovery that puts another dent into the 'ex oriente lux' cliché (which, to be fair, has been steadily dismantled over the last few decades). This is not to say that Oriental influence on European culture was non-existent or insignificant but Northern Europeans of the bronze age were nor a bunch of disorganized, louse ridden, loincloth wearing barbarians who only washed when they were caught out in the rain or fell into a river and who needed to import oriental ideas before they could organize themselves into sophisticated cultures because they were to dull to devise such concepts by themselves.

      I'm not even sure how you got modded insightful. Isn't it obvious that this was a battle over football, or soccer, or whatever you want to call it? What else would cause thousands of Europeans to band together and cause mayhem? The devastating effect of European football can be seen across the centuries and the ferocity of it culminated with the crusades, when Pope Urban II was tired of seeing the Roma FC lose in friendlies to Beitar Jerusalem and decided to take matters into his own hands.

    5. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you say near the end is what is the most fascinating about ancient history: That we regularily underestimate their capabilities, often vastly. There was so much trade going on between so distant areas in a time where our mental image has isolated villages barely surviving.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Tapewolf · · Score: 2

      and you believed it? The location is known and has been excavated.

      btw, The Flood was in Gloucestershire, and Noah was a boat builder on the Severn. That is why the English are God's chosen people. You read it here first 'cos I just made it up.

      As it happens, Comyns Beaumont wrote a series of books attempting to prove this in the 1940s. I think it was 'Britain: Key to world history'. I was tempted to buy a copy for shits and giggles, but the price on ebay is staggering.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There was so much trade going on between so distant areas in a time where our mental image has isolated villages barely surviving.

      It seems like confusion about what actually is, but not completely. Most people never left their hometown until recently and a whole lot of people still never get far. It seems like both things are true. I don't know about the barely surviving thing, though. If you have enough people in one place to have a village, they have to be there for a reason. Clearly it was true for some people; whole cultures wiped themselves out by depleting their resources.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by azcoyote · · Score: 2

      ... it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age.

      I'm guessing that you are merely comparing these events rather than suggesting that this find represents these events, since TFA suggests that this battle occurred 3200 years ago, while the events you mention occurred within the last 1000-1700 years.

      The oddity, of course, is that such a major cultural-ethnic event has not left other significant evidence. Moreover, it should be recognized that a large-scale battle generally requires a large-scale political organization--if not a centralized government, then the possibility of a coalition among several clans such as in the Trojan War--and this is not as easy as one might think within a basically local, dispersed, tribal society. Homer attributes the Trojan War to the symbolic significance of Helen; one might wonder what could have been meaningful enough to these people to generate such massive warfare.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    9. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age.

      one might wonder what could have been meaningful enough to these people to generate such massive warfare.

      In a word: Amber... There were other valuable trade goods flowing down from Denmark/Norway/Sweden (and Eastern Baltic coast too) but Amber was transported down through this region from Denmark for example for thousands of years but along with tin, which did not occur in Scandinavia or N-Germany, amber which is plentiful in the region was probably one of the most valuable trade goods of the age. Recent surveys have found a number of forts dotting the Amber trade route from the Baltic through the Alps and into Italy. I remember at least one location in Germany, Austria or Switzerland where Mycenaean artefacts were found including a seal IIRC. The Amber route seems to have been heavily contested and the leaders of the tribes who found themselves sitting astride that trade route and were able to tax the merchants using it would have been richer than god and the focus of much envy from their less well located neighbours. It's the old story, you find oil under your land and your neighbour who doesn't have any oil under his land still feels entitled to drill obliquely under the property line into your oil deposits.

    10. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      ... it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age.

      I'm guessing that you are merely comparing these events rather than suggesting that this find represents these events, since TFA suggests that this battle occurred 3200 years ago, while the events you mention occurred within the last 1000-1700 years.

      Yes, I was just musing about how you might get an army of soldiers from places as diverse as Poland, Scandinavia and Southern Germany getting ambushed and massacred at a bridge crossing in Northern Germany by seeking examples in later history. I think It is useful to examine the behaviour of peoples in later history to try and figure out the wider contest. Towards the end of the Roman empire you sometimes go various different tribes that were often extraordinarily ethnically and culturally diverse merging into large confederations. The same goes for the behaviour of the Vikings, why could the same pattern of behaviour not have been unfolding here? I suppose we'll never know for sure. The presence of women among the dead seems to indicate a migration but then the Vikings had women integrated into their armies to cook/wash/patch up the wounded, etc... and so did many later European armies into modern times so why not maundering bronze age armies two thousand years earlier?

