On the one side we have monarchies like Holy Roman Empire or France or rather monarchies that emerged after the division of Charlemagne's empire.

 

On the other side are primitive tribal states of Danes, Hungarians, Poles and almost forgotten tirbes of pagan western Slavs, living on the territory of Eastern Germany who formed federation known as Veletii, Union of Veletii and later Luticii.

 

For long periods of time the mighty Empire suffered from the raids of those barbaric and pagan tribes, not often being able to stop them.

 

For decades of 10th century the Magyars were launching attacks towards western Europe, trying to conquer parts of Germany. Their agressions were finally stopped at the battle of Lechfeld when Emperor Otto I defeated them in year 955 AD. The chronicles say that Hungarians had 50.000 wariors. After the battle Geza ruler of Magyar tribes started to christianise his country and introduce feudalism.

 

The Danes were invading all the European shores, conquering Normandy and England, parts of the civilised and christianised feudal Europe. Not to mention less civilised Ireland. Denmark was also able to keep its independence from the Empire. Around the year 960 AD Denmark begins its christianisation and slowly starts to follow feudal pattern.

 

Poland appears on the map of Europe when its ruler Mieszko I begins christianisation of his state in year 966 AD. The tribe "Polanie" has conquered many neighbouring tribes of western slavic people what finally brought it to have border with German empire. For the next century it is somtimes the ally of the German emperors, sometimes the enemy fighting bloody wars against them and defeating emperors, invading German empire or sucesfully defending itself from German invasions. The first known major battle is the battle of Cedynia in year 972 AD, described by German chronicler Thietmar, when German forces: 1000-1300 knights and 3000 infantry invaded Poland trying to stop Polish ruler from conquering Pomerania and the island of mixed Danish - Slavic vikings Jomsborg. German forces were defeated and massacred, emperor Otto I had to come back from Italy to mediate between Polish ruler and Saxon Odo I.

 

The Western Slavs in modern Germany appears in history in times of Charlemagne. In the 9th century some of them are the allies of Franks against germanic Saxon and others are being conquered by Franks. After death of Charlemagne they again become independent. In the 10th century they become partly conquered by the Empire, suffering also invasions from the Danes and Poles. Unlike all the other tribes mentioned above they do not accept christianity nor form a state. Instead part of them formed tribal union, federation of Western Slavs known as Veletii, later Luticii. They also were able to defeat invading German forces somtimes even allying with them against for example Poles (during reign emperor Otto II and emperor Henry II). Veletii-Luticii were a democratic society, they failed to introduce monarchy, untill the end remained pagan. Resisted all attempts to conquer or christianise them untill the half of 12th century when their union broke in civil war, allowing neighbours - especially Germans to conquer them.

 

 

In cases of all those groups of tribes: Magyars, Danes, Polans and Veletii - Luticii we can see the pagan or nominally christianised nations fighting against much stronger empire that was more advanced in matters of military, technologic, economic, diplomatic and social developement. Finally all of them except for Veletii - Luticii adopted christianity and feudalism and became much lesser threat.

 

The feudal society was divided on wariors/knights and paesants who were working in fact to arm and feed them. In tribal society all the men were free except from slaves who were coming from prisoners of war. Every free man was a warior who was fighting in the wars of his tribes. For example population of early Poland in the times of its first historical rulers is estimated on 1 million people - compared to population of Europe estimated on about 45 millions. But the number of wariors was big enough not only to defend itself from Holy German Empire but even to invade it. The same situation is with Danes, Magyars and Veletii-Luticii who for long time were able to sucesfully fight against - in theory much stronger and better equipped and organised enemy.

 

 

A well thought out entry,

 

I wouldn't call the Danes a Tribal state by the 10th or 11th centurary. Further the Danes were not all just freemen or kings, they had pretty strict classes of Thrall, Landsmen, Freemen, Carls/Jarls and Huscarls. It was the same set up that feudal England had under the Saxons and Normans who were pretty close to the Danes.

