Tribes, peoples and their leaders

[Ingemar Nordgren]

Hi David,

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <derdron at ...> wrote:


> "[Germani] Reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt". 'They  
> choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit'. So, while  
> there seems to have been some sort of inherited status, it apparently  
> did not, originally, entail power or authority to rule, as a king  
> would later in the middle ages. As Tacitus puts it:
> "Nec regibus infinita aut libera potestas, et duces exemplo potius  
> quam imperio, si prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant,  
> admiratione praesunt."
> 'These kings have not unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals  
> do more by example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they  
> are conspicuous, if they fight in the front, they lead because they  
> are admired.'
> 
> Formations on *_-i/anaz_ seem to refer to leaders (duces) of certain  
> entities, such as *_xarjaz_ or *_theuðô_.
> Now, what about the meaning of *_theuðô_ and *_xarjaz_? Judging from  
> their Indo-European relatives authors such as Kim McCone and others  
> have concluded we're dealing with two different groups here.  
> Apparently, in Indo-European speaking societies of Europe, there were  
> age-groups (a phenomenon well known around the world). According to  
> those authors, the *_xarjaz_ consisted of young men, temporarily  
> living outside or at the fringes of the tribal community. These  
> 'Jungmannschaften' would form bands of warriors and raid other  
> territories.
> They would also serve as a first line of defence in case of enemy  
> incursions. A leader (dux) of such a band would be called a  
> *_xarjanaz_. The _theuðô_ consisted of the older, married, settled  
> members of a tribe. A wartime leader of that entity would be the  
> *_theuðanaz_, possibly assuming command over the entire armed  
> contingent of a 'tribe', if necessary. However, these were hardly  
> permanent institutions.
> 
> While things become progressively more speculative here, we might see  
> in the bifurcation (hereditary king - wartime leader) an olde  
> inheritance from Indo-European times. It emerges e.g. from the Vedas,  
> that there were peace chieftains and war chieftains (to use a North  
> American term here). Typically (just as with North American Indians),  
> the peace chieftain would administer the inner affairs in time of no  
> or little conflict. His office was typically hereditary. In times of  
> major conflict (relative to the size of such communities), military  
> chieftains were chosen.
> 
> If we assume for a moment that the picture given above reflects, at  
> least to some degree, the reality among Germanic tribes in the first  
> few centuries AD, we might speculate that the Goths changed their  
> leadership model to a permanent 'war chieftain' or _thiudans_. I.e.  
> they adopted a slightly different model of governance. This seems to  
> be confirmed, again, by Tacitus who writes: "Trans Lygios Gotones  
> regnantur, paulo iam adductius quam ceterae Germanorum gentes, nondum  
> tamen supra libertatem."
> 'Beyond the Lygians dwell the Gothones, under the rule of a King; and  
> thence held in subjection somewhat stricter than the other German  
> nations, yet not so strict as to extinguish all their liberty'. The  
> Gothic _thiudans_ would thus seem to have acquired the status typical  
> of a later, medieval 'king'. That process was later repeated in the  
> West, but with the term *_kuningaz_/ king rising to prominence.
> 
> Lastly, _reiks_ (and its relatives) is probably an early loan from  
> Celtic into Germanic. The word expressing a concept, possibly  
> peculiar to a Celtic form of rule.
> 
> David Kiltz

Your analysis suggests as well some alternate explanations. Since the
Goths were moving en masse down to the Cerniachov-Sintana-de- Mûres
area they evidently needed a wartime leader for all the people, i.e.
þiuðans and maybe the *_xarjanaz_ was equal with Wolframs 'kings of
the army' during the expansion. After settling down and splitting in
two (or more) groups I can not see the need of o þiuðans but instead
we get a kindins with the Vesigoths which seems to keep also the
functions of a sacral king and hence probably is a more normal
leaderfunction. He has just the limitations in power that a sacral
king had but on the kind-level and he is elected. His council of reiks
should be equivalent to tribal kings/kuningas or, if you prefer the
clan-association, clan chiefs recognising a clan leader. Accordingly
there should have been several different kinds making up the þioð and
they temporarily gave power to a þiuðans. At this time they also had
borrowed the Celtic reiks and it became associated with the king title
through Roman contacts and, I suggest, that this title was used by
Wulfila, and later Cassiodorus, just to simplify the description of
the kingship. Still I think they were called kuningas if you take the
finnish and other old loanwords into consideration. The later Gothic
kings from Alarik and Teoderik were definitely regarded as reiks,or
rex,in the scriptures.I claim the þiuðans disappeared with att latest
Ostrogotha and that Ermanarik was not a þiuðans because he insted was
an Odinistic king. Later as you say the Germanic title was to be
kuningas/king as well for a sacral king like Svákonungr.

Best
Ingemar








You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:gothic-l-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:gothic-l-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/