      One thing is for sure, somebody got to watch his army totally gutted in the Tollense Valley 3200 years ago. If I had to guess what unfolded here, I'd say it was somewhat similar to the disaster inflicted on the English at Stirling bridge by the Scots in 1297. The locals waited until half of the invaders had crossed the bridge or whatever the maximum number of enemies was that they thought that they could handle without losing too much numerical superiority. Then they rushed them, pushed the invaders into the river and quickly wiped out them out while their pals on the other side of the river could only watch helplessly. This may have been a well engineered crowd disaster. It is interesting that no remains of shields have been found, only spears, clubs, arrows and signs of axes and possibly swords being used. The possible use of some numbers of cavalry is also remarkable.

    11. Re:Perhaps The Acheans? by azcoyote · · Score: 2

      That's fascinating, thanks. I still wonder, however, how precisely the desire for amber was translated into a large-scale battle. Trade goods would easily generate war if there were two particularly large tribes that were united enough under centralized (or central-ish) leadership in order to come to war with one another. However, if the society was decentralized and diffused into small tribes--which, in my very limited knowledge of the region and times seems possible--then it is more difficult to generate a large scale battle even over a precious commodity. In terms of Carl von Clausewitz, it is difficult to generate and maintain enough hostile intent that transcends the petty boundaries of the different peoples fighting on the same side. In fact, I would bet that for the purposes of uniting multiple distinct peoples for a common campaign, a symbolic trophy would actually be much more potent than a physical commodity (hence the role of Helen, who became more than a mere person for the Greeks). Thus, for example, a religious conflict (e.g. over sacred land, sacred materials) or a conflict over cultural identity would be much more effective, especially when coupled with basic economic factors that appeal to human greed.

      However, there are so many variables and it seems like some of the speculations of TFA could be open for debate. So for example if it were not one battle but several over a long period, or if they over-estimated the number of combatants, then it becomes much easier to explain.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
  2. That's actually really surprising... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The 'bloody scrum of europeans killing each other over something cryptic' bit isn't exactly news; but TFA describes a relatively massive number of combatants, with isotopic signatures suggesting they came a considerable distance to reach the site and with equipment and healed wounds suggesting that they were comparatively experienced rather than just the local peasant militia(which, given the low population density of the place at the time, wouldn't have amounted to much).

    I have to wonder how this all worked logistically: ~1,200BC wasn't exactly renowned for its medical technology, regular agricultural surpluses, or food storage capabilities. Aside from motivating this many guys to slog all the way to this site, simply keeping them healthy and fed long enough so they could kill one another before disease or starvation got them must have been a real trick.

    1. Re:That's actually really surprising... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a reasonable extrapolation from what we do know, to be honest. If there's a troll here it's you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:That's actually really surprising... by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An army of a couple thousand men isn't all that difficult to provide for. The Sioux nation didn't have much in the way of medical technology or food surpluses, but they brought together an army of several thousand to fight Custer at Little Bighorn. The battle that happened at the Tollense River could well have been something similar. Either two large forces came together, or a few hundred men were surrounded and annihilated by a much larger force.

    3. Re:That's actually really surprising... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 'bloody scrum of europeans killing each other over something cryptic' bit isn't exactly news; but TFA describes a relatively massive number of combatants, with isotopic signatures suggesting they came a considerable distance to reach the site and with equipment and healed wounds suggesting that they were comparatively experienced rather than just the local peasant militia(which, given the low population density of the place at the time, wouldn't have amounted to much). I have to wonder how this all worked logistically: ~1,200BC wasn't exactly renowned for its medical technology, regular agricultural surpluses, or food storage capabilities. Aside from motivating this many guys to slog all the way to this site, simply keeping them healthy and fed long enough so they could kill one another before disease or starvation got them must have been a real trick.

