Perception of barbarians?

Why did the Romans, and Christians depict barbarians as these massive rampaging warriors? Wouldn't it have been more beneficial for morale if the enemy was seen as weak and little?

On the flip-side wouldn't it have been better to depict themselves as these physically imposing beings in order to posture to other groups?

I get that it had to do with "civility", and perhaps painting these people as uncivil may have been an insult or something.
>I'm a complete novice in this
>pls no bully

This shit has been going on since the Ancient Greeks, up to the contemporary First Worlders. I'm kinda interested in it. Wouldn't even mind if it's totally-not-bullshit speculations like Foucault's Madness and Civilization.

Taking Caesar as an example, he liked to depict barbarians as ruthless and strong to make his military victories seem even more of an accomplisment. This is likely true for many many analogue cases

Im guessing its the reason why the german propaganda failed in WWI. The German propaganda showed their enemies as weak, little, and even a bit laughable while the french showed the Germans as evil murder-rapists.

When they actually fought, the french and english were formidable opponents and the german's propaganda failed.

this again is a complete guess as I have no idea about roman history

Sounds like what Italy did, pompously percieve themselves as big and unmatched, and the Ethiopians as skeletons and flies. Then proceeded to get beaten because they didn't realize how pathetic they actually were.

poooooooooopppppppppp

In today's hyper feminized society, many men view expressions of brutal masculinity as cool because it's a rejection of the docile role contemporary men are supposed play. However in the past when men were less insecure about their masculinity, this sort of behavior was seen as a grotesque exaggeration of manhood that made the barbarians seem like apes rather than upstanding men.

I WILL DRINK FROM YOUR SKULL!

it was to portray them as savages that could not be reasoned with, it would set the narrative that any sane and civilized person would unite to fight off these warmongering and unintelligent brutes that threaten the very foundation of society

Fun fact: Aristotle pretty much outlined the Greek view of the Barbarians by saying that while cunts like the Thracians, Dacians, & Celts are stronk, they are like beasts lacking in the self-control that defines the perfect man, a man possessing of Arete (cough GREEKS cough)

Anyway its common from Europe to China. Chinks thought Steppe Nomads as fearsome horsemen peerless in mounted combat, though ill disciplined and fond of collapsing at the first loss, especially if you humiliate their chieftain. Though the Chinese scoffed at the Nanman (Southern Barbarians) and thought them weak & effeminate, whose women are sluts and wont to give themselves to any man.

Was about to post this.
The same principle is also found in numerous legends, the smart David is the hero, not the mighty Goliath. Same with Odysseus and the cyclop.
This quote shows a masterpiece of using this widely known david goliath concept in real propaganda, Julius Caesar in de bello gallico:
>The Romans formed a line of mantlets and constructed a siege terrace. When they began to erect a siege tower at some distance, the defenders on the wall at first made abusive remarks and ridiculed the idea of setting up such a huge apparatus so far away. Did those pygmy Romans, they asked, with their feeble hands and muscles, imagine that they could mount such a heavy tower on top of a wall? (All the Gauls are inclined to be contemptuous of our short stature, contrasting it with their own great height.) 31. But when they saw the tower in motion and approaching the fortress walls, the strange, unfamiliar spectacle frightened them into sending envoys to ask Caesar for peace. The envoys said they were forced to the conclusion that the Romans had divine aid in their warlike operations, since they could move up apparatus of such height at such a speed.

It wasn't just the Greeks, Romans, or Christians that did this though. The Babylonians did it, the Persians did it, the Phoenicians did it,e tc...

They overexaggerated to make their defeats against a supposedly inferior opponent in terms of weaponry and training less humiliating.
Also people from the north actually were bigger of course, and the furor teutonicus allegedly existed.

LESS TALKING MORE RAIDING

THAT'S A NICE HEAD YOU HAVE ON YOUR SHOULDERS

>The Romans formed a line of manlets....

If you beat someone weak and little there is no glory and you underestimate them

So you make their reckless traits be hedonistim, arrogance, and ruthlessness instead.

Kek. Was reading this aswell at first.

FOR THE DARK GODS

>>The Romans formed a line of mantlets
w-when will they learn?

>Im guessing its the reason why the german propaganda failed in WWI. The German propaganda showed their enemies as weak, little, and even a bit laughable while the french showed the Germans as evil murder-rapists.
>When they actually fought, the french and english were formidable opponents and the german's propaganda failed.
And this is why you lie to the civilians at home, if you must, not the folks doing the actual fighting.

>that's the professor on the left

someone pls post the pic of the neckbeard fedora being proud of vikings but bitching about niggers even though they are the same

Americans depicted Natives, Germans, Russians, and Japanese as that and they dealt with them just fine.

It made public support the army and its fundings.

>Wouldn't it have been more beneficial for morale if the enemy was seen as weak and little?

Where is the glory in defeating a weak little enemy?

>Where is the glory in defeating a weak little enemy?
So you're essentially cucking your own self-image for prestige?

Not sure what you mean.

Acknowledging you adversary was worthy does not in any way decrease your won share of worth.

Fighting a worthy foe, if you lose, you need not feel shame, and if you win, you earn glory.

At first it was because of Greek culture which saw their larger northern neighbors as barbarians, and whether true or not later Roman writers would reference the trope because of the influence of Greek texts in their upbringing and high culture.

Later the David-Goliath dichotomy along with other sorts of Biblical metaphors became all the rage with Medieval writers who were writing chronicles with a religious message underlying the text.

Barbarians were big guys.

...

...

...

this drawing wasn't done during the roman empire dipshit

Hadrian should've built a wall on the Reine

Why are our enemies now painted as such a threat when you can just stop any risk of attack by visa denial and profiling?

It's hard to justify billions of dollars of taxpayer money and thousands of lives spent against non-threats to our lives. When the enemy is big and scary and coming to get you in your bed, though...

The Rhine was the wall for a long time, until the Hunnic refugee crisis.

...

>Wouldn't it have been more beneficial for morale if the enemy was seen as weak and little?

Hitler taught propaganda, the way Mao put down on paper the principles of guerilla warfare.

Present your opponent as strong, fierce and merciless. That way you 'll manipulate your masses into getting riled up and desiring to break free from the possibility of defeat while also fighting with hate in their hearts, willing to abuse enemy soldiers, thinking what would happent to them in the contrary position.

Also, are these vikings or Hatti?

I 'M THE KING OF HOMS
THERE IS NONE HIGHER
SUCKA SHI'ITES SHOULD CALL ME SIRE

Because destroying civilization back then was seen as an act of ultimate niggerism but nowadays 14yo metalheads see it as le awesum. So yeah portraying your enemy as a daft fucking brute was beneficial for morale.

Nords from M&B:WB. Basically vikings.

>Sarranid anything that isn't mamelukes
Yeah, I'm putting my money on Jeremus

yup.

So neopagans are nu males?