Hengest & Horsa

Originally posted by Brian J Checco Well, when naming or elegizing a war leader, one usually picks a ferocious animal, or one of battlefield relevance. Hence, we tend to see surnames such as Richard "Couer de Lion," Cuchulain "the Hound of Ulster," etc. Very seldom Bob "The Falcon (also a status symbol of the nobility, but of neither ferocious temperment nor battlefield relevance)," or Joe "The Chinchilla (expensive and exotic, yet, well neither ferocious or of battlefield relevance)." Aelle, and early Saxon warleader, was referred to alternatively as the "Bear of the Aengles (one will of course note the ferociousness of the animal in question)" and the "Bull (an animal noted not only for it's virility, but also for it's vicious and violent temperment)." Of course, the most famous mythical Germannic-Nordic warleader, Beowulf, also has a name referencing a ferocious animal (in this instance, obviously, a wolf). Saxons are also believed to have used wardogs to break holes in enemy shieldwalls prior to melee, and there are some few recorded instances of Saxon warchiefs being merely known as "the Dog" or "the Hound (e.g. animals of battlefield signifigance). Horses, in a Saxon context, were neither considered particularly ferocious, nor had much battlefield relevance. More likely, these fictitious names would have been ascribed to these warlords by scholars writing in an early medieval context, when mounted warriors began to have some real battlefield significance (i.e. the surnames would make sense in the ferocious/battlefield relevance area). See what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by Aelfgifu After all, to refer to your examples, there was a major German nobleman called Henry the Fowler (of Habsburg).

Henry the Fowler was not Habsburg but of the Liudolfing dynasty and fowler was his hobby. he was also not a random nobleman but the first king of germany.

These are very early Saxon war-leaders we're discussing. It desn't even seem that they would have been aristocrats, more likely just mercenary captains, who have t be tough, and have tough names, to keep their positions very long. It's really a very competitive industry, you know. 

Originally posted by Brian J Checco Not only that, but the Saxons were not a "horse" people. Those names in the context of a Hunnic or of a Scythian/ Sarmatian people, well, they make way more sense. That would be like an American being named Pig, or Dog, or Cat (more appropriately, in a contemporary light, Car or Vacuum). The Saxonesque peoples used horses for plowing and farming, and militarily for specialized light/ scouting cavalry roles. The primary Saxon field formation would have been the shieldwall around the time of the invasion of Britain... so the names Horse and Stallion would have had little battlefield relevance, and thus, not have inspired much awe or terror

I don't think whether the Saxons used horses in battle, or not, was really all that important.

Have you ever been around a stallion? Not just a horse, an anatomically complete stallion? They are probably the least docile of all domesticated animals. Even bulls are more predictable and easier to control, you can lead the things around with nothing more than a nose ring and some self-confidence. Stallions are, above all, creatures that are never truly tame in any sense of the word. They are also extremely dangerous and highly capable of lethal attack - you are much more likely to be killed if a stallion attacks you, than if a dog or bull attacks you. If a person were described to me as being like a stallion, I would expect him to be either an individual with a high excess of testosterone, or someone capable of going from outwardly calm, to sudden and unexpected extreme physical brutality.

Not all animals commonly used in war imagery are dangerous wild animals, or domesticated animals of the battlefield. Raptors like hawks, falcons, and eagles are commonly associated with courageous warriors universally, and bulls likewise conjure an image of unstoppable physical power.

In terms of associations with warlike qualities, it seems to be fairly universal that animals are not chosen based on their use (for domestic animals) or relative dangerousness (for wild animals), but on their behaviour. If animals were chosen based on how dangerous they were, we would expect to see more wild boars and bears, and fewer wolves and eagles.

The only animal used in war with a primary purpose of attacking enemy soldiers is the dog. But it has always been, in every culture I am familiar with, an insult to describe a warrior or leader as a dog, for the same reason that stallion, eagle, bull, or wolf is not: because the dog is seen to submit easily to its master.

Edited by edgewaters - 30-Nov-2007 at 06:36

btw, if we say Hengest means stallion, does this imply that Horsa was perhaps female? like a couple or brother & sister?

Hallo, I'm Bj�rn from Lower Saxony in Germany. It's said here that the Saxons were no horse people. That's true, but the horse is still on the flags of the two German states of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westfalia, the so called saxon horse. So there is an importance for the Saxons. It is not sure where it comes from, so I cannot say anything else about it. But the horse was important for the Saxons on the continent. So it is possible that you can connect Hengest and Horsa with this tradition. The problem is, that you cannot connect Hengest and Horsa with the Saxons in Lower Saxony, cause the term saxones just means something like pirates. They were no tribe, they were a conglomeration of a lot of germanic tribes from Germany, Danmark and the Netherlands. So the saga of the three ships with Saxons, Anglians and Jutish people is just a nice story but definitely not true. Hengest and Horsa are probably not the true names of germanic leaders, if they have exist anyway, they just stand for leaders of these times, whose names were unknown in later times. Perhaps you can compare it with the saxon leader in the war between the Saxons and Charles the Great. He is mentioned as Widukind. This is unic (only a later chronist is called after him). It means son of the wood. It was probably not his real name, perhaps it's a kind of war-name or sacral name. we don't know.

The appears on the flags of two states. Both are states on the ground of the saxon tribe. There are also sometimes wooden heads of horses on the roofs of old houses. I cannot explain the origin but it seems so that there is a kind of connection between the Saxon area and horses. So this could be an/one explanation for the names Hengest and Horsa.

Stallion and horse? Was this a reference to his sexual prowess?