      Actually it was... Healers back then seem to have had a pretty good track record with things like arrow extraction, they were probably able to sew up and to some degree disinfect stab and slash wounds and they could repair scull damage from blunt trauma (read: hand thrown rocks, sling shot projectiles and war clubs) which is pretty impressive. I once saw an old Zulu medicine man describe how you treat a scull fracture due to a blow from a war club. You usually have to drill into the scull making carefully sure you don't drill into the brain matter which takes training and specialist tools. Sometimes this is done simply to pull out a section of scull that is pressuring the brain, in other cases it is t relieve pressure on the brain in which case you get a sound that he described as a "like the one you hear when you open a can of soda". If there is an impact fracture like this one you may have to remove large fragments of bone, do some carving, chiselling and pick bone fragments out of the brain matter before you sew the wound up. There are recorded survival rates of up to 70-80%.

    4. Re:That's actually really surprising... by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that bad, to be honest. If you can't have a week's worth of food in stock, then you're never going to last the winter anyway. And that's "in stock" for each man alive, for his families, etc.

      Extrapolating that to "Lads, these newcomers are raping our women (or whatever), all the other villages are affected too, and we need to get rid of them. It's agreed that we all attack at dawn on the day after full moon?" and each man bringing a bag of food, plus some extra, plus telling all their friends in the next village and so on until it gets down to the guy who says "That's two weeks walking, I'll have to consider it more carefully"? Not that unusual.

      People think that ancient peoples were stupid, unskilled or unable to plan. They weren't. The pyramids had been up for thousands of years at this time, remember. Do you assume that Egypt was the only civilisation capable of organisation?

      Think of the Bronze Age (hint: Bronze. Weapons) as a time of the hunter, and it all becomes clear. We used to run huge animals to exhaustion over days of chasing. You can't do that on an empty stomach either. These people weren't stupid. They just weren't intellectual.

    5. Re:That's actually really surprising... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The archeological record is never as good as we'd want it to be; but it is there and it can definitely tell you a fair bit about what people were growing, how long they were living and what sorts of things they were dying of; what sort of structures they were building, and so on. Aside from written records being one of the specific technologies that tends to show up when agricultural surpluses allow a bureaucracy/priesthood/whatever to dedicate themselves to pushing paper(obviously, logistics on a small scale can be done by the wholly illiterate; but the more you are doing the more likely it is that you'll at least have some sort of accounting system and some pictographs of common commodities).

      You don't need a written record to know approximately how densely populated an area was, what sorts of things they died of, and whether they constructed granaries and similar storage structures.

    6. Re:That's actually really surprising... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed the point entirely. Sure the Sioux could do it, but that was in the "modern age" (compared to the battle here in question) with "modern" knowledge.
      The battle in question happened thousands of years ago...

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    7. Re:That's actually really surprising... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An army of a couple thousand men isn't all that difficult to provide for. The Sioux nation didn't have much in the way of medical technology or food surpluses, but they brought together an army of several thousand to fight Custer at Little Bighorn. The battle that happened at the Tollense River could well have been something similar. Either two large forces came together, or a few hundred men were surrounded and annihilated by a much larger force.

      I always imagined neolithic and early bronze age Northern-Europe cultures as being similar to the woodland Indians in many ways when it came to raiding-for-cattle-and-women type warfare. There is some evidence of that from Germany ranging back into the Neolithic. In one site DNA analysis revealed that out of a couple or so families massacred by unknown assailants the men were local but the women were from a neighbouring region and were possibly kidnapped in a raid and force married to the men they were buried with. The interesting thing is that the arrowheads that killed them were pretty distinctive for the region from which the women originally came from so it did not help them that the raiders may have been from the tribes these women originally belonged to. They were still killed in cold blood rather than rescued by their own people. When you get to the late bronze age and early iron age there may have been some parallels to the five nations of the Iroquois Confederacy in terms of social organization and military organization. So as early as the bronze age one was perhaps seeing the level of social organization beginning to emerge in N-Europe that you have in the region during Roman times when local chieftains and petty kings there seem to have been able to put together armies big enough that it required multiple Roman legions to deal with them. Even drumming together 2000 men, making them into an army and keeping them under control requires a pretty high level of organization.

    8. Re:That's actually really surprising... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are actually prehistorical findings roughly up to 40k years old of scull and probably brain surgery. Skulls that where closed again with shells and evidently the bone grew back into the edges of the shells in a way that indicate the survivours left decades after that injury.

      Regarding medical knowledge (that is more a comment to the parents), I think the misconception comes from the fact that modern people have not much of it, except for *cough* *cough* doctors and nurses.

      E.g. Salvia (the plant) and Salvia (from the mouth) and Peppermint most definitely were well known as "medicals". Or mushrooms ...

      Plenty of animals have "medical knowledge" and eat appropriated plants or even "earth/soil" when needed.

      Probably most people consider herbs for healing hokus pokus not knowing that the exact same substances are meanwhile simply crafted chemically ... I for my part have always a few oils (instead of the plants or herbs) to treat simple stuff. E.g. blunt injuries from sports, are best treated with arnica. You hardly find anything modern that is "better" than it. And a cream with 10% or more Arnica costs close to nothing.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:That's actually really surprising... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Similarly, while we might be able to organize and stage a battle of this magnitude in days, this doesn't mean that people around 1200 BCE couldn't do it at all. It just might have taken them longer to pull it together.

      Actually, if it took them longer to pull it together, they couldn't have done it. They would have starved. The truth is that when you get people pissed off, it doesn't take them that long to get their shit together. But when we do something now, there's a bunch of formalities and paperwork. We have to have meetings to schedule the meetings. On the flip side, we build supply lines that can persist essentially indefinitely, so that instead of losing troops to starvation and illness we can lose them to depression and suicide.

      As was mentioned a bit above in this thread, people who had their own weapons, supplies of prepared food, and cold-weather garb didn't have to go to a bunch of meetings in order to join a military offensive way back when. They just picked up their stuff, and walked out the door.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:That's actually really surprising... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      It simply doesn't take a lot of technology for a group of people to decide to kill another group of people and take what they had, all you need is a rock and willingness to kill. You don't need a food surplus when your plan is take the food of your neighbors.

      History is replete with this theme, the Vikings alone spent hundreds of years raiding Europe and the British isles and taking people, food and items of value rather than producing their own. There was a period of time where the vikings numbers were large enough that they couldn't support their population without raiding.

  3. Re:No matter what you call them, they were Europea by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    - Even Hitler didn't kill people "just for being foreign"; many of those killed had the same nationality as those left alone (= conquered / oppressed) - People kill invaders for being invaders, not for being foreign. With that said, what is happening here in Europe is not the same as an invasion, but it is cause for worry nevertheless. And Taco Cowboy is quite right that we do not really know how to defend ourselves against what is happening, not without turning into savages ourselves.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Mordor by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2

    Was it near a volcano?

  5. Lack of marketing. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Chances are this didn't get recorded in history due to lack of marketing.
    Probably due to the fact neither side had gained an advantage they needed so no victor to make the history.

    I mean just think of the Korean war? If it weren't for the popular TV show M.A.S.H it probably would be really the forgotten war. And that is something that happened within people's lifetimes.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Lack of marketing. by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nothing from this time and place got recorded, not a single word. People were illiterate. There is art that appears suggestive of tales and religious myths centred around seafaring and sun worship.

      The earliest records from northern Europe were written by Roman explorers and historians more than a millennium later.

    2. Re:Lack of marketing. by nbauman · · Score: 2

      They could tell ballads, and pass them on that way.

      However, they couldn't record the ballads. They didn't have digital recorders back then. They didn't even have vinyl.

  6. 3200 years ago by Swampash · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, half the lifetime of the earth!

    --AMERICA

  7. Re:Dagorlad by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dead marshes. How did you know, J.R.R.?

    Because there was an actual place like that in World War I. According to the book A Yankee in the Trenches by Robert Derby Holmes (an American who enlisted in the British Army in WWI), at the Souchez River near Vimy Ridge was a swampy section where thousands of French soldiers were killed early in the war and left unburied. He was sent on a mission down to the river to check for messages sent by a German spy and had to go through the valley which was littered with the bones of these soldiers. Tolkien could have heard stories of this place, or seen with his own eyes/heard stories of what I am sure were plenty of other places just like this. Early in the war (this was before it broke down into trench warfare) the battles were quick moving and very costly so very often the bodies of the dead were left unburied.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  8. So that's where we left them by Number42 · · Score: 2

    My Bronze Age LARP group has been wondering where we left all our gear since the last convention. Getting it all back's gonna be a bitch, though.

  9. Re:No matter what you call them, they were Europea by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Hitler planned to enslave and wipeout the slavic people. The slavic people were not a small minority, the comprised the majority of people in SE europe all the way to Moscow and further north. Sure he focused on other groups he hated more first, but he did plan to take care of them eventually.