 

Denmark didn't threaten the HRE after about 950 or so (and really never did), they fell under German influence until about 1265 when the Bishop of Lund and King Valdemar established a stronger state, That Included the Baltic empire of Estonis and Norway

 

The Danes were united and officially Christianised in 965 AD

 

Further I still contend that the HRE was a collection of German Tribes, not really a feudal state as was France, and England. The HRE had more free citiies and a stronger middle class than other nations of europe

 

The HRE empire is considered starting with Otto 2 in 962. The Maygars were defeated in 955 (by Otto 2 before he was the HRE E) and were no longer a real threat to the HRE

 

The Battle of Lechfeld (10 August 955), often seen as the defining event for holding off the incursions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians - Hungarians into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe - Western Europe , was a decisive victory by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_I_the_Great - Otto I the Great , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Germans - King of the Germans , over the Hungarian leaders, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horka_%28title%29 - harka (military leader) Bulcsú and the chieftains Lél ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehel - Lehel ) and Súr. Located south of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg - Augsburg , the Lechfeld is the flood plain that lies along the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_River - Lech River . The battle appears as the Battle of Augsburg in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary - Hungarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography - historiography . It was followed up by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Recknitz - Battle of Recknitz in October.

 

 

The Poles become Christain in 965 and were under the Piast dynasty they really weren't tribal raiders, they were never a reall threat to the HRE (960's and past) until the Jangs a few hundred years later.

 

 

 

Its not quite truth. King Harald the Bluetooth of Denmark started christianisation but his son Sven the Forkbeard christianised as a child fought against the church and even banished the bishops from Denmark.

 

Polad was christianised in 966AD. Or rather just like in case of scandinavians, the ruler of Poland was christianised what started christianisation of the country.

 

I think we can call those monarchies tribal to some extent. Poland was named after tribe of Polan's (pol. POLANIE), who conquered in the 10th century the tribes of Vistulans (Wislanie), Mazovians (mazowszanie), Silesians (slezanie), Volinians (wolinianie), Lubuszanie and other tribes. The conquered tribes and their territories were incorporated into the state of Polans, ruled by Piast dynasty.

But i have found that some historians call those "tribal states" as militaristic monarchies in which the duke had to invade and raid border lands to be able to feed and pay his own too big military forces.

 

As for HRE it was organised after the pattern of Charlemagne. It was divided on counties and marks and duchies. Each Margrave (Markgraf) was appointed by king (or emperor) and was his lenient. However title was hereditary if was not loyal he could have been dissmissed and replaced by someone else. Even the dukes of Bavaria were somtimes deposed by the emperor (emperor Otto II and duke Henry the Wrangler or the Quarrelsome). HRE had already feudal character while mentioned Denmark, Hungary and Poland not. As for Veletii they remained tribal until their end.

 

As for the threat for the empire. None of thouse countries was a threat in the meaning that was able to conquer it. But each was raiding HRE and was able to take and occupy its parts. The Veletii when raised, have destroyed the Northern Mark, several times defeated imperial army and forces of border margraves. Hungarians tried to conquer Bavaria. Poles defeated german emperors several times and were ocasionally raiding german territories. There are accounts of german chroniclers saying that after devastating Polish raid on Saxony even grass wasnt growing there.

During the reign of emperor Henry II in Germany and Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland, the second has invaded Germany and waged war against empire in years 1002-1018 which ended in his victory which allowed him to occupy and grab margraviate of Meissen and March of Lusatia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the Danes become once again a superpower when Canute(or  Knud) the Great became the king of Denmark, England, Norway and Sweden creating in fact scandinavian empire. By the way, Canute was half Polish. His mother Swietoslawa (known in nordic countries as Sigríð Storråda or in english as Sigrid the Haughty known also as Gunhild - the wife of king Sven Forkbeard was a daughter of Polish duke Mieszko I and sister of Boleslaw I the Brave. Thats explained how it happend that for the invasion of England he took with himself also hundrieds of Polish soldiers that he recived as help from his mighty brother in law Boleslaw I the Brave.

 

First emperor was Otto I. But it doesnt matter, the system worked before the rulers get imperial title and were kings of Germany so since 911 AD. And even after 962 not every king of Germany was going to Italy to be crowned an emperor.

 

I cant agree. Danes, Norwegians and Swedes until the half of 10th century, as well as Poles lived in some kind of tribal democracy. They had their tribal meetings where all free people were meeting. In scandinavia those meetings were called "Thing" and in slavic countries "Wiec". Till half of 10th century scandinavia was a conglomerate of tens of little kingdoms (because they called their little chieftains "kings") as well as Slavic lands where leader was known as "kniaz" later "ksiaze" what into english is translated as prince or duke. In all those countries they were elective, at least on the begining. Later those scandinavian and slavic dukes started to have some number of standing troops what streghtened their power and allowed them to introduce hereditary monarchy. For me it is clear that they were not able to introduce feudal system in short time and they cant be compared with France or England where feudalism had much longer history. It took much more time to make many of free men the paesanst who were bound to land and for king to get the power over people, the power which they didnt have in the past. Thats why i still claim that those states were in 10th and 11th century still more tribal than feudal.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

 

In the pre-Christian /wiki/Norse_clans - clan -culture of Scandinavia the members of a clan were obliged to avenge injuries against their dead and mutilated relatives. A balancing structure was necessary to reduce tribal feuds and avoid social disorder. We know from the North-Germanic cultures the balancing institution was the ting although similar assemblies are reported also from other /wiki/Germanic_peoples - Germanic peoples and others.

The ting was the assembly of the free people of a country, province or a /wiki/Hundred_%28division%29 - hundred (hundare/härad/herred). There were consequently hierarchies of tings, so that the local tings were represented at the higher-level ting, for a province or land. At the ting, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. The place for the ting was often also the place for public religious rites and for commerce.

The ting met at regular intervals, legislated, elected /wiki/Germanic_chieftains - chieftains and /wiki/Germanic_king - kings , and judged according to the law, which was memorized and recited by the " /wiki/Law_speaker - law speaker " (the judge). The ting's negotiations were presided over by the law speaker and the chieftain or the king. In reality the ting was of course dominated by the most influential members of the community, the heads of clans and wealthy families, but in theory one-man one-vote was the rule.

Haugathing, the Thing for /wiki/Vestfold - Vestfold in /wiki/Norway - Norway , was located in /wiki/T%C3%B8nsberg - Tønsberg at Haugar (from the /wiki/Old_Norse - Old Norse haugr meaning hill or mound). This site was one of Norway's most important place for the proclamation of kings. In 1130, /wiki/Harald_IV_of_Norway - Harald Gille called together a meeting at the Haugathing at which he was declared to be King of Norway. /wiki/Sigurd_Magnusson - Sigurd Magnusson was proclaimed king in 1193 at the Haugathing. /wiki/Magnus_IV_of_Sweden - Magnus VII was acclaimed hereditary King of Norway and Sweden at the Haugathing in August 1319. ^{#cite_note-3 - [4]}

A famous incident took place when /wiki/%C3%9Eorgn%C3%BDr_the_Lawspeaker - Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker told the Swedish king /wiki/Olof_Sk%C3%B6tkonung - Olof Skötkonung that it was the people that held power in Sweden and not the king. The king realized that he was powerless against the ting and gave in. Main things in Sweden were the /wiki/Thing_of_all_Swedes - Thing of all Swedes , the /wiki/Thing_of_all_Geats - Thing of all Geats and the /wiki/Lionga_thing - Lionga thing .

The island of /wiki/Gotland - Gotland had in late medieval time twenty tings, each represented at the island-ting called landsting by its elected judge. New laws were decided at the landsting, which also took other decisions regarding the island as a whole. The landsting's authority was successively eroded after the island was occupied by the /wiki/Teutonic_Order - Teutonic Order in 1398. In late medieval times the ting-court consisted of twelve representatives for the farmers, free-holders or tenants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said.  This is probably a factor in why Native Americans, despite being heavily out numbered in total population, were able to compete militarily with European settlers for many generations.

 

No doubt that this helped as well.  As to the eventual defeat of European and native American tribal societies, tribal societies do not perform well in long campaigns. 

 

Not only are their militaries centered around raiding, but tribesmen are far more autonomous as individuals than settled people.  As mosquito said, "every free tribesman man is a warrior". But... every tribal warrior or clan also has far more freedom to "un-volunteer" themselves from the war effort than settled peoples do. 

 

 

 

Thrall ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse - Old Norse þræll; þír, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender - m. ) was the term for a slave in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scandinavia - Scandinavian culture during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age - Viking Age . They were the lowest in the social order and usually provided unskilled labor during the Viking era. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thralls#cite_note-0 - [1]}

 

But here is the kick not everyone got a vote, it was much like the HRE where only certian men got the vote.

 

Notice it says there was a hierachy of tings, It was determined by your social status.

 

In a side note to that, there is a large amount of females assinged to the POl BDE, wow if I had females that hot around me I would never leave the base camp. On another side note it re enforced to me how much the media lies. We also have a French BDE, with a large amount of Females, they are all right, nothing to really write home about, but the POL girls are smoking hot. You would think that the French would be hotter (if you believe the hype), but no way.

 

Nope, the Danes like all the scandinavian and slavic tribes were democratic societes where later some people achieved higher status. Also ancient Germans were democratic societies that were electing kings. The existance of the TINGS and elections of kings are well documented, not only in saga's. Affcourse in the 10th century the kings strnghtened their power and had standing troops that allowed them to dominate the society but it was still far from feudalism. The Jarl was just the same man as other free man but had some his own troops and more land. But not the serfs (except for slaves - prisoners of war).

 

Royal title of Gorm and his descendants wasnt recognised by the Pope or the emperor so they were dukes on the international scene, they just called themselves "kings". And not free population was everywhere in Europe that time but was much smaller than free population. Some people became so called jarls because were richer than others.

 

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I   Second Jomsvikings were not mixed with Slavs at all. The Founder of the Joms Vikings was part Welsh, not Slavic. They were in pomeriania, but did not mix witht the local population except, to attend to thier manly needs (wenching) as women and Children were not allowed in the City/Fortress or outsiders.

 

 

Jomsvikings were mixed with slavic population (not only local) in this meaning that they were accepting into their brotherhood also Wends/Vinds (in other words Slavs). In the end of 10th and begining of 11th century the slavic element was probably more numerous than scandinavian. They were on the isle of Wolin. By the way, they are there even today. In the 10th century they felt under rules of Polish rulers who had the right to accept or not accept their elected leader (Jomsvikinga saga). In some saga's we can see the jarl of Jomsborg being one of the men of Polish ruler who in saga's is always Burizleif king of Vindland (they called both Mieszko I and Boleslaw the Brave with this same name in saga's). The leader of Jomsvikings is jarl Sigvalde.

 

And here is the part of King Olaf Trygvasson saga:

 

 

So, from the 60 ships on which the Jomsvikings came to visit king Sven who just become the king of Denmark - 40 were slavic.

 

 

 

I have provided you sources. Read them.

 

and no Slavs didn't mix with the Jomsvikings. They may have been in Poland, but were ruled stayed Scandanavian.

 

also the Viking age was over by the mid 950's so the fact that Jomsberg fell under the Poles in the 11th century has nothind to do with slavs being part of Jomsbergs. Thats like saying all the French are German becuas they were ruled by the Franks.

 

Here is your other problem:

In the late 10th century, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piast_Poland - Polish dukes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieszko_I - Mieszko I and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_I_Chrobry - Bolesław I Chrobry subdued parts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerania - Pomerania and also fought the Volinians. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