Slaves in viking society
Drifter Bob
seem to suggest that most of their slaving was done for the markets of
Byzantium and Arabia, much as the Celts before them sold their own people
into Roman slavery. I'm wondering if anyone knows what percentage of
slaves, thraals, bondsmen or any people that might beconsidered at or below
the rank of a feudal serf existed in Norse society. I'd be interested in
any data or even guestimates on this in different time periods, (before the
Viking era, say 300-600 AD, during the early Viking era, and up until the
conversion of the Vikings to Christianity). I'm particularly interested in
data for Scandinavia itself and places like Iceland. Less so for Normandy
or England.
Any help or answers would be appreciated.
DB
Soren Larsen
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Nyr4e.19446$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> We know vikings had slaves, and practiced the slave trade. Many authors
> seem to suggest that most of their slaving was done for the markets of
> Byzantium and Arabia,
Mostly slotting into the "Russian" trade to these areas
>much as the Celts before them sold their own people
> into Roman slavery. I'm wondering if anyone knows what percentage of
> slaves, thraals, bondsmen or any people that might beconsidered at or
> below
> the rank of a feudal serf existed in Norse society.
Not many since the economy wasn't a traditional slave economy.
The elite and wealthy farmers would likely have had some thralls though
> I'd be interested in
> any data or even guestimates on this in different time periods, (before
> the
> Viking era, say 300-600 AD, during the early Viking era, and up until the
> conversion of the Vikings to Christianity).
Likely most in the early period since the Roman market was unsatiable
compared
to later periods, allthough kidnapping Christians for ransom by the church
was
a nice little earner during the viking age.
The kidnapped would technically be slaves and if no ransom was forthcoming
they could be sold into non christian areas.
>I'm particularly interested in
> data for Scandinavia itself and places like Iceland. Less so for Normandy
> or England.
I dont know of any remotely reliable "hard" data.
Soren
Drifter Bob
> Not many since the economy wasn't a traditional slave economy.
>
> The elite and wealthy farmers would likely have had some thralls though
Would it be safe to say that 80-90% of Norse society were free then? Or
more, or less? What percentange were 'freedmen'?
DB
I.E_Johansson
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:5bE4e.27844$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No it most certainly isn't safe to say that. Depending on which Nordic
country you speaks of and which period, that is. The Swedish Goths for
example used to take slaves on their way down to the Black Sea when ever the
towns where they made business didn't pay a tribute and or tax to the Swedes
they took the leading group and more in the towns. They had the slaves row
their boats as well as carry them over land when needed. The slaves were
sold to the Khazars and to the Roman Empire. In the areas where the Goths
settled up to 25% of the groups are said not to be free men. In Sweden we
had a much more extant slavery than in Norway up to King Magnus Eriksson's
days when he forbide slavery. People could be taken slaves, but they could
also give themselves to be slaves when they couldn't pay after a 'manbot'
had been decided. They could also give themselves as slaves when they
couldn't coop with bad-years misserable harvest. Thus we can't compare
Norway and Sweden neither during Migration Age nor during Viking Age or
Medieval Age.
Inger E
>
> DB
>
>
Drifter Bob
> > > Not many since the economy wasn't a traditional slave economy.
> > > The elite and wealthy farmers would likely have had some thralls
though
> >
> > Would it be safe to say that 80-90% of Norse society were free then? Or
> > more, or less? What percentange were 'freedmen'?
>
> No it most certainly isn't safe to say that. Depending on which Nordic
> country you speaks of and which period, that is. The Swedish Goths for
> example used to take slaves on their way down to the Black Sea when ever
the
> towns where they made business didn't pay a tribute and or tax to the
Swedes
> they took the leading group and more in the towns. They had the slaves row
> their boats as well as carry them over land when needed. The slaves were
> sold to the Khazars and to the Roman Empire. In the areas where the Goths
> settled up to 25% of the groups are said not to be free men. In Sweden we
That is very interesting, thanks for posting this information. Do you have
a source for this? It still matches the basic rule of thumb that most
slaves were sold.
> had a much more extant slavery than in Norway up to King Magnus Eriksson's
> days when he forbide slavery. People could be taken slaves, but they could
> also give themselves to be slaves when they couldn't pay after a 'manbot'
> had been decided. They could also give themselves as slaves when they
> couldn't coop with bad-years misserable harvest. Thus we can't compare
> Norway and Sweden neither during Migration Age nor during Viking Age or
> Medieval Age.
The period I'm chiefly interested in is the entire Viking era, from the mid
8th century through the 11th. Especially before Christianity. I am aware
of the practice of people being made slaves or even giving themselves into
slavery, though I understood this was rare and engendered special mockery.
The question remains, what percentages, roughly, were slaves? What
percentage of say freedmen or bondmen were equivalent to serfs?
I'm assuming at this same period Christian Europe was 2/3 -3/4 serfs, and
both Byzantium and Arabia had a high percentage of Slaves, though in Arabia
slaves could hold much more of a range of social positions including as
soldiers.
DB
I.E_Johansson
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:rdK4e.21206$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
One source? Well many more. First question is do you have to have a source
translated into English or will it do with Greek, Arabic and Latin sources
no matter if they are translated into English, French, German or not?
>
> > had a much more extant slavery than in Norway up to King Magnus
Eriksson's
> > days when he forbide slavery. People could be taken slaves, but they
could
> > also give themselves to be slaves when they couldn't pay after a
'manbot'
> > had been decided. They could also give themselves as slaves when they
> > couldn't coop with bad-years misserable harvest. Thus we can't compare
> > Norway and Sweden neither during Migration Age nor during Viking Age or
> > Medieval Age.
>
> The period I'm chiefly interested in is the entire Viking era, from the
mid
> 8th century through the 11th. Especially before Christianity. I am aware
> of the practice of people being made slaves or even giving themselves into
> slavery, though I understood this was rare and engendered special mockery.
During Viking Age that might be true for most of the Vikings societies.
Remember that in the early days of the Viking Age the countries we are
speaking of didn't look at all like the ones today. For example the
Norwegians had many small Sea-king ruled States not united in the way we
think when we speak of Norway in general terms. Rather that a local warlord
or a local nobleman acted as if his territory was a country of it's own in
many ways, but still not so. The Norwegians seem more to have been acting
together in peace than the Swedes. That's told from Tacitus up to early
Viking Age. The Danes had before it was united to one Kingdom several strong
groups which we hear of in historic documents. The Jutes almost every one
heard of. Can't say that I ever seen especially slaves mentioned in sources
speaking of Danes. Neither during Viking Age nor before. But the Swedes....
especially the two Gothic groups still called by Pope in 11th century to be
a kingdom of there own. "Gregorius VII Visigothorum Regibus I & VII (3)
Frater noster R. Episcopus vester, ad Apostolorum limina veniens, suggessit
nobis de noua gentis vestrae conuersione, scilicet qualiter relicto
gentilitatis errore ad Christianae fidei veritatem pervenerit. "
Source Svenskt Diplomatarium Brev 169; DS 25
from: Reg. Vat. 2, f.222r - 223r, Vatikanarkivet.
> The question remains, what percentages, roughly, were slaves? What
> percentage of say freedmen or bondmen were equivalent to serfs?
Might be correct but I don't know. I would rather have said it depended on
if they were at home on farms where the percentages might have been
relatively low or on their temporary stay abroad where it's my impression
that there were a higher percentages slaves. Mind you this can't be proven
from the written sources I have seen. Only mentioned by for example Arabic
and Byzantic historians and some of the Fathers of the Church.
>
> I'm assuming at this same period Christian Europe was 2/3 -3/4 serfs, and
> both Byzantium and Arabia had a high percentage of Slaves, though in
Arabia
> slaves could hold much more of a range of social positions including as
> soldiers.
I assume, but don't know if you are right regarding Byzantium. Never seen
any real figures.
Please return with information of which language you want the sources
written and/or translated in. It helps a lot.
Inger E
>
> DB
>
>
>
>
wag...@yahoo.dk
That depends on what you mean by free.
You should not subscribe to any rosy illusions about an egalitarian
peasant democracy.
Only the head of each household was free in our sense of the word
i.e being able to cast a vote in decisions and trials, and even these
free
men fitted into a hierachy.
BTW disregard anything from Ms Johansson. She is a wellknown netloon
notorious for presenting her fantasies as fact
I.E_Johansson
stop trying to tell lies about me. I am not known to lie - only those who
doesn't know what they are talking of tries to say that. I guess you are
hiding behind anonymous fictive name because you don't want to get complains
filed on you. You know that you aren't allowed to tell such false things or
spread your dirty rumors about anyone!
For your information: If you and others continue to spread false information
stop or you will have to answer for it infront of the authorities in your
country.
Enough is enough.
Inger E
<wag...@yahoo.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1112776796....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
wag...@yahoo.dk
I.E_Johansson wrote:
> <wag...@yahoo.dk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1112776796....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Drifter Bob wrote:
> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Not many since the economy wasn't a traditional slave economy.
> > > >
> > > > The elite and wealthy farmers would likely have had some
thralls
> > though
> > >
> > > Would it be safe to say that 80-90% of Norse society were free
then?
> > Or
> > > more, or less? What percentange were 'freedmen'?
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by free.
> >
> > You should not subscribe to any rosy illusions about an egalitarian
> > peasant democracy.
> >
> > Only the head of each household was free in our sense of the word
> > i.e being able to cast a vote in decisions and trials, and even
these
> > free
> > men fitted into a hierachy.
> >
> > BTW disregard anything from Ms Johansson. She is a wellknown
netloon
> > notorious for presenting her fantasies as fact
> wanijo,
It is Wagnijo.
> stop trying to tell lies about me.
Does this mean we agree I told the truth?
>I am not known to lie
Not only are you passing your hallucination on as facts which could be
explained by mental sickness. You are also a well known deliberate
liar.
> - only those who
> doesn't know what they are talking of tries to say that.
Which of course describes you better than anyone.
> I guess you are
> hiding behind anonymous fictive
I'm not hiding since I have been using this handle for years. Only
a computer illiterate like you would have had any trouble identifying
me.
BTW Wagnijo is not a fictive name, as anyone with above average
knowledge
of the Scandinavian ironage should know.
> name because you don't want to get complains
> filed on you.
You are lying again Inger.
I dare you to file a complaint.
I shall of course counter complain about you to your ISP, if
you do anything of the sort. It is absolutely no trouble
for me to communicate with Telia for as long as it might take
to get you tossed.
>You know that you aren't allowed to tell such false things or
> spread your dirty rumors about anyone!
You are a loon and liar!
>
> For your information: If you and others continue to spread false
information
> stop or you will have to answer for it infront of the authorities in
your
> country.
I dare you!
> Enough is enough.
You are a stupid netloon and despicable liar.
Soren
I.E_Johansson
file a formal complain to take it up in court in your country - you are
telling so many lies about me that it's more than criminal the behavior of
yours.
They are willing to track you down in person no matter that you don't write
your full name.
Stop your criminal behavior 'wagnijo'!!!!!
Inger E
<wag...@yahoo.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1112795011.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Alan Crozier
top-posting in message news:IIT4e.21504$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> I have spoken to the police about your behavior and they have asked me to
> file a formal complain to take it up in court in your country - you are
> telling so many lies about me that it's more than criminal the behavior of
> yours.
> They are willing to track you down in person no matter that you don't
write
> your full name.
> Stop your criminal behavior 'wagnijo'!!!!!
Inger,
I am glad that you have finally decided to do something to determine the
legality or otherwise of some of the behaviour here. I warn you, though,
that you are taking a great risk. As far as I can see, Wagnijo's original
"crime" consisted of saying that Inger is "a wellknown netloon notorious for
presenting her fantasies as fact". I think it is true to say that you
present many of your beliefs and claims as if they were established facts.
Google has archived numerous examples of this. If a court of law finds that
Wagnijo's statement is a fair reflection of reality, then you could be in
serious trouble.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Soren Larsen
> I have spoken to the police about your behavior and they have asked
> me to file a formal complain to take it up in court in your country -
Go ahead. I always need a good laugh
> you are telling so many lies about me that it's more than criminal
> the behavior of yours.
I have a hard time imagining anything easier to prove, than
you being accurately described as a loon and a liar.
> They are willing to track you down in person no matter that you don't
> write your full name.
Oh Dear!
> Stop your criminal behavior 'wagnijo'!!!!!
I have all the evidence I need that you are a loon and a liar.
No need for you to supply even more.
Soren Larsen
Alaca
> I.E_Johansson wrote:
>
>> They are willing to track you down in person no matter that you don't
>> write your full name.
>
> Oh Dear!
Watch out for the brave Kvant and Kristianssen!
--
P.A.
Soren Larsen
Kristiansson! If you please.
But given the severity of this case, I was sort of hoping for Martin Beck.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Drifter Bob
> > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> > > Not many since the economy wasn't a traditional slave economy.
> > > The elite and wealthy farmers would likely have had some thralls
>
> That depends on what you mean by free.
>
> You should not subscribe to any rosy illusions about an egalitarian
> peasant democracy.
I'm not deluding myself, I am merely interested in the reality of the actual
situation, without modern bias of any kind, be it of pagan utopias,
socialist "peasant democracies", Christian fantasies of heathen devils in an
earthly hell, or Walt Disney monarchist fantasies of Prince Charming and
Sleeping Beauty.
From what I have read though I do consider the Vikings, the early Vikings at
any rate, to have apparently been vastly more libertarian and de-facto
egalitarian than most of Christian or Muslim Europe or Near East at that
time.
My interest here is in determining the ratio of free (and therefore
potentially fighting) men to serfs or slaves in Viking society compared to
the ratio in societies they clashed with in the 8th - 11th centuries.
It is interesting to North Americans that modern Scandinavians seem to have
both libertarian and egalitarian tendancies, since these traits are
considered mutually exclusive by American political doctrine.
> Only the head of each household was free in our sense of the word
> i.e being able to cast a vote in decisions and trials, and even these
> free
> men fitted into a hierachy.
Again, US historians are full of praise for both the 18th Century US and the
ancient Athenians for a enacting a similarly flawed version of demoracy, and
both of those examples probably had a lot more slaves and a much more
economically polarized society. I think it would be valuable if more people
understood how much of our political and legal traditions come from
"barbarians".
I also wonder how far back these types of pseudo-democratic warrior socities
do go. Though sources clash, it seems there are many similarities in Greek
and Roman description of certain Iron Age Celtic and even some German
tribes. In the US, we are taught to belive that Monarchy came first (and is
by implication, the more natural state of humanity), and Democracy was a
modern development of progress. I wonder if it might be the other way
around.
> BTW disregard anything from Ms Johansson. She is a wellknown netloon
> notorious for presenting her fantasies as fact
Please leave me out of this debate. I have no interest in flame wars.
DB
Tron
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
news:Nyr4e.19446$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
/Brief summary... Thrall/
Træl, ufri, av gammalnorsk og fellesnordisk præll. Det språklege opphavet er
usikkert. Mest rimeleg er visstnok den germanske grunntydinga "den tvinga".
I ikkjenordiske språk finst "træl" berre som lånord.
/Thrall = "unfree", etymology uncertain. Possibly old germanic for "someone
forced" .../
Trælehald var vanleg kjent og utbreidd i Norden i vikingtid og tidleg
mellomalder. Ein reknar med trælehald her tidlegare ög. Hovudkjelder er
lover og sagaer. Dei er dels frå avviklingstida for trælehaldet, dels endå
seinare. Difor kjenner vi trælehaldet dårleg i den tida då det stod på
høgda.
/Common in Scand. in viking Age and MA; probably before VA too. Main
sources: Sagas and laws. Lawas mainly about abolishing, so we know little of
thrall system at its height .../
Det er mest den rettslege og sosiale stillinga til trælane som har vore
studert. Den økonomiske og sosiale betydninga av det nordiske trælehaldet
vil vi først kunne vurdere sikrare etter omfattande og samanliknande studiar
som enno ikkje er utførde.
/Most studied is legal and social position; economic role little studied,
requires furthere research .../
Former for trældom
/Forms/
Trældomen var ein institusjon som varierte noko med land og landsdel, og
med tida. Det rettslege grunndraget var at trælen var ein annans eigedom,
anten vilkårslaust eller betinga. Om eigedomen hadde den eine eller andre
forma, hang saman med den måten tilhøvet hadde komme opp på. I vikingtida
var det vanleg å skaffe trælar ved krigstog, det ein kan kalle trælejakt.
Såleis er kjent 26 danske tokt i Vest-Europa i tida 834-896 som tok fangar.
På det slaviske området nemner dei arabiske forfattarane Ibn Fadlan og Ibn
Rustah på 900-talet ingen andre viktige handelsvarer hos svenskane enn
trælar og pelsverk. Trælane vart innsanka ved tokt mot dei slaviske folka og
selde på trælemarknader.
/Institution varies with time and place. Legal Status = thrall is other
man's property, unconditional or conditional. Forms of property depends on
how the thrall became a thrall. VA = slaver raids. 26 danish raids in
W-Europe 834-896. E-Europe: Ibn F and Ibn R (ca. 900) list no other
important trade goods from the Swedish than slaves and fur. Raided from
local slav pop. and sold at slave markets .../
//Uncond. enthrallment forms: raiding, birth, purchase//
Det vert av og til hevda at trælar ikkje vart skaffa på denne måten "innan
landet". Det verkar uklårt kva dette tyder, særleg føre rikssamlinga. I
Danmark ser ein at kongemakta så seint som i 1075 la regulær skatt på
vikinghovdingar som var kongeleg anerkjende slavejegerar, både innanlands og
utanlands.
/Claim: No slave raiding "in country". Interpretation of this uncertain. I
Denmark, the king taxed royally appointed raiders, in country and abroad, as
late as 1075 .../
I Norge er dei fleste kjende trælenamna norske, men nokre er framande,
særleg irske. Nokre skal vere svenske. Den viktigaste måten trældomen
oppstod på, var visstnok ved fødsel. Barn av ufri mor vart træl, utan omsyn
til kven faren var. Dette galdt etter alle andre nordiske lover enn den
uppsvenske. Der fylgde barnet "den beste sida".
Kjøp var den tredje måten som medførte vilkårslaus eige eller trældom.
Foreldra kunne selje eigne born.
/Most thrall names in Norway are norwegian, some foreign, of these mostly
Irish. Some Swedish (go, vikings!!!) Main source of thralldom = birth by
unfree mother, whoever the father. Exception: in "High Sweden" (Uppsala?)
father determined child status. Sale third main form of involuntary
thralldom. Parents sold children./
Dei tre formene for betinga trældom var gjeldstrældom, straffetrældom og
friviljug underkasting. Desse hadde mindre å seie i kjend tid. Ved fallitt
skulle fallenten arbeide for kreditor som træl, til gjelda var betalt.
Straffetrældomen kom opp ved at den skyldige ikkje kunne betale bota på
annan måte. Begge desse formene kunne lett verte livsvarig trældom.
Friviljug underkasting kom opp ved trong for underhald. Den som underkasta
seg, gav seg sjølv og alt han hadde til ein annan, mot lovnad om livsvarig
underhald.
/Three conditional forms: debt, penal, voluntary. Less important.
Debt: debtor thrall until dept paid off. Copuld lead to lifelong ..
Penal: convict unable to pay fine, works as thrall until paid. Could lead to
lifelong ...
Voluntary: Poverty/"social security" - submit person and property to a lord
for lifelong support/
Trælen var rettslaus i forhold til eigaren. Han kunne seljast, gjevast i
gåve, arvast og stelast som annan lausøyre. Brotsverk som andre gjorde mot
trælen, vart som hovudregel rekna som skade på eigedom. I visse tilfelle
hadde likevel trælen rett på ein mindre del av bota, om han eller eiga hans
vart skada. Og etter nokre lover hadde han ein viss rett til å hemne seg
hvis kona hans vart forført.
/Thrall no rights vis a vis owner. Could be sold, given away, bequeathed or
stolen as other property. Crimes against thralls = damage to property. If
thrall or thrall family is wounded, thrall might have part of fine. Some
laws grant right of revenge if thrall wife is seduced./
Hovudregelen var at trælen vanta rettsevne. Det skulle innebere at han ikkje
kunne ha eigedom, gjere rettsleg bindande avtalar eller opptre på tinget.
Som ein har sett, kunne trælen likevel ha visse familie- og eigedomsrettar.
Dei måtte alltid vere avgrensa ved den eigedomsretten træleeigaren hadde til
trælen.
/Main Rule: The thrall has no "legal capacity" (capability, power,
authority...?). Cannot own property, make contracts or appear at Thing. But
some thralls had certain family and ownership rights. These were always
limited by the ownerhsip rights of the owner to the thrall./
//Other source: only universally recognized property of thrall was his
knife.//
Eigaren var som hovudregel ansvarleg for brotsverk som trælen gjorde.
Likevel kunne sty- resmaktene gripe inn i visse tilfelle, slik at eigaren
ikkje vart råka. Såleis kunne trælen etter fleire lover dømmast fredlaus.
Det rettslege tilhøvet mellom træl, eigar og offentleg styresmakt vart ikkje
heilt urørt av framvoksteren av ei sterkare kongemakt.
/Owner responsible for crimes by Thrall. Ruler could intervene to protect
owner - thrall could be made outlaw. Thrall legal status changed by
increased crown power.
Trælen var til vanleg ikkje våpenfør. Men ved fullt utbod av "tegn og træl"
mot ein inntrengande hær vart også trælen utkalla.
/Thrall not "capable of arms". Invasion defence permits rally of "thane and
thrall"/
Eigaren kunne bøte på trælens rettsstilling ved å late han kjøpe seg fri,
eller gje han fri. Det er varierande tal på ledd mellom trælen og den
fullfrie, etter Frostatingslova tre ledd.
/Owner could improve thrall status by manumission or permit to buy his
freedom. Varying numbers of generations between thrall and freeman; i F-Law,
three generations./
//Other source: Of the seven classes of freemen, the lowest to were
"loeysing" ("a loosened", manumitted) and "loysing's kid" ("offspring of a
loosened", of manumitted parent). Thralls could be turned from unconditional
to conditional thralls to freemen by fixing a price, converting to debt and
letting them work the debt off.//
Den klassiske framstillinga av trælen er eddakvadet "Rigsthula". Det går
fram der og elles at trælen vart rekna for stygg, dum, feig og upåliteleg.
Det var straffbart å kalle ein fri mann træl eller træleætling. Somme trælar
kunne likevel ha kvalifisert arbeid som smedar eller gardsstyrarar. Sagaene
viser døme på gjensidig vyrdnad mellom træl og eigar.
/Classig source "R" in Edda: thrall is ugly, stupid, cowardly, unreliable.
Calling a free man thrall = a crime. Some thralls could be smiths or farm
stewards. Sagas know instances of owner - thrall respect./
Større træleopprør er visstnok ukjende, men sagaene gjev døme på at trælar
kunne drepe eigaren eller andre frie menn. Frå Danmark er kjent ei større
samla flukt av trælar over grensa på 800-talet.
/Major thrall uprisings unknown. Thralls occasionally killed owners,
according to sagas. In Denmark a large escape "across the border" (Germany?)
9. cent./
Økonomisk og sosial betydning
(ec and social importance (ESI)/
Vurderinga av den økonomiske og sosiale betydninga av trælehaldet er svært
skiftande og førebels usikker. Nokre, som Oscar Albert Johnsen, har meint at
trælane spela ei avgjerande rolle i næringslivet i vikingtida, som mest var
jordbruk. Dermed var dei også eit hovudgrunnlag for den tids samfunnsdanning
og kultur. Andre, som Edvard Bull den eldre, meinte at trælane aldri var
viktige i jordbruket i Norge, at dei mest var hustrælar og konkubiner for
hovdingane.
/ESI varying and uncertain. Some say important for agriculture = basis for
society. Others = no importance.
Framstillinga av trælane i eddakvad og sagaer, og den svært omfattande
reguleringa av tilhøve ved trælehaldet i lovene, ser vanskeleg ut til å
kunne tolkast annleis enn at trælehaldet var allment utbreidd, og særleg
viktig i jordbruket. Såleis reknar Frostatingslova tre trælar på det som ser
ut til å ha vore ein vanleg god gard, til bruk for ein blinda mann.
Heimskringla meiner ein storhovding som Erling Skjalgsson jamt hadde 30
trælar, visst mest til jordbruk, omfram andre tenarar og stort sveinefylgje.
/Frequent mention in litterature and number of regulations and laws indicate
widespread custom. F-law counts thre thralls per farm ..... Erling S (medium
chief) had 30 for farming, + servants + great "entourage" of "swains" (armed
men?)/
Heilt nyleg har det vore gissa på at træletalet i Norge på høgda gikk opp i
50-75 000 (Jørn Sandnes). Dette er mykje uvisst. Men er talet nokolunde
rett, inneber det 1-2 trælar i medel på kvart gardsbruk eller opp mot 25 %
av folketalet. Ein skal visseleg rekne med relativt få gamle mellom trælane
og, med stadig tilførsle utanfrå, også relativt få born. Eit slikt træletal
som det nemnde vil difor gjere trælehaldet til ein grunnleggande institusjon
i vikingtida, eit hovudfundament for den tidas sosiale lagdeling og for den
rikssamling og kultur som bygde på den. I England utgjorde tilsvarande ufrie
i 1080-åra ikkje meir enn ca. 9 % og vert endå rekna for viktige der.
/recent guesstimates number at max = 50' - 75' - very uncertain. IF correct,
average 1 - 2 per farm or 25 % of pop. ....IF correct, important for
economy, basis for society and culture. Comp England, unfree in 1080 no more
than 9 % yet regarded as important./
Dei økonomiske grunnvilkåra som forklårar trælehaldet, er at folketalet enno
var tynt i forhold til brukande jordbruksland, i ein situasjon der
jordbruket var heilt dominerande næring. Dermed vart det vanskeleg eller
umogeleg for ein jordeigande overklasse å finne økonomisk grunnlag for seg
ved bruk av frie jordleigarar eller anna fri arbeidskraft. Ingen ville
betale nemnande jordleige eller arbeide billeg nok friviljug. Arbeidskrafta
måtte tvingast, som ved trælehald. Dermed kom træleprisen óg så pass opp at
det kunne svare seg å finansiere ekspedisjonar for trælejakt, av det slag
vikingferdene i stor mon var.
/Economic basis: land in good supply, cheap labour in demand. None willing
to work cheap enough, must have slaves. Slave demand basis for profitability
of raiding./
At trælane vart ei av dei aller viktigaste handelsvarene, hang også
beinveges saman med at massane av dei folka vikingane herja mot, hadde lite
anna rørleg gods av verdi enn sine eigne personar. Menneske var generelt ei
velskikka handelsvare under den tidas kommunikasjonar. Over land kunne dei
gå på eigne bein, og på skip hadde dei relativt stor verdi i forhold til
volum og vekt. I Norge var trælen ei slags eining i pengesystemet med di han
var lovleg betalingsmiddel, jamsides kyr, hingstar, odelsjord og ymse andre
varer, etter Gulatingslova.
/Slave as goods = target peoples had no other wealth but themselves. Easy to
transport.
I Norway, part of monetary system. Thrall = legal tender, along with cattle,
horses, earth ond sundry other goods as listed in G-law./
Avviklinga av trælehaldet hadde samanheng med dei same økonomiske
grunnvilkåra som skapte det. Etter som folketalet voks og jorda vart den
knappe faktoren, vart det ikkje nødvendig å halde på arbeidskrafta med makt.
Jordleiga steig og lønene gikk ned. Fri arbeidskraft lønte seg betre enn
trælar. Kostnadene ved militær innsanking av trælar steig også, med sterkare
militær og politisk organisasjon i "jaktområda".
/decline of system same cause as creation. Increased population: land
scarce, labour plenty and cheap. Free labour more profitable. Cost of
raiding increases with better organization and resistance in ..."hunting
grounds" ...(sic)./
Den kristne religionen hadde neppe større direkte å seie for avviklinga.
Såleis heldt kyrkja sjølv trælar så lenge det var økonomisk lønsamt. Dei
danske erkebispane Absalon og Anders Sunesøn først på 1200-talet, heldt
trælar og gikk aktivt inn for træleeigarinteressene, m.a. slik at dei
oppnådde pavelege dekretal til støtte for træleeigarane.
/Xians no factor in decline. Church owner as long as profitable. Two dansih
bishops = owners early 1200, lobbyed for thrall system, acquired papal
"decretal" (?) in support of owners./
Det einaste nordiske landet som formelt avskaffa trælehaldet ved lov var
Sverige i 1335. I dei andre landa kom træledomen bort tidlegare og gradvis.
I dei norske og islandske lovene frå 1270- og 1280-åra er nesten alle spor
av trælane borte. På Island var det neppe trælar på 1100-talet, og i Norge
få seinare enn 1l80-åra. I Danmark var trælehaldet i alle fall i rask
tilbakegang midt på 1200-talet.
/Only Sweden in Scand. abolished thralls by law (1335). Elsewhere earlier,
gradual disappearance. Norw. and Icel. law late 13. cent. almost no traces
of thralls. Iceland = probably no thralls 1100, Norway few after 1180.
Denmark rapid decline 13. century.
Ved avviklinga gikk trælane etter kvart opp i det frie folket. Seinast ved
folketynninga etter Mannedauden 1349-50 vart det så rikeleg med jord at
træleætlingane kom inn som bønder på dei gode gardane.
/On decline, thralls mingled with gen. pop. At the "Man Weeding" (sic) after
Black death so much land that only the best farms were farmed - enough for
all. /
HTH
T
Drifter Bob
> I assume, but don't know if you are right regarding Byzantium. Never seen
> any real figures.
> Please return with information of which language you want the sources
> written and/or translated in. It helps a lot.
>
English I'm afraid I'm not fluent in any other, to my shame.
DB
Drifter Bob
I.E_Johansson
Tron gave you one of the Arabic sources. There are more. Have to check if
two of the others ever been translated into English. Return with more. Btw.
Tron did a very good job, didn't he?
Inger E
>
>
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7pY4e.27627$vK6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > Drifter Bob wrote:
> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> snip >
>
> I also wonder how far back these types of pseudo-democratic warrior
socities
> do go. Though sources clash, it seems there are many similarities in
Greek
> and Roman description of certain Iron Age Celtic and even some German
> tribes. In the US, we are taught to belive that Monarchy came first (and
is
> by implication, the more natural state of humanity), and Democracy was a
> modern development of progress. I wonder if it might be the other way
> around.
>
> snip>
Of course, everything depends on how you use the term of 'king'.
As I see it, any group of people labouring together, be it hunting or
ploughing, warmaking or fishing, will establish leadership. If unhampered
from the outside, the leader will need to know about how to make people act
out what he tells them to and know a lot about the task to be done (some
people reverse the order of those two).
A miltary leader was chosen by the warriors in germanic times, his powers
were restricted by common usage and ended with the military conflict. A
story told about some merovingian leader, shows the little freedom he has.
When the spoils of war were to be distributed, he had wanted to acquire a
precious vessel, which collided with the normal way of ditribution. Still,
he might have had his way, but one warrior spoke out against him, and
demanded, the vessel to be distributed as was the common custom. And in
order to keep up the customs, he destroyed the vessel, so the pieces could
be split up. The leader was mad at him, but couldn't, yet, do anything about
it, since his status was that of a military leader, not of a king.
Of course he got his revenge the next time the warrior stepped out of line,
and had him killed for some minor nuisance.
German research has called this kind of thing military democracy. Leaving
aside the fact, that only warriors, men rich enough to own equipment and be
trained in the 'arts' of war, could vote for the leader, and far less of
them could actually be voted for, this was supposed to be the basis of the
social organisation, with remnants, the Thing-based societies, reaching well
into historical times.
We now know that social organisaton is no one way street, temporal or
permanent social stratifications can be shown to have existed in societies
since the middle neolithic at least and to have grown and diminuished. The
powers and the influence of leadership varied immensely.
One famous example are the rich early iron age burials, around 800-400 BCE,
called princely burials or 'Fuerstengraeber'. Since there are only about 15
to 20 'normal' burials to one rich burial, it seems to have been rather more
of a village chief than a noble man or a king.
But, there are also a few childrens graves furnished according to this
customs, indicating that at the time the stratification began to be
permanent.
Things are much the same in the early medieval period, a few richly
furnished burials, a few of them for children, and a somewhat larger group
of normal burials, indicates a few persons having risen above normal people
and trying to establish their position as permanent.
Inbetween, the archaeological record (i.e. grave goods), shows little
variation between 'normal' burials, but there are always a few very richly
furnished graves. They can bes seen as indicators of a 'big man society',
one guy having risen to power but depending on his personal accomplishments
to keep this status.
Only the need for perpetual warfare, the communications to allow a chief to
have his suggestions/orders carried out and the technical and economical
needs coming with better equipment, made the development from a wartime
leadership into a permanent kingship possible.
Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when the
kings became religious leaders, when territoriality was fully developed, and
the king succeeded to the throne because of his right of birth and not by
election any more.
As to the slaves, it has been noted that the words for slave and slavic
people are very close, which was taken to mean, vikings would go there
hunting for slaves to sell them to the Arabs and Byzantinians. No such
connection was made though for the equally close names of Angli (like in
Anglosaxons) and angeli, angels.
There are quite a number of iron locks and chains known, which were probably
used for the slave trade. But they give us no indication of the volume of
the trade or the number of slaves employed in the north.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Tron
Speaking for Norway only, the "there were few thralls"-side like to point to
the fragmentation of land (on any scale from field to province), making the
big farm, the village and the feudal fief a very rare thing in history.
Apart from the manumitted and the upper class - kings and earls - society
knew only two classes, the farmer and the hauld. The hauld was a man born to
"odel" (property inheritance privilege), while tha former just worked the
land. Acquiring odel required the same family to run a farm as freemen for
six generations.
Apart from the thralls, there was no class of serfs or bondsmen. After the
abolishing of the thralls, and introduction of more "continental feudalism",
even the lowest class of farmers remained legally freemen.
T
Yusuf B Gursey
Drifter Bob wrote:
> We know vikings had slaves, and practiced the slave trade. Many
authors
> seem to suggest that most of their slaving was done for the markets
of
> Byzantium and Arabia, much as the Celts before them sold their own
people
you mean "Muslim lands" rather than "Arabia". Muslim Spain had lots of
slavic and other northern slaves, it doesn't qualify as "Arabia" by any
measure.
Yusuf B Gursey
Drifter Bob wrote:
>
> I'm assuming at this same period Christian Europe was 2/3 -3/4 serfs,
and
> both Byzantium and Arabia had a high percentage of Slaves, though in
Arabia
"Arabia" means the peninsula, esp. its desert or steppe regions, and
the desert or steppe regions somewhat to the north of it. these weren't
partciluarly known for theie military slavery (except perhaps Yemen
which may be considered a seperate region), slaves were generally low
status household slaves.
the towns and metropolises of the fertile crescent, Egypt, N. Africa,
Muslim Spain etc. i.e. "muslim lands" that is a different matter and
like you describe. but it is not "Arabia", nor were they ruled from it,
except during the very early conquests.
Drifter Bob
DB
Drifter Bob
> > tribes. In the US, we are taught to belive that Monarchy came first
(and
> > modern development of progress. I wonder if it might be the other way
> > around.
> As I see it, any group of people labouring together, be it hunting or
> ploughing, warmaking or fishing, will establish leadership. If unhampered
> from the outside, the leader will need to know about how to make people
act
> out what he tells them to and know a lot about the task to be done (some
> people reverse the order of those two).
I think this is true for war in many cases, leaders are often required at
least on the small scale, and for activities which require very rapid
decision making. It is not necessarily true in all other activities like
say, ploughing. Farmers all over the world frequently live communally on
the small scale. Same for hunting, at least of the ordinary sort... modern
hunter gatherer communities often do not have leaders. Of course even for
war you still saw socities of equals doing well, even into WW II with
Finnish commando teams (Sissii?)
More importantly though, I think the distinction between the temporary
leader who leads by example, versus the formal leader who leads by force.
The former is, IMO, a natural state in humanity, as is the egalitarian /
libertarian communal tribe.
The latter, formal leadership, cannot exist without a major change of the
underlying culture.
> A miltary leader was chosen by the warriors in germanic times, his powers
> were restricted by common usage and ended with the military conflict. A
This is t he same more or less in many cultures, Celts, Scandinavians,
Germans, Africans, North American Indians, and some South American Indians.
In the colonial days of the US, authorities would make treaties with
"chieftains", pay them to buy a certain zone of land for example, only to be
infuriated later to find that the other indians were not party to the treaty
since the chieftain did not formally control the tribe.
This situation is exactly the same as often occurred between Romans and
Celts, and later with some German tribes. The beuracratic slave mind cannot
understand the free warrior mind, and visa versa. This dialogue, allegedly
between Vikings led by Rolf Ganger and a representative of King Charles of
the Franks, illustrates the same gap of understanding between the Feudal and
Warrior mind:
"Counts of royal power command you to say who you are, where you have come
from, and what you're planning to do."
"We're Danes. We've come from Dacia to take Francia by assault."
"What authority does your lord discharge?"
"None, we're of equal power."
> Of course he got his revenge the next time the warrior stepped out of
line,
> and had him killed for some minor nuisance.
The story you illustrated would be from the phase where the old free system
was largely replaced by the new slave system
> German research has called this kind of thing military democracy. Leaving
> aside the fact, that only warriors, men rich enough to own equipment and
be
> trained in the 'arts' of war, could vote for the leader, and far less of
This was still the majority of the population in Scandinavia, where per the
orginal subject of this thread, most people were free and bore arms. Also,
dont forget some women did take up arms among the Norse, and certainly among
other cultures. I'm not aware of any evidence that they could not vote at
the Thing.
> them could actually be voted for, this was supposed to be the basis of the
> social organisation, with remnants, the Thing-based societies, reaching
well
> into historical times.
>
> We now know that social organisaton is no one way street, temporal or
> permanent social stratifications can be shown to have existed in societies
> since the middle neolithic at least and to have grown and diminuished. The
> powers and the influence of leadership varied immensely.
Again, in some quite complex North American Indian societies, a variety of
types of leaders would emerge, some for the buffalo hunt (a tricky activity
very different from the buffalo hunt) some negotiators, some experts at
magic and medicine, some warrior leaders. But these were only followed to
the extent that they were respected, and had no permanent authority.
This may seem a minor difference to some, to me it makes a lot of sense.
> One famous example are the rich early iron age burials, around 800-400
BCE,
> called princely burials or 'Fuerstengraeber'. Since there are only about
15
> to 20 'normal' burials to one rich burial, it seems to have been rather
more
> of a village chief than a noble man or a king.
You seem to be lumping together iron age cultures in Europe, where the
reality seems to be that there were wide differences in practices. For one
thing, tribes living close to Greek and Roman influence were more likely to
form classical type hierarchies. Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence of
egalitarian grave sites from Minoa to Malta, and in a variety of places in
Europe such as of the Halstadt era Celts
> Only the need for perpetual warfare, the communications to allow a chief
to
> have his suggestions/orders carried out and the technical and economical
> needs coming with better equipment, made the development from a wartime
> leadership into a permanent kingship possible.
I disagree, a major cultural shift is necessary. Changes in religion are
key. The Aesir religion of the Norse was an adaptation to Roman and Greek
gods and to their more ruthless and allegedly pragmatic philosophy in
comparison with the earlier Vanir nature gods. Christianity proved to be
the necessary glue to hold down Monarchical power, and all the Viking era
Monarchs relied upon Christinity to justify their rule and especially, the
divine right of nepotism....
> Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when the
Barock age? I'm not familiar with the term
> As to the slaves, it has been noted that the words for slave and slavic
> people are very close, which was taken to mean, vikings would go there
> hunting for slaves to sell them to the Arabs and Byzantinians. No such
> connection was made though for the equally close names of Angli (like in
> Anglosaxons) and angeli, angels.
No, the English were not angels, then or now.
DB
Tron
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
news:3bk5n2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Drifter Bob,
>
> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:7pY4e.27627$vK6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> > Drifter Bob wrote:
>> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
>
>
> kings became religious leaders,
I was under the impression that some "Germans" had a sort of "king" who had
a religious role, marked by the sceptre being some sort of wand or branch
.... or am I ganz auf dem Holzwege?
In the viking age, there was a considerable overlap between big farm -
nobility - gode (Asatru-priest).
T
Tron
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
news:FLi5e.29582$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
..
>> A miltary leader was chosen by the warriors in germanic times, his powers
>> were restricted by common usage and ended with the military conflict. A
>
> This is t he same more or less in many cultures, Celts, Scandinavians,
> Germans, Africans, North American Indians, and some South American
> Indians.
How do we explain the hereditary-ness of kingship? Accordin to Snorri, only
the bloodline of Harald Fairhair could apply, at least until that line went
extinct. Even these kings needed to be confirmed by the various regional
Thing, but only those of that family would be candidates.
>
...
> between Vikings led by Rolf Ganger
"Ganger" is not his surname, it is his "nick": Walking Rolf, Gange-Rolf.
....>> German research has called this kind of thing military democracy.
Leaving
>> aside the fact, that only warriors, men rich enough to own equipment and
> be
>> trained in the 'arts' of war, could vote for the leader, and far less of
Piggybackin, sorry, but main implements of war like bow, axe and spear were
also main implements of hunting and would probably be owned by practically
any free man. What is expensive is an all-metal weapon like the sword,
armour, war horses w/gear. Individual traning may not have been that hard to
come by, but that is perhaps not what you mean? Major manouvres by large
formations would have been costly to do on any regular and large scale ( =
useful) basis.
>
> This was still the majority of the population in Scandinavia, where per
> the
> orginal subject of this thread, most people were free and bore arms.
> Also,
> dont forget some women did take up arms among the Norse, and certainly
> among
> other cultures.
The "Skjoldmoey" ("Shield Maiden") is mainly found in litterature, one
mention in Saxo, and one in the Starkad-lay, and Brunhilde, of course. Froey
was the original one, called this or valkyrie when seelcting dead warriors
for Folkvang. But not really a noticeable percentage of the population.
I'm not aware of any evidence that they could not vote at
> the Thing.
And there is no evidence that they could. AFAIK there is no mention of women
voting or even coming to Thing.
... The Aesir religion of the Norse was an adaptation to Roman and Greek
> gods
??
They are the same gods, historically, IIRC. Ty /Ziu = Diu-piter, etc., but
of course these "strands" of a ... Russian Steppe horse taming people ...
Scythians? .... separated before the greeks became greeks and the germans
became the germans, giving local variations and some extra gods here and
there.
Christianity proved to be
> the necessary glue to hold down Monarchical power, and all the Viking era
> Monarchs relied upon Christinity to justify their rule and especially, the
> divine right of nepotism....
During the introduction of Christianity, much was made of the similarities
between Jehova & Cie. and the Aesir.
Armagaddon = Ragnarokk, The Lord of Hosts gathering warriors for the fight
against the Devil = Odin gathering Einherjer in Valhall, etc. So kind and
mild Jesus was smuggled into Scandinavia as more Odin than Odin himself, a
bigger and stronger Super-Aass who could really kick a**, no matter how many
cheeks one turned.
T
Drifter Bob
"Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
powers
> >> were restricted by common usage and ended with the military conflict. A
> >
> > Germans, Africans, North American Indians, and some South American
> > Indians.
>
> How do we explain the hereditary-ness of kingship? Accordin to Snorri,
only
> the bloodline of Harald Fairhair could apply, at least until that line
went
> extinct. Even these kings needed to be confirmed by the various regional
> Thing, but only those of that family would be candidates.
Snorri wrote in the 1200's when Monarchy was the accepted reality for nearly
the entire known world, and he was a Christian. His version of Norse
mythology is notoriously seen through that particular tint.
And IIRC, many of the aspiring kings who did eventually reach king status
had to prove their status at the "Thing", where I believe in at least two
cases their mothers 'carried iron' (trial by ordeal) to prove their
monarchical status.
As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
The divine right of kings, their "royal" status, is a mythology that the
families themselves had to fight very hard to establish. The British and
French Royal families have been engaged in propaganda for centuries, the
most obvious of which is the rewriting of the King Arthur legends, with the
explicit and avowed intent to validate the concept of Royal blood and Divine
Right.
In the long run, the Norse aspirants to Kinghood were able to become Kings,
but not before massive slaughters and huge sea-changes in the culture. At
the time when the kings were coming to power, we know for a fact that many
people resisted monarchy... it's a good part of the reason most of the
original settlers of Iceland moved there. In the case of the Vikings
Christianity was the solvent that melted away their old traditions and
allowed society to be recreated. In the case of earlier Celts and German
tribes, exposure to Roman and Greek culture did so.
> "Ganger" is not his surname, it is his "nick": Walking Rolf, Gange-Rolf.
I know I should have said "Rolf the Ganger" or Gange Rolf
> Piggybackin, sorry, but main implements of war like bow, axe and spear
were
> also main implements of hunting and would probably be owned by practically
> any free man. What is expensive is an all-metal weapon like the sword,
> armour, war horses w/gear. Individual traning may not have been that hard
to
> come by, but that is perhaps not what you mean? Major manouvres by large
> formations would have been costly to do on any regular and large scale ( =
> useful) basis.
In the early Viking age, few warriors had iron swords or mail armor. Same
for ancient Celts, the Germans were in many cases so iron-poor that their
armies lacked even iron spear points. This did not stop them from fighting,
and fighting effectively, in battle. (Though it was often an achillies heel
when fighting the very well equiped Roman Legions)
> The "Skjoldmoey" ("Shield Maiden") is mainly found in litterature, one
> mention in Saxo, and one in the Starkad-lay, and Brunhilde, of course.
Froey
> was the original one, called this or valkyrie when seelcting dead warriors
> for Folkvang. But not really a noticeable percentage of the population.
There are mentions in several Sagas, I dont hasve my books in front of me
and forget the name of the battle where the ageing king decides to die
fighting?
Also, you yourself mentioned the Scythians. In the last ten years there
have been numerous scythian graves found contemporaneous with the Celtic
Iron age which include numerous bodies of Female warriors: women with not
only weapons and armor but healed battle wounds and even arrow heads found
in their bodies. Ironically the 5th (?) Century HISTORY OF THE GOTHS claims
that the Amazons of Greek literature were descended from Goth women who went
adventuring after being left behind in Sweeden...
While this partciular claim is likely pure fantasy, there is no reason to
assume that as with so many other facts, this aspect of the Viking sagas is
true, though we wont know for certain until more research is done.
> I'm not aware of any evidence that they could not vote at
> > the Thing.
>
> And there is no evidence that they could. AFAIK there is no mention of
women
> voting or even coming to Thing.
>
> ... The Aesir religion of the Norse was an adaptation to Roman and Greek
> > gods
>
> ??
> They are the same gods, historically, IIRC. Ty /Ziu = Diu-piter, etc., but
> of course these "strands" of a ... Russian Steppe horse taming people ...
> Scythians? .... separated before the greeks became greeks and the germans
> became the germans, giving local variations and some extra gods here and
> there.
The original Norse religion was the Vanir, earth / nature gods. the Aesir
Sky Gods came later. The Greek and Roman gods themselves were influenced by
Mesopotamian, Egyptian and other Oriental Gods, as was so much of their
culture.
Strife between the Vanir and Aesir cults continued until the very end of the
Viking Age.
> Christianity proved to be
> > the necessary glue to hold down Monarchical power, and all the Viking
era
> > Monarchs relied upon Christinity to justify their rule and especially,
the
> > divine right of nepotism....
>
> During the introduction of Christianity, much was made of the similarities
> between Jehova & Cie. and the Aesir.
> Armagaddon = Ragnarokk, The Lord of Hosts gathering warriors for the fight
> against the Devil = Odin gathering Einherjer in Valhall, etc. So kind and
> mild Jesus was smuggled into Scandinavia as more Odin than Odin himself,
a
> bigger and stronger Super-Aass who could really kick a**, no matter how
many
> cheeks one turned.
>
> T
Christianity is always changed to slip through the cracks, then it reveals
it's true identity later.
DB
Odysseus
<snip>
>
> > Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when the
>
> Barock age? I'm not familiar with the term
>
It's usually spelt "baroque". AFAIK the term usually belongs more to
art & music history than political, but I'd take it as referring to
the early-modern "Enlightenment" period, likely centred somewhere
around the late XVII century.
--
Odysseus
Drifter Bob
"Odysseus" <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:4256435E...@yahoo-dot.ca...
> Drifter Bob wrote:
> >
> > "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when
the
> >
> > Barock age? I'm not familiar with the term
> >
>
> It's usually spelt "baroque". AFAIK the term usually belongs more to
Now that I have heard of... lol
DB
Tron
>
....
> Snorri wrote in the 1200's when Monarchy was the accepted reality for
> nearly
> the entire known world, and he was a Christian. His version of Norse
> mythology is notoriously seen through that particular tint.
An interesting piece of meta-history. We should be careful not to take so
many reservations that there is no content left.
It is true that when Snorri wrote, Iceland had been christian for 200 years,
but what does "christian" mean at that time? We must assume that his views
were influenced by the circumstances of his life, but since we have little
else to compare with, we don't know how much. Unfortunatley, we don't have
autobiographies of any Asatru-believer, like we have Greek and Roman
accounts from before the christian era, and so we do not know how they saw
and felt the world.
We do know that Snorri's accounts are not the views of an Asatru-believer,
but that is all we know; the wording "His version of Norse mythology is
notoriously seen through that particular tint" implies that there are things
about this that we do know. Which we don't.
>
> And IIRC, many of the aspiring kings who did eventually reach king status
> had to prove their status at the "Thing",
Well, they had to be accepted as kings. The proof thing ws introduced by the
church, so that was relatively late.
perhaps Norse society was (felt to be) transparent enough for everybody to
know who was in who's family.
where I believe in at least two
> cases their mothers 'carried iron' (trial by ordeal) to prove their
> monarchical status.
Inga of Varteig carried iron for her son Håkon Håkonson, but then we are in
the late MA (1217 - 1263). And perhaps because of this "canonical law
backlash", the church abolished jarnbyrd in 1247.
Before her, Harald Gille carried his own irons to become king in 1130.
What they had to prove, IIRC, was the veracity of their claim to be
descendants of Harald Haarfagre.
> As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
> aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
> themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
They probably were, too.
> The divine right of kings, their "royal" status, is a mythology that the
> families themselves had to fight very hard to establish. The British and
> French Royal families have been engaged in propaganda for centuries, the
> most obvious of which is the rewriting of the King Arthur legends, with
> the
> explicit and avowed intent to validate the concept of Royal blood and
> Divine
> Right.
Wouldn't the divinity thing also vary between religions, making the germanic
"foreign service to the Gods" king different from the later enlightenment
"Divine right as granted by Jehova" kings?
IF the russian steppe sky and wind god origin theory is right, and there are
family ties between Zeus, Jupiter and Ty ....
Both the greeks and the romans did have some sort of "free man democracy"
(isocracy), while retaining a nominal king in a ceremonial/religious
function, the greeks with their basileus, the romans with the rex sacrorum,
in charge of the main cult of Jupiter, the only thing not transferred from
the (etruscan) kings to the consuls.
It doesn't sound all that different from the Norse model, to me. Apart from
all the differences, of course.
> In the long run, the Norse aspirants to Kinghood were able to become
> Kings,
> but not before massive slaughters and huge sea-changes in the culture. At
> the time when the kings were coming to power, we know for a fact that many
> people resisted monarchy... it's a good part of the reason most of the
> original settlers of Iceland moved there.
Well, Harald Luva ("Dreadlock Harald") was a king already, and he didn't
fight republicans, he fought other kings, although these previous kingdoms
were spit-across-sized. His brilliant idea was merely to kill all the other
kings and make himself high and grand king of all Norway. This, IMHO, is
less of a "spread of kingship" (in the "spread of democracy" sense?) than a
redefinition of what a king is and should be.
In the case of the Vikings
> Christianity was the solvent that melted away their old traditions and
> allowed society to be recreated. In the case of earlier Celts and German
> tribes, exposure to Roman and Greek culture did so.
Pet theory: while 2religious" kings had always been there in the form of
Biggest and Baddest in the Valley cum Gode to the God, some time before the
viking age somebody started experimenting with extending the kings'
political rights after the model of the continental examples, either of Rome
or of the Merowingians.
> In the early Viking age, few warriors had iron swords or mail armor. Same
> for ancient Celts, the Germans were in many cases so iron-poor that their
> armies lacked even iron spear points. This did not stop them from
> fighting,
> and fighting effectively, in battle. (Though it was often an achillies
> heel
> when fighting the very well equiped Roman Legions)
The point is, what does this tell us about the argument "only the rich could
afford to be soldiers"?
I think that examples like these invalidate that argument. Presence of metal
might indicate something about the level of professionalism in an army,
which is a reflection of the economic performance of any given society
(apart from geology), but it doesn't say anything about how many people had
weapon-like accesoires or how warlike a society was.
>
>> The "Skjoldmoey" ("Shield Maiden") is mainly found in litterature, one
>> mention in Saxo, and one in the Starkad-lay, and Brunhilde, of course.
> Froey
>> was the original one, called this or valkyrie when seelcting dead
>> warriors
>> for Folkvang. But not really a noticeable percentage of the population.
>
> There are mentions in several Sagas, I dont hasve my books in front of me
> and forget the name of the battle where the ageing king decides to die
> fighting?
OK, but still a literary source, of whom we, as you note about, should be
inherently sceptical, innit?
And still, not really a noticeable percentage of the population involved.
>
> While this partciular claim is likely pure fantasy, there is no reason to
> assume that as with so many other facts, this aspect of the Viking sagas
> is
> true, though we wont know for certain until more research is done.
Well, Scythians and Goths were not vikings, and vice versa.
Historical roots, and all that.
While we're being scientiffic popperians here, no matter how many females we
find buried with swords, scars and arrowheads in their bodies, that they
were Xenas, that the scars are from battle, that they got battle scars
participating in battle as warriors, and that they weren't just killed by
arrows is interpretation.
>
> The original Norse religion was the Vanir, earth / nature gods. the Aesir
> Sky Gods came later.
I doubt the Norse ever revered the Vanir alone. The Tacitus era Germans knew
about the Vanir, didn't they?
The "later introduction" may have preceded their immigration to Scandinavia.
> Strife between the Vanir and Aesir cults continued until the very end of
> the
> Viking Age.
Do tell.
T
Uwe Müller
"Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fgj5e.5382$ai7.1...@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
> news:3bk5n2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hi Drifter Bob,
> >
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:7pY4e.27627$vK6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> > Drifter Bob wrote:
> >> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> >
> > Of course, everything depends on how you use the term of 'king'.
> >
> ...> Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when
> the
> > kings became religious leaders,
>
> I was under the impression that some "Germans" had a sort of "king" who
had
> a religious role, marked by the sceptre being some sort of wand or branch
> .... or am I ganz auf dem Holzwege?
I can trace the wand back to migration age saxon burial sites, where iron
fittings of such batons where found belonging to heads of families or
village chiefs. Similar implements were still used in high medieval towns as
badges of office for the heads of some guilds, for the people policing the
market and/or the regular, yearly?, public meetings of the town population.
There are mace heads from at least the early bronze age, that have been
argued to be more a badge of office than a weapon. And there are the late
neolithic axe heads.
As to the germanic kings, there is little contemporary information on the
meaning of that position. Were they leaders in war, restricted by priests as
to when and against whom wars would be fought? Were they judges of their
peoples, when justice was sought by the clan? Were they a kind of
personalized social security system? Or were they just blamed if things went
wrong?
>
> In the viking age, there was a considerable overlap between big farm -
> nobility - gode (Asatru-priest).
For prehistoric times there seems to have been little differentiation
between personal success and secular or religious functions. If yoou were
succesful, people would heed your advice and act upon your suggestions. If
not, than all your riches, gaudy clothing or superb weaponry wouldn't
elevate you above your neighbour.
there is a settlement in NW Germany, Boomborg near Hatzum, which was founded
in the late Bronze Age and continued well into the iron age. In the early
period, only the biggest farm had a site for barbecues, surrounded by a
palisade (fenced off from the secular world?). From comparable features in
other villagesit can be argued, that at these site communal feasting was
done, led by the owner of the farm.
In the iron age every farm had such a barbecue area. That could point to a
social stratification that had been on the brink of turning into a permanent
division, but for some reason or other it did not do so but turned back into
a more egalitarian society. Right through the migration age settlements show
a differentiation of wealth, but there is no clear division between normal
and noble or aristocratic.
I believe the families, who owned these farms, were called upon for
positions of communal responsibility, in secular as well as in religious
matters. And that would be the only way to transform wealth into prestige or
status. But there is nothing to indicate they could make somebody do
something against his will.
So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question of the
definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK, on somebody
being accepted as king by the church, so there could not be a king in a
non-christian society. This did not keep the kings from treating those
non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the relations between Franks and Saxons
before 800 or between Danes and Slavs before 1000.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Nfl5e.5392$ai7.1...@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
> news:FLi5e.29582$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> ..
>
> >> A miltary leader was chosen by the warriors in germanic times, his
powers
> >> were restricted by common usage and ended with the military conflict. A
> >
> > This is t he same more or less in many cultures, Celts, Scandinavians,
> > Germans, Africans, North American Indians, and some South American
> > Indians.
>
> How do we explain the hereditary-ness of kingship? Accordin to Snorri,
only
> the bloodline of Harald Fairhair could apply, at least until that line
went
> extinct. Even these kings needed to be confirmed by the various regional
> Thing, but only those of that family would be candidates.
Hereditary offices are formed where certain abilities, not commonly found,
can develop by watching and learning from family members. Trade can be
learned by watching, foreign languages, the knowledge about the customs and
needs of your trading partners could not be studied at school. It was far
easier to carry on with a trade link already established by your forefathers
than to try to establish something on your own.
In order to be succesfull at trading you had to be able to collect wares in
your vicinity, wares that would be sought by foreign traders. You
had to do that on a regular basis, so trading with you would be worthwhile
for your partners. And then people had to rely on you for needed imports.
This gave you a big advantage when starting to compete for 'public offices'
> snip >
>
> Piggybackin, sorry, but main implements of war like bow, axe and spear
were
> also main implements of hunting and would probably be owned by practically
> any free man. What is expensive is an all-metal weapon like the sword,
> armour, war horses w/gear. Individual traning may not have been that hard
to
> come by, but that is perhaps not what you mean? Major manouvres by large
> formations would have been costly to do on any regular and large scale ( =
> useful) basis.
It all depends on the time you look at. In the later iron age only a part of
the people had metal weapons. If you look at viking age graves, it is still
a rather small group of people that has metal armour. Even less with swords
and or lances/spears.
Still, they were very succesfull relying on swift movements rather than on
heavy armour.
>
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> > Hi Drifter Bob,
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > I also wonder how far back these types of pseudo-democratic warrior
> > > do go. Though sources clash, it seems there are many similarities in
> > > and Roman description of certain Iron Age Celtic and even some German
> > > tribes. In the US, we are taught to belive that Monarchy came first
> (and
> > > by implication, the more natural state of humanity), and Democracy was
a
> > > modern development of progress. I wonder if it might be the other way
> > > around.
> > Of course, everything depends on how you use the term of 'king'.
> > As I see it, any group of people labouring together, be it hunting or
> > ploughing, warmaking or fishing, will establish leadership. If
unhampered
> > from the outside, the leader will need to know about how to make people
> act
> > out what he tells them to and know a lot about the task to be done (some
> > people reverse the order of those two).
>
> I think this is true for war in many cases, leaders are often required at
> least on the small scale, and for activities which require very rapid
> decision making. It is not necessarily true in all other activities like
> say, ploughing.
Ploughing on communal fields meant that somebody had to make a decision as
to the time when to start. If you missed the right date, the crop could fall
short of your needs or fail completely. It was a major decision.
> Farmers all over the world frequently live communally on
> the small scale.
And usually the bigger tasks are done communally. And you should not forget
the differences in time and cultural background.
>Same for hunting, at least of the ordinary sort... modern
> hunter gatherer communities often do not have leaders.
No matter what the name is, the succesful hunter will have people following
his advice, making him a leader. Bíg game hunting was dangerous.
Uncoordinated attacks would not be of much use against a boar, a deer, a
pack of wolves, etc. (not to mention the earlier, even bigger animals).
>Of course even for
> war you still saw socities of equals doing well, even into WW II with
> Finnish commando teams (Sissii?)
I do not see the connection with the viking age. Please enlighten me.
>
> More importantly though, I think the distinction between the temporary
> leader who leads by example, versus the formal leader who leads by force.
> The former is, IMO, a natural state in humanity, as is the egalitarian /
> libertarian communal tribe.
Since nobody can be expert in all fields, it is an intelligent decision to
follow someone who knows if you don't know yourself.
> snip >
>
> > German research has called this kind of thing military democracy.
Leaving
> > aside the fact, that only warriors, men rich enough to own equipment and
> be
> > trained in the 'arts' of war, could vote for the leader, and far less of
>
> This was still the majority of the population in Scandinavia,
AFAIK the first born male as a rule inherited the land and made the
decisions for the family. That leaves out females, about half of the
population, and a big part of the men, depending on family size. That will
leave you with -optimistic reasoning- about a quarter or a third of the
population, even less if you consider serfs or farm labourers.
>where per the
> orginal subject of this thread, most people were free and bore arms.
Also,
> dont forget some women did take up arms among the Norse, and certainly
among
> other cultures. I'm not aware of any evidence that they could not vote at
> the Thing.
AFAIK there is not even a hint that women were being allowed to attend the
Thing. There are less than a dozen female graves with weapons. So yes,
female warriors existed, and no, they played no role in society worth
mentioning.
>
> > them could actually be voted for, this was supposed to be the basis of
the
> > social organisation, with remnants, the Thing-based societies, reaching
> well
> > into historical times.
> >
> > We now know that social organisaton is no one way street, temporal or
> > permanent social stratifications can be shown to have existed in
societies
> > since the middle neolithic at least and to have grown and diminuished.
The
> > powers and the influence of leadership varied immensely.
>
> Again, in some quite complex North American Indian societies, a variety of
> types of leaders would emerge, some for the buffalo hunt (a tricky
activity
> very different from the buffalo hunt) some negotiators, some experts at
> magic and medicine, some warrior leaders. But these were only followed to
> the extent that they were respected, and had no permanent authority.
Exactly, they were leaders but they could not force anyone to follow them.
>
> This may seem a minor difference to some, to me it makes a lot of sense.
>
> > One famous example are the rich early iron age burials, around 800-400
> BCE,
> > called princely burials or 'Fuerstengraeber'. Since there are only about
> 15
> > to 20 'normal' burials to one rich burial, it seems to have been rather
> more
> > of a village chief than a noble man or a king.
>
> You seem to be lumping together iron age cultures in Europe, where the
> reality seems to be that there were wide differences in practices. For
one
> thing, tribes living close to Greek and Roman influence were more likely
to
> form classical type hierarchies. Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence of
> egalitarian grave sites from Minoa to Malta, and in a variety of places in
> Europe such as of the Halstadt era Celts
I would not call them Celts in the Hallstatt era, but this is exactly where
the princely graves are ocurring first. Sites like the Heuneburg, the
Duerrnberg, Hochdorf, the Glauberg area etc. are well known for their richly
furnished graves. If you are interested I can supply you with tons of
references on the debate wether they were an aristocratic part of the
society or not.
Some recent research even tried to make them into a sort of priest king,
because there was a spit for roasting meat in one grave.
>
> > Only the need for perpetual warfare, the communications to allow a chief
> to
> > have his suggestions/orders carried out and the technical and economical
> > needs coming with better equipment, made the development from a wartime
> > leadership into a permanent kingship possible.
>
> I disagree, a major cultural shift is necessary. Changes in religion are
> key. The Aesir religion of the Norse was an adaptation to Roman and Greek
> gods and to their more ruthless and allegedly pragmatic philosophy in
> comparison with the earlier Vanir nature gods. Christianity proved to be
> the necessary glue to hold down Monarchical power, and all the Viking era
> Monarchs relied upon Christinity to justify their rule and especially, the
> divine right of nepotism....
This sounds convincing, only there is not a bit of evidence for it. On the
contrary you can follow the rise (and decline) of certain families, the
change of belives and burial customs from the Urnfield period on right up to
the early Latène period.
How was christianity the glue to make leadership permanent in the greater
part of the viking age that was non-christian? Since what time would you
consider viking leaders to have been kings? Was the Sutton Hoo burial a
kings grave? The Oseberg ship burial? Or do you rely on written sources
using the term rex?
>
> > Some see the kingship fully developed as late as the Barock age, when
the
>
> Barock age? I'm not familiar with the term
17th 18th c.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:jqo5e.30274$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
> snip >
> As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
> aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
> themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
There are some sites that are interpreted that way by some people. But they
are far from being commonly accepted as such. If you know any site, that
clearly shows aristocratic, permanent social stratification, please name
them.
There are other sites were this clearly was not the case. There are
graveyards that show a matrilinear decent notion, where the founding graves
of family barrows are always from females, and male burials lack signs of
'above-normal' status.
There are graveyards for men, or women, only. There are groups of graves,
interpreted as a leading person and his followers. None of them show a clear
and permanent social distinction. There are graves, that have been set apart
from the rest of the graveyard, but they do not show anything else but
personal accomplishment.
There are written sourcers, describing iron age communities as being led by
a nobility. They also feature so many errors, that the best thing that can
be said about them is, that the authors might have believed what they wrote.
Usually they are discarded as political propaganda.
>
> The divine right of kings, their "royal" status, is a mythology that the
> families themselves had to fight very hard to establish. The British and
> French Royal families have been engaged in propaganda for centuries, the
> most obvious of which is the rewriting of the King Arthur legends, with
the
> explicit and avowed intent to validate the concept of Royal blood and
Divine
> Right.
But this is all post viking age and has no relevance for earlier peoples.
>
> In the long run, the Norse aspirants to Kinghood were able to become
Kings,
> but not before massive slaughters and huge sea-changes in the culture. At
> the time when the kings were coming to power, we know for a fact that many
> people resisted monarchy... it's a good part of the reason most of the
> original settlers of Iceland moved there. In the case of the Vikings
> Christianity was the solvent that melted away their old traditions and
> allowed society to be recreated. In the case of earlier Celts and German
> tribes, exposure to Roman and Greek culture did so.
When Celts and Germans first met Romans and Greeks, all of them were without
kings. Sacred or religious based kings occur much earlier. The partition
between secular and religious is a result of Christianity.
>
> > "Ganger" is not his surname, it is his "nick": Walking Rolf, Gange-Rolf.
>
> I know I should have said "Rolf the Ganger" or Gange Rolf
>
> > Piggybackin, sorry, but main implements of war like bow, axe and spear
> were
> > also main implements of hunting and would probably be owned by
practically
> > any free man. What is expensive is an all-metal weapon like the sword,
> > armour, war horses w/gear. Individual traning may not have been that
hard
> to
> > come by, but that is perhaps not what you mean? Major manouvres by large
> > formations would have been costly to do on any regular and large scale
( =
> > useful) basis.
>
> In the early Viking age, few warriors had iron swords or mail armor. Same
> for ancient Celts, the Germans were in many cases so iron-poor that their
> armies lacked even iron spear points. This did not stop them from
fighting,
> and fighting effectively, in battle. (Though it was often an achillies
heel
> when fighting the very well equiped Roman Legions)
The gear you need for war depends on what gear your opponents have. It was
good enough for the germanic tribes to plunder the roman or greek
countryside repeatedly. The Celts sacked many a Greek or Roman city, which
was about as far away from their usual strategies for warfare as you can
get.
The Germans massacred 3 roman legions, plundered the british coast for
centuries and could only be stopped by adding germanic or celtic forces to
the 'superior' iron clad legions.
Germans and Celts had quite a sizeable iron industry, producing iron in
great quantities. If they still used bone spear heads and wooden shields,
fought naked instead of wearing heavy armour, and were succesful with that
gear, maybe it wasn't all that bad after all.
erilar
<uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> As to the germanic kings, there is little contemporary information on the
> meaning of that position. Were they leaders in war, restricted by priests
> as
> to when and against whom wars would be fought? Were they judges of their
> peoples, when justice was sought by the clan? Were they a kind of
> personalized social security system? Or were they just blamed if things
> went
> wrong?
I think that covers it 8-) We just have to keep all the variations
balanced in our minds and tied to the term "germanic king", nicht wahr?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Alaca
> [...]
> So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question
> of the definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK,
> on somebody being accepted as king by the church, so there could not
> be a king in a non-christian society. This did not keep the kings
> from treating those non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the
> relations between Franks and Saxons before 800 or between Danes and
> Slavs before 1000.
> [...]
Uwe,
Maybe it depends on the period, but in the 7th and 8th
century the Frisian kings were called /reges/ in (Christian)
Anglo-Saxon sources, but in the eyes of the Merovinginan
Franks they where subordinate and therefore called
/dux/ or /princeps/.
--
- Peter Alaca -
Uwe Müller
"Alaca" <P.A...@as.fake> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4256b205$0$70027$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Good point.
I'll add to the above then:
Being king was as much a matter of acting like a king as of being seen and
treated as one.
Btw. what did they call their leaders themselves? And what kind of functions
did they carry out? Was it more of an emerging kingship taking shape or more
of traditional leadership slowly losing ground? Or something completely
different?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Alaca
> Hi Peter,
>
> "Alaca" <P.A...@as.fake> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4256b205$0$70027$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Uwe Müller wrote: 3bnissF...@uni-berlin.de,
>>
>>> [...]
>>> So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question
>>> of the definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK,
>>> on somebody being accepted as king by the church, so there could not
>>> be a king in a non-christian society. This did not keep the kings
>>> from treating those non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the
>>> relations between Franks and Saxons before 800 or between Danes and
>>> Slavs before 1000.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Uwe,
>> Maybe it depends on the period, but in the 7th and 8th
>> century the Frisian kings were called /reges/ in (Christian)
>> Anglo-Saxon sources, but in the eyes of the Merovinginan
>> Franks they where subordinate and therefore called
>> /dux/ or /princeps/.
>>
>
> Good point.
>
> I'll add to the above then:
> Being king was as much a matter of acting like a king as of being
> seen and treated as one.
Yes.
> Btw. what did they call their leaders themselves? And what kind of
> functions did they carry out? Was it more of an emerging kingship
> taking shape or more of traditional leadership slowly losing ground?
> Or something completely different?
For the Frisians that is difficult to say,
because there are no Frisian sources.
And for the rest, in this period kingship
is not very clear. Even Theuderic was
called /primus rex Francorum/.
Tron
> Hi Tron,
>
...
> I can trace the wand back to migration age saxon burial sites, where iron
> fittings of such batons where found belonging to heads of families or
> village chiefs. Similar implements were still used in high medieval towns
> as
> badges of office for the heads of some guilds, for the people policing the
> market and/or the regular, yearly?, public meetings of the town
> population.
>
> There are mace heads from at least the early bronze age, that have been
> argued to be more a badge of office than a weapon. And there are the late
> neolithic axe heads.
I'm sorry for bringing up sources like "I think I rember I read somewhere
...",
but I think I remember I read somewhere that in some early pictures the
sceptre is still a green branch, and the writer made associations with
druids and misteltoe, evergreen Tannenbaeume etc. Perhasp I was on a role
playing site ...
>
> As to the germanic kings, there is little contemporary information on the
> meaning of that position. Were they leaders in war, restricted by priests
> as
> to when and against whom wars would be fought? Were they judges of their
> peoples, when justice was sought by the clan? ....Or were they just
> blamed if things went
> wrong?
>>
>> In the viking age, there was a considerable overlap between big farm -
>> nobility - gode (Asatru-priest).
>
> For prehistoric times there seems to have been little differentiation
> between personal success and secular or religious functions. If yoou were
> succesful, people would heed your advice and act upon your suggestions. If
> not, than all your riches, gaudy clothing or superb weaponry wouldn't
> elevate you above your neighbour.
A really successful king, Halvdan Svarte, had his corpse hacked into four
pieces so that all communities could claim to have his haug (burial mound).
>
...Boomborg .....a site for barbecues, .....communal feasting
That could point to a social stratification that had been on the brink of
turning into a permanent
> division,
or
Maybe we are talking about some European "Big Man"-system, with potlatches
etc. etc.?
/Interposed/ "Were they a kind of personalized social security system? "
Would make sense to me, because ...
.... there is nothing to indicate they could make somebody do
> something against his will.
Norw. historian B. Quiller maintained that early society rulers didn't have
the infrastructure to project power to coerce an entire population. Social
coherence was established by a network of social obligations created by gift
giving, particularly banquets; he specifically points to the "megaron" in
archaic greek cities as an architectural expression of this.
> So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question of
> the
> definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK, on somebody
> being accepted as king by the church, so there could not be a king in a
> non-christian society.
Erh .... what about linguistic remains like the word "king"?
This did not keep the kings from treating those
> non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the relations between Franks and
> Saxons
> before 800 or between Danes and Slavs before 1000.
"Cannot compare. Insufficient data."
T
fr...@complex.is
I.E_Johansson wrote:
> wanijo,
> stop trying to tell lies about me. I am not known to lie
Actually, you *do* have a reputation for that. I'm not saying it is
100% justified, but there have been nummerous cases where you have
presented incorrect staements as facts, and refused to admit you were
wrong.
Unfortunately that behaviour has resulted in a highly negative general
opinion of you, with people referring to you as "misguided", "deluded",
or in less polite terms, "wacko", "netloon" or even "liar".
Your reputation, however, is only of your own making.
Sorry.
-frisk
Uwe Müller
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
> news:3bnissF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hi Tron,
> >
> ...
> > I can trace the wand back to migration age saxon burial sites, where
iron
> > fittings of such batons where found belonging to heads of families or
> > village chiefs. Similar implements were still used in high medieval
towns
> > as
> > badges of office for the heads of some guilds, for the people policing
the
> > market and/or the regular, yearly?, public meetings of the town
> > population.
> >
> > There are mace heads from at least the early bronze age, that have been
> > argued to be more a badge of office than a weapon. And there are the
late
> > neolithic axe heads.
>
> I'm sorry for bringing up sources like "I think I rember I read somewhere
> ...",
> but I think I remember I read somewhere that in some early pictures the
> sceptre is still a green branch, and the writer made associations with
> druids and misteltoe, evergreen Tannenbaeume etc. Perhasp I was on a role
> playing site ...
It could have been some sort of symbolism, as it got intoduced at the time
of the troubadoures.
And it could have been something coming from old roots. At Manching,
Ingolstadt, Bavaria, Germany, a late Latčne (last century BCE) gilded baton
with golden leavs has been excavated.
It has been seen as a religious symbold, like those known from Mesopotamia,
a little trtee as the centerpiece of an altar, but it could easily mean
'Honorary leadership of No 1 public-controll brigade' or something in that
line.
>snip >
> >
> ...Boomborg .....a site for barbecues, .....communal feasting
>
>
> That could point to a social stratification that had been on the brink of
> turning into a permanent
> > division,
>
> or
>
> Maybe we are talking about some European "Big Man"-system, with potlatches
> etc. etc.?
Exactly, that's the point. Bronze items are disappearing from burials and
appearing in hoards, massive depots of metal. There seem to have been dozens
of diferent sets of rules on how to compose such a hoard, but they have one
thing in common, they were not supposed to be reclaimed.
But many of the graves are richly furnished with pottery, as would be needed
for a big banquet sort of thing.
The next step would have been to focus on hero-ancestors, transform them
into semi-divine beings, that could be influenced only by their descendants.
We see some of that across the continent.
> /Interposed/ "Were they a kind of personalized social security system? "
> Would make sense to me, because ...
>
> .... there is nothing to indicate they could make somebody do
> > something against his will.
>
> Norw. historian B. Quiller maintained that early society rulers didn't
have
> the infrastructure to project power to coerce an entire population. Social
> coherence was established by a network of social obligations created by
gift
> giving, particularly banquets; he specifically points to the "megaron" in
> archaic greek cities as an architectural expression of this.
The concept of the prestigeous goods society has been adapted from
anthropology for some early iron age societies. Social control is aided
by/founded on the power to distribute prestigeous goods. These could be
anything from imported luxury items to dress accesories adorned with
imported raw materials, from brand new to honoured with age.
>
> > So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question of
> > the
> > definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK, on
somebody
> > being accepted as king by the church, so there could not be a king in a
> > non-christian society.
>
> Erh .... what about linguistic remains like the word "king"?
What does it mean?
Societies as a whole, the economy, and the needs and means of intentional
change that could have been worked by a person have changed so much, that
the word has different and even mutually exclusive connotations depending on
context.
>
> This did not keep the kings from treating those
> > non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the relations between Franks and
> > Saxons
> > before 800 or between Danes and Slavs before 1000.
>
> "Cannot compare. Insufficient data."
Grossly oversimplified: They heavily intermarried, in case of trouble A
would get help from or flee to B, or vice versa, and, if not threatened from
the outside, would hammer away at each other.
Family.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Tron
>
.../Snipped all the Nachbildung, thanks a lot/.
>>
>> Erh .... what about linguistic remains like the word "king"?
>
> What does it mean?
> Societies as a whole, the economy, and the needs and means of intentional
> change that could have been worked by a person have changed so much, that
> the word has different and even mutually exclusive connotations depending
> on
> context.
I don't know whether the Teutons made up a word "koenig" as a translation of
the novel and exciting latin concept of a "rex", or if there was an
institution (and title) like that before they came into contact.
According to the interpretation of the entrails of my recently butchered
parrot (what the etruscans called "gut feeling"), since the germans and
greeks and romans had some sort of common ancestry (going by similarities in
pantheon), perhaps they had rudimentary similar institutions, including
"kingship" (for whatever value of "kingship" in 2000 BC, 1000 BC, 2 BC., 2
AD. 200 Ad ....).
AFAIK, "king" is from "Kon ungr", with "kon" being in the same family of
words as "kin" (and related to e.g. "kone", "wife"), implying something like
"gens" or even "bloodline, heredity", being "of noble breed" - FWIW.
That is what I meant by "linguistic remanins" - did they or did they not
have "kings" before they knew of "reges"?
For all I know, they did not.
T
Larry Swain
Tron wrote:
No real way to tell, since any linguistic remains for Germanic peoples
postdate contact with the Greeks and Romans. BUT, having said that, the
word "kon" or "cyning" in OE, etc seems to indicate a leader of the
people (the "kin" group if you will). So I guess it depends on what you
mean by "king".
Drifter Bob
> > nearly
> > the entire known world, and he was a Christian. His version of Norse
> > mythology is notoriously seen through that particular tint.
>
> An interesting piece of meta-history. We should be careful not to take so
> many reservations that there is no content left.
> It is true that when Snorri wrote, Iceland had been christian for 200
years,
> but what does "christian" mean at that time? We must assume that his views
At the time Christian doctrine was to either wipe out all traces of or
incorporate pagan ideology into their own. Snorri was obviously of the
latter school, like the Irish Monks, but to think of him as a disinterested
scholar keen only on providing an accurate accounting of pagan beliefs is
delusional.
> else to compare with, we don't know how much. Unfortunatley, we don't have
> autobiographies of any Asatru-believer, like we have Greek and Roman
> accounts from before the christian era, and so we do not know how they saw
> and felt the world.
We do have many other Norse folk tales and legends, sagas, chronicles and
other first hand accounts which have come down to us by many, many other
channels, and by comparing these to Snorris accounts we can draw intelligent
conclusions, rather than simply throwing up our hands and accepting
everything he said at face value just as he presented it, as you seem to be
suggesting.
> but that is all we know; the wording "His version of Norse mythology is
> notoriously seen through that particular tint" implies that there are
things
> about this that we do know. Which we don't.
See the above, and please note the excerpt of Viking legend below.
> Well, they had to be accepted as kings. The proof thing ws introduced by
the
> church, so that was relatively late.
So was the introduction of kings
> perhaps Norse society was (felt to be) transparent enough for everybody to
> know who was in who's family.
That fails to identify one particular family as being better and thus fit to
rule over all others, which is contrary to the original Norse cultural
tradition. That is what had to be changed before monarchy could be pushed
onto the people. (And even then, many reisted to their death or fled to
places like Iceland to avoid coming under the rule of monarchy)
> > As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
> > aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
> > themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
>
> They probably were, too.
LOL! In what way? Better at managing barter economies?
> Wouldn't the divinity thing also vary between religions, making the
germanic
> "foreign service to the Gods" king different from the later enlightenment
Intermingling scandinavian with Germanic culture is IMO a mistake.
> "Divine right as granted by Jehova" kings?
> IF the russian steppe sky and wind god origin theory is right, and there
are
> family ties between Zeus, Jupiter and Ty ....
> Both the greeks and the romans did have some sort of "free man democracy"
> (isocracy), while retaining a nominal king in a ceremonial/religious
You are forgetting that most Greek citie states, most of the time were
actually monarchies. Only Athens or a few others had the slavery based
"free man democracy". Rome had an even more aristocratic leaning oligarchy
/ republic which itself did not last and turned to Empire.
In both cases, my argument is the remnant of democratic forms and culture
comes from their original barbarian culture, while the authoritarian
monarchy and widely polarized aristocratic social structure comes from
influence of the so-called higher slave based civilizations to the East,
Persia, Babylon, Egypt...
> Well, Harald Luva ("Dreadlock Harald") was a king already, and he didn't
> fight republicans, he fought other kings, although these previous kingdoms
There were always individual cheiftains who under certain circimstances
fought and defeated other chieftains to temporarily rise to some kind of
semblance of overlordship over a larger than normal area, though this was
done as first among equals since such "big men" relied upon the active and
freely given support of political allies.
In earlier times these individuals did not succeed in establishing dynastic
power, transfer of their authority to their offspring, or even anything like
the kind of formal power of a true monarch.
The actual formal monarchies did however use the presence of such legendary
figures in their family histories as the slim means of justifying their own
power grabs later when the cultural changes and foreign political situations
were underway pushing society in the direction of monarchy.
> were spit-across-sized. His brilliant idea was merely to kill all the
other
> kings and make himself high and grand king of all Norway. This, IMHO, is
> less of a "spread of kingship" (in the "spread of democracy" sense?) than
a
> redefinition of what a king is and should be.
The same thing happened in Ireland where hundreds of petty "kings" vied for
power for centuries, and in spite of some with designs to be high kings, did
not get anywhere in terms of power except in times of remarkable external
striefe (re: Brian Boru)
> Pet theory: while 2religious" kings had always been there in the form of
> Biggest and Baddest in the Valley cum Gode to the God, some time before
the
> viking age somebody started experimenting with extending the kings'
> political rights after the model of the continental examples, either of
Rome
> or of the Merowingians.
It may be the case, if that were happneing my point is it would be from
cultural "infection" via these or other sources. It would also hardly be
unopposed nor a good fit with the culutral system in place.
> > In the early Viking age, few warriors had iron swords or mail armor.
Same
> > for ancient Celts, the Germans were in many cases so iron-poor that
their
> > armies lacked even iron spear points. This did not stop them from
> > and fighting effectively, in battle. (Though it was often an achillies
> > when fighting the very well equiped Roman Legions)
>
> The point is, what does this tell us about the argument "only the rich
could
> afford to be soldiers"?
> I think that examples like these invalidate that argument. Presence of
metal
> might indicate something about the level of professionalism in an army,
> which is a reflection of the economic performance of any given society
> (apart from geology), but it doesn't say anything about how many people
had
> weapon-like accesoires or how warlike a society was.
You are missing the point entirely. If the difference between a warrior and
a non-combattant requires say, the possession of a mail coat, two or three
warhorses, a sword, shield, helmet, and steel tipped lance, with hundreds of
hours of training required to use them, then you can certainly expect a wide
social gap between warriors and peasants as you precicely did have in
medieval Europe.
If on the other hand all that is required to be a basic warrior is a stone
tipped spear, a hardwood club or an axe, and maybe a shield, and furthermore
the skills required for the type of fighting done are similar to those for
hunting which most males engage in, then virtually anybody with the balls to
fight can do so. Thus social stratification between fighters and non
fighters is not nearly so sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is much
more egalitarian. As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the pagan
Germans and Celts before them.
> >> The "Skjoldmoey" ("Shield Maiden") is mainly found in litterature, one
> >> mention in Saxo, and one in the Starkad-lay, and Brunhilde, of course.
> >
> > There are mentions in several Sagas, I dont hasve my books in front of
me
> > and forget the name of the battle where the ageing king decides to die
> > fighting?
>
> OK, but still a literary source, of whom we, as you note about, should be
> inherently sceptical, innit?
> And still, not really a noticeable percentage of the population involved.
> >
> > While this partciular claim is likely pure fantasy, there is no reason
to
> > assume that as with so many other facts, this aspect of the Viking sagas
> > true, though we wont know for certain until more research is done.
>
> Well, Scythians and Goths were not vikings, and vice versa.
> Historical roots, and all that.
The Goths were believed to be directly related to the Vikings, their
ancestors in fact, (though no doubt they changed culturally after exposure
to Mediterranean cultures.) The Scythians would have been neighbors of the
Vikings, there is no more reason to think that their cultural predilection
for female warriors was not a common one, especially since it is
corroborated by the sagas which have proven to be correct on wilder things
(like Vinland!)
> While we're being scientiffic popperians here, no matter how many females
we
> find buried with swords, scars and arrowheads in their bodies, that they
> were Xenas, that the scars are from battle, that they got battle scars
> participating in battle as warriors, and that they weren't just killed by
> arrows is interpretation.
Actually, yes they can rule out farm injuries from the types of injuries,
and the locations (cuts to the lower left legs, forarms and hands which are
common from ancient battlefield graves such as at Wisby). They are wearing
battle damaged armor which is fitted to them specifically. They carry
notched (akinakes) swords and even show bone deformation in their arms from
shooting bows. It's safe to say they were warriors.
> > The original Norse religion was the Vanir, earth / nature gods. the
Aesir
> > Sky Gods came later.
>
> I doubt the Norse ever revered the Vanir alone. The Tacitus era Germans
knew
> about the Vanir, didn't they?
> The "later introduction" may have preceded their immigration to
Scandinavia.
>
> > Strife between the Vanir and Aesir cults continued until the very end of
> > Viking Age.
>
> Do tell.
I think this Norse folk tale presents a dramatically different
interpretation of the perception of the Aesir by Vanir worshipers than you
might garner from an uncritical and uncontextualized reading of Snorri:
=======================================================
THE RIDDLES OF GESTUMBLINDI
There was once a very wise king called Heithrek. Heithrek worshipped Freyr
and every Yule he would choose the finest boar from his herds to be an
offering to his god. On Yule eve the boar was brought into the hall and it
was the custom for members of his court to swear oaths on its bristles.
Heithrek himself had sworn that if any captive could ask a riddle the king
could not answer, the man would be freed without charge. Heithrek was so
wise that such mercy would be hard to win, for no man had yet asked a riddle
the king could not answer.
One of the king's subjects, a fellow called Gestumblindi, had broken the
kings laws and was called to appear before the royal council for sentence.
Gestumblindi knew his only chance of freedom was to challenge Heithrek to a
contest of riddles, but Gestumblindi was well aware that his wits could not
match the king's. Gestumblindi made a sacrifice to Óðinn and promised many
offerings if the god would aid him.
Shortly before Gestumblindi needed to leave for the king's court, a man
appeared who shared his likeness. The stranger introduced himself as
'Gestumblindi' and explained that he would represent him. The two men
changed clothes and they were so alike that one could not be told from the
other.
The new Gestumblindi travelled to the king's court and presented himself to
king Heithrek. Gestumblindi said he had come to make his peace. Heithrek
asked if he was ready to be tried by the king's seven judges. Gestumblindi
asked if there was any other path open to him and Heithrek replied that he
could try asking riddles. If he could ask a riddle the king could not answer
he could go free, but if the king answered them correctly and he ran out of
riddles to ask, he would be handed over to the judges. Gestumblindi gave the
matter some thought and reluctantly agreed to try the riddles, as he felt he
had little hope before the judges.
A chair was brought up for Gestumblindi and the contest began. Each riddle
Gestumblindi asked was answered quickly and accurately by wise king
Heithrek. But Gestumblindi's store of riddles showed no sign of abating.
Heithrek showed more and more respect for his humble opponent.
Eventually Gestumblindi asked the king his final riddle 'What did Óðinn
whisper in Balder's ear before he was placed on his funeral pyre ?'. At
these words the king realised the true identity of his opponent, as only
Óðinn would know what he had told his dead son. Heithrek stood up and drew
his sword crying 'I am sure that it was something scandalous and cowardly !
But only you know the answer, you evil creature !' Óðinn turned himself into
a falcon to escape the king's wrath but his tail feathers were cut short
when the king swung his sword. And this is why the falcon's tail has been
short to this day.
DB
Drifter Bob
> > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
> > As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
> > aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
> > themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
>
> There are some sites that are interpreted that way by some people. But
they
> are far from being commonly accepted as such. If you know any site, that
> clearly shows aristocratic, permanent social stratification, please name
> them.
No, I'm arguing the opposite. There were just some families who thought of
themselves that way, only much later when the culture changed for a variety
of reasons centered around contact with foreigners did monarchy become
possible.
We actually agree on much of this.
> > The divine right of kings, their "royal" status, is a mythology that the
> > families themselves had to fight very hard to establish. The British
and
> > French Royal families have been engaged in propaganda for centuries, the
> > most obvious of which is the rewriting of the King Arthur legends, with
> > explicit and avowed intent to validate the concept of Royal blood and
> > Right.
>
> But this is all post viking age and has no relevance for earlier peoples.
No, it's the same thing which was done in the end of the Viking age to
justify the Viking monarchs and even the Jarls
> When Celts and Germans first met Romans and Greeks, all of them were
without
> kings. Sacred or religious based kings occur much earlier. The partition
> between secular and religious is a result of Christianity.
I agree with you.
> > In the early Viking age, few warriors had iron swords or mail armor.
Same
> > for ancient Celts, the Germans were in many cases so iron-poor that
their
> > armies lacked even iron spear points. This did not stop them from
> > and fighting effectively, in battle. (Though it was often an achillies
> > when fighting the very well equiped Roman Legions)
>
> The gear you need for war depends on what gear your opponents have. It was
> good enough for the germanic tribes to plunder the roman or greek
> countryside repeatedly. The Celts sacked many a Greek or Roman city, which
> was about as far away from their usual strategies for warfare as you can
> get.
I agree with you
> The Germans massacred 3 roman legions, plundered the british coast for
> centuries and could only be stopped by adding germanic or celtic forces to
> the 'superior' iron clad legions.
Of course they did, but they also lost a lot of battles because of the
armor. This is what actually happened when classical authors claim that the
stoicism of the Romans won out over the fleeting passions of the barbarians.
The reality is, when the Roman line could not be quicky broken, and the
battle reached an attrition stage, the advantage of the heavy armor of the
Romans.
> Germans and Celts had quite a sizeable iron industry, producing iron in
> great quantities. If they still used bone spear heads and wooden shields,
> fought naked instead of wearing heavy armour, and were succesful with that
> gear, maybe it wasn't all that bad after all.
Well, the Celts certainly did, it's debatable if the Germans did until much
later into the Dark Ages (post Christian). Certainly the Franks mastered
metalurgy by the 6th century or so. Either way, they did not have the kind
of mass production that the Romans had, with both technology and massive use
of slave labor on their side.
DB
Drifter Bob
> > > Hi Drifter Bob,
> > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > I also wonder how far back these types of pseudo-democratic warrior
> > > > do go. Though sources clash, it seems there are many similarities
in
> > > > and Roman description of certain Iron Age Celtic and even some
German
> > > > tribes. In the US, we are taught to belive that Monarchy came first
way
> > > > around.
> > > Of course, everything depends on how you use the term of 'king'.
> > > As I see it, any group of people labouring together, be it hunting or
> > > ploughing, warmaking or fishing, will establish leadership. If
people
(some
> > > people reverse the order of those two).
> >
> > I think this is true for war in many cases, leaders are often required
at
> > least on the small scale, and for activities which require very rapid
> > decision making. It is not necessarily true in all other activities
like
> > say, ploughing.
>
> Ploughing on communal fields meant that somebody had to make a decision as
> to the time when to start. If you missed the right date, the crop could
fall
> short of your needs or fail completely. It was a major decision.
Certainly the descision is critical. This is why there are so many
astronomical calendars all over the world. But not a split second decision
by any means. In fact, one which it's better to have looked at from many
angles, which is why it's usually a council of elders who decided such
things in many societies, and not a single leaer.
> >Same for hunting, at least of the ordinary sort... modern
> > hunter gatherer communities often do not have leaders.
>
> No matter what the name is, the succesful hunter will have people
following
> his advice, making him a leader. Bíg game hunting was dangerous.
> Uncoordinated attacks would not be of much use against a boar, a deer, a
> pack of wolves, etc. (not to mention the earlier, even bigger animals).
Following a more experienced hunter out of respect, to the extent that you
do respect their judgement and no further, is a FAR cry difference to me
than obeying the orders of someone with an appointed or inherited position
who has power to order you to obey.
In fact I'd call the former democratic and the latter tyranny.
> >Of course even for
> > war you still saw socities of equals doing well, even into WW II with
> > Finnish commando teams (Sissii?)
>
> I do not see the connection with the viking age. Please enlighten me.
I think the Sissi operated similarly to many especially early viking raids,
which were often not done under the control of a single viking leader. It
was often a group of friends and their followers, so you actually have a
sort of collective decision making. This appears throughout history among
many traditional cultures. The swiss operated this way in many of their
early battles against the Hapsburgs and Burgundians. I think there is a
connection.
> Since nobody can be expert in all fields, it is an intelligent decision to
> follow someone who knows if you don't know yourself.
Certainly, to the extent that they are worth following. It also makes sense
for them to be open to the observations and suggestions of other intelligent
and competent members of the group...
> AFAIK the first born male as a rule inherited the land and made the
> decisions for the family. That leaves out females, about half of the
> population, and a big part of the men, depending on family size. That will
> leave you with -optimistic reasoning- about a quarter or a third of the
> population, even less if you consider serfs or farm labourers.
I have not seen evidence of this among the Norse, if you have some please
cite it I'd be very intererested to look into it (preferably English
sources)
The best evidence I have to this point is that such customs actually varied
significantly from tribe to tribe.
> AFAIK there is not even a hint that women were being allowed to attend the
> Thing. There are less than a dozen female graves with weapons. So yes,
> female warriors existed, and no, they played no role in society worth
> mentioning.
To say there were few female warriors is one thing, (and I agree with you)
to say women played no role in the Thing I think is very suspect. Looking
at some similar North American Indian warrior societies you can see the very
important role played by women in decision making. Among the Iroquois
Confederation for example the council of older women had veto power over
decisions to go to war. Anthropologists believe it is because since they
did not fight, they often lived longer and therefore had a longer ranged
perspective on the potential consequenses, among other reasons.
> > Again, in some quite complex North American Indian societies, a variety
of
> > types of leaders would emerge, some for the buffalo hunt (a tricky
> > very different from the buffalo hunt) some negotiators, some experts at
> > magic and medicine, some warrior leaders. But these were only followed
to
> > the extent that they were respected, and had no permanent authority.
>
> Exactly, they were leaders but they could not force anyone to follow them.
On this we clearly agree
> > You seem to be lumping together iron age cultures in Europe, where the
> > reality seems to be that there were wide differences in practices. For
> > thing, tribes living close to Greek and Roman influence were more likely
> > form classical type hierarchies. Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence
of
> > egalitarian grave sites from Minoa to Malta, and in a variety of places
in
> > Europe such as of the Halstadt era Celts
>
> I would not call them Celts in the Hallstatt era, but this is exactly
where
There seems to unfortunately be quasi political debate over who were celts,
who were germans, who were germanic etc. The best evidence I have read,
certainly all the most recent books I own on the subject (about 30) call the
Hallstadt culture a Celtic culture.
> the princely graves are ocurring first. Sites like the Heuneburg, the
> Duerrnberg, Hochdorf, the Glauberg area etc. are well known for their
richly
> furnished graves. If you are interested I can supply you with tons of
> references on the debate wether they were an aristocratic part of the
> society or not.
>
> Some recent research even tried to make them into a sort of priest king,
> because there was a spit for roasting meat in one grave.
Yes and this illustrates just how narrow the actual social stratification
they are talking about here really was....
> > I disagree, a major cultural shift is necessary. Changes in religion
are
> > key. The Aesir religion of the Norse was an adaptation to Roman and
Greek
> > gods and to their more ruthless and allegedly pragmatic philosophy in
> > comparison with the earlier Vanir nature gods. Christianity proved to
be
> > the necessary glue to hold down Monarchical power, and all the Viking
era
> > Monarchs relied upon Christinity to justify their rule and especially,
the
> > divine right of nepotism....
>
> This sounds convincing, only there is not a bit of evidence for it. On the
> contrary you can follow the rise (and decline) of certain families, the
> change of belives and burial customs from the Urnfield period on right up
to
> the early Latčne period.
With all due respect, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that contamination with
Greek and Roman society actively and passively influenced the Celts toward
monarchy and toward a shift toward Classical cultural values. These
actually are too numerous to discuss in detail here, but I would just point
out to such obvious evidence as coin minting, often of Greek or Roman gods
or even of Greek or Roman political figures as Gods. There is also the
tradition of fostering, of taking hostages given in in the ancient barbarian
manner for peace treaties, and raising them to be kings. Even more blatant
is the direct testimony of scores of Greek and Roman writers of their
nations direct interference in Celtic (and other Barbarians) culture with
the explicit intention of making it more authoritarian. Perhaps the stand
out here would be Julius Caesars appointment of puppet-kings from nominally
'aristocratic' families with the explicit stated intent to undermine
democratic tribal traditions.
> How was christianity the glue to make leadership permanent in the greater
> part of the viking age that was non-christian? Since what time would you
> consider viking leaders to have been kings? Was the Sutton Hoo burial a
> kings grave? The Oseberg ship burial? Or do you rely on written sources
> using the term rex?
>
Since most of the Viking kings appeared toward the very end of the viking
era, and in fact most of the Viking kings converted to Christianity, I think
that is obvious.
Are Oseberg and Sutton Hoo burials of kings? Nope, probably not,
chieftains, beloved and respected warriors, certainly. Kings? I dont think
so.
DB
Drifter Bob
> > I was under the impression that some "Germans" had a sort of "king" who
> > a religious role, marked by the sceptre being some sort of wand or
branch
> > .... or am I ganz auf dem Holzwege?
>
> I can trace the wand back to migration age saxon burial sites, where iron
> fittings of such batons where found belonging to heads of families or
> village chiefs. Similar implements were still used in high medieval towns
as
> badges of office for the heads of some guilds, for the people policing the
> market and/or the regular, yearly?, public meetings of the town
population.
>
> There are mace heads from at least the early bronze age, that have been
> argued to be more a badge of office than a weapon. And there are the late
> neolithic axe heads.
The mace is a badge of office AND a weapon, as it is one of the best weapons
for killing people in armor, like other warrior chieftains or aristocrats...
thats why it's associated with kingship. But it's also a basic and ancient
weapon type, and drawing assumptions from the presence of a mace to the
existance of a king is tenuous at best...
> For prehistoric times there seems to have been little differentiation
> between personal success and secular or religious functions. If yoou were
> succesful, people would heed your advice and act upon your suggestions. If
> not, than all your riches, gaudy clothing or superb weaponry wouldn't
> elevate you above your neighbour.
Very true
> there is a settlement in NW Germany, Boomborg near Hatzum, which was
founded
> in the late Bronze Age and continued well into the iron age. In the early
> period, only the biggest farm had a site for barbecues, surrounded by a
> palisade (fenced off from the secular world?). From comparable features in
> other villagesit can be argued, that at these site communal feasting was
> done, led by the owner of the farm.
>
> In the iron age every farm had such a barbecue area. That could point to a
> social stratification that had been on the brink of turning into a
permanent
> division, but for some reason or other it did not do so but turned back
into
> a more egalitarian society. Right through the migration age settlements
show
> a differentiation of wealth, but there is no clear division between normal
> and noble or aristocratic.
>
> I believe the families, who owned these farms, were called upon for
> positions of communal responsibility, in secular as well as in religious
> matters. And that would be the only way to transform wealth into prestige
or
> status. But there is nothing to indicate they could make somebody do
> something against his will.
Very interesting observation!
> So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question of
the
> definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK, on somebody
> being accepted as king by the church, so there could not be a king in a
> non-christian society. This did not keep the kings from treating those
> non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the relations between Franks and
Saxons
> before 800 or between Danes and Slavs before 1000.
I agree, there was a paradigm shift... they tended to think of everyone as
having their own system of governemnt.
DB
Tron
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
news:CLL6e.52656$f%4.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
...
>> It is true that when Snorri wrote, Iceland had been christian for 200
> years,
>> but what does "christian" mean at that time? We must assume that his
>> views
>
> At the time Christian doctrine was to either wipe out all traces of or
> incorporate pagan ideology into their own. Snorri was obviously of the
> latter school, like the Irish Monks,
I don't see Snorre as very doctrinaire. Little Gregorianism and clunianensic
reform traceable in his writings.
If "incorporate pagan ideology into their own" means explaining paganism in
christian terms (which leaves few alternatives but "Work of the Devil"),
then you are wrong. Snorre's account of Asatru in Ynglingesaga is clearly a
naturalistic explanation, positing Odin etc. as ancient ancestors revered
for their special abilities, becoming deified in people's minds.
but to think of him as a disinterested
> scholar keen only on providing an accurate accounting of pagan beliefs is
> delusional.
Of course, but the position formulated above is rather strong.The key word
is of course "only" - removing that, the remainder is as probable as any
other position. He might mot be disinterested, but there were limits to his
interests, and he might yet be a scholar, too. He was certainly not keen on
painting paganism in the blackest colours available either, or he would not
have transmitted as much material on it, and in such a for his time fairly
sober tone, as he actually did.
>
>> else to compare with, we don't know how much. Unfortunatley, we don't
>> have
>> autobiographies of any Asatru-believer, like we have Greek and Roman
>> accounts from before the christian era, and so we do not know how they
>> saw
>> and felt the world.
>
> We do have many other Norse folk tales and legends, sagas, chronicles and
> other first hand accounts which have come down to us by many, many other
> channels,
Well, if you think that Snorre is not all that reliable, then I am surprised
to see you cite folk tales and legends as possible corroborations.
We do not have many, many other first hand accounts of much of the subject
matter that Snorre is talking about, at least that I am aware of. Apart from
him there is Tjodrek and the Aagrip, and then there is Saxo, and if Snorre
is biased by his Christianity, then Saxo even more so. Then there are some
law texts. What else?
and by comparing these to Snorris accounts we can draw intelligent
> conclusions,
Biting back the obvious comeback, suffice it to say that that could be a
shaky methodological ladder.
rather than simply throwing up our hands and accepting
> everything he said at face value just as he presented it, as you seem to
> be
> suggesting.
No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting, is that one begins with
his histories as history, and then one should modify his accounts and views
as and when other material and considerations prove relevant. I suggest that
one not start out with the conviction that it is to be discarded.
> That fails to identify one particular family as being better and thus fit
> to
> rule over all others, which is contrary to the original Norse cultural
> tradition. That is what had to be changed before monarchy could be pushed
> onto the people. (And even then, many reisted to their death or fled to
> places like Iceland to avoid coming under the rule of monarchy)
This is of course the (intersting) core question.
Let's give it an acronym .... R'nB for "Royalty = bloodline"?
R'nB is then a concept introduced by these same true and would-be roylas as
an ideological scaffolding to support them. OTOH it could, theoretically, be
a very old custom, actually being the way things worked and preceding the
introduction of R'nB as an ideology. I don't know the answer to that one.
But let us assume that the R'nB model holds good - it was a new thing (at
some time).
Going back to Snorre, I cited him to say that he related that norse kings
were chosen from Haralds bloodline.
Now, either he could be reporting wrongly; then he is inculcated with R'nB
and projects it as it would be the by then accepted majority view of the
nature of kingship. Could well be.
Otherwise, he is reporting correctly. The effect of this is to push back the
date of R'nB being the majority view about 400 years, since it seems that it
was the way things were handled in e.g. Norway at the time Snorri reports
on.
Wouldn't that be a correct descriptionof the problem we are discussing?
>> > As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
>> > aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
>> > themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
>>
>> They probably were, too.
>
> LOL! In what way? Better at managing barter economies?
The view that we are all created equal is also merely an anthropology based
political theory among others.
It is not a matter of fact, scientific or otherwise, but a matter of
conviction, or ideology, if you will.
It is in the nature of ideologies that they are never used to regulate
things in real life (and if, the results are invariably diastrous). In
praxis, we all rank people, although the personal commitment to doing it,
the view of the lower ranking and the actual criteria all vary.
Constructing a rival hypothesis isn't harder than picking out one or a
handful of human traits and elevating them to essential status, and go
ranking. Today it would be the proportion of waist size to wallet, and in
the barock age it would be ... wait, waist size to wallet, too. And in the
middle ages, and in Rome, and in the Age of Venus of Willendorff too.
Whodathunkit.
>
>> Wouldn't the divinity thing also vary between religions, making the
> germanic
>> "foreign service to the Gods" king different from the later enlightenment
>
> Intermingling scandinavian with Germanic culture is IMO a mistake.
Yes. However, they belong in a cluster such that they are closer related to
each other than to e.g. the roman pantheon, and these three are closer
related to each other than to e.g. Christianity, even if the number of
traits one uses to group them according to this kind of comparison
diminishes. I maintain that the priest-kings among the indo-european Thunder
Sky God guys had a different relationship to their gods than Charles II
claimed for his.
>
>> "Divine right as granted by Jehova" kings?
>> IF the russian steppe sky and wind god origin theory is right, and there
> are
>> family ties between Zeus, Jupiter and Ty ....
>> Both the greeks and the romans did have some sort of "free man democracy"
>> (isocracy), while retaining a nominal king in a ceremonial/religious
>
> You are forgetting that most Greek citie states, most of the time were
> actually monarchies. Only Athens or a few others had the slavery based
> "free man democracy".
Yes, well, I see Greece as a "Pre-Cambrium" of government forms. They
experimented with a number of variations, ending up with a few stable ones.
They had the monarchy, the tyrannis, the Politburo (ephorate), the council
of 8, 30, 100, the democracy .... And the two most important ones, Athens
and Sparta, were not monarchies.
If we were to simply accept that most of the greek poleis were actually
monarchies, I think we would bypass the issue, which is the question of what
a monarchy is, what the necessary and sufficient traits for a monarchy are.
And if they were monarchies, and if the greeks are a branch of the same IE
Thunderdome Pantheon as the Germans, then that is an indication that the
institution of kingship may indeed be very old.
Rome had an even more aristocratic leaning oligarchy
> / republic which itself did not last and turned to Empire.
Well, aristocracy is generally held to be in opposition to monarchy, on a
centralisation/decentralisation axis, presumably.
And highly urban, highly commerce based, highly aggressive imperial Rome can
hardly be compared to the peace loving farmers and herders frolicking in
bucolic innocence deep in the Teutonic forests.
>
> In both cases, my argument is the remnant of democratic forms and culture
> comes from their original barbarian culture, while the authoritarian
> monarchy and widely polarized aristocratic social structure comes from
> influence of the so-called higher slave based civilizations to the East,
> Persia, Babylon, Egypt...
OK.
These may not be mutually exclusive. Since we in both cases are loosely
tallking about groups, sociology tells us there is no group without
hierarchy. Even Homo Erectus may have known Biggest Erectus of Them All, and
the democratic run of things among the "barbarians" could be e.g.
interspersed with ad hoc leadership in times of crisis. The difference would
then be a difference in degree; but perhaps a difference in degree great
enough for it to be a difference in kind.
>
>> Well, Harald Luva ("Dreadlock Harald") was a king already, and he didn't
>> fight republicans, he fought other kings, although these previous
>> kingdoms
>
> There were always individual cheiftains who under certain circimstances
> fought and defeated other chieftains to temporarily rise to some kind of
> semblance of overlordship over a larger than normal area, though this was
> done as first among equals since such "big men" relied upon the active and
> freely given support of political allies.
Well, we circle back to Snorre again. My problem with the above is the
impression that e.g. Snorre is discarded because he doesn't fit some current
theory - he can't be right because we don't want him to be right. I fell
that is a horse before a cart. But that could very well be my problem.
For the record, Snorre states that this and that foe of Harald was "king"
and ruled over a "rike" ("realm" or GE "Reich", a kingdom of sorts ). They
were not called "chieftains", if the semantics are important.
> In earlier times these individuals did not succeed in establishing
> dynastic
> power, transfer of their authority to their offspring, or even anything
> like
> the kind of formal power of a true monarch.
OK. Sounds probable. Clogs to clogs in three generations, and all that.
How about Tiryns and Amyklai, were they monarchies in this sense?
>
> The actual formal monarchies did however use the presence of such
> legendary
> figures in their family histories as the slim means of justifying their
> own
> power grabs later when the cultural changes and foreign political
> situations
> were underway pushing society in the direction of monarchy.
R'nB.
>
>> were spit-across-sized. His brilliant idea was merely to kill all the
> other
>> kings and make himself high and grand king of all Norway. This, IMHO, is
>> less of a "spread of kingship" (in the "spread of democracy" sense?) than
> a
>> redefinition of what a king is and should be.
>
> The same thing happened in Ireland where hundreds of petty "kings" vied
> for
> power for centuries, and in spite of some with designs to be high kings,
> did
> not get anywhere in terms of power except in times of remarkable external
> striefe (re: Brian Boru)
OK, so a king gets his quotes removed at a certain level of power, but
before that he is only a "king".
>
> ...
> It may be the case, if that were happneing my point is it would be from
> cultural "infection" via these or other sources.
OK, agree. Counter hypothesis would be that kingship is indeed older, re
Greeks; countercounter hypothesis would be that under the infection model,
the actual content of the institution of kingship would be different, marked
by a higher degree of whatever constitutes (coercive? = potential for
violence?) power.
It would also hardly be
> unopposed nor a good fit with the culutral system in place.
To keep the hypotheses aloft, this could be a
centralization/decentralization conflict as seen between monarchy and
aristocracy in various periods and regions.
>
>
> You are missing the point entirely.
I spend a few hours a week learning to miss the point of iron weapons.
If the difference between a warrior and
> a non-combattant requires say, the possession of a mail coat, two or three
> warhorses, a sword, shield, helmet, and steel tipped lance, with hundreds
> of
> hours of training required to use them, then you can certainly expect a
> wide
> social gap between warriors and peasants as you precicely did have in
> medieval Europe.
Yes.
>
> If on the other hand all that is required to be a basic warrior is a stone
> tipped spear, a hardwood club or an axe, and maybe a shield, and
> furthermore
> the skills required for the type of fighting done are similar to those for
> hunting which most males engage in, then virtually anybody with the balls
> to
> fight can do so.
Yes.
Thus social stratification between fighters and non
> fighters is not nearly so sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is much
> more egalitarian. As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the
> pagan
> Germans and Celts before them.
OK.
How does this relate to the availability of weapons in the bronze age? With
iron, it is either nobody or everybody (come the phalanx), while there was
never enough bronze to equip more than Agamemnon, Achilles and the seven
other guys in the Iliad with names to them.
AND if the greeks and the germans built part of their identity in the bronze
age .... kingship? .... you know.
......>>
>> Well, Scythians and Goths were not vikings, and vice versa.
>> Historical roots, and all that.
>
> The Goths were believed to be directly related to the Vikings, their
> ancestors in fact, (though no doubt they changed culturally after exposure
> to Mediterranean cultures.) The Scythians would have been neighbors of
> the
> Vikings, there is no more reason to think that their cultural predilection
> for female warriors was not a common one, especially since it is
> corroborated by the sagas which have proven to be correct on wilder things
> (like Vinland!)
I'm really sorry, but I do get the impression that the sagas are only
reliable as far as they seem to corroborate your points. Cake(eat,have). I
don't mean to go all ad hominem over this, but if this should prove to be an
unsound thing, then even if you are right in everything, you might not be
for the reasons you think. Apologies for this, but I needed to say it.
>
>> While we're being scientiffic popperians here, no matter how many females
> we
>> find buried with swords, scars and arrowheads in their bodies, that they
>> were Xenas, that the scars are from battle, that they got battle scars
>> participating in battle as warriors, and that they weren't just killed by
>> arrows is interpretation.
>
> Actually, yes they can rule out farm injuries from the types of injuries,
> and the locations (cuts to the lower left legs, forarms and hands which
> are
> common from ancient battlefield graves such as at Wisby). They are
> wearing
> battle damaged armor which is fitted to them specifically. They carry
> notched (akinakes) swords and even show bone deformation in their arms
> from
> shooting bows. It's safe to say they were warriors.
OK.
>
>> > The original Norse religion was the Vanir, earth / nature gods. the
> Aesir
>> > Sky Gods came later.
>>
>> I doubt the Norse ever revered the Vanir alone. The Tacitus era Germans
> knew
>> about the Vanir, didn't they?
>> The "later introduction" may have preceded their immigration to
> Scandinavia.
>>
>> > Strife between the Vanir and Aesir cults continued until the very end
>> > of
>> > Viking Age.
>>
>> Do tell.
>
> I think this Norse folk tale presents a dramatically different
> interpretation of the perception of the Aesir by Vanir worshipers than you
> might garner from an uncritical and uncontextualized reading of Snorri:
Well, Snorre relates that the Vaner and Aeser were at war, but that may be
him being uncritical and uncontextualized, of course.
While I see your point, the tale is hardly conclusive evidence. There is
nothing in the tale to say that it represents the perception of the Aesir by
Vanir worshipers, it could easily be a Aeser worshipper story; and that
Heidrek is enraged may just as well be because someone tries to subvert due
legal process as much as because Heidrek didn't like Odin.
It also does not, IMHO, justify any conclusion as to the Vanir cult being
the original Norse cult.
Of that, we simply know very little.
Regards,
Tron
Larry Swain
Tron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
> news:CLL6e.52656$f%4.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> ...
>
>
>>>It is true that when Snorri wrote, Iceland had been christian for 200
>>
>>years,
>>
>>>but what does "christian" mean at that time? We must assume that his
>>>views
>>
>>At the time Christian doctrine was to either wipe out all traces of or
>>incorporate pagan ideology into their own. Snorri was obviously of the
>>latter school, like the Irish Monks,
>
>
> I don't see Snorre as very doctrinaire. Little Gregorianism and clunianensic
> reform traceable in his writings.
>
> If "incorporate pagan ideology into their own" means explaining paganism in
> christian terms (which leaves few alternatives but "Work of the Devil"),
> then you are wrong. Snorre's account of Asatru in Ynglingesaga is clearly a
> naturalistic explanation, positing Odin etc. as ancient ancestors revered
> for their special abilities, becoming deified in people's minds.
And one of long standing. Its already an explanation given for the "old
gods" by Bede and probably predates him. In any case, some of the Aesir
become part of various geneologies as human beings, not as gods. Just
a point of info supporting your argument here.
Drifter Bob
clunianensic
> reform traceable in his writings.
I think our disagreement over Snorri (Snorre) is almost semantic. I'm
saying he wasn't 100% correct and you are pointing out that he isn't 100%
wrong. I thnk we can both agree on that.
My point more specifically is that, while Snorri did not make an obvious
hack -up of the Eddas, (he actually did a very elegant and probably for the
most part technically accurate job, which is a big part of the popularity of
his work) there is neverthless a very real Christian bias which creeps in,
in terms of both form and content, as well as an even more subtle cultural
bias.
I wont claim to invent this idea, many historians have surmized that Snorri
organized the Norse pantheon both to fit his own worldview and to make a
more coherent and tidy story. The same was actually done with Greek
mythology by the great poets such as Homer. The reality of these religions
seems to be far more nuanced, and more diverse, with local areas having
sometimes widely divergant variations on different sub-cults, and rivals
between cults being sometimes intense..
Having said all that I agree that his premise of heroic ancestors becoming
gods (and vise versa) is a correct one.
> Of course, but the position formulated above is rather strong.The key word
> is of course "only" - removing that, the remainder is as probable as any
> other position. He might mot be disinterested, but there were limits to
his
> interests, and he might yet be a scholar, too. He was certainly not keen
on
> painting paganism in the blackest colours available either, or he would
not
> have transmitted as much material on it, and in such a for his time fairly
> sober tone, as he actually did.
Absolutely correct. Which makes the bias and reorganization which did take
place that much harder to detect. But we can do so by comparing the
excellent work of Snorre with other sources of information.
> Well, if you think that Snorre is not all that reliable, then I am
surprised
> to see you cite folk tales and legends as possible corroborations.
It's not so much that I put one source above another, what I speak of is
precisely the opposite putting many sources side by side and to put together
the resulting puzzle, with each evaluated for relevance according to its
verifiability, rather than saying that Snorre had it 95% accurate and all
the other sources are far less relevant.
> No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting, is that one begins
with
> his histories as history, and then one should modify his accounts and
views
> as and when other material and considerations prove relevant. I suggest
that
> one not start out with the conviction that it is to be discarded.
And I suggest that one not start out with the conviction that it be accepted
as history. It is a fairy tale of one religion written hundreds of years
later by a member of another rival religion, who, though remarkably open
minded for such believers, shares that religions ultimate contempt for and
intolerance of all others (and conception of them as being fronts for Satan
and leading the way to eternal damnation).
It is also reasonable to assume that Snorri portrayed historical matters in
a manner which made sense to him in terms of his contemporary reality. Just
like illustrations in Medieval manuscripts (like the Majeowesci [sp] bible)
portray biblical events about Romans and Hebrews as knights in contemporry
arms and armor ....
> But let us assume that the R'nB model holds good - it was a new thing (at
> some time).
Most of the scientific evidence seems to support that,
> Now, either he could be reporting wrongly; then he is inculcated with R'nB
> and projects it as it would be the by then accepted majority view of the
> nature of kingship. Could well be.
> Otherwise, he is reporting correctly. The effect of this is to push back
the
> date of R'nB being the majority view about 400 years, since it seems that
it
> was the way things were handled in e.g. Norway at the time Snorri reports
> on.
>
> Wouldn't that be a correct descriptionof the problem we are discussing?
Yes, essentially
> > LOL! In what way? Better at managing barter economies?
>
> The view that we are all created equal is also merely an anthropology
based
> political theory among others.
> It is not a matter of fact, scientific or otherwise, but a matter of
> conviction, or ideology, if you will.
Of course, I never stated that all people are created equal. I for example
am far less intelligent than nearly anybody.
And I'm all for honesty over political correctness any time. However, this
is a sword which cuts both ways. The idea that there are people so superior
that they are better decision makers than ten, twenty, a hundred, a
thousand, or a million of their "subjects" is very questionable, as it the
idea that one person should have veto power over every type of decision (the
only time it's probably neccesary is when instant decisions are needed, as
sometimes in warfare). The number of truly gifted or even competent
monarchs in history are very few. For every Charles 'Martel', how many
Charles "the simple", Charles "the bald", Charles, "the fat". For every
Augustus, how many Caligula, Tiberius, Nero...
Even the so called great leaders were often only great in one aspect, (most
frequently military and / or diplomatic) and usually terrible in at least
one other, whether economic, political, military, diplomatic, philosophical,
ethical and etc..
The yet more absurd is the idea that this amazing trait of hypersuperiority
can be passed down to ones offspring.
If the "good king" is rare in history, the "good dynasty" is far, far more
rare. In fact, in the period of European history of which we speak, I
cannot actually think of one. The fortunes of the more absolute monarchies
ebb and flow dramatically from generation to generation, thus the genuine
lamentations of the populace when the king dies, not for any love of the
king necesssarily, but for fear of how bad his successor might be.
By comparison, though this is arguable and hard to quantify, it seem to me
that the various forms of republics and democracies (which have existed
throughout history at all times despite the version of reality we get from
School) seem to have fared much better, especially when one consideres the
wellebing population at large and not just the aristocracy.
> ranking. Today it would be the proportion of waist size to wallet, and in
> the barock age it would be ... wait, waist size to wallet, too. And in the
> middle ages, and in Rome, and in the Age of Venus of Willendorff too.
> Whodathunkit.
I disagree, in the age of Venus of Willendorf, fat was clearly in (Venus did
not look like a modern supermodel!) and I dont think money had anywhere near
the importance, nor did anyone have wallets. :)
> > Intermingling scandinavian with Germanic culture is IMO a mistake.
>
> Yes. However, they belong in a cluster such that they are closer related
to
> each other than to e.g. the roman pantheon, and these three are closer
> related to each other than to e.g. Christianity, even if the number of
> traits one uses to group them according to this kind of comparison
True enough, but I think many historians tend to discount the very
significant divergence which occured between, for example, Celtic, Germanic,
and Scandinavian cultures from the Iron age to the Medieval. There was a
lot in common, but a lot of major differences as well on almost every level,
from technology to art to religion to ethics and customs.
> > You are forgetting that most Greek citie states, most of the time were
> > actually monarchies. Only Athens or a few others had the slavery based
> > "free man democracy".
>
> Yes, well, I see Greece as a "Pre-Cambrium" of government forms. They
> experimented with a number of variations, ending up with a few stable
ones.
> They had the monarchy, the tyrannis, the Politburo (ephorate), the council
> of 8, 30, 100, the democracy .... And the two most important ones, Athens
> and Sparta, were not monarchies.
Sparta was a double monarchy (two kings) for it's entire existance IIRC, and
Athens was actually a monarchy (or dictatorship) for probably as much time
as it was a "democracy" or politburo.
Also, when considering the classical Greek era, Athens and Sparta were not
always the most important cities, this shifted over time. Thebes surpassed
them both at one point, for example IIRC. I dont mean to pick nits but
Greek history is really much more than Athens and Sparta, its the amalgum of
shifting power and alliances and cultural impact of scores of different city
states and islands. And frankly I think athens was more like the Soviet
Union than a democracy....
> And if they were monarchies, and if the greeks are a branch of the same IE
> Thunderdome Pantheon as the Germans, then that is an indication that the
> institution of kingship may indeed be very old.
Well, I think it's clear that the Greeks got their monarchism from their
neighbors such as the Persians and other powerful civilizations around the
Mideast. It seems to be the case that the Minoans and other Mediterranian
cultures before them were more egalitarian in political structure, certainly
based on graves for example
> Well, aristocracy is generally held to be in opposition to monarchy, on a
> centralisation/decentralisation axis, presumably.
I dont buy that, there is always a point which can be reached where the
monarch claims more absolute power and struggles to crush the aristocracy,
but there are equally long periods where the monarch and the aristocrats
share a cozy harmony. Monarchy and oligarchy can get along just fine, and
are bread of the same dough as they say...
> And highly urban, highly commerce based, highly aggressive imperial Rome
can
> hardly be compared to the peace loving farmers and herders frolicking in
> bucolic innocence deep in the Teutonic forests.
Lol! Surely you are pulling my leg here!
> OK.
> These may not be mutually exclusive. Since we in both cases are loosely
> tallking about groups, sociology tells us there is no group without
> hierarchy. Even Homo Erectus may have known Biggest Erectus of Them All,
and
> the democratic run of things among the "barbarians" could be e.g.
> interspersed with ad hoc leadership in times of crisis. The difference
would
> then be a difference in degree; but perhaps a difference in degree great
> enough for it to be a difference in kind.
The difference between temporary or ad hoc leadership in a specific activity
based on respect and the formal all encompasing leadership of a Tyrant or
Government is night and day. The former does exist in every society, and
fits in very well with egalitarian structures and collective desciion
making. The latter is anethama to both.
Furthermore relatively egalitarian societies and collective decision making
are well documented both among ancient cultures observed in modern times
(many north American indians, and other indiginous peoples around the world)
and by Classical authors in ancient times (Julius Caesar and Tacitus only
the most prominent among them) who were openly critical of democratic forms
and lack of "discipline" among Celts, Germans and other European 'barbarian'
tribes they encountered, and in Caesars case did what they could to
eliminate democracy.
> For the record, Snorre states that this and that foe of Harald was "king"
> and ruled over a "rike" ("realm" or GE "Reich", a kingdom of sorts ). They
> were not called "chieftains", if the semantics are important.
I would be very interested in examining the etymology of the terms, I wish
my knowlege of even modern Scandinavian and Germanic languages was up to
par, let alone archaic versions.
> OK. Sounds probable. Clogs to clogs in three generations, and all that.
> How about Tiryns and Amyklai, were they monarchies in this sense?
Refresh my memory, who were Tiryns and amyklai? Maybe your spelling is
different?
> OK, so a king gets his quotes removed at a certain level of power, but
> before that he is only a "king".
Yes, if he's "king" of a mead hall, a barn, 6 cabins and a sauna, it's
definately a "king".
> > It may be the case, if that were happneing my point is it would be from
> > cultural "infection" via these or other sources.
>
> OK, agree. Counter hypothesis would be that kingship is indeed older, re
> Greeks; countercounter hypothesis would be that under the infection model,
> the actual content of the institution of kingship would be different,
marked
> by a higher degree of whatever constitutes (coercive? = potential for
> violence?) power.
Yes and my contention is that this requires a certain cultural underpinning
to happen, one which spread in the form of 'Civilization' from Babylon to
Egypt and Persia to Greece and Rome to Europe, and is only now beginning to
be recovered from. I further contend that the preponderance of evidence
currently available (which still isn't much, granted) seems to indicate that
the original culture of most of the European barbarian tribes (and probably
in a lot of other places) was basically egalitarian and libertarian, a
survival of which we see clearly in the Scandinavians through the Viking
age, and even today.
> To keep the hypotheses aloft, this could be a
> centralization/decentralization conflict as seen between monarchy and
> aristocracy in various periods and regions.
Certainly. I think you see this throughout Romes interractions with
Barbarian tribes, particularly in Spain, Northern Italy, Gaul and Germany
(in that order)
> > You are missing the point entirely.
>
> I spend a few hours a week learning to miss the point of iron weapons.
So do I! I'm in a group which does longsword training and sparring in the
Ringeck / Meyer tradition. It makes Saturday afternoon the highlight of my
week.
> If the difference between a warrior and
> > a non-combattant requires say, the possession of a mail coat, two or
three
> Yes.
> >
> > If on the other hand all that is required to be a basic warrior is a
stone
> > tipped spear, a hardwood club or an axe, and maybe a shield, and
> Yes.
>
> Thus social stratification between fighters and non
> > fighters is not nearly so sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is
much
> > more egalitarian. As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the
> > Germans and Celts before them.
>
> OK.
> How does this relate to the availability of weapons in the bronze age?
With
> iron, it is either nobody or everybody (come the phalanx), while there was
> never enough bronze to equip more than Agamemnon, Achilles and the seven
> other guys in the Iliad with names to them.
Here is where we disagree, i would contend that the relative expense of
military kit remained at this level for Barbarian tribes well into the Iron
Age. A sword was nice, but not necessary to fight, a much cheaper spear was
sufficient, along with javelins or maybe throwing axes. Helmets may have
become fairly widely used, but the truly expensive kit, horses and iron
(mail) armor was not considered necessary for warfare until the early
medieval period. The Vikings didn't really use it (mail) widely until half
way through the Viking age (in fact their activities helped spur the arms
race making it more neccesary)
Therefore throughout this period, the broader cross section of society could
be potential warriors (most able bodied men), which again is seen in the
Vikings most of whom were actually farmers and would have been peasants in
Feudal society (in fact the ratio of warriors to unarmed thraals is I thnk
one of the keys to the early successes of the Vikings and was part of what i
was researching in initially posting this thread) I'm sure you are aware in
fact that Swedish peasants remained armed and had to be violently put down
several times through the Renaissance by Danes and German Landsknechts
working for them...
The key cultural difference here is of the more generalist barbarians and
the more specialized "civilized" peoples.
> AND if the greeks and the germans built part of their identity in the
bronze
> age .... kingship? .... you know.
I think by the time the Greeks met the Germans they had moved very far apart
indeed, the Greeks had much more in common by then with the Romans,
Persians, Egyptians, Phonecian / Carthaginians, Etruscans etc. than anyone
in Northern or Western Europe.
> I'm really sorry, but I do get the impression that the sagas are only
> reliable as far as they seem to corroborate your points. Cake(eat,have). I
(snip)
> for the reasons you think. Apologies for this, but I needed to say it.
To be perfectly honest, I cant claim originality on some of these points,
I'm working on a project on the Vikings right now and have been reading many
overviews of Viking history, all of which seem to interpret the Sagas this
way, by comparison with each other and where possible, verification from
archeology.
> Well, Snorre relates that the Vaner and Aeser were at war, but that may be
> him being uncritical and uncontextualized, of course.
> While I see your point, the tale is hardly conclusive evidence. There is
> nothing in the tale to say that it represents the perception of the Aesir
by
> Vanir worshipers, it could easily be a Aeser worshipper story; and that
> Heidrek is enraged may just as well be because someone tries to subvert
due
> legal process as much as because Heidrek didn't like Odin.
>
> It also does not, IMHO, justify any conclusion as to the Vanir cult being
> the original Norse cult.
> Of that, we simply know very little.
Well, all the books I have on the Vikings state flatly that the Vanir cult
predated the Aesir, and, though I'm not sure why, it does jibe with the
general trend of Sky gods replacing Earth gods. The website where i found
the legend quoted above was also in the context of it being a Vanir
worshipers tale, hostile toward Aesir.
DB
Drifter Bob
> Tron wrote:
>
> No real way to tell, since any linguistic remains for Germanic peoples
> postdate contact with the Greeks and Romans. BUT, having said that, the
> word "kon" or "cyning" in OE, etc seems to indicate a leader of the
> people (the "kin" group if you will). So I guess it depends on what you
> mean by "king".
I remember noticing in my Seamus -Heney translation of Beowulf there were
reference to something "Folk-Kings", which sounds kind of similar, and to
me, sounds more like a tribal chieftain leading out of respect than a formal
monarch...
DB
Tron
/some snippage for bandwith savings/
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
news:Prf7e.47620$UW6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> I think our disagreement over Snorri (Snorre) is almost semantic. I'm
> saying he wasn't 100% correct and you are pointing out that he isn't 100%
> wrong. I thnk we can both agree on that.
We can.
>
> My point ......neverthless a very real Christian bias which creeps in,
> in terms of both form and content, as well as an even more subtle cultural
> bias.
OK. We're on specialist turf now, and I'll withdraw, hopefully in time.
>
> ..... The reality of these religions
> seems to be far more nuanced, and more diverse, with local areas having
> sometimes widely divergant variations on different sub-cults, and rivals
> between cults being sometimes intense..
Yes. Certainly hereabouts various parts of the country show preferences, as
reflected in e.g. place names.
What a pity that the Norse didn't leave us some pre-Christian material.
Imagine a Norse Plutarch or Herodot...
....
> It's not so much that I put one source above another, what I speak of is
> precisely the opposite putting many sources side by side and to put
> together
> the resulting puzzle, with each evaluated for relevance according to its
> verifiability, rather than saying that Snorre had it 95% accurate and all
> the other sources are far less relevant.
OK
>
>> No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting, is that one begins
> with
>> his histories as history, and then one should modify his accounts and
> views
>> as and when other material and considerations prove relevant. I suggest
> that
>> one not start out with the conviction that it is to be discarded.
>
> And I suggest that one not start out with the conviction that it be
> accepted
> as history. It is a fairy tale of one religion written hundreds of years
> later by a member of another rival religion,
This is where we have to agree to disagree. First of all, one clarification.
Are we discussing Heimskringla or the poetic material, or both? The
"history" part, for me, is the Heimskringla;L I mention that because I don't
see that as a fairy tale of one religion. That would be his Poetics?
We get to the historiological question of History's nature and uses. As
science, history should be about "what actually happened", a factual record
of events. Besides the problem of the attainability of the ideal, others,
like Nietzsche, have posited other uses for History. Perhaps we shouldn't
call the latter history anymore, to discriminate.
Heimskringla is close to home to me, there's the rub.
who, though remarkably open
> minded for such believers, shares that religions ultimate contempt for and
> intolerance of all others (and conception of them as being fronts for
> Satan
> and leading the way to eternal damnation).
I must admit that I yet have to find the evidence for this in his writings.
But I'm no specialist.
> It is also reasonable to assume that Snorri portrayed historical matters
> in
> a manner which made sense to him in terms of his contemporary reality.
> Just
> like illustrations in Medieval manuscripts (like the Majeowesci [sp]
> bible)
> portray biblical events about Romans and Hebrews as knights in contemporry
> arms and armor ....
"Arithmetically", the degree is quite different, since both time elapsed is
shorter and the number of cultural border crossings is smaller; but in
principle, yes.
>
.....
>> > LOL! In what way? Better at managing barter economies?
>>
>> The view that we are all created equal is also merely an anthropology
> based political theory among others.
>> It is not a matter of fact, scientific or otherwise, but a matter of
>> conviction, or ideology, if you will.
>
> Of course, I never stated that all people are created equal. I for
> example
> am far less intelligent than nearly anybody.
:-) We should have our own club.
My response was mainly prompted by your LOL, the argument from incredulity.
It does sort of express doubt about the proposed theory, which indicates
that you might be willing to support alternate hypotheses more readily. But
I didn't mean to distort your views or tar you with an unwelcome brush.
>
> And I'm all for honesty over political correctness any time. However,
> this
> is a sword which cuts both ways.
One way sword? Where's the fun in that?
The idea that there are people so superior
> that they are better decision makers than ten, twenty, a hundred, a
> thousand, or a million of their "subjects" is very questionable,
First of all, I was talking about families, i.e. groups; nit nit.
Psychologists speculate that
*) Growing up in a "resourceful environment" can produce the "standing on
the shoulders of giants" effect, where e.g. the son of a violin player may
attain levels of mastery much earlier than his father did, being raised in
an atmosphere steeped in musical influences.
*) And in those days, "school" generally was the family, so the upper crust
had better teachers.
*) In real life, nothing beats a single skipper on the boat for rapid
decisions; sometimes they are even good ones .. but also, sometimes, acting
quickly is as important than what you actually do.
*) It is another question, though, whether it is right, even if it should
prove as effective, or even more, than collective decisions.
*) When the group is above a certain size, collective decisions require an
unsupportable infrastructure, necessitating some representative system. One
million franchised subjects will still be ruled by rather small group.
as it the
> idea that one person should have veto power over every type of decision
> (the
> only time it's probably neccesary is when instant decisions are needed, as
> sometimes in warfare). The number of truly gifted or even competent
> monarchs in history are very few. For every Charles 'Martel',
... and he was merely the maitre d', not even a king ...
how many
> Charles "the simple", Charles "the bald"
... might well have been bald, but he wasn't that bad a king.
, Charles, "the fat". For every
> Augustus, how many Caligula, Tiberius, Nero...
Well ... 1:3 ?
It's not like the track record of democracy is all that better, beginning
with the death sentence for Socrates.
>
> Even the so called great leaders were often only great in one aspect,
> (most
> frequently military and / or diplomatic) and usually terrible in at least
> one other, whether economic, political, military, diplomatic,
> philosophical,
> ethical and etc..
OK.
>
> The yet more absurd is the idea that this amazing trait of
> hypersuperiority
> can be passed down to ones offspring.
>
> If the "good king" is rare in history, the "good dynasty" is far, far more
> rare. In fact, in the period of European history of which we speak, I
> cannot actually think of one.
The german emperors from Otto up to the Black Death seemed to do rather
well, at least in comparison with contemporary England and France.
The fortunes of the more absolute monarchies
> ebb and flow dramatically from generation to generation, thus the genuine
> lamentations of the populace when the king dies, not for any love of the
> king necesssarily, but for fear of how bad his successor might be.
>
> By comparison, though this is arguable and hard to quantify, it seem to me
> that the various forms of republics and democracies (which have existed
> throughout history at all times despite the version of reality we get from
> School) seem to have fared much better, especially when one consideres the
> wellebing population at large and not just the aristocracy.
Yes and no. I would analyze this as the problem of a system without feedback
mechanisms, i.e. without possibility of error correction. This may occur in
any type of system, although only abslute and hereditary monarchy made it
its main feature. Kings elected from a pool of candidates, with possibility
of electing a better one if the current one is no good, seems to be a
reasonably workable model.
>
>> ranking. Today it would be the proportion of waist size to wallet, and in
>> the barock age it would be ... wait, waist size to wallet, too. And in
>> the
>> middle ages, and in Rome, and in the Age of Venus of Willendorff too.
>> Whodathunkit.
>
> I disagree, in the age of Venus of Willendorf, fat was clearly in (Venus
> did
> not look like a modern supermodel!)
I didn't say what the proportion of waist to wallet ideally should be. Of
course this varied with time, from Rubens to Twiggy.
and I dont think money had anywhere near
> the importance,
Resources tends to attract the ladies.
nor did anyone have wallets. :)
Venus was a wallet ... huge deposits of valuables ....
>
...> True enough, but I think many historians tend to discount the very
> significant divergence which occured between, for example, Celtic,
> Germanic,
> and Scandinavian cultures from the Iron age to the Medieval. There was a
> lot in common, but a lot of major differences as well on almost every
> level,
> from technology to art to religion to ethics and customs.
My point was to argue for the admissibility of a comparison of the roles of
"big men" under the Absolute God of Christianity, and the more "democratic"
pantheons of the Thunder Crew; not the similarities (not to mention
identity9 of these latter.
...> Sparta was a double monarchy (two kings) for it's entire existance
IIRC,
YD'tRC. The Spartan Kings lead troops into war and performed sacrifices.
Sparta itself had division of powers of some sorts, with the two kings, the
five Ephors (possibly the tribal headmen of the alleged five tribes of
dorians) and the assembly of Peers, or full Spartiates, who could vote on
propositions form the Ephors.
and
> Athens was actually a monarchy (or dictatorship) for probably as much time
> as it was a "democracy" or politburo.
Yes, they tried all sorts of governments, the tyrannis, the polis, the
oligarchy, the democracy (mob rule...), the military dictatorship
(Pericles), the military federation or empire (Delic NATO). They had it all.
However, Athenian history is not centered on the various Athenian kings
(care to name a few?), but mainly on epochs of other government types, under
which it reached its zenith (and the occasional nadir) of power.
>
> Also, when considering the classical Greek era, Athens and Sparta were not
> always the most important cities, this shifted over time. Thebes
> surpassed
> them both at one point, for example IIRC.
Epameinondas? Yes, he beat up all the others for some campaigning seasons by
inventing the oblique order, but was killed by the Spartans in the end. He
made no institutions or laws, didn't elevate Thebes to any lasting position,
didn't change the face of Greece, had no vision, no idea, no plan, no clue
... he just thrashed the old antique shop, for, I suspect, the hell of it.
I dont mean to pick nits but
> Greek history is really much more than Athens and Sparta, its the amalgum
> of
> shifting power and alliances and cultural impact of scores of different
> city
> states and islands.
I know. But I didn't mean to discuss Greek history per se, only the
(possibly parallell) institution of (priest-)king.
And frankly I think athens was more like the Soviet
> Union than a democracy....
Reading the Symposion, "Party member" seems appropriate ...
>
>> And if they were monarchies, and if the greeks are a branch of the same
>> IE
>> Thunderdome Pantheon as the Germans, then that is an indication that the
>> institution of kingship may indeed be very old.
>
> Well, I think it's clear that the Greeks got their monarchism from their
> neighbors such as the Persians and other powerful civilizations around the
> Mideast.
OK ... if it's clear, who am I to argue?
Only if e.g. the Persians are part of the same Thunder Tribe, which some
people think, based on similarities between old persian and archaic greek.
....
>> Well, aristocracy is generally held to be in opposition to monarchy, on a
>> centralisation/decentralisation axis, presumably.
>
> I dont buy that
It seems clear to me.
, there is always a point which can be reached where the
> monarch claims more absolute power and struggles to crush the aristocracy,
> but there are equally long periods where the monarch and the aristocrats
> share a cozy harmony.
Yes. Generally in periods when "every dog gets his turn", I would think.
When the kings went for absolute and shut out the other aristocrats, the
fronts hardened.
Monarchy and oligarchy can get along just fine, and
> are bread of the same dough as they say...
How about the Soviet Union? The republic of Athens, that is? Same dough?
>
>> And highly urban, highly commerce based, highly aggressive imperial Rome
> can
>> hardly be compared to the peace loving farmers and herders frolicking in
>> bucolic innocence deep in the Teutonic forests.
>
> Lol! Surely you are pulling my leg here!
No. I don't think you can meaningfuly compare Rome and Germania (at least
when you can't meaningfully compare Germania with Norse society or other
germanic nations).
You might think that the pastoral image of the germans is too idyllic, but
compared to the Romans, they were babes, and in the woods, too, even with
the odd tribal skirmish and swamp sacrifice. A bit like in America, where it
was decided that the American Indians were too barbaric to become American
Citizens, so the Whites just killed them off with narcotics, disease bearing
blankets, scorched continent infrastructure demolition, and sheer firepower.
Any more civilized, and they would have had to invent Zyklon B.
...>
> The difference between temporary or ad hoc leadership in a specific
> activity
> based on respect and the formal all encompasing leadership of a Tyrant or
> Government is night and day. ...
To summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, the rival hypotheses are:
1) Gradualist Tron: kingship as a very old institution in name, slowly
changing content with time; for Scandinavia, sudden influence model, perhaps
based on inspiration from Rome or the closer in time Merowingians.
2) ... anybody?: kingship as the invention at a specific, and rather late
point in time.
3) Paradigm Shifter Bob: previous status of kings uncertain; if any, then
merely "kings", i.e. chieftains.
Cross-cultural influence from "eastern despotism" (through various filters)
resulting in relatively rapid extension of centralized functions,
particularly the ability to attain, project and retain power, and transmit
it in dynasties?
Another thing: Varying in time, the peoples lost the power to legislate. The
Merovingians lost it for the franks, and the christian kings for the norse.
So perhaps there is a link between Christianity, christian kings and "top
down" legislation (which there had to be, in case the people disagreed with
the king aobut the desirability and necessity of baptism).
>
>
> I would be very interested in examining the etymology of the terms, I wish
> my knowlege of even modern Scandinavian and Germanic languages was up to
> par, let alone archaic versions.
There must be lots of online material about this...?
A norwegian page,unfortunately, but it has some english links:
http://www.arild-hauge.com/runelink.htm
>
>> OK. Sounds probable. Clogs to clogs in three generations, and all that.
>> How about Tiryns and Amyklai, were they monarchies in this sense?
>
> Refresh my memory, who were Tiryns and amyklai?
Closest neighbours to Mykene, overrun by the Dorians.
> Maybe your spelling is different?
I found both Tiryns and Amyklai online, try "Amyclae" for the latter.
>
>> OK, so a king gets his quotes removed at a certain level of power, but
>> before that he is only a "king".
>
> Yes, if he's "king" of a mead hall, a barn, 6 cabins and a sauna, it's
> definately a "king".
Again, are we not skirting the issue of possible historical development, the
nature of kingship being in flux?
Just like farming started with that patch where you knew you could count on
finding one or two cups of spelt, up to Unilever?
...
I further contend that the preponderance of evidence
> currently available (which still isn't much, granted) seems to indicate
> that
> the original culture of most of the European barbarian tribes (and
> probably
> in a lot of other places) was basically egalitarian and libertarian, a
> survival of which we see clearly in the Scandinavians through the Viking
> age, and even today.
OK; and ...
Egalitarian, libertarian barbarian ... has a certain ring.
>
>>
>> I spend a few hours a week learning to miss the point of iron weapons.
>
> So do I! I'm in a group which does longsword training and sparring in the
> Ringeck / Meyer tradition. It makes Saturday afternoon the highlight of
> my
> week.
Did reconstruct work, but landed on Japanese TSKSR for authenticity.
>
>> OK.
>> How does this relate to the availability of weapons in the bronze age?
> With
>> iron, it is either nobody or everybody (come the phalanx), while there
>> was
>> never enough bronze to equip more than Agamemnon, Achilles and the seven
>> other guys in the Iliad with names to them.
>
> Here is where we disagree,
Perhaps it is my nonspecialist view again. I imagine bronze age warfare was
a bit like facing 2000 Man U Supporters and 3 Abrams Battle Tanks. The hoi
polloi ran around in goatskin and threw rocks and wooden spears, the
literally Upper Ten drove chariots, wore bronze armour and smote you with a
proper sword. This technological as well as economic assymmetry should be
the ideal ground for developing kingship. Add Ukrainian Steppe People =
first horse tamers for the link between the Thunder Tribes and Chariot
drivers.
i would contend that the relative expense of
> military kit remained at this level for Barbarian tribes well into the
> Iron
> Age. A sword was nice, but not necessary to fight,
Does the invention of "the sword" (as if there weren't 3000 types) coincide
with the adoption of particular tactics, like shield walls, phalanx lines
...?
... I'm sure you are aware in
> fact that Swedish peasants remained armed and had to be violently put down
> several times through the Renaissance by Danes and German Landsknechts
> working for them...
Hah! Serves them Swedes right ...
>
>> AND if the greeks and the germans built part of their identity in the
> bronze
>> age .... kingship? .... you know.
>
> I think by the time the Greeks met the Germans
My hypothesis is that they split apart to become G & G.
/I'll "cede" ? on the rest .../
T
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:_cM6e.52662$f%4.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:3bnissF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
> > > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > >> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
>
> snip >
>
> > So the whole question of kingship and nobility rests on the question of
> the
> > definition of the term. The medieval defintion rested, AFAIK, on
somebody
> > being accepted as king by the church, so there could not be a king in a
> > non-christian society. This did not keep the kings from treating those
> > non-royal leaders as equals. Compare the relations between Franks and
> Saxons
> > before 800 or between Danes and Slavs before 1000.
>
> I agree, there was a paradigm shift... they tended to think of everyone as
> having their own system of governemnt.
And let them do whatever they liked, as long as they paid their taxes. Only
when the barbarian leadership learned and tried to ascend to a similar
status as the HRE noblemen, many of them got punished. The rest took a
christian name and vanished from the barbarian side of things, entering the
stage as a good guy and a noble man.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:l2Y6e.6120$ai7.1...@news2.e.nsc.no...
> Hi,
>
> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
> news:CLL6e.52656$f%4.2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> ...
>
> snip >
>
> This is of course the (intersting) core question.
> Let's give it an acronym .... R'nB for "Royalty = bloodline"?
> R'nB is then a concept introduced by these same true and would-be roylas
as
> an ideological scaffolding to support them. OTOH it could, theoretically,
be
> a very old custom, actually being the way things worked and preceding the
> introduction of R'nB as an ideology. I don't know the answer to that one.
> But let us assume that the R'nB model holds good - it was a new thing (at
> some time).
Yes, even considering that some of the claims to a blood line were shaky at
best. It would still take a lot of time till a weak person with a strong
claim to kingship could oust a strong person with a weak claim.
>snip >
>
> Thus social stratification between fighters and non
> > fighters is not nearly so sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is
much
> > more egalitarian. As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the
> > pagan
> > Germans and Celts before them.
>
> OK.
> How does this relate to the availability of weapons in the bronze age?
With
> iron, it is either nobody or everybody (come the phalanx), while there was
> never enough bronze to equip more than Agamemnon, Achilles and the seven
> other guys in the Iliad with names to them.
> AND if the greeks and the germans built part of their identity in the
bronze
> age .... kingship? .... you know.
Metal weapons seem to have been around in greater numbers in the bronze age.
And in the early iron age weapons are scarce (except daggers) in the graves
with the highest status. Warriors graves from that time otoh lack many of
the imported items, rich furnishings etc. That may be a bias from the
archaeological record, we really don't know why there were so few weapons in
the top ranks graves. But it could point to a differentiation between
leaders of a whole people and leaders of the military fraction.
The break down of the long distance trading network in the late bronze age
might have aided the latter in becoming more powerfull. There is another
major change in the middle Latčne period, and in the late Latčne (late pre
roman iron age) there emerges a group of hereditary leaders.
Funny though that most of the big 'cities' (oppidae) of that time are
abandoned before establishing contacts with the roman world again.
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:H8M6e.52659$f%4.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:3bnispF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > "Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> > > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
>
> > > As we all know, in all of these Iron Age European societies there were
> > > aristocratic families, chieftan families if you will, which considered
> > > themselves a step or two above regualar farmers.
> >
> > There are some sites that are interpreted that way by some people. But
> they
> > are far from being commonly accepted as such. If you know any site, that
> > clearly shows aristocratic, permanent social stratification, please name
> > them.
>
> No, I'm arguing the opposite. There were just some families who thought
of
> themselves that way, only much later when the culture changed for a
variety
> of reasons centered around contact with foreigners did monarchy become
> possible.
>
> We actually agree on much of this.
Yes.
>
> > > The divine right of kings, their "royal" status, is a mythology that
the
> > > families themselves had to fight very hard to establish. The British
> and
> > > French Royal families have been engaged in propaganda for centuries,
the
> > > most obvious of which is the rewriting of the King Arthur legends,
with
> > > explicit and avowed intent to validate the concept of Royal blood and
> > > Right.
> >
> > But this is all post viking age and has no relevance for earlier
peoples.
>
> No, it's the same thing which was done in the end of the Viking age to
> justify the Viking monarchs and even the Jarls
Some of these claims are shaky at best, if you would call it a well used
piece of propaganda and leave aside the question, wether those claims were
real, I would agree.
They had sites that must have produced iron in tens or even hundreds of
tons. They had the technology to work it and they had the raw materials, bog
iron. Incidentally the best iron had to be imported into the roman empire,
from those barbaric germanic and/or celtic tribes.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:I8M6e.52660$f%4.6...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:3bnisuF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> > > > Hi Drifter Bob,
> > > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> snip >
>
> > AFAIK the first born male as a rule inherited the land and made the
> > decisions for the family. That leaves out females, about half of the
> > population, and a big part of the men, depending on family size. That
will
> > leave you with -optimistic reasoning- about a quarter or a third of the
> > population, even less if you consider serfs or farm labourers.
>
> I have not seen evidence of this among the Norse, if you have some please
> cite it I'd be very intererested to look into it (preferably English
> sources)
I could'nt even say if this has occured to anyone before among the
specialists of that time. But there is a big distinction between northern
and southern germany in this matter, where the fields get smaller and
smaller with time, because they are shared between the offspring of the
deceased.
AFAIK in the north the size of the fields remain relatively constant, which
I would interpret as indicating, that only the first born inherited the
land. OTOH up to around 1200 AD land was owned by a family, it's use was
governed by the head of the family, but to sell it, he (most of the times a
'He') would have to have consent from the rest of the family. Given the
state of communications and the natural state of families land was not for
sale, except from those families that went extinct.
>
> The best evidence I have to this point is that such customs actually
varied
> significantly from tribe to tribe.
AFAIK there is little evidence on the customs of inheritance before the 14th
c.
> snip>
>
> > > You seem to be lumping together iron age cultures in Europe, where the
> > > reality seems to be that there were wide differences in practices.
For
> > > thing, tribes living close to Greek and Roman influence were more
likely
> > > form classical type hierarchies. Meanwhile there is plenty of
evidence
> of
> > > egalitarian grave sites from Minoa to Malta, and in a variety of
places
> in
> > > Europe such as of the Halstadt era Celts
> >
> > I would not call them Celts in the Hallstatt era, but this is exactly
> where
>
> There seems to unfortunately be quasi political debate over who were
celts,
> who were germans, who were germanic etc. The best evidence I have read,
> certainly all the most recent books I own on the subject (about 30) call
the
> Hallstadt culture a Celtic culture.
Celtic is the name usually applied to a group of languages, as is germanic.
There is, or such is my point of view in that question, nothing to gain by
applying this label to earlier peoples, especially in times with no or only
a very limited number of written sources (except of course with publishing
for the general public, in that field it pays to use those names, as people
can connect to them).
OTOH if you accept the Hallstatt culture as celtic, you would also have to
accept the Urnfield period, as it comprises phases A and B of the Hallstatt
times while the later phases, C and D, are labelled as Hallstatt culture.
And with the Urnfield culture you have a spread across Europe that can be
hardly interpreted as being celtic in any meaningfull way.
I would reserve the label celtic, if it has to be used at all, for the time
starting with Late Latčne. But I would also argue, that those labels were
used for an area in classic times, calling the people according to the areas
they lived in.
Starting with the Late Latčne, yes.
>There is also the
> tradition of fostering, of taking hostages given in in the ancient
barbarian
> manner for peace treaties, and raising them to be kings. Even more
blatant
> is the direct testimony of scores of Greek and Roman writers of their
> nations direct interference in Celtic (and other Barbarians) culture with
> the explicit intention of making it more authoritarian. Perhaps the stand
> out here would be Julius Caesars appointment of puppet-kings from
nominally
> 'aristocratic' families with the explicit stated intent to undermine
> democratic tribal traditions.
That describes the Late Latčne again.
>
> > How was christianity the glue to make leadership permanent in the
greater
> > part of the viking age that was non-christian? Since what time would you
> > consider viking leaders to have been kings? Was the Sutton Hoo burial a
> > kings grave? The Oseberg ship burial? Or do you rely on written sources
> > using the term rex?
> >
> Since most of the Viking kings appeared toward the very end of the viking
> era, and in fact most of the Viking kings converted to Christianity, I
think
> that is obvious.
One of those could have influenced the other, the establishment of kingship,
as a religious leadership, could as well have been the big step towards
acceptance of the christian religion.
But how far did it work? Childerich accepted the christian faith for his
people, but we know, that many still believed in the old gods (and acted
accordingly). Slav leaders were christened a number of times, even if I
remember correctly, individuals. This did not make the christian faith
exclusive.
If I remember correctly pagan temples and their followers existed right up
to the age of reformation, 15th c. AD, as long as they paid their dues and
did not provocatively appear in the open. I fear written sources are a
little biased in that matter.
There are even today stories about rural communities offering horses to the
gold gods (and eating them afterwards) in northern Germany, "as their
fathers and forefathers had been doing before them".
>
> Are Oseberg and Sutton Hoo burials of kings? Nope, probably not,
> chieftains, beloved and respected warriors, certainly. Kings? I dont
think
> so.
It is the uppermost status group as far as the archaeological record goes.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> The german emperors from Otto up to the Black Death seemed to do rather
> well, at least in comparison with contemporary England and France.
Particularly the Staufer 8-) (who's biased?)
But they weren't absolute rulers by a long shot, either, nor did the
rule automatically go to eldest son. Fred II had to fight for his, and
his father was definitely Kaiser before him.
Tron
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> skrev i melding
news:erilarloFRY-1A72...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <rmj7e.6258$ai7.1...@news2.e.nsc.no>, "Tron"
> <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>
>> The german emperors from Otto up to the Black Death seemed to do rather
>> well, at least in comparison with contemporary England and France.
>
> Particularly the Staufer 8-) (who's biased?)
The pope?
>
> But they weren't absolute rulers by a long shot, either, nor did the
> rule automatically go to eldest son. Fred II had to fight for his, and
> his father was definitely Kaiser before him.
This is the crux. I think there are two discussions disguised as one here.
If one defines king to say somone is a king if and only if
- they have absolute powers
- Main male line inheritance
- Centralized power apparatus
- Powers of legislation and jurisdiction as wee as the executive office
and then goes through history looking for when and where these occur, then
this is different from making a list of all persons who have claimed the
title of king, and listing the conditions of their offices, to trace
developments and changes.
The first starts with "attributes", the other with the "substance", or the
name.
IIRC absolute kingdom was a late invention, post-MA, and could be the
hypertrofia of decay, or the incline that brought about its own fall, or
both, if you are a Hegelian.
If being king is being an absolute king, then I would think that there are
indeed very few actual kings around. Perhaps a few Louises and Christians
and Fredericks and Wilhelms, with the odd Charles in between. All the kings
of Europe before, beside and after them would be mere "kings", chieftains
with delusions of grandeur, for two thousand years only foreshadowing the
real thing, the absolute king. I tend to think of absolutism moe as an
abberation than the norm.
T
Al
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> IIRC absolute kingdom was a late invention, post-MA, and could be the
> hypertrofia of decay, or the incline that brought about its own fall, or
> both, if you are a Hegelian.
> If being king is being an absolute king, then I would think that there
> are
> indeed very few actual kings around. Perhaps a few Louises and Christians
> and Fredericks and Wilhelms, with the odd Charles in between. All the
> kings
> of Europe before, beside and after them would be mere "kings", chieftains
> with delusions of grandeur, for two thousand years only foreshadowing the
> real thing, the absolute king. I tend to think of absolutism moe as an
> abberation than the norm.
Actually, so do I, but to many people "king"=absolutism, and "emperor"
even more so. The HRE emperors were perhaps further from that kind of
power than many a petty king. They needed the support of their counts
and archbishops, and the pope was very often actively undermining their
power base.
Tron
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> skrev i melding
> power base.
That's such a nice way of saying "deadly enemies".
T
Drifter Bob
> > hypertrofia of decay, or the incline that brought about its own fall, or
> > both, if you are a Hegelian.
> > If being king is being an absolute king, then I would think that there
Christians
> > and Fredericks and Wilhelms, with the odd Charles in between. All the
chieftains
> > with delusions of grandeur, for two thousand years only foreshadowing
the
> > real thing, the absolute king. I tend to think of absolutism moe as an
> > abberation than the norm.
>
> Actually, so do I, but to many people "king"=absolutism, and "emperor"
> even more so. The HRE emperors were perhaps further from that kind of
> power than many a petty king. They needed the support of their counts
> and archbishops, and the pope was very often actively undermining their
> power base.
>
Well, it's funny, because absolute monarchs certainly seeemed to exist in
the classical world, in Rome for sure, in Greece, absolutely, in Egypt,
without a doubt, and arguably in Mesopotamia... and many other points
further East. So it's not true to say that it's a new invention, to the
contrary, it's quite old indeed. It was only new in certain parts of
Europe.
In Northern Europe in fact, kingship, dictatorship, Imperial authority etc.
obviously seemed to certainly take longer to reach the absolute level, and
did so on a more gradual basis. On this perhaps we agree (?).
The question then is, why did it seem to take longer in Europe? One
possible answer, supported by a great deal of evidence from both archeology
and contemporary (Classical) observers, is that the European "barbarians"
had essentially democratic, or 'warrior democratic' traditions and cultures
which were unsuited to authoritarian monarchy, especially absolute monarchy
or empire on the Eastern model. The other is apparently that while kings
always existed, they coincidentally never or rarely reached absolute
authority until after prolonged contact with Mediterranian and near Eastern
cultures which were more authoritarian.
We also know that central authority became more absolute in certain areas
quicker than in others. Some places clung to either mixed oligarchy /
decentralized monarchy / semi-autonomous towns (HRE), others like
Switzerland or Venice, (and several other city states to a greater or lesser
degree) and later United Provinces had essentially confederacies or
Republics. Yet in England, we see strong if not absolute monarchies rising
fairly early, as in France, some of the Spanish Kingdoms, many places in
Eastern Europe....
Assuming relatively similar underlying cultures as you seem to be doing in
other parts of our discussion, why would that be?
DB
Drifter Bob
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> "Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
> > Thus social stratification between fighters and non
> > > fighters is not nearly so sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is
> > > more egalitarian. As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the
> > > Germans and Celts before them.
> >
> > OK.
> > How does this relate to the availability of weapons in the bronze age?
> > iron, it is either nobody or everybody (come the phalanx), while there
was
> > never enough bronze to equip more than Agamemnon, Achilles and the seven
> > other guys in the Iliad with names to them.
> > AND if the greeks and the germans built part of their identity in the
> > age .... kingship? .... you know.
>
> Metal weapons seem to have been around in greater numbers in the bronze
age.
Thats correct, and it's because in the bronze age, once a mold is made for a
weapon, be it a spearhead, a dagger, a sword, or an axe blade, it can be
poured over and over again, almost mass produced.
> And in the early iron age weapons are scarce (except daggers) in the
graves
> with the highest status. Warriors graves from that time otoh lack many of
> the imported items, rich furnishings etc. That may be a bias from the
> archaeological record, we really don't know why there were so few weapons
in
We do see a lot of both iron and bronze weapons in deposits, often
intentionally 'killed' (ebent and / or broken), probably from Potlatch type
activity. We see references to this in the legends and sagas, heros
swearing oaths that they will destroy loot captured from an enemy is victory
is granted in battle, etc.
> the top ranks graves. But it could point to a differentiation between
> leaders of a whole people and leaders of the military fraction.
> The break down of the long distance trading network in the late bronze age
> might have aided the latter in becoming more powerfull. There is another
> major change in the middle Latčne period, and in the late Latčne (late pre
> roman iron age) there emerges a group of hereditary leaders.
We cannot know really much at all about the actual leaderhip functions if
any, based on the richer graves. Even the richest are certainly not
necessarily more than one ambitious individual could accumulate in one
lifetime of successful plunder and / or trade.
What were the richer La Tene graves, and Ive seen some of the artifacts
first hand, we dont know if they were they the best warrior among relative
equals? Religious leaders? Revered popular figures? The rich from some
economic activity?
The Classical authorities seem to have felt that the barbarians lacked
centralized authority, and mocked them for gathering to vote on important
decisions...
DB
Drifter Bob
> > > decisions for the family. That leaves out females, about half of the
> >
> > I have not seen evidence of this among the Norse, if you have some
please
>
> governed by the head of the family, but to sell it, he (most of the times
a
> 'He') would have to have consent from the rest of the family. Given the
> state of communications and the natural state of families land was not for
> sale, except from those families that went extinct.
The important distinction is of control, whether the whole family had a
voice in decisions or just the inheritor, who became the "absolute monarch"
of the family. I think the latter is a characteristic of feudalism, the
former of the earlier barbarian culture. I have certainly read many times
that it was the case in Norse society that the Women of the household
carried the keys and often made many or most of the business decisions of
the farm, particularly when the men were away at sea as was often the case
with many families.
We know women had the power to divorce, and could own property. We know
that to rape a free woman was one of the few crimes warranting a death
penalty. We even have legends of female warriors and pirates, not seen as
enemies like the Greeks Amazons, but as heroes among the other heroes. All
of this (to me) tends to reinforce the likelyhood of some degree of
importance of women in Norse society.
Compare this to the Greeks, the other major model of "warrior democracy"
where women have no rights, are barely allowed to leave the house, etc. etc.
Here the 25% rule you cite above is much more accurate, probably a much
lower number in most Greek Polis. Among the Celts or the Norse, the
percentage would be much higher if Women are included, and if we account for
the lower financial requirement for warriors kit.
(is there a cultural link between the practice of the absolute monarch of
the family and the acceptance absolute monarch of the country? I would thnk
so!)
> > There seems to unfortunately be quasi political debate over who were
Celts
> > who were germans, who were germanic etc. The best evidence I have read,
> > certainly all the most recent books I own on the subject (about 30) call
> > Hallstadt culture a Celtic culture.
>
> Celtic is the name usually applied to a group of languages, as is
germanic.
> There is, or such is my point of view in that question, nothing to gain by
(snip)
> OTOH if you accept the Hallstatt culture as celtic, you would also have to
> accept the Urnfield period, as it comprises phases A and B of the
Hallstatt
> times while the later phases, C and D, are labelled as Hallstatt culture.
> And with the Urnfield culture you have a spread across Europe that can be
> hardly interpreted as being celtic in any meaningfull way.
The Halstadt era culture is considered synonymous with early Celtic culture
in all of the books I own without exception. I suppose Barry Cunlief, Peter
Barresford Ellis, and the other authors of these are on the Pan-Celtic side
of the debate.
There is certainly evidence of cultural continuity in artifacts, and also in
Classical art, between late Bronze age Celts in Anatolia, and much, much
later Celts from as far away as Spain, Gaul, and the British Isles.
Consider for example the similarity of the famous statue of "Dying Gaul"
from Pergamum, from his spiked hair to his torc and his military kit, to the
Gauls, Belgae and Britons described by Julius Caesar hundreds of years
later.
There are the identical names of tribes mentioned by Classical writers from
the Halstadt period with much later tribal names in the La Tene.
There is also the evidence of the two ('p' and 'q' IIRC) variants of the
Celtic language.
> > > With all due respect, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that
contamination
> > Greek and Roman society actively and passively influenced the Celts
toward
> > monarchy and toward a shift toward Classical cultural values. These
> > actually are too numerous to discuss in detail here, but I would just
> > out to such obvious evidence as coin minting, often of Greek or Roman
gods
> > or even of Greek or Roman political figures as Gods.
>
> Starting with the Late Latčne, yes.
>
> >There is also the
> > tradition of fostering, of taking hostages given in in the ancient
> > manner for peace treaties, and raising them to be kings. Even more
> > is the direct testimony of scores of Greek and Roman writers of their
> > nations direct interference in Celtic (and other Barbarians) culture
with
> > the explicit intention of making it more authoritarian. Perhaps the
stand
> > out here would be Julius Caesars appointment of puppet-kings from
> > 'aristocratic' families with the explicit stated intent to undermine
> > democratic tribal traditions.
>
> That describes the Late Latčne again.
Certainly the Romans and especially Greeks engaged in hostage exchange (and
therefore probably fostering) in their interractions with the Celts in what
would be the later Halstadt period depending on where you put the date range
of the Halstadt period.
Delphi was sacked by the Celts in 279 BC, Rome was first sacked in 387 BC.
And is it not likely that in the absorption of Cisalpine Gaul into the Roman
empire some of the same dynasty founding / puppet dictatorship methods used
by Caesar in his conquest of Gaul? The same thing does seem to have
happened in Spain, again in the very early LaTene era.
> > Since most of the Viking kings appeared toward the very end of the
Viking
> > era, and in fact most of the Viking kings converted to Christianity, I
> > that is obvious.
>
> One of those could have influenced the other, the establishment of
kingship,
> as a religious leadership, could as well have been the big step towards
> acceptance of the christian religion.
>
> But how far did it work? Childerich accepted the christian faith for his
> people, but we know, that many still believed in the old gods (and acted
> accordingly). Slav leaders were christened a number of times, even if I
> remember correctly, individuals. This did not make the christian faith
> exclusive.
>
> If I remember correctly pagan temples and their followers existed right up
> to the age of reformation, 15th c. AD, as long as they paid their dues and
> did not provocatively appear in the open. I fear written sources are a
> little biased in that matter.
With the exception of some places like Ireland, Christianity in Europe was
most often introduced from the top down, usually in a blatant political /
militry deal, and therefore in these places peasants frequently remained
pagan long after a country had become 'christian'. (Some historians claim
the persistance of witch cults etc. was a survival of the old pagan religion
well into the Renaissance and beyond to the periods of Witch burnings after
the Reformatin, and we know for example that the words "heathen" and "Pagan"
come from terms meaning peasants.)
Nevertheless, the society has accepted that the kings (Christian) law is the
rule of the land, (just as we know the kings english is the correct english
even if we speak slang) and therefore Christianity could perform it's
necessary function of undermining and eradicating customs the leadership
class didn't like. Whatever the throngs wanted to do, dance around may
poles or burn wicker men on Sam Hain, the important thing was that the
de-facto law of the land was based on the new religion.
> > Are Oseberg and Sutton Hoo burials of kings? Nope, probably not,
> > chieftains, beloved and respected warriors, certainly. Kings? I dont
> think
> > so.
>
> It is the uppermost status group as far as the archaeological record goes.
That doesnt prove that they were kings, does it? By that measure Bill Gates
would be the king of our society... well, maybe thats a bad analogy :| !
DB
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
As I'm a staunch Staufer adherent, you can be sure I had to try hard to
be nice...
Uwe Müller
>
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> > "Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
> snip >
> > Metal weapons seem to have been around in greater numbers in the bronze
> age.
>
> Thats correct, and it's because in the bronze age, once a mold is made for
a
> weapon, be it a spearhead, a dagger, a sword, or an axe blade, it can be
> poured over and over again, almost mass produced.
Its not all that easy.
There are three ways to make a mould, one is the hard mould, made from stone
or even metal. It could be used many times. A second is a clay mould, make a
piece of wax like the artefact you wand, cover it with clay, heat it to melt
the wax and harden the clay, pour in liquid metal. It's used only once than
broken. The third kind is made with sand. There is no archaeological record
for this, but there are so few of the other types, that some believe the
sand method must have been used widely.
There is still a lack of objects that were made from the same mould, so
there is no real evidence of mass production. Quite the contrary, hoards of
thesame types of artefacts, like sickles, contain dozens of individua
pieces, that were clearly not produced from the same mould.
> snip >
>
> > the top ranks graves. But it could point to a differentiation between
> > leaders of a whole people and leaders of the military fraction.
> > The break down of the long distance trading network in the late bronze
age
> > might have aided the latter in becoming more powerfull. There is another
> > major change in the middle Latčne period, and in the late Latčne (late
pre
> > roman iron age) there emerges a group of hereditary leaders.
>
> We cannot know really much at all about the actual leaderhip functions if
> any, based on the richer graves. Even the richest are certainly not
> necessarily more than one ambitious individual could accumulate in one
> lifetime of successful plunder and / or trade.
The obvious point are childrens graves fitted with the same kind of precious
objects, weapons and status indicating artefacts.
But there is one more difficulty, from the Hochdorf grave we know, that at
least some of the most precious objects were made especially for the
funeral, they did not belong to the person burioed while he was alive.
Uwe Müller
The female dress in the migration age showed whatis called a Guertelgarnitur
in German, a number of things, often with a key, hanging on a string from
the belt. As at least one of the germanic laws notes, that upon marriage,
the husband to be has to give a fully equipped house to his bride, which
becomes hers, as a future home of the family. In return he takes over the
price for the bride, to use as he pleases.
That is taken to mean, that he was a guest in the house of his family, that
she had absolute controll over domestic matters, the power of lock and key,
to hire and fire domestic personal. And he seems to have the same kind of
power over non-domestic affairs.
> We know women had the power to divorce, and could own property. We know
> that to rape a free woman was one of the few crimes warranting a death
> penalty. We even have legends of female warriors and pirates, not seen as
> enemies like the Greeks Amazons, but as heroes among the other heroes.
All
> of this (to me) tends to reinforce the likelyhood of some degree of
> importance of women in Norse society.
No problem with that, but I tend to see female power in the Merovingian age
as restricted to the house and garden, whereas male power was restricted to
the areas beyond.
From the medieval we know that a woman, whose husband died, could carry on
and manage the farm besides her domestic duties. But a man could not manage
the house beside his non-domestic duties.
> snip >
Only we don't know if the tribal names were used by the people named, or
simply labels put on anybody in a designated area by the classical authors.
From what I know, I believe the second case to be correct, as is shown in
the long use of the name of the scythians for people living in a certain
region and nor for people with a certain language, customs, etc.
>
> There is also the evidence of the two ('p' and 'q' IIRC) variants of the
> Celtic language.
But is there any kind of definition that may clarify what a celt was and
what not? Is there any custom, artefact assembly, social, military or
economic structure that is singular to celts?
>
> > > > With all due respect, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that
> contamination
> > > Greek and Roman society actively and passively influenced the Celts
> toward
> > > monarchy and toward a shift toward Classical cultural values. These
> > > actually are too numerous to discuss in detail here, but I would just
> > > out to such obvious evidence as coin minting, often of Greek or Roman
> gods
> > > or even of Greek or Roman political figures as Gods.
> >
> > Starting with the Late Latène, yes.
> >
> > >There is also the
> > > tradition of fostering, of taking hostages given in in the ancient
> > > manner for peace treaties, and raising them to be kings. Even more
> > > is the direct testimony of scores of Greek and Roman writers of their
> > > nations direct interference in Celtic (and other Barbarians) culture
> with
> > > the explicit intention of making it more authoritarian. Perhaps the
> stand
> > > out here would be Julius Caesars appointment of puppet-kings from
> > > 'aristocratic' families with the explicit stated intent to undermine
> > > democratic tribal traditions.
> >
> > That describes the Late Latène again.
>
>
>
> Certainly the Romans and especially Greeks engaged in hostage exchange
(and
> therefore probably fostering) in their interractions with the Celts in
what
> would be the later Halstadt period depending on where you put the date
range
> of the Halstadt period.
The Hallstatt Zeit, Hallstatt A to Hallstatt D, starts off with the Urnfield
culture era roughly around 1000 BC and goes on for about 500 years. About
500 BC the Latène age sets in. Some continuity there, but less than what I
would think necessary for an unbroken line of celtic development.
>
> Delphi was sacked by the Celts in 279 BC, Rome was first sacked in 387 BC.
That would be Middle Latène, the archaeological record shows a breaking off
of settlements, grave yards, etc. These are the first which I would call
celtic or gallic.
> And is it not likely that in the absorption of Cisalpine Gaul into the
Roman
> empire some of the same dynasty founding / puppet dictatorship methods
used
> by Caesar in his conquest of Gaul? The same thing does seem to have
> happened in Spain, again in the very early LaTene era.
5th c. BC? There is a wide distribution of craft working techniques at that
time, but afaik, the debate wether this is a spread of technology (social
and economical) or of a people or a culture, is far from decided. If you
compare the spread of wheel thrown pottery, or metallurgical expertise
(bothof those used to be called celtic inventions) to the north and north
east, you find the same sort of picture: some traits were adopted but much
more was developed from what was already there.
The question if there was a celto-iberian or an ibero-celtic culture is as
pointless as with the germano-celtic or celto-germanic people. And for me,
the earliest celtic writing, 'harigast' scratched upon a Negau type helmet,
could well be both celtic, or germanic.
I don't pretend to voice the majority opinion on the celtic-nonceltic
question for the Hallststt era, for the last 20 years I was busy with
medieval archaeology, only doing a little reading on the early iron age. But
I don't see any practical advantage in that label 'celtic', as it has been
and still is applied to a wide range of things.
> kings>
> That doesnt prove that they were kings, does it? By that measure Bill
Gates
> would be the king of our society... well, maybe thats a bad analogy :| !
I would call it a very clever one, it highlights the problems, and the
hopes, that are burdened onto the name of 'king' in a very modern way. Isn't
Microsoft, or at least computer technology, some sort or religion, always
promising paradise for the next generation of Windows users?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Tron
>
> Well, it's funny, because absolute monarchs certainly seeemed to exist in
> the classical world, in Rome for sure, in Greece, absolutely, in Egypt,
> without a doubt, and arguably in Mesopotamia... and many other points
> further East. So it's not true to say that it's a new invention, to the
> contrary, it's quite old indeed. It was only new in certain parts of
> Europe.
>
> In Northern Europe in fact, kingship, dictatorship, Imperial authority
> etc.
> obviously seemed to certainly take longer to reach the absolute level, and
> did so on a more gradual basis. On this perhaps we agree (?).
Yes.
Given the correctness of your initial premise, this is indeed the question
of questions.
I'm afraid it is (way) beyond my capabilities for even a remotely qualified,
non -WAG answer. We're almost down to questions about what constitutes a
historical explanation.
Economy based models would look for similar underlying economic conditions,
which might prove hard, seeing that the "antimonarchists" include e.g. both
Switzerland (alpine farmers) and Venice (urban merchants). /WAGing: the
farmers represented the resistence from the "past", i.e. "not yet ripe for
monarchy", which would put the Swiss in the same classs as other mouintain
farmers (Scandinavia) and other groups whose independence seems to be a
function of their distance, in miles or in inaccessibility (prussian knights
in swamp castles), from central authority, and on the other hand, pressure
from the "future", the cities, based on a mode of production which
economically already transscended the agriculture based power base of
feudalism. The difficulty with the latter would be to explain the IIRC
relatively frequent alliances between the Crown and the cities against the
aristocracy/.
I don't know what kind of explanatory model underlies the theory that old
institutions, or even the ideals underlying them, have the power to resist
the new.
T
Tron
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
news:BGW7e.69757$f%4.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Here's one for you:
I have certainly read many times
> that it was the case in Norse society that the Women of the household
> carried the keys and often made many or most of the business decisions of
> the farm, particularly when the men were away at sea as was often the case
> with many families.
The task was to have food all the year around. This task can be broken down
into two: To acquire the food when it was available, and to distribute the
food as the need arose.
The function interposed between these two, making the latter possible, was
to preserve the food from the time of acquisition to the time of
distribution.
In Norse society (at least), this division of labour followed the gender
divide.
The husband's job was one of getting the food in, the wife would take over
and do the preservation, storage and distribution. This was economically as
important as getting the food in, and so a good "house mamager" was of
supreme economic importance, as symbolized by the keys.
I've been shooed out of farm kitchens myself, so the custom seems to have
clung.
FWIW, the Scandinavian coutries are even today societies where females enjoy
more rights than even close neighbours. They also remain fairly egalitarian
in outlook compared to class societies like UK.
> We know women had the power to divorce, and could own property. We know
> that to rape a free woman was one of the few crimes warranting a death
> penalty.
See also the cited laws that permittee thrall revenge for the seduction of a
thrall's wife. Would hardly seem probable under Caligula.
T
Larry Swain
All kings lead out of respect for that matter--if they lose respect of
those they lead they tend to get removed from power, or become a king in
name only. ANd in Beowulf there are multiple compounds on the king
and power and leadership. But I suppose it depends on what you mean by
king...
Larry Swain
Uwe Müller wrote:
>>>Starting with the Late Latčne, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is also the
>>>>tradition of fostering, of taking hostages given in in the ancient
>>>>manner for peace treaties, and raising them to be kings. Even more
>>>>is the direct testimony of scores of Greek and Roman writers of their
>>>>nations direct interference in Celtic (and other Barbarians) culture
>>
>>with
>>
>>>>the explicit intention of making it more authoritarian. Perhaps the
>>
>>stand
>>
>>>>out here would be Julius Caesars appointment of puppet-kings from
>>>>'aristocratic' families with the explicit stated intent to undermine
>>>>democratic tribal traditions.
>>>
>>>That describes the Late Latčne again.
>>
>>
>>
>>Certainly the Romans and especially Greeks engaged in hostage exchange
>
> (and
>
>>therefore probably fostering) in their interractions with the Celts in
>
> what
>
>>would be the later Halstadt period depending on where you put the date
>
> range
>
>>of the Halstadt period.
>
>
> The Hallstatt Zeit, Hallstatt A to Hallstatt D, starts off with the Urnfield
> culture era roughly around 1000 BC and goes on for about 500 years. About
> 500 BC the Latčne age sets in. Some continuity there, but less than what I
> would think necessary for an unbroken line of celtic development.
YOu know, this is an area that it would be helpful to have a good, up to
date bibliography on on the SHM website, not only medieval archaeology
in general, but specifically Hallstatt, and the related issues you folks
are talking about in this thread.
>
>
>>Delphi was sacked by the Celts in 279 BC, Rome was first sacked in 387 BC.
>
>
> That would be Middle Latčne, the archaeological record shows a breaking off
erilar
<uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> But
> I don't see any practical advantage in that label 'celtic', as it has been
> and still is applied to a wide range of things.
It seems to have become as inexact as "feudalism" 8-)
erilar
<uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> The third kind is made with sand. There is no archaeological record
> for this, but there are so few of the other types, that some believe the
> sand method must have been used widely.
I've seen jewelry made this way(I have a piece) and although only one
piece can be made at a time, the sand can certainly be used over and
over.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Müller) wrote:
> The third kind is made with sand. There is no archaeological record
> for this, but there are so few of the other types, that some
> believe the sand method must have been used widely.
Having had practical experience of sand casting, I can testify it is
not that difficult. In fact I was taught how to do it in a secondary
school metal work class. The various sources I have seen for clay
casting indicate that identifiable mould fragments are unlikely to be
identifiable. Getting the object out of the mould usually resulted in
the mould being destroyed. Lost wax is not the only way to make a clay
mould by the way. For symmetrical castings like spear heads it is
possible to just press a pattern into clay to half depth to produce
half a mould. Lost wax seems to have been restricted to sculptors.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Soren Larsen
>> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> skrev i melding
> You are missing the point entirely. If the difference between a
> warrior and a non-combattant requires say, the possession of a mail
> coat, two or three warhorses, a sword, shield, helmet, and steel
> tipped lance, with hundreds of hours of training required to use
> them, then you can certainly expect a wide social gap between
> warriors and peasants as you precicely did have in medieval Europe.
>
> If on the other hand all that is required to be a basic warrior is a
> stone tipped spear, a hardwood club or an axe, and maybe a shield,
> and furthermore the skills required for the type of fighting done are
> similar to those for hunting which most males engage in, then
> virtually anybody with the balls to fight can do so. Thus social
> stratification between fighters and non fighters is not nearly so
> sharp, and thus your "warrior democracy" is much more egalitarian.
> As it was among the Vikings, and in many cases the pagan Germans and
> Celts before them.
A north germanic grunt around AD 200 would carry; a shield,
a couple of light barbed javelins, a long stabbing lance, maybe a sword,
a battle knife, a personal knife, a military belt,a bandolier,
a personal belt with a purse containg equipment for personal hygiene,
coins, amulets, strike-a-light a.s.o .
The weapons would either be local made or roman imports with
little or no reworking done on them and all metal objects would be iron
and the items seems to have been made in batches.
He would be wearing shirt, trousers and leather shoes and he would
likely be clean shaven or having a mustache based on the few germanic
depictions of soldiers we have.
A high ranking officer would be mounted, have a sword , and maybe
wearing a mail shirt besides having the same type of equipment as the
grunts.
His equipment would however be tailor made to fit him or his horse
indicating the use of trined war horses.
Metals like bronze, silver and gold would have been used
to adorn the objects. Almost all objects would be of germanic
manufacture and if roman objects were used, they would be reworked
to appear germanic in style.
2 layers of officers can be identifyed based on differences in the
equipment.
There is basicly no doubt that a layer of soldiers distinguishable from
people militia existed at the time and that even the army had
a form of stratification.
The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
line formation.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
> The Goths were believed to be directly related to the Vikings, their
> ancestors in fact,
Not anymore.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Drifter Bob
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> A north germanic grunt around AD 200 would carry; a shield,
If you are mixing scandinavians and germans here, you are probably making a
mistake. At every verifiable point there were major differences in material
culture.
> a couple of light barbed javelins, a long stabbing lance, maybe a sword,
> a battle knife, a personal knife, a military belt,a bandolier,
> a personal belt with a purse containg equipment for personal hygiene,
> coins, amulets, strike-a-light a.s.o .
>
> The weapons would either be local made or roman imports with
> little or no reworking done on them and all metal objects would be iron
> and the items seems to have been made in batches.
There were several European centers of ironmaking continuously active from
the La Tene Celtic era to the period you refer to above (200 AD). For
example, the Celtic Helvetians, still autonomous in their fastnesses in the
Alps (in of what is now modern day Switzerland) were manufacturing arms of
extremely high quality, rivaling that of anything the Romans made. The
northern Scandinavians were also making extremely fine weapons in this
period or shortly afterword.
The gerrman tribes, by contrast, were notoriously iron-poor even this late
in the game.
> There is basicly no doubt that a layer of soldiers distinguishable from
> people militia existed at the time and that even the army had
> a form of stratification.
What happend to these professional soldier classes in Scandinavia then? Are
we to believe that they melted away by the beginning of the Viking age?
> The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
> hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
> line formation.
And then what? Is there any evidence of advanced tactical formations
requiring special skills or training to fight from? Much of the infantry
just charged in and fought with exactly the same weapons (spear, sax, axe,
javelin) that they used when hunting.
> > The Goths were believed to be directly related to the Vikings, their
> > ancestors in fact,
>
> Not anymore.
According to who?
DB
Soren Larsen
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
>
>> A north germanic grunt around AD 200 would carry; a shield,
>
> If you are mixing scandinavians and germans here, you are probably
> making a mistake. At every verifiable point there were major
> differences in material culture.
Not really.
Any differences are more in style and material than in function
.
Lance heads would have a different shape but lances would
be the primary weapon in both areas, strike a lights would be
made from different materials but all would have them. Combs
would likewise be differently made but common equipment in
both areas.
There is afaik know no greater variation in material culture
between germanic Scandinavia and the rest of Germania than
you find inside these areas at this point in time.
In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential
difference between the weapons from Scandinavia and the
weapons from Northern Germany found in the Danish sacrifices.
If you want to look at difference in material culture then the
distance from the roman border is a factor. Near the border
you had a market zone integrated in the roman economy with lots
of ordinary roman goods and evidence of roman coinage
being used in day to day transaction.
Behind this zone you find the socalled rich burial zone with
lots of roman luxury products and roman gold coinage and
evidence of power centres in control of redistribution
of the roman goods. This zone stretched from Denmark
in the northwest trough eastern Germany and Poland
down to the Black Sea hinterland.
Behind this zone you find a poorer area with some evidence of
instability - the warrior burial zone.
>> a couple of light barbed javelins, a long stabbing lance, maybe a
>> sword, a battle knife, a personal knife, a military belt,a
>> bandolier,
>> a personal belt with a purse containg equipment for personal
>> hygiene, coins, amulets, strike-a-light a.s.o .
>>
>> The weapons would either be local made or roman imports with
>> little or no reworking done on them and all metal objects would be
>> iron and the items seems to have been made in batches.
>
> There were several European centers of ironmaking continuously active
> from the La Tene Celtic era to the period you refer to above (200
> AD). For example, the Celtic Helvetians, still autonomous in their
> fastnesses in the Alps (in of what is now modern day Switzerland)
> were manufacturing arms of extremely high quality, rivaling that of
> anything the Romans made. The northern Scandinavians were also
> making extremely fine weapons in this period or shortly afterword.
Again there is as much difference inside Sc as outside.
You had specialised iron production sites in Norway at this point
in time showing some sort of centralisation.
Large scale bog iron production was however not yet up and
running in the Danish area, even though there was no shortage
of weapons.
The time around AD 200 is BTW also the period where rune
writing catches on in South Sca.
Scandinavia would be unique in prehistory if writing was not
adopted to aid central administration and glorify the elite and
it is no wonder that it is on the weapons and jewellery of the elite
that we find most of the early rune writing..
>
> The gerrman tribes, by contrast, were notoriously iron-poor even this
> late in the game.
Not compared to Sc.
Anyway should you ponder why Marcus Aurelius needed 15 years
to fight the Marcomanni and Quadi to a glorious status quo in the
late 2nd c, if all the germanics could come up with was individuals
fighting with bone tipped spears.
>
>> There is basicly no doubt that a layer of soldiers distinguishable
>> from people militia existed at the time and that even the army had
>> a form of stratification.
>
> What happend to these professional soldier classes in Scandinavia
> then?
They used the next centuries until the early 6th slugging it out
as evidenced in the sacrifices.
Then the sacrifices comes to a sudden stop.
Maybe they just stopped dumping the enemy gear into lakes.
Maybe the territories were carved out by then. It is interesting
that the Danes and their king (Chochilaicus, Hygelac, Hugleik)
appear in the sources for the first time by then.
Maybe it has somthing to do with the western empire finally
caving in, and the changes that caused in trade pattens and society.
>Are we to believe that they melted away by the beginning of
> the Viking age?
Society was definitely changed at the beginning of the viking
age, when the Danish king Godfred could get away with telling
Charlemagne to chill off, if liked his capital to stay intact.
This is also the time where you see really big public construction
like the Dannevirke (AD 650) controlling access to Jutland and
the Kanhave channel (AD 726) making it possible for a fleet
stationed in the Great Belt to control the routes on both sides of
Samsų.
At this point in time do you also have the first coinage in Denmark
at Ribe and there is really no doubt that a form of royal power
was established.
>
>> The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
>> hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
>> line formation.
>
> And then what? Is there any evidence of advanced tactical formations
> requiring special skills or training to fight from?
Any form of formation fighting requires -a lot of -training to be
effective allthough the germanics of course was a long way from
roman standards.
Anyway would there be no use for a command structure if
all just charged the enemy, every man for himself.
The command structure evidenced in the sacrifices gives
us 1 low level officer to each 8 grunts which is the same
relation as in the basic roman army unit; the contubernium.
This ratio is constant in all the weapon sacrifices.
The structure evidenced in the sacrifices with two level
of officers above the grunts are also cooperated by the
roman sources.
You have Tacitus describing germanic armies seperated
in princeps, comites, and pedites.
300 years later do you have Ammianus Marcellinus
seperating the germanic armies in reges, optimates, and armatores.
> Much of the
> infantry just charged in and fought with exactly the same weapons
> (spear, sax, axe, javelin) that they used when hunting.
Actually the germanics didn't hunt to any significant degree.
The remains of wild animals in their middens are always
in the single digit percentages.
The elite however can be found buried with hunting equipment
as a a sign of their elavated status!
>
>>> The Goths were believed to be directly related to the Vikings, their
>>> ancestors in fact,
>>
>> Not anymore.
>
> According to who?
It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
the track stops dead cold there.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
erilar
Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
> It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
> back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
> the track stops dead cold there.
8-) I've just been reading about that!
NO @spambasunthank.younet Tomas By
> It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
> back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
> the track stops dead cold there.
So what do people belive then? That they came by boat from some other
part of the world and the names Gotland and Götaland are not related
to them?
I note that Wolfram, History of the Goths, (1990) discusses the
supposed Swedish origin. There are no other hypotheses AFAIK.
/Tomas
Alan Crozier
news:87d1x92...@nats18.informatik.uni-hamburg.de...
Anders Kaliff, a serious and respected archaeologist from Linköping, has a
good little book called Gothic Connections, tracing contacts between eastern
Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC to 500 AD.
I think it's obvious that the Goths came from Scandinavia, as Jordanes says.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Soren Larsen
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> writes:
>> It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
>> back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
>> the track stops dead cold there.
>
> So what do people belive then? That they came by boat from some other
> part of the world
The Wielbark culture originated in Poland _and goes back to before
the genesis of the germanics_ around 500 BC.
So if we accept that the Wielbark is the Goths at an early stage, then we
really
dont have to search any further.
It wouldn't make sense to speak about a germanic people before there
was germanics around.
> and the names Gotland and Götaland are not related
> to them?
The names can very well be related.
This however does not indicate that the people involved have a
parent - offspring, or sibling relation.
>
> I note that Wolfram, History of the Goths, (1990) discusses the
> supposed Swedish origin.
That is a bit of an overstatement.
"The Gothic-Gautic people of the Baltic-Scandinavian North
will be mentioned for the sake of completeness, but a historical
discussion of these peoples can hardly go beyond the mentioning
of their names"
> There are no other hypotheses AFAIK.
Hypothesises doesn't matter without evidence.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Larry Swain
Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look for the book. In the
meantime, could you give a few reasons why you (and he) think that?
Larry Swain
Soren Larsen wrote:
> Tomas By wrote:
>
>>"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> writes:
>>
>>>It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
>>>back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
>>>the track stops dead cold there.
>>
>>So what do people belive then? That they came by boat from some other
>>part of the world
>
>
> The Wielbark culture originated in Poland _and goes back to before
> the genesis of the germanics_ around 500 BC.
>
> So if we accept that the Wielbark is the Goths at an early stage, then we
> really
> dont have to search any further.
>
> It wouldn't make sense to speak about a germanic people before there
> was germanics around.
>
>
>
>>and the names Gotland and Götaland are not related
>>to them?
>
>
> The names can very well be related.
Just to add a half penny, this is true. The languages after all belong
to the same family, and hadn't differentiated that far by that point.
So entirely possible to have the names derive from the same Germanic
root word and not be related to one another save through that distant
etymology.
Soren Larsen
> Alan Crozier wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anders Kaliff, a serious and respected archaeologist from Linköping,
>> has a good little book called Gothic Connections, tracing contacts
>> between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC to
>> 500 AD. I think it's obvious that the Goths came from Scandinavia, as
>> Jordanes says.
>
> Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look for the book. In the
> meantime, could you give a few reasons why you (and he) think that?
There is an abstract of Kaliffs book in english at:
http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/publications/opia/gothicabstract.htm
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Alan Crozier
Jordanes and the linguistic connection (especially the names of the Goths
and Gotland). But I admit that most archaeologists can't see any evidence of
a migration from Scandinavia.
(On the other hand, most archaeologists nowadays are reluctant to see any
migrations anywhere unless there is compelling written evidence.)
Drifter Bob
> > If you are mixing scandinavians and germans here, you are probably
> > making a mistake. At every verifiable point there were major
> > differences in material culture.
>
> Not really.
>
> Any differences are more in style and material than in function
It's a bit facile to dismiss "style and material" as if to say, a wooden
sword was as effective as a bronze sword was as effective as a steely iron
one..... or a small wicker shield was as effective as the large composite
wood shield of the Romans... it certainly depends how you define style and
material and how you define function.
> Lance heads would have a different shape but lances would
> be the primary weapon in both areas, strike a lights would be
> made from different materials but all would have them. Combs
... or to point out that 'lances' were the primary weapon, since spears of
one type or another were the primary weapon all over the world from the
neolithic until the Renaissance.
Incidentally, English may not be your first language, but a lance means
specifically a thrusting spear used from horseback, while the equivalent
weapon used by ground fighters (infantry) would be considered more
generically a 'spear'. For that matter up to this point it is also arguable
whether the thrusting spear was as important of a weapon as the throwing
spear or javelin, for both ground troops and (especially) cavalry.
> would likewise be differently made but common equipment in
> both areas.
>
> There is afaik know no greater variation in material culture
> between germanic Scandinavia and the rest of Germania than
> you find inside these areas at this point in time.
>
> In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
> north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential
LOL!
Are you trying to say that Scandinavians and Germans are the same people as
of 200 AD?
> If you want to look at difference in material culture then the
> distance from the roman border is a factor. Near the border
That is one factor, so are the broad cultural zones which are widely
recognized by a consensus of historians....
> Again there is as much difference inside Sc as outside.
Some broad differences between Celtic, German, and Scandinavian cultures:
All three cultures are known to have different languages, as is indicated in
place names among a variety of other evidence (coins, artifacts, runic
inscriptions, and written observations by Classical witnesses).
Scandinavians and Celts were both known by contemporary reports for using
lye soap for washing their bodies, the german tribes did not.
The Celts made large hill-forts or Opiidae which neither the Scandinavians
or Germans did at this time.
The Celts excelled at all forms of metalurgy, particularly ironwork, gold
and bronze, and also excelled at making artifacts from colored glass, such
as bracelets and rings which are virtually unknown in the German areas. La
Tene era Celts use gold as a medium for many of their religious artifacts,
rarely silver. Silver was on the other hand popular witrh the
Scandinavians. The Celts were associated with wheel 'money' and also minted
their own coins, which again, the Germans rarely did. Also pottery which
has striking edges. The were also fairly unique artifacts such as bottles
for urine used to brush teeth
Scandinavians had ship burials which Celts and Germans did not.
The Celts imported wine in much greater quantities than either the Germans
or Scandinavians who did not seem to have as much of a taste for it.
The Celts made sling stones from baked loam.
Germans used the angon type spear, later ahelespiess, derived from Roman
Pilum. Celts did not use this type of weapon.
Germans military axes, relatively uncommon among Celts
Celtic stone buildings and fortresses had niches for head-hunting, uncommon
in German sites
The Celts had a notably different religion from the Germans, evidence for
which is seen in untold numbers of artifacts, coins, place names, individual
names. Celtic religion centered on fire, water, trees, German relgion
chiefly of sky gods
Celtic religion is similar to earlier (Vanir) Religion in Scandinavia, later
(Aesir) religion more like German
Celtic art often portrayed horses and human figures, again rare in German
art.
> You had specialised iron production sites in Norway at this point
> in time showing some sort of centralisation.
>
> Large scale bog iron production was however not yet up and
> running in the Danish area, even though there was no shortage
> of weapons.
As you are no doubt aware Denmark (Jutland) was an area which lagged far
behind in metalurgy, using stone weapons well into the Bronze age. These
are famously some of the best stone weapons (daggers) crafted to resemble
bronze equivalents.
> Scandinavia would be unique in prehistory if writing was not
> adopted to aid central administration and glorify the elite and
> it is no wonder that it is on the weapons and jewellery of the elite
> that we find most of the early rune writing..
Seeing as the range between the personal wealth of a farmer to that of the
greatest elite amounted to a few horses or a boat, it was hardly proof of an
entrenched aristocracy, and you are equating wealth with authority which was
not always the case in Viking Age Scandinavia.
> > The gerrman tribes, by contrast, were notoriously iron-poor even this
> > late in the game.
>
> Not compared to Sc.
They were based on archeological finds
> Anyway should you ponder why Marcus Aurelius needed 15 years
> to fight the Marcomanni and Quadi to a glorious status quo in the
> late 2nd c, if all the germanics could come up with was individuals
> fighting with bone tipped spears.
>
By the 2nd Century Germans had been fighting in the Roman Army for 200
years, and trading across the border for this entire period. It is well
known that the Roman disaster at Teutoburg forest alone garnered a huge
amount of military equipment for the German tribes
That said, the Germans successes against the Romans always had as least as
much to do with terrain (heavy forest) as with either equipment, leadership,
or fighting skill
Finally the primary weapons the early Germans seemed to use were
protoswords, flat hardwood clubs, as well as fire hardened wooden spears
without points. There are descriptions where the first rank of German
armies have iron tipped spears, the ranks behind have these clubs (described
in detail by Sir Richard Burton in his "Book of the Sword") similar to
Native American and Maori war-clubs.
> > What happend to these professional soldier classes in Scandinavia
> > then?
>
> They used the next centuries until the early 6th slugging it out
> as evidenced in the sacrifices.
>
> Then the sacrifices comes to a sudden stop.
>
> Maybe they just stopped dumping the enemy gear into lakes.
That is an amusing notion. Would they be the first and only military
aristocracy to renounce power and return to equal status with the masses in
the whole world until modern times?
Because certainly in Norway and most of Sweden, there was no authority above
the rank of Hersir in the early Viking age. Even in Denmark, the "kings"
who came and went in that time and before were little more than 'first among
equals', to use a Scandinavian term, leaders of confederations of petty
chieftains.
> Maybe it has somthing to do with the western empire finally
> caving in, and the changes that caused in trade pattens and society.
>
This is enough to make the Leopard change its spots eh?
> >Are we to believe that they melted away by the beginning of
> > the Viking age?
>
> Society was definitely changed at the beginning of the viking
> age, when the Danish king Godfred could get away with telling
> Charlemagne to chill off, if liked his capital to stay intact.
We have little evidence that Godfred was a king in the absolute sense, as
you no doubt well know, or even that he was a 'king' at all and not merely
the most prominent of a group of chieftains...
> This is also the time where you see really big public construction
> like the Dannevirke (AD 650) controlling access to Jutland and
> the Kanhave channel (AD 726) making it possible for a fleet
> stationed in the Great Belt to control the routes on both sides of
> Samsų.
ROFL! Just because large scale projects are being done, doesn't mean you
have to have centralized leadership. Neolithic peoples created all kinds of
monuments (Menhir) without centralized leadership of any kind.
> >> The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
> >> hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
> >> line formation.
> >
> > And then what? Is there any evidence of advanced tactical formations
> > requiring special skills or training to fight from?
>
> Any form of formation fighting requires -a lot of -training to be
> effective allthough the germanics of course was a long way from
> roman standards.
You can say that again. There is no evidence that formation was maintained
beyond an initial line-up in any early German v. Roman battles on record.
> Anyway would there be no use for a command structure if
> all just charged the enemy, every man for himself.
>
> The command structure evidenced in the sacrifices gives
> us 1 low level officer to each 8 grunts which is the same
> relation as in the basic roman army unit; the contubernium.
(bunch of B.S. snipped)
You are inventing a steep hierarchy based on the existance of household
leaderes or petty chieftains, hardly evidence for centralized authority.
> You have Tacitus describing germanic armies seperated
> in princeps, comites, and pedites.
The Romans projected much of their own social structure on other peoples,
Tacitus assumed that the Germans and Celts alike all worshiped one form or
other of Roman gods.
Tacitus also said that the Germans voted on major decisions, he mocked them
for the inefficiency of having to gather all members of the tribe together
to form a grand council to decide on matters of import... or did you forget
this part?
> Actually the germanics didn't hunt to any significant degree.
The Romans describe hunting the Aurochs in particular as a right of passage
for many German tribes, and several observers including tacitus describe
them as hunting.
> The remains of wild animals in their middens are always
> in the single digit percentages.
They reached their large stature on diets of millet from their vast
agricultural holdings, no doubt...
> The elite however can be found buried with hunting equipment
> as a a sign of their elavated status!
Thats an amusing concept. A hunting spear makes you king!
> It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
> back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
> the track stops dead cold there.
>
As pointed out in the rest of this thread, your theories about Goths coming
from Poland are unfounded and unsupported by the consensus of the historical
or anthropological communities...
DB
Alaca
> [...]
> The were also fairly unique artifacts such as bottles for urine
> [...]
Please tell me more. How did they look like?
--
- Peter Alaca -
Uwe Müller
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:XJlae.94543$f%4.5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> > Drifter Bob wrote:
> snip >
>
> > Lance heads would have a different shape but lances would
> > be the primary weapon in both areas, strike a lights would be
> > made from different materials but all would have them. Combs
>
> ... or to point out that 'lances' were the primary weapon, since spears of
> one type or another were the primary weapon all over the world from the
> neolithic until the Renaissance.
>
> Incidentally, English may not be your first language,
As Archaeology isn't your first subject.
>but a lance means
> specifically a thrusting spear used from horseback, while the equivalent
> weapon used by ground fighters (infantry) would be considered more
> generically a 'spear'. For that matter up to this point it is also
arguable
> whether the thrusting spear was as important of a weapon as the throwing
> spear or javelin, for both ground troops and (especially) cavalry.
Since riding came relatively late to Europe, early iron age, and by your own
defintion the spear is restricted to being wielded from horseback, the spear
simply can't have been the primary weapon since the Neolithic. See the other
exemptions you note further down.
>
> > would likewise be differently made but common equipment in
> > both areas.
> >
> > There is afaik know no greater variation in material culture
> > between germanic Scandinavia and the rest of Germania than
> > you find inside these areas at this point in time.
> >
> > In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
> > north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential
>
> LOL!
> Are you trying to say that Scandinavians and Germans are the same people
as
> of 200 AD?
If you would have looked in a modern archaeological text dealing with the
time, you would have known he was correct. There is locally or regionally
produced ceramics, which shows different decorations in different regions.
There are regional variations in burial rites but cremation is the rule.
And the Knickwandtopf (biconical vessel) or the Rauhtopf (vessel with
roughened exterior) are found in a much greater area, going beyond those
regional variations.
From linguistic evidence the split between Germanic and Old Norse is much
later than 200 AD.
>
> > If you want to look at difference in material culture then the
> > distance from the roman border is a factor. Near the border
>
> That is one factor, so are the broad cultural zones which are widely
> recognized by a consensus of historians....
By what evidence? Tacitaean tribal names?
He did not argue against regional variation, but against a notable
difference between southern Scandiavia and northern Germany. The differences
between the Hamburg area and Westfalia are bigger than the differences
between Hamburg and Jutland.
>
> > Again there is as much difference inside Sc as outside.
>
>
> Some broad differences between Celtic, German, and Scandinavian cultures:
>
> All three cultures are known to have different languages, as is indicated
in
> place names among a variety of other evidence (coins, artifacts, runic
> inscriptions, and written observations by Classical witnesses).
There are some tribes that have been called celtic by your classical
witnesses, that we know by settlement pattern, material culture and burial
rites to have been germanic.
If your only evidence is classic descriptions and you rely uncritical on
these, you will miss both uniformity and differences beween those
populations.
>
> Scandinavians and Celts were both known by contemporary reports for using
> lye soap for washing their bodies, the german tribes did not.
Too shy to wash in front of Classical writers?
>
> The Celts made large hill-forts or Opiidae which neither the Scandinavians
> or Germans did at this time.
Some Celts did at some time, yes. But which Celtic oppidum was founded
around 200 AD? Or before 200 BC?
>
> The Celts excelled at all forms of metalurgy, particularly ironwork, gold
> and bronze,
As did the Germans and the Scandinavians, each people in their own time. Is
it disturbing you, that their is little original celtic metal work in the
Migration age?
> and also excelled at making artifacts from colored glass, such
> as bracelets and rings which are virtually unknown in the German areas.
La
> Tene era Celts use gold as a medium for many of their religious artifacts,
> rarely silver. Silver was on the other hand popular witrh the
> Scandinavians.
Or: The Celts got gold from plundering the Mediterranean and being
mercenaries there. The germanic people only found silver left, when they
tried to plunder.
Or: Everybody used the precious metals available to them at the time. People
in the former celticae used silver at the time of the Vikings too.
> The Celts were associated with wheel 'money' and also minted
> their own coins, which again, the Germans rarely did. Also pottery which
> has striking edges. The were also fairly unique artifacts such as bottles
> for urine used to brush teeth
>
> Scandinavians had ship burials which Celts and Germans did not.
Celts had waggon burials, which the Scandinavians and Germans did not have,
and the celts would not have 300 years later. Burial customs change. But in
all three societies some special people were buried with a mode of
transportation, be it horses, waggons or ships. the number of people given a
transportation in burial would be more interesting to compare.
>
> The Celts imported wine in much greater quantities than either the Germans
> or Scandinavians who did not seem to have as much of a taste for it.
That largely depends on where and when. Apart from the classical authors the
material evidence points to little use of wine north of the Alps. But metal
wine
drinking vessels reached Scandinavia not long after they reached southern
Germany.
>
> The Celts made sling stones from baked loam.
Much of Germany and Scandinavia have enough real stones lying around, so
they would not have used cheap celtic imitations.
>
> Germans used the angon type spear, later ahelespiess, derived from Roman
> Pilum. Celts did not use this type of weapon.
Above you wrote the spear was universally used. Now the celts don't know it.
And the Ango is not a pan-germanic weapon, but a merovingian one. It was
created for a special purpose in a special time and place. And it was not
the most common weapon. It made the heavy roman shield ineffective when
stabbed into it and when the warriors could than step on the end. By your
own definition it was a lance, with a three foot long tip, so the o ther
warrior could not simply cut it of.
>
> Germans military axes, relatively uncommon among Celts
Axes are again pretty restricted in time and space as a weapon and far from
being pan-germanic.
>
> Celtic stone buildings and fortresses had niches for head-hunting,
uncommon
> in German sites
There must be an impressing number of "German" stone buildings and
fortresses lacking niches to be able to call them uncommon. And how many are
their from celtic areas? Just a few from southern France?
>
> The Celts had a notably different religion from the Germans, evidence for
> which is seen in untold numbers of artifacts, coins, place names,
individual
> names. Celtic religion centered on fire, water, trees, German relgion
> chiefly of sky gods
Only the germanic religious sites were dedicated to water, trees, etc. And
they had lots of beliefs centered on the fire place. Apart from that, of
course, they only ever believed in sky gods, or so the classical authors
tell? No, not even those.
>
> Celtic religion is similar to earlier (Vanir) Religion in Scandinavia,
later
> (Aesir) religion more like German
From what you describe, from the differences you list, it becomes clear that
much of those differences are in fact differences in time. Roughly you seem
to call the last 500 years BC Celtic, the first 500 AD German and the 2nd
500 years AD Scandinavian.
>
> Celtic art often portrayed horses and human figures, again rare in German
> art.
Realistic or figurative art is rare in both celtic and germanic craft
working. You could have noted, that germanic art favoured geometric designs
while celtic artists favoured floral designs. And Scandinavia otoh has a
long tradition of rock art, of stylized represantations of danzers, faces,
riders horses and oxen.
>
> > You had specialised iron production sites in Norway at this point
> > in time showing some sort of centralisation.
> >
> > Large scale bog iron production was however not yet up and
> > running in the Danish area, even though there was no shortage
> > of weapons.
>
> As you are no doubt aware Denmark (Jutland) was an area which lagged far
> behind in metalurgy, using stone weapons well into the Bronze age. These
> are famously some of the best stone weapons (daggers) crafted to resemble
> bronze equivalents.
It is not Denmark alone,in Germany stone tools were regularly used till the
late bronze age, too. there is only little copper and tin in those areas.
But they had lots of bog iron, so the coming of iron metallurgy made metal
cheap and available.
>
> > Scandinavia would be unique in prehistory if writing was not
> > adopted to aid central administration and glorify the elite and
> > it is no wonder that it is on the weapons and jewellery of the elite
> > that we find most of the early rune writing..
>
> Seeing as the range between the personal wealth of a farmer to that of the
> greatest elite amounted to a few horses or a boat, it was hardly proof of
an
> entrenched aristocracy, and you are equating wealth with authority which
was
> not always the case in Viking Age Scandinavia.
I'll follow you there, but I have to admit that there are things validating
his claim and very few to proove ours.
>
> > > The gerrman tribes, by contrast, were notoriously iron-poor even this
> > > late in the game.
> >
> > Not compared to Sc.
>
> They were based on archeological finds
They did have substantial iron works, places were a larger group of people
produced iron in greater quantities, where there was a kind of split-up of
the work between miners, smelters, lumberjacks and coal burners and smiths.
Lots of references from the archaeological side, if you are interested (and
can access and read German books).
>
>snip >
> That said, the Germans successes against the Romans always had as least as
> much to do with terrain (heavy forest) as with either equipment,
leadership,
> or fighting skill
>
> Finally the primary weapons the early Germans seemed to use were
> protoswords,
Above you wrote, the spear was the primary weapons. Than you added, only the
Celts didn't know it. Now the Early Germans didn't know the spear either.
And did someone really print that stuff about woode proto-swords? German and
south Scandinavian swords were widely acknowledged the best in the Bronze
age, they were found as far as Egypt. Why should they use wooden ones a
couple of centuries later?
>
> flat hardwood clubs, as well as fire hardened wooden spears
> without points. There are descriptions where the first rank of German
> armies have iron tipped spears, the ranks behind have these clubs
(described
> in detail by Sir Richard Burton in his "Book of the Sword") similar to
> Native American and Maori war-clubs.
Maybe you shoul have a look at some less fancifull but more artefacts based
literarture.
> They used the next centuries until the early 6th slugging it out
> > as evidenced in the sacrifices.
> >
> > Then the sacrifices comes to a sudden stop.
> >
> > Maybe they just stopped dumping the enemy gear into lakes.
>
> That is an amusing notion. Would they be the first and only military
> aristocracy to renounce power and return to equal status with the masses
in
> the whole world until modern times?
How did you get this out of what he rode?
>
> Because certainly in Norway and most of Sweden, there was no authority
above
> the rank of Hersir in the early Viking age. Even in Denmark, the "kings"
> who came and went in that time and before were little more than 'first
among
> equals', to use a Scandinavian term, leaders of confederations of petty
> chieftains.
>
> > Maybe it has somthing to do with the western empire finally
> > caving in, and the changes that caused in trade pattens and society.
> >
> This is enough to make the Leopard change its spots eh?
If he has been relying on foreigners to colour up his spots, to provide him
with fangs and claws, power and stamina, he may well have to.
>
> > >Are we to believe that they melted away by the beginning of
> > > the Viking age?
> >
> > Society was definitely changed at the beginning of the viking
> > age, when the Danish king Godfred could get away with telling
> > Charlemagne to chill off, if liked his capital to stay intact.
>
> We have little evidence that Godfred was a king in the absolute sense, as
> you no doubt well know, or even that he was a 'king' at all and not merely
> the most prominent of a group of chieftains...
>
> > This is also the time where you see really big public construction
> > like the Dannevirke (AD 650) controlling access to Jutland and
> > the Kanhave channel (AD 726) making it possible for a fleet
> > stationed in the Great Belt to control the routes on both sides of
> > Samsų.
>
> ROFL! Just because large scale projects are being done, doesn't mean you
> have to have centralized leadership. Neolithic peoples created all kinds
of
> monuments (Menhir) without centralized leadership of any kind.
A menhir is a single standing stone, that could well have been raised by the
adults of a bigger farm or a small hamlet. Stone circles and hill-forts are
bigger projects, that would need some kind of regional assistance. There are
ceremonioal sites, like Stonehenge with the cursus and outlying earthworks,
or the sites around the Glauberg in Germany, that needed a regional and
efficient leadership, no amateurs.
The examples Soren cited, I could add the canal of Charlemagne linking Rhine
and Danube, are, in my opinion, projects that go beyond that kind of thing,
that could not have been created by general acceptance alone.
If you take a king to be someone able to enforce his decision, those
projects would be a good marker for the emergence of kingship.
>
> > >> The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
> > >> hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
> > >> line formation.
> > >
> > > And then what? Is there any evidence of advanced tactical formations
> > > requiring special skills or training to fight from?
> >
> > Any form of formation fighting requires -a lot of -training to be
> > effective allthough the germanics of course was a long way from
> > roman standards.
>
> You can say that again. There is no evidence that formation was
maintained
> beyond an initial line-up in any early German v. Roman battles on record.
And there is little evidence to the contrary.
>
> > Anyway would there be no use for a command structure if
> > all just charged the enemy, every man for himself.
> >
> > The command structure evidenced in the sacrifices gives
> > us 1 low level officer to each 8 grunts which is the same
> > relation as in the basic roman army unit; the contubernium.
> (bunch of B.S. snipped)
>
> You are inventing a steep hierarchy based on the existance of household
> leaderes or petty chieftains, hardly evidence for centralized authority.
No, he based his hierarchy on the miltary gear found in the bog sacrifices.
It consists of different kits, so to speak, And the number of kits found
gives the relative frequency.
These are facts, and if they contradict the classical authors, than, maybe,
the classical authors have never seen a miltary unit fighting in this time.
Or maybe the whole bog sacrifices were a cover up. The Danish produced
Norwegian military kits, to fool their gods, and the differences in the kits
mirror the composition of the religiuos groops, not of any military forces.
There is even a slim chance this might be true. Only, the kind of leadership
needed to make people destroy so much of the little they have, it must have
taken up all the metal they could acquire for generations to provide for
that, would indicate much more of a leadership at that time. Or much more of
a metal production, than what can be shown to have taken place.
>
> > You have Tacitus describing germanic armies seperated
> > in princeps, comites, and pedites.
>
> The Romans projected much of their own social structure on other peoples,
> Tacitus assumed that the Germans and Celts alike all worshiped one form or
> other of Roman gods.
T assumed, that the Gods were basically the same, so they could be described
with the commonly known names. There are in fact inscriptions giving first
the Roman name and the germanic one as second name.
>
> Tacitus also said that the Germans voted on major decisions, he mocked
them
> for the inefficiency of having to gather all members of the tribe together
> to form a grand council to decide on matters of import... or did you
forget
> this part?
How did Tacitus know? To how many decision-making gatherings was he invited?
How many times did he take part? Nil and nil again. Some of the projection
stuff you mentioned about Tacitus again?
>
> > Actually the germanics didn't hunt to any significant degree.
>
> The Romans describe hunting the Aurochs in particular as a right of
passage
> for many German tribes, and several observers including tacitus describe
> them as hunting.
When the archaeologic record from settlement excavations states, there are
only a few bones from wild animals, I'd rather question the expertise of
those Romans. Tacitus describes them as lazy, having but three occupations,
drinking, war making and hunting. He described their sunken homes, and a
number of other traits that can be prooven to have no connection with
reality.
But then again classical authors are classical because they are classical,
no explanation or proof needed. Reality has to adapt to fiction.
>
> > The remains of wild animals in their middens are always
> > in the single digit percentages.
>
> They reached their large stature on diets of millet from their vast
> agricultural holdings, no doubt...
If believes take hold reality has to step back.
>
> > The elite however can be found buried with hunting equipment
> > as a a sign of their elavated status!
>
> Thats an amusing concept. A hunting spear makes you king!
You can't be that stupid, probably simply bad tempered or bad mannered.
>
> > It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
> > back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
> > the track stops dead cold there.
> >
> As pointed out in the rest of this thread, your theories about Goths
coming
> from Poland are unfounded and unsupported by the consensus of the
historical
> or anthropological communities...
Quite the contrary. If you take the material culture of those people
described as germanic, and you follow the most common artefacts in time and
space, you arrive back in the Wielbark culture of the southern Baltic (if
you dislike the modern name of Poland in this connection).
I take it you are from the USA, is what you express the standard belief
about european early history? Is that the kind of 'knowledge' people agree
upon, Tacitus and Ceasar, full stop? And those only when they don't
contradict some dearly held belief?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
erilar
Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
> > north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential
>
> LOL!
> Are you trying to say that Scandinavians and Germans are the same people
> as
> of 200 AD?
They were speaking the same language. You apparently don't believe that
means anything. Philologists do.
erilar
<uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> I take it you are from the USA, is what you express the standard belief
> about european early history? Is that the kind of 'knowledge' people agree
> upon, Tacitus and Ceasar, full stop? And those only when they don't
> contradict some dearly held belief?
Please, Uwe! Just because the "drifter" hasn't read any substantial
archaeological, much less philological works doesn't mean he speaks for
all of us! 8-) His provocations are keeping the thread going, if
drifting 8-)
erilar
<name1...@telia.com> wrote:
You may think it's obvious, but there is no evidence for their coming
from further north than the south coast of the Baltic in archaeology and
two recent sources I've read show pretty convincingly that Jordanes is a
weak straw to lean upon.
That's quite apart from linguistic evidence, but I'm not about to
lecture on that, convincing as it is to people who understand it.
Soren Larsen
Doesn't matter.
I will never ever borrow a tooth brush from someone of
celtic extraction. No matter how lovely.
I wonder how Martin feels.
Soren
Erik Hammerstad
>
> You may think it's obvious, but there is no evidence for their coming
> from further north than the south coast of the Baltic in archaeology and
> two recent sources I've read show pretty convincingly that Jordanes is a
> weak straw to lean upon.
Could you please name the two sources?
Alaca
More abstracts:
Eastern Connections
A study of interactions between South Scandinavia and the
Wielbark culture during the 1st to 4th centuries AD.
Christina Rein Seehusen
http://www.hum.ku.dk/iae/ark/asp/forskning/phd/crseng.htm
The Goths in Poland
Where Did They Come from and When did They Leave?
Przemyslaw Urbaczyk
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, PAN, Warsaw
http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/397
Also interesting:
Poznan Archaeological Museum
The Goths in Greater Poland
Tadeusz Makiewicz
http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm
See the Table of contents for more goodies.
Soren Larsen
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
>> Drifter Bob wrote:
>>> If you are mixing scandinavians and germans here, you are probably
>>> making a mistake. At every verifiable point there were major
>>> differences in material culture.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Any differences are more in style and material than in function
>
> It's a bit facile to dismiss "style and material" as if to say, a
> wooden sword was as effective as a bronze sword was as effective as a
> steely iron one..... or a small wicker shield was as effective as the
> large composite wood shield of the Romans... it certainly depends how
> you define style and material and how you define function.
OK
The objects usually performed similar tasks equally well and they
were produced using the same level of technology and
in the same tradition of technology.
The differenses in shape and material are thus of less importance.
>
>> Lance heads would have a different shape but lances would
>> be the primary weapon in both areas, strike a lights would be
>> made from different materials but all would have them. Combs
>
> ... or to point out that 'lances' were the primary weapon, since
> spears of one type or another were the primary weapon all over the
> world from the neolithic until the Renaissance.
>
> Incidentally, English may not be your first language, but a lance
> means specifically a thrusting spear used from horseback, while the
> equivalent weapon used by ground fighters (infantry) would be
> considered more generically a 'spear'.
Bugger. Itis not the first time that I fall for these "false friends"
'Lanse' in Danish means the stab and poke version of the weapon
while 'spyd' can mean both versions, but usually refers to the thrown
variety (because we use 'lanse' about the other form)
>For that matter up to this
> point it is also arguable whether the thrusting spear was as
> important of a weapon as the throwing spear or javelin, for both
> ground troops and (especially) cavalry.
What is the point in dragging a 2-3 m long cut'n stab instrument
around if not as a primary weapon - Maybe as a handy backup when
the enemy gets too close for sword and knife action?
>
>> would likewise be differently made but common equipment in
>> both areas.
>>
>> There is afaik know no greater variation in material culture
>> between germanic Scandinavia and the rest of Germania than
>> you find inside these areas at this point in time.
>>
>> In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
>> north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential
>
> LOL!
> Are you trying to say that Scandinavians and Germans are the same
> people as of 200 AD?
I am telling you that they spoke the same language and had essentially the
same culture.
There was no such thing as Germans back then. 'Germans' is a very
_english_ designation for citizens of a modern centraleuropean state,
BTW
You would find germanic speakers in a lot of places where there are none
today.
OTOH are there germanic speakers in a lot of places today where there
was none back then.
So it really isn't very helpful to use modern designations even as shorthand
for the peoples back then.
>
>> If you want to look at difference in material culture then the
>> distance from the roman border is a factor. Near the border
>
> That is one factor, so are the broad cultural zones which are widely
> recognized by a consensus of historians....
Which would be?
>
>> Again there is as much difference inside Sc as outside.
>
>
> Some broad differences between Celtic, German, and Scandinavian
> cultures:
snip
You really need to specify where and when, if such comparisons
are to be of value.
See Uwe's ansver
>
>> You had specialised iron production sites in Norway at this point
>> in time showing some sort of centralisation.
>>
>> Large scale bog iron production was however not yet up and
>> running in the Danish area, even though there was no shortage
>> of weapons.
>
> As you are no doubt aware Denmark (Jutland) was an area which lagged
> far behind in metalurgy, using stone weapons well into the Bronze
> age. These are famously some of the best stone weapons (daggers)
> crafted to resemble bronze equivalents.
Indeed. The late neolithic/early bronze age stone smiths from south SC
are considered second only to the Aztec stone smiths and they were
working in obsidian..
But this has really no bearing on the iron age.
>
>> Scandinavia would be unique in prehistory if writing was not
>> adopted to aid central administration and glorify the elite and
>> it is no wonder that it is on the weapons and jewellery of the elite
>> that we find most of the early rune writing..
>
> Seeing as the range between the personal wealth of a farmer to that
> of the greatest elite amounted to a few horses or a boat,
You are seriously mistaken about the range in wealth.
I suggest you check out the current price of a handmade effective
mailshirt, a hand forged heering-pattern sword with silver and niello
inlay, a sheath with unique artistic treecarvings covered with the
finest hand dyed leather available, and adorned with gold and
jewellery.
Then you look into the cost of having a specially trained warhorse
with a tailormade wardrobe similar to yours hanging around your fields.
Next you check out the current cost of a handbuild ship in northern
tradition, build by proffessionals of specially selected wood.
BTW the hand wowen sail will cost you as much as the boat,
if you are going for modern propulsion technology.
Absolutely essential for your prestige (and survival) is the
30 or so handpicked fighters who will step in between you
and the Norwegian mad men if need be - They also
double as the old boat propulsion system.
The only catch is that you have to feed them and give them beer
while not appearing to be cheap.
BTW I almost forgot.
They also expect you to give them gold jewellery- while not
appearing to be cheap.
This is the easy part.
The hard part is taking a look at the shopping list your
Sarmatian noblewoman wife - who used to place her orders
in Constantinople and you cant afford to disappoint because
of her family - just handed you.
It is time for a large sip of mead.
Then your overlord makes you an offer about either paying taxes
or help him fairly tax somebody else on a joint venture basis.
>it was
> hardly proof of an entrenched aristocracy, and you are equating
> wealth with authority which was not always the case in Viking Age
> Scandinavia.
You could possibly be rich without having much authority
but you could not have authority without being stinking rich
and at least claim to be of the right sort of family.
Many viking careers by later kings could be viewed as somewhat
agressive pleas for election campaign donations.
>
>>> The gerrman tribes, by contrast, were notoriously iron-poor even
>>> this late in the game.
>>
>> Not compared to Sc.
>
> They were based on archeological finds
>
>> Anyway should you ponder why Marcus Aurelius needed 15 years
>> to fight the Marcomanni and Quadi to a glorious status quo in the
>> late 2nd c, if all the germanics could come up with was individuals
>> fighting with bone tipped spears.
>>
> By the 2nd Century Germans had been fighting in the Roman Army for 200
> years,
Indeed
So what does this indicate about germanic fighting styles assuming
that at least some went back home after their stint.
> and trading across the border for this entire period.
Indeed.
Trade inside Germania and with the Romans is how iron poor areas
would get iron tools/weapons.
> It is
> well known that the Roman disaster at Teutoburg forest alone garnered
> a huge amount of military equipment for the German tribes.
Most was sacrificed according to the sources but I guess a lot
in reality was "liberated" by the warriors.
Anyway was nobody using two hundred years old weapons in
the 2nd c.
In fact are germanic weapons some of the best objects for dating
since the fashion (shape/decoration) changed about every generation.
>
> That said, the Germans successes against the Romans always had as
> least as much to do with terrain (heavy forest) as with either
> equipment, leadership, or fighting skill
Arminius simply outgeneralled his roman enemies, but he was an
exception.
The germanic grunt was likely the superior fighter one-on-one
compared to his roman counterpart, but the germanic formations
would - everything equal - be outclassed by the Romans.
Then there is all the other roman advantages like logistics, economy,
intelligence, diplomacy a.s.o.
I would say that the early germanic successes against the romans
primarily depended on getting at the romans in situations where
they could not deploy their formations.
It would remain so until Adrianople.
>
> Finally the primary weapons the early Germans seemed to use were
> protoswords, flat hardwood clubs, as well as fire hardened wooden
> spears without points. There are descriptions where the first rank
> of German armies have iron tipped spears, the ranks behind have these
> clubs (described in detail by Sir Richard Burton in his "Book of the
> Sword") similar to Native American and Maori war-clubs.
What is his sources?
There is no way such an army could take out Roman legions even
in rough terrain.
What you describe here could be a people at arms comparable
to medieval peasant armies.
>
>>> What happend to these professional soldier classes in Scandinavia
>>> then?
>>
>> They used the next centuries until the early 6th slugging it out
>> as evidenced in the sacrifices.
>>
>> Then the sacrifices comes to a sudden stop.
>>
>> Maybe they just stopped dumping the enemy gear into lakes.
>
> That is an amusing notion. Would they be the first and only military
> aristocracy to renounce power and return to equal status with the
> masses in the whole world until modern times?
Who said they did.
The Romans stopped depositing enemy gear in temples
,this doesn't mean that they suddenly became democrats.
They just got themselves some emperors who didn't approve
of random generals taking veteran armies to Rome and
parading their victory in the streets.
In Scandinavia the weapon sacrifices stopped but somebody
was still loaded in a big way.
Take a peek:
http://www.historiska.se/exhibitions/media/guldkrage.swf
>
> Because certainly in Norway and most of Sweden, there was no
> authority above the rank of Hersir in the early Viking age. Even in
> Denmark, the "kings" who came and went in that time and before were
> little more than 'first among equals',
Sure.
And Octavian was just 'primus inter pares'
> to use a Scandinavian term,
> leaders of confederations of petty chieftains.
The Franks did not share your opinion.
The geographic location of the Danish witnesses in the
Franco-Danish treaties suggest that Denmark at the time
comprised the same territory as later in the middle ages
+ the area around Oslo fjord in present day Norway.
It is also evident that the Danish king could make diplomatic
agreements covering this territory since the treaties normally
was honoured and that the Franks would bother making new
treaties.
>
>> Maybe it has somthing to do with the western empire finally
>> caving in, and the changes that caused in trade pattens and society.
>>
> This is enough to make the Leopard change its spots eh?
Nope but if there is no moore gazelles around the Leopard
might have to make do with rabbits.
>
>>> Are we to believe that they melted away by the beginning of
>>> the Viking age?
>>
>> Society was definitely changed at the beginning of the viking
>> age, when the Danish king Godfred could get away with telling
>> Charlemagne to chill off, if liked his capital to stay intact.
>
> We have little evidence that Godfred was a king in the absolute
> sense, as you no doubt well know, or even that he was a 'king' at all
> and not merely the most prominent of a group of chieftains...
We know that he was considered king by the court of Charlemagne
in contrast to Saxon and other leaders.
That really leaves very little doubt.
>
>> This is also the time where you see really big public construction
>> like the Dannevirke (AD 650) controlling access to Jutland and
>> the Kanhave channel (AD 726) making it possible for a fleet
>> stationed in the Great Belt to control the routes on both sides of
>> Samsų.
>
> ROFL! Just because large scale projects are being done, doesn't mean
> you have to have centralized leadership. Neolithic peoples created
> all kinds of monuments (Menhir) without centralized leadership of any
> kind.
A menhir is small potatoes compared to Dannevirke.
BTW how do you know that some neolithic people did not have
centralised leadership? - ask the Inca if he was just the first among
equals.
Anyway is a menhir rather easy to man reliably, since the crew is dead.
It is different with a long wall. It has absolutely no function if you cant
put watchmen on it everyday, and man it when neccesary.
You also have to ask yourself why it is cutting of Jutland if enemy armies
was as likely to appear inside Jutland as outside.
The channel is even more meaningless without someone commanding
a fleet aspiring to control access to the Baltic.
>
>>>> The germanic style of fighting a battle had very little to do with
>>>> hunting tecniques since the preferred method to deploy was in
>>>> line formation.
>>>
>>> And then what? Is there any evidence of advanced tactical
>>> formations requiring special skills or training to fight from?
>>
>> Any form of formation fighting requires -a lot of -training to be
>> effective allthough the germanics of course was a long way from
>> roman standards.
>
> You can say that again. There is no evidence that formation was
> maintained beyond an initial line-up in any early German v. Roman
> battles on record.
The Batavians entered a pitched battle with the Romans over two days
in AD 70 at the Rhine without a clear winner.
Admittedly did they prepare the battlefield by swamping it
but the Romans were no strangers to such strategems themselves.
>
>> Anyway would there be no use for a command structure if
>> all just charged the enemy, every man for himself.
>>
>> The command structure evidenced in the sacrifices gives
>> us 1 low level officer to each 8 grunts which is the same
>> relation as in the basic roman army unit; the contubernium.
> (bunch of B.S. snipped)
?
>
> You are inventing a steep hierarchy based on the existance of
> household leaderes or petty chieftains, hardly evidence for
> centralized authority.
No I'm pointing out an officer to grunt ratio in germanic armies
that you also find in Roman armies remaining reasonably
constant over centuries.
Very convienient if all household and chieftains had
the same amount of warriors but hardly likely.
After mentioning that this "unit" was called contubernium
in the roman armies did I stumble upon this in:
'Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900.
Guy Hallsall, 2003'
"As well as forming the retinues of older and more powerful
figures, bound by what might be termed vertical ties to the
latter, young warriors might also be bound by "horisontal"
ties into bands of contemporaries. Such warrior bands
are probably those called _contubernia_ in the Salic Law,
envisaged as involved in houyse-breakings and kidnappings."
>
>> You have Tacitus describing germanic armies seperated
>> in princeps, comites, and pedites.
>
> The Romans projected much of their own social structure on other
> peoples, Tacitus assumed that the Germans and Celts alike all
> worshiped one form or other of Roman gods.
We agree that the romans would project their own understanding
onto other people, but they would hardly invent a tri partition
in germanic armies even though they might interpret the social function
of the classes through a roman filter.
>
> Tacitus also said that the Germans voted on major decisions, he
> mocked them for the inefficiency of having to gather all members of
> the tribe together to form a grand council to decide on matters of
> import... or did you forget this part?
And the Romans decided matters in the Senate and even Caligula
had to adhere.
Or maybe Tacitus was an old bleeding hard liberal with
republican tendencies who described the germanics in
a way that suited his purpose.
>
>> Actually the germanics didn't hunt to any significant degree.
>
> The Romans describe hunting the Aurochs in particular as a right of
> passage for many German tribes, and several observers including
> tacitus describe them as hunting.
He also afair describe the Dutch coast as rocky, Denmark and
Holland as unsuitable for agriculture , and Germanics as
uninterested in gold and silver. Gimme a break!
This is classical ethnography where everybody knows
barbarians live on raw meat and horse milk and are
naive and hotheaded but honest, loyal and god fearing.
Another thing is that classical ethnographers whenever
they relate real information rather than topos, would
tend to describe what was exeptional instead of what was
typical.
They knew very well that their readers expected stories
about exotic habits not booring observations of day to
day life.
>
>> The remains of wild animals in their middens are always
>> in the single digit percentages.
>
> They reached their large stature on diets of millet from their vast
> agricultural holdings, no doubt...
Or by having a production form with a wider margin to the areas
carrying capacity.
Not having to feed a city population no doubt helped.
>
>> The elite however can be found buried with hunting equipment
>> as a a sign of their elavated status!
>
> Thats an amusing concept. A hunting spear makes you king!
It is rather that only rich graves afaik has hunting equipment.
>
>> It is the 'Stand der Forschung'. While you can trace the Goths
>> back to the Wielbark culture (Poland) with reasonable probability
>> the track stops dead cold there.
>>
> As pointed out in the rest of this thread, your theories about Goths
> coming from Poland are unfounded and unsupported by the consensus of
> the historical or anthropological communities...
You dont know what you are talking about here.
It is as simple as that.
You could of course prove me wrong by presenting evidence
- not opinions - for a gothic origin in Sweden.
I wont hold my breath though.
Soren Larsen
Drifter Bob
For people who claim to rely so much on archeological evidence, you dont
know the basics about period military kit.
The word "spear" is a generic term meaning a hafted thrusting weapon which
can be used to thrust from or to throw. The spear, in one form or another,
is the single most ubiquitous weapon in use across the entire planet from
the early Neolithic period through the 18th century.
A "Lance" is a subvariant of the spear, specialised for thrusting-only, in
most cases specifically from horseback.
Specialised thrusting -only lances were not used much in the period before
around 200AD (in fact rarely before 1200 AD) because appropriate saddles and
stirrups had yet to be invented, making hard fighting from horseback
somewhat probelmatic. As a result, cavalry in this period relied more upon
the multi-purpose spear, which could be thrown or thrust with (using the
overhand thrust primarily), and the throwing javelin. (The underhand or
couched lance thrust as such really didn't appear until the rise of European
knight well after the battle of Hastings.)
A "Javelin" is a subvariant of the spear, specialised for throwing. These
can be identified by their usuaully smaller heads, lighter hafts, and the
occasional inclusion of vanes for stabilization.
A "Pilum" is a roman javelin with a long, narrow iron head, nearly half the
length of the weapon itself. The narrow iron head and shaft are there to
improve penetration and prevent the weapon from being cut away after
impaling in a shield.
In this picture you see an ordinary spear on the left, and a pilum on the
right
http://www.figurethisradio.com/Uploads/spers2.jpg
The "angon" was a development of the roman pilum by Germanic tribes which
was used both for thrusting and as a thrown weapon. It was used through the
'dark age's into the early Medieval period. The ahelspiess is a futher
development, a more substantial thrusting-only weapon with a protective
roundel to cover the hand. These were used through the Medieval period.
A protosword is a flat wooden striking stick, usually made of hardwood,
sometimes fitted with one or many 'blades' of obsidian or other hard stone.
With or without stone they are quite effective weapons, the hardwood is
sufficient to break bones either way. These types of weapons were known all
over the world. They are well documented in nearly every part of Europe
from Ireland to the Urals, both from Classical reports and from archological
finds. The Germans were known to have used these weapons extensively.
The Maori caused high casualties among British troops in the 19th century
using weapons of this type, so it's not a big stretch to imagine that the
Germans could kill Romans with them.
Sir Richard Burton's Book of the Sword is incidentally, still regarded as
one of the best overviews of early spathology in print. Dont take my word
for it, read some reviews, its still in print.
One of the most famous examples of this type of weapon is the Aztec
Macuhitil encountered by Cortez
http://www.famsi.org/research/pohl/images/aztec4figure09.jpg
The well-known native (North) American "gunstock" club is another variant.
http://www.historytoday.com/digimaker/pictures/IMG_3160_p1HMv960.jpg
http://www.ackerforge.com/knives/Mvc-003f2.jpg
These weapons from Fiji are yet another example
http://www.jacksfiji.com/store/graphics/01/011/5653.jpg
http://www.jacksfiji.com/store/graphics/01/011/16211.jpg
DB
Drifter Bob
are making assertions which contradict nearly the entire body of historical
and anthropological data that I have read in 20 years of research on the
cultures of the Celts, the ancient Germans, and the Scandinavians.
When I first posted here I was originally trying to find out something about
slavery in Viking era Scandinavia, I got a small amount of information, for
which I am thankful.
Since then this argument has evolved into a discussion of monarchy and
aristocracy in pre-Roman European culture, the differences between Celtic
and German cultures (and Scandinavian culture) and the origins of the Goths.
The several dozens of books I own on Celtic and early European history,
archeology and anthropology are all written in the English language, which I
admit is a fault, as I am only reading the work of U.S., English and Irish
historians and experts. Uwe, Tron and Soren have voiced opinions which
utterly contradict the majority consensus of all the books I have read on
the above subjects. For one thing, they do not appear to believe in the
concept of "warrior democracy" which nearly all the experts in the field
that I am aware of seem to think was the basic form of government for the
vast majority of these peoples prior to either A) conquest by the Romans (in
the case of the Celts and some of the Germans) or B) conversion to
Christianity.
Soren, Tron, and Uwe have all demonstrated through sarcastic comments and
veiled insults that they have little if any respect for my positions or even
my basic ability to think logically. I will not speculate as to their
ability to think but I am not impressed by their arguments, which seem to be
me to show as much of a personal preference for authoritarian forms as they
accuse me of having for democratic or egalitarian ones.
History should not be based on the ideology of the researcher, I personally
am only interested in knowing what actually happened in these periods and
how things actually worked. I used to belive in the monarchic theories of
prince charming, king arthur, and sleeping beauty that I was taught as a
child too, but research into the reality of the life of people in these eras
has opened my eyes to the fact that democracy is an ancient legacy to all
people of European decent certainly, and probably to all people everywhere.
I will never convince Uwe, Soren, or Tron of this, clearly, as they cannot
even envision the basic concept of tribal federations, voluntary
cooperation, or warrior democracy. As we have gone back and forth, the bile
and insults have begun to mount, and yet it does not appear that they are
anywhere near convincing me of anything, nor I of them. I don't want to
spend the rest of my life in an endless flame war, I would rather be paid
for my writing or at least engage in a constructive discussion from which i
can learn. However, for the benefit of any lurkers who might be reading
this thread, I'll make a couple of final points. After this, I'll return
the turf to the people who were here before I got to this newsgroup, free to
discuss canadian conspiracies, the failure of socialism or whatever.
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:3cus4uF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> > Incidentally, English may not be your first language,
>
> As Archaeology isn't your first subject.
>
> >but a lance means
>
> Since riding came relatively late to Europe, early iron age, and by your
own
> defintion the spear is restricted to being wielded from horseback, the
spear
WRONG. Reread my definition, then read my post "hoplology 101".
> By what evidence? Tacitaean tribal names?
I pointed out many of the well known points of archeological, coin, and
place-name evidence below...
> He did not argue against regional variation, but against a notable
> difference between southern Scandiavia and northern Germany. The
differences
You are narrowing it down to Jutland and northern Germany. The argument was
whether Scandinavia in general, the German tribes, and the Celtic tribes had
any broad cultural differences. I think I pointed out several.
> There are some tribes that have been called celtic by your classical
> witnesses, that we know by settlement pattern, material culture and burial
> rites to have been germanic.
Some yes. Many? No. And it is incorrect to lump all classical observers
together, some proved much more accurate than others.
> Some Celts did at some time, yes. But which Celtic oppidum was founded
> around 200 AD? Or before 200 BC?
>
Since we know they were broken by the Romans everywhere but Ireland by 200
AD, it's kind of a phony argument.
> Or: The Celts got gold from plundering the Mediterranean and being
> mercenaries there. The germanic people only found silver left, when they
> tried to plunder.
>
> Or: Everybody used the precious metals available to them at the time.
People
> in the former celticae used silver at the time of the Vikings too.
>
So what? We are talking about the differences between cultures. I'm not
saying one is superior to the other, only that they were different. Why
they were different is another discussion entirely.
> > Scandinavians had ship burials which Celts and Germans did not.
>
> Celts had waggon burials, which the Scandinavians and Germans did not
have,
> and the celts would not have 300 years later. Burial customs change. But
in
Thanks for pointing out yet another key difference in material culture
> Much of Germany and Scandinavia have enough real stones lying around, so
> they would not have used cheap celtic imitations.
So what? The point is it's a differnce in material culture. Also, this
practice is noted in Celtic sites from Bohemia, to Anatolia, to Spain, to
Irleand.
> Above you wrote the spear was universally used. Now the celts don't know
it.
You dont read too well. Please review Hoplology 101. Read it twice.
> And the Ango is not a pan-germanic weapon, but a merovingian one. It was
> created for a special purpose in a special time and place. And it was not
> the most common weapon. It made the heavy roman shield ineffective when
> stabbed into it and when the warriors could than step on the end. By your
> own definition it was a lance, with a three foot long tip, so the o ther
> warrior could not simply cut it of.
It was created by German tribes by adopting Roman weapons. It later became
popular with Mervingians and then Franks.
> There must be an impressing number of "German" stone buildings and
> fortresses lacking niches to be able to call them uncommon. And how many
are
> their from celtic areas? Just a few from southern France?
Not many, but the ones there are different.
> From what you describe, from the differences you list, it becomes clear
that
> much of those differences are in fact differences in time. Roughly you
seem
> to call the last 500 years BC Celtic, the first 500 AD German and the 2nd
> 500 years AD Scandinavian.
With Scandinavian, you have a point, because so comparatively little is
known about Scandinavia in the Roman period, if you will. Regarding the
Celts and Germans, they were contemporaneous if overlapping. You can
compare them from 150BC - 50 AD
> It is not Denmark alone,in Germany stone tools were regularly used till
the
> late bronze age, too. there is only little copper and tin in those areas.
> But they had lots of bog iron, so the coming of iron metallurgy made metal
> cheap and available.
Tin was rare everywhere, it was imported from the British Isles and Spain.
They still could have gotten it...
> > Seeing as the range between the personal wealth of a farmer to that of
the
> > greatest elite amounted to a few horses or a boat, it was hardly proof
of
> > entrenched aristocracy, and you are equating wealth with authority which
> > not always the case in Viking Age Scandinavia.
>
> I'll follow you there, but I have to admit that there are things
validating
> his claim and very few to proove ours.
I see a preponderance of evidence.
> > Finally the primary weapons the early Germans seemed to use were
> > protoswords,
>
> Above you wrote, the spear was the primary weapons. Than you added, only
the
Read Hoplology 101. Reread my post.
> And did someone really print that stuff about woode proto-swords? German
and
> south Scandinavian swords were widely acknowledged the best in the Bronze
> age, they were found as far as Egypt. Why should they use wooden ones a
> couple of centuries later?
Most historians would call those Halstadt bronze weapons Celtic.
> A menhir is a single standing stone, that could well have been raised by
the
> adults of a bigger farm or a small hamlet. Stone circles and hill-forts
are
> bigger projects, that would need some kind of regional assistance. There
are
So what? You cant understand the concept of cooperation?
> ceremonioal sites, like Stonehenge with the cursus and outlying
earthworks,
> or the sites around the Glauberg in Germany, that needed a regional and
> efficient leadership, no amateurs.
Again, why does a voluntary rather than a forced effort mean it must be
amateur to you? Are conscripts better soldiers than volunteers? Not
usually.
> The examples Soren cited, I could add the canal of Charlemagne linking
Rhine
> and Danube, are, in my opinion, projects that go beyond that kind of
thing,
> that could not have been created by general acceptance alone.
>
> If you take a king to be someone able to enforce his decision, those
> projects would be a good marker for the emergence of kingship.
You make the assumption that this couldn't happen through voluntary
cooperation. You cant even apparently grasp the concept. I dont know how
it took place with the Danewerk, for all I know it could have been a king
coordinating the job. But why couldn't several neighboring tribes get
together at the the Thing, and decide on a collaborative effort? Viking
society was glued together by a sense of honor, not by force. Honor and
reputation were key because no man could rule anyone in Norse society unless
he had the respect of his peers. It's not like Caligula in Rome.
This sort of thing was seen in North American Indian tribes like the
Iroquois confederation, in which 5 great tribes joined together for mutual
support or with the Lakota Sioux, where scores of nomadic tribes would get
together every year to perform a carefully coordinated buffalo hunt.
Similar cooperation was also seen on a voluntary basis by the Germanic Swiss
in the Medieval period, whose armies were so efficient they were the scourge
of Europe. Many small communities joined together for the big (military)
project, like pimp -slapping the Hapsburgs again or knocking down Charles
the Bold. Small rural communities federated together with each other and
with towns, and formed confederation, ultimately a sort of loose nation was
formed which was called the Helvetic Confederation, (interestingly adopting
their old Roman era Celtic name.. and yet no King ruled over Switzerland in
this time...
> > You are inventing a steep hierarchy based on the existance of household
> > leaderes or petty chieftains, hardly evidence for centralized authority.
>
> No, he based his hierarchy on the miltary gear found in the bog
sacrifices.
> It consists of different kits, so to speak, And the number of kits found
> gives the relative frequency.
There is no evidence that this level of equipment was sufficient to enable
someone to make other people do their will, just that one warrior had more
gear than another. It could be the luck of battle and / or the petty
chieiftains
> These are facts, and if they contradict the classical authors, than,
maybe,
> the classical authors have never seen a miltary unit fighting in this
time.
Um, many of the classical authors, like Julius Ceasar, PERSONALLY fought
with German and Celtic warriors at this time.
> Or maybe the whole bog sacrifices were a cover up. The Danish produced
> Norwegian military kits, to fool their gods, and the differences in the
kits
> mirror the composition of the religiuos groops, not of any military
forces.
It's well known that among the Norse and the Celts, and the Germans as well,
oath sacrifice had a lot to do with these finds in bogs and lakes and pools.
Again, its about honor. "If the gods grant me victory in this fight, I will
kill all my prisoners and my share of all loot and sacrifice it to them!"
This is why so much stuff got "killed" (bent and broken swords etc.) and
thrown into bogs.
> There is even a slim chance this might be true. Only, the kind of
leadership
> needed to make people destroy so much of the little they have, it must
have
> taken up all the metal they could acquire for generations to provide for
> that, would indicate much more of a leadership at that time. Or much more
of
> a metal production, than what can be shown to have taken place.
Again, you are thinking like a modern person, like an economist. There was
great glory in this type of destruction. it was about honor. like the
Potlatch in North America. it was also similar to the gift giving done by
all barbarian leaders in Europe. Nobody was forced to do this.
> How did Tacitus know? To how many decision-making gatherings was he
invited?
> How many times did he take part? Nil and nil again. Some of the
projection
> stuff you mentioned about Tacitus again?
Tacitus knew becuase the Romans knew, there were Roman and Greek traders and
diplomats and spies among the Barbarians all of the time. It was hardly a
mystery.
> I take it you are from the USA, is what you express the standard belief
> about european early history? Is that the kind of 'knowledge' people agree
> upon, Tacitus and Ceasar, full stop? And those only when they don't
> contradict some dearly held belief?
>
Hardly, your rudeness is only eclipsed by your ignorance. I doubt we will
have much more do say to one another.
DB
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Müller) wrote:
> Above you wrote, the spear was the primary weapons. Than you added,
> only the Celts didn't know it. Now the Early Germans didn't know the
> spear either.
I have not been following the argument closely but military history
is a hobby of mine. The spear is believed to have originated in
Mesolithithic or Neolithic times as a hunting weapon. It is an obvious
way to get a stand off from possibly dangerous prey. The earliest
known use as a military weapon was by the Sumarians. Surviving
inscriptions show what has been described as a proto phalanx.
Variations on the spear for throwing etc. go back as far.
On the other hand usage varied. Use of the spear as a melee weapon
tended to be restricted to those people who could train close order
infantry, and be associated with a secondary weapon that could be used
without disrupting the formation. Rome around the 1st century AD used
the Pilum a heavy throwing spear as the primary weapon. Drill manuals
indicate that of the two carried, against cavalry one would be
retained for close in use.
German swords were long enough to make close formations on the Roman
pattern impractical. The pattern was adopted for the Roman cavalry
sword.
The point I am trying to make here, is that weapons used depend on
fighting formations and it is very hard to determine which came first.
By the way. I have no knowledge of the archeological evidence, but
medieval records indicate that armour tended to be more expensive than
weapons.
Hal
Drifter Bob wrote:
>
> The several dozens of books I own on Celtic and early European
history,
> archeology and anthropology are all written in the English language,
which I
> admit is a fault, as I am only reading the work of U.S., English and
Irish
> historians and experts. Uwe, Tron and Soren have voiced opinions
which
> utterly contradict the majority consensus of all the books I have
read on
> the above subjects. For one thing, they do not appear to believe in
the
> concept of "warrior democracy" which nearly all the experts in the
field
> that I am aware of seem to think was the basic form of government for
the
> vast majority of these peoples prior to either A) conquest by the
Romans (in
> the case of the Celts and some of the Germans) or B) conversion to
> Christianity.
>
>
This thread has been very interesting. Could you reference the writers
you have who use the concept "warrior democracy"? Some quotes where
they use the term would help define it for me. A search online and in
the archives wasn't helpful.
Hal
Soren Larsen
> Ok, it's clear that there is no mutual respect here. Soren, Uwe and
> Tron are making assertions which contradict nearly the entire body of
> historical and anthropological data that I have read in 20 years of
> research on the cultures of the Celts, the ancient Germans, and the
> Scandinavians.
If quantity means anything, then imagine that volume of knowledge
multiplied with a random number like maybe 3
>
> When I first posted here I was originally trying to find out
> something about slavery in Viking era Scandinavia, I got a small
> amount of information, for which I am thankful.
You are welcome
>
> Since then this argument has evolved into a discussion of monarchy and
> aristocracy in pre-Roman European culture, the differences between
> Celtic and German cultures (and Scandinavian culture) and the origins
> of the Goths.
>
> The several dozens of books I own on Celtic and early European
> history, archeology and anthropology are all written in the English
> language, which I admit is a fault, as I am only reading the work of
> U.S., English and Irish historians and experts.
You will find that Anglophone writers usually - but not always -
are lagging behind, when it comes to continental germanic and
pre-viking Scandinavian archaeology.
> Uwe, Tron and Soren
> have voiced opinions which utterly contradict the majority consensus
> of all the books I have read on the above subjects. For one thing,
> they do not appear to believe in the concept of "warrior democracy"
I certainly believe in the concept.
I even believe that it was part of germanic ideology that the army was
to be made up of free men.
How does that preclude stratification, hierachies, and even kings of
some sort?
> which nearly all the experts in the field that I am aware of seem to
> think was the basic form of government for the vast majority of these
> peoples prior to either A) conquest by the Romans (in the case of the
> Celts and some of the Germans) or B) conversion to Christianity.
I guess you are reading some old litterature or some popular
works based on old litterature.
Your 'hersir' thing reminded me strongly of something from the
Osprey series.
>
> Soren, Tron, and Uwe have all demonstrated through sarcastic comments
> and veiled insults that they have little if any respect for my
> positions or even my basic ability to think logically.
This is usenet.
You will get as good as you give, and you are no innocent victim
> I will not
> speculate as to their ability to think but I am not impressed by
> their arguments,
We really dont care.
We would however be really interested if you could refute
them or present arguments for your own interpretations,
instead of just referring to anonoumous witers agreeing with you.
You wouldn't know, but the "anonymous scholars agrees
with me" argument has a really bad standing in this group.
and it aint that good elsewhere.
> which seem to be me to show as much of a personal
> preference for authoritarian forms as they accuse me of having for
> democratic or egalitarian ones.
Are you assuming that I see predatory sacral germanic kingship as
an ideal stateform today?
Are you nuts?
>
> History should not be based on the ideology of the researcher,
Curious then, that you are the only one who are projecting
a currently valid ideology back into the past.
>I
> personally am only interested in knowing what actually happened in
> these periods and how things actually worked. I used to belive in
> the monarchic theories of prince charming, king arthur, and sleeping
> beauty that I was taught as a child too, but research into the
> reality of the life of people in these eras has opened my eyes to the
> fact that democracy is an ancient legacy to all people of European
> decent certainly, and probably to all people everywhere.
Was it you, who uttered the famous words:
"History should not be based on the ideology of the researcher"
>
> I will never convince Uwe, Soren, or Tron of this, clearly, as they
> cannot even envision the basic concept of tribal federations,
> voluntary cooperation, or warrior democracy.
The problem is that you have not even tried,
so how would you know?
BTW the tribal federations was a step toward central control
of larger areas not toward decentralisation
snip
> I pointed out many of the well known points of archeological, coin,
> and place-name evidence below...
>
>> He did not argue against regional variation, but against a notable
>> difference between southern Scandiavia and northern Germany. The
>> differences
>
> You are narrowing it down to Jutland and northern Germany. The
> argument was whether Scandinavia in general, the German tribes, and
> the Celtic tribes had any broad cultural differences. I think I
> pointed out several.
You are trying to bullshit, but it wont help you.
Of course the Celts were culturally different from
the Germanics, but the discussion was about your percieved
difference between Scandinavians and other Germanics around
AD 200.
Here is the original exchange
Me:
"A north germanic grunt around AD 200 would carry; a shield,.."
You:
"If you are mixing scandinavians and germans here, you are probably
making a mistake. At every verifiable point there were major
differences in material culture."
Me
"In AD 200 are you to wait 3 centuries for the split between
north and west germanic to occur and there is no essential difference
between the weapons from Scandinavia and the weapons from
Northern Germany "
You
"LOL Are you trying to say that Scandinavians and Germans are the same
people as of 200 AD?"
Please show me the "major differences in material culture."
between Scandinavia and the other germanic areas in AD 200.
>
>> There are some tribes that have been called celtic by your classical
>> witnesses, that we know by settlement pattern, material culture and
>> burial rites to have been germanic.
>
> Some yes. Many? No. And it is incorrect to lump all classical
> observers together, some proved much more accurate than others.
Indeed
Now maybe we can have some citations from the accurate ones that
supports you.
>
>> Some Celts did at some time, yes. But which Celtic oppidum was
>> founded around 200 AD? Or before 200 BC?
>>
> Since we know they were broken by the Romans everywhere but Ireland
> by 200 AD, it's kind of a phony argument.
Maybe we should include the Irish oppidae then?
Or maybe you should stop putting labels like "oppidae builders" on Celts
and instead be precise about where and when.
snip
> So what? We are talking about the differences between cultures. I'm
> not saying one is superior to the other, only that they were
> different. Why they were different is another discussion entirely.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how scandinavians differed from other
germanics in AD 200.
>
>>> Scandinavians had ship burials which Celts and Germans did not.
>>
>> Celts had waggon burials, which the Scandinavians and Germans did
>> not have, and the celts would not have 300 years later. Burial
>> customs change. But in
>
> Thanks for pointing out yet another key difference in material culture
Your strawman doesn't work.
Nobody here said that germanics and celts were the same.
You also - not surpricingly - missed the point about the difference
between comparing cultures diachronich and synchronich
>> There must be an impressing number of "German" stone buildings and
>> fortresses lacking niches to be able to call them uncommon. And how
>> many are their from celtic areas? Just a few from southern France?
>
> Not many, but the ones there are different.
They are different from _what_?
>
>> From what you describe, from the differences you list, it becomes
>> clear that much of those differences are in fact differences in
>> time. Roughly you seem to call the last 500 years BC Celtic, the
>> first 500 AD German and the 2nd 500 years AD Scandinavian.
>
> With Scandinavian, you have a point, because so comparatively little
> is known about Scandinavia in the Roman period,
Change that to "We have almost no litterary sources about Sc
in the roman period" and you might have a point.
Archaeology however has a different distribution of sources.
Most Archaeologist and military historians of the period would
drool if they were to hear about a weaponsacrifice, comparable to
those in Scandinavia, being found in the zone close to the roman border.
>
>> It is not Denmark alone,in Germany stone tools were regularly used
>> till the late bronze age, too. there is only little copper and tin
>> in those areas. But they had lots of bog iron, so the coming of iron
>> metallurgy made metal cheap and available.
>
> Tin was rare everywhere, it was imported from the British Isles and
> Spain. They still could have gotten it...
The bronze had to be imported - the iron could be produced locally.
Got it?
>
>>> Seeing as the range between the personal wealth of a farmer to that
>>> of the greatest elite amounted to a few horses or a boat, it was
>>> hardly proof of entrenched aristocracy, and you are equating wealth
>>> with authority which not always the case in Viking Age Scandinavia.
>>
>> I'll follow you there, but I have to admit that there are things
>> validating his claim and very few to proove ours.
>
> I see a preponderance of evidence.
It would be an idea to point it out.
I begin to think you are hallucinating.
>
>> A menhir is a single standing stone, that could well have been
>> raised by the adults of a bigger farm or a small hamlet. Stone
>> circles and hill-forts are bigger projects, that would need some
>> kind of regional assistance. There are
>
> So what? You cant understand the concept of cooperation?
Can you understand that some projects are to large to build and
use for cooperative leadership to be effective?
snip
>
> You make the assumption that this couldn't happen through voluntary
> cooperation. You cant even apparently grasp the concept. I dont
> know how it took place with the Danewerk, for all I know it could
> have been a king coordinating the job. But why couldn't several
> neighboring tribes get together at the the Thing, and decide on a
> collaborative effort? Viking society was glued together by a sense
> of honor, not by force. Honor and reputation were key because no man
> could rule anyone in Norse society unless he had the respect of his
> peers. It's not like Caligula in Rome.
More from 'Warfare and Society in the Barbarian west, 450 -900'
"
Eighth-century Scandinavian military organisation can only really be
approached via archaeological data. The rulers of Denmark appear to
have been
powerful enough to raise manpower to construct major public works,
notably
the great Danevirke, a large defensive bank and ditch structure
running across
the jutland peninsula. The first phase of this system is dated by
dendro
chronology (tree-ring dating) to 737. Another important work, dated to
726
(and possibly ordered by the same ruler, or at least the ruler of the
same
territory), was the 1 km long Kanhave canal on the island of Samso,
which
permitted ships to sail directly across from the island's sheltered
harbour to
intercept vessels on the west side of the island. Some roads were also
repaired
in the eighth century, and coin minting began in Ribe in c.720.92 All
these
works suggest the wielding of a significant degree of political power.
By the end
of the eighth century it is clear that the king of Denmark could
mobilise
significant military forces. King Godfred mobilised a mounted army for
a face
off against Charlemagne himself and the Danes established suzerainty
over the
Obodrite Slavs"
There is some modern Anglophone litterature around
snip
>>
>> No, he based his hierarchy on the miltary gear found in the bog
>> sacrifices. It consists of different kits, so to speak, And the
>> number of kits found gives the relative frequency.
>
> There is no evidence that this level of equipment was sufficient to
> enable someone to make other people do their will, just that one
> warrior had more gear than another. It could be the luck of battle
> and / or the petty chieiftains
You are talking about petty chieftains who in their graves had
roman wine serving sets complete with sieves etc. indicating
that they very well knew, what they were for.
(BTW some roman reliefs indicates that wine in northern europe was
moved in barrels ie not amphorae which would leve traces.)
You are talking about petty chietains who for no apparent reason
adopted writing and began putting it on weapons and jewellery and
probably more perishable products.
You are talking about petty chieftains who sometimes found their
wifes in the elite of South Eastern Europe.
>
>> These are facts, and if they contradict the classical authors, than,
>> maybe, the classical authors have never seen a miltary unit fighting
>> in this time.
>
> Um, many of the classical authors, like Julius Ceasar, PERSONALLY
> fought with German and Celtic warriors at this time.
What do you believe; the word of JC or your own eyes:
>
> Again, you are thinking like a modern person, like an economist.
> There was great glory in this type of destruction. it was about
> honor. like the Potlatch in North America. it was also similar to
> the gift giving done by all barbarian leaders in Europe. Nobody was
> forced to do this.
Which barbarian leaders? What did they exchange? How did they get it?
>
>> How did Tacitus know? To how many decision-making gatherings was he
>> invited? How many times did he take part? Nil and nil again. Some
>> of the projection stuff you mentioned about Tacitus again?
>
> Tacitus knew becuase the Romans knew, there were Roman and Greek
> traders and diplomats and spies among the Barbarians all of the time.
> It was hardly a mystery.
Are you suggesting that T actually interviewed traders and spies?
>
>> I take it you are from the USA, is what you express the standard
>> belief about european early history? Is that the kind of 'knowledge'
>> people agree upon, Tacitus and Ceasar, full stop? And those only
>> when they don't contradict some dearly held belief?
>>
> Hardly, your rudeness is only eclipsed by your ignorance.
Concidering that Uwe is a proffessional German archaeologist
is your insult not really working.
Soren Larsen