LL-L "History" 2006.02.15 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

15 February 2006 * Volume 05
=======================================================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2006.02.13 (09) [E]


  From: R. F. Hahn
  Subject: History

  G'day again, Andrys!

  What a treat: two messages from you in one day!

  One thing that has long been puzzling me -- undoubtedly due to 
insufficient
  knowledge of history -- is that Germanic-speaking kingdoms sprang up in
  Britain pretty much right from the start of the "invasion." At that time,
  Saxons in the old country prided themselves for their version of democracy
  and absence of a monarch, and I believe the same applies to Angles and
  Frisians. Saxon kingdoms seem to have sprung up in England before
  Continental Saxons came to be integrated into the Frankish-led empire. The
  Continentals certainly didn't relish the thought of being part of
  Charlemagne's empire, and they had previously fought off the Roman empire.
  Even after the Frankish empire defeated the Sa! xons the latter conducted
  their own affairs as though they were free as always.

  What happened in Britain? Chiefs of united tribes claiming
  ("super-chiefdom") kingship due to Celtic influence? Is it that they came
  to be Christianized long before their left-behind cousins and with
  Christianity adopted royalist structures (hence a type of Romanization)?

  I know these may seem like really naive questions, but I hope you 
historians
  will indulge me.

  Regards,
  Reinhard/Ron
There is no evidence that the continental Germans lacked hereditary 
leadership - the very word King (OE *Cyning*, G. Koenig etc) carries with it 
the element of kinship.  That the Angles, Saxons etc lacked kings is not 
supported either by historical data or archaeology.  Like pretty well all 
Indo-Europeans they had stratified societies with a warrior aristocracy 
calling ! the shots. Allegience to a lord was cental to that aristocracy, 
and inveitably big lords had bigger lords and so on up the tree.

However, while the pre- and post- migration Germanic tribes certainly had 
kings, they didn't have monarchs, and that is where the confusion might 
arise.  There was no necessity to have only one king, and descent certainly 
wasn't automatic through the eldest son.  In fact that state of affairs 
continued long after the Norman Conquest - all four Norman kings had a 
living older brother when they took the throne.

I suspect so-called Germanic "democracy" had a lot in common with the more 
famous and earlier Athenian variety: everybody has a say in ruling the 
people, as long as you're male, not a slave, own property, and in reality, 
pack some serious muscle.

Paul

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: History

Thanks, Paul!

Quite right what you said about the "democracy."

So let me rephrase it by saying that Saxons *elected" local and regional 
chiefs (_oƀarhôƀdio_), not necessarily for life, mostly as representatives 
at regional and all-Saxon meetings at the þing in Markelohe (now Markloh on 
Weser).  These chiefs are said to have been of the rural and merchant types 
rather than of the regal type.

In the 8th century, Continental Saxons began to elect dukes.  However, as 
far as I know there were no actual kings (unless you call the chiefs that) 
and no hereditary titles.

Yes, Continental Saxons had the word _kuning_, but I don't know if this 
predates Christianization and Frankicization.

Pre-Frankicized Saxons had three social strata:

(1) that of the aristocrat (often referred to as _aþali_ "aristocrat,"
     cf. Old English _æþeling_), the actual _sahsnota_ ("fellow of
     the short sword")

(2) that of the "freeman" (_frîling_, cf. Old English _freoman_)

(3) that of the the bondsman (_lât_, related to "to let"), virtually
     without legal rights (now often referred to as "slave")

When did hereditary titles begin among Germanic-speakers in Britain?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron 

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================