LL-L "History" 2008.05.02 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 01 May 2008 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2008.05.02 (03) [E]

 Beste Ron,

you asked about Herzogtum Sachsen-Lauenburg:

> Are we still talking about the true Saxony here, or the "hijacked" Saxony
we're still stuck with?

I recommend the German Wikipedia here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogtum_Sachsen-Lauenburg

I'm never sure about these Earls with any "..of Saxony.." in their titles,
because it's hard to follow their genealogy to the real Saxon time, e.g. to
the point before christianization and Charlemagne. I think even the famous
Widukind was not an 'Herzog' by birth but, according to Continental Saxon
rules, by election, for a limited time and special reason.


> And, Jonny, I hope you don't mind that I have linked the English Wikipedia
article about Hadeln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadeln) to your >
article.
You're welcomed!

Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm

----------

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2008.05.02 (03) [E]

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

> Dear Jonny,
>
> Without wanting to answer for our Pat, I thank you for sharing the meaning
> of the acronym on that building in Otterndorf, Hadeln:
>
> *H* = *H*erzog
> *Z* = *Z*u
> *S* = *S*achsen
> *E* = *E*ngern
> *U* = *U*nd
> *W* = *W*estfalen
>
> I have a naive question about this for you:
>
> Are we still talking about the true Saxony here, or the "hijacked" Saxony
> we're still stuck with?
>
> The mention of Angria (/Engern/) and Westphalia makes me assume that we're
> dealing with the true Saxony in an inherited title.
>

If you look at the map (<
http://www.sachsengeschichte.de/karten/Sachsenkarte2.jpg>), all of
Sachsen-Lauenburg is on the 'right' side of the divide, being part of old
Saxon areas. But both the Northern branch and the Southern branch inherited
their name legally. So there's not really a 'true' and 'false' Saxony if we
speak about noble houses only.
In my personal point of view there are no 'right' noble successors of old
Saxony. All the Saxon nobility was nobility by the grace of Charlemagne
after the wars against the Saxons. Some were Franks who were given fiefdoms
in the conquered Saxony, others were Saxons who collaborated with the
Charlemagne administration. Actually the nobility handed over the Saxons for
self-serving reasons. They could enlarge their territory and power if they
revealed their nation.
The Saxon society consisted of the main groups: Frielings (free men), Lates
(half-free men), Unfree and Edelings (nobility). Saxony formed a united
nation, but they had no king and chose a single leader only in case of war.
In peace Saxony consisted of Gaus, which sent delegates to the Thing
meetings. When Charlemagne invaded Saxony the Edelings surrendered to him
after some time cause they feared to loose their status. Only the Frielings
kept on fighting the invasion of their homeland under the leadership of
Widukind. The Frielings are the real Saxons, no noblemen ever can be 'true'
Saxons.
Nobility is 'unsaxon'. The Frielings fighting for their liberty against the
emperor and against the nobility. The Hanseatic merchantmen, free citizen,
against the opposition of the Landesfürsten. The Peasant Republics of
Dithmarschen or Stedingen for example. Saxonness comes from the bottom, from
the people, not from the sovereigns. There is no 'real' house of Saxony for
me.

Marcus Buck

----------

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

Thanks, guys!

Marcus, perhaps I should have made clear that I wasn't talking about the
aristocracy and its shenanigans.

I was only interested in the spread and extent of traditional Saxon language
and culture. Language and culture of today's German state of Saxony is
clearly not Saxon but is a mix of Eastern "Central" German and Thuringian.
On the architectural side of things, for instance, the Saxon hall building
style pretty much coincides with that of the spread of the language, and
today's Saxony is clearly outside this region.

By the way, the map ignores such areas west of today's Netherlands-German
border.

True, Saxons were not interested in the Frankish type of aristocratic order,
and this, together with their refusal to adopt Christianity, was at the root
of the hard time they gave Charlemagne. I believe they took pride in never
having been conquered by Rome and considered the Franks romanized. However,
despite what looks like a fairly democratic order in pre-Christian Saxony,
there was a form of feudalism there too: a type of social hierarchy that
allowed certain people to own slaves.

I often wonder if early Saxon disdain for the Frankish-imposed imperial and
aristocratic system became culturally ingrained. I am under the impression
that centrally installed aristocrats in the north did not enjoy the types of
popularity, veneration and "to-do" that those in the south enjoyed.
Furthermore, there's a long and "proud" history of anti-authoritarian
grumblings (though relatively few actions), hence the stereotype of the
Low-Saxon-speaking stubborn curmudgeon. Might we even go one step farther
and ask if these attitudes were one of the secrets to the success of the
Reformation in the north?

If any of this bears any water, I further wonder if there are any
similarities to the general attitudes and sentiments of Scots under British
dominance.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080502/d994f51f/attachment.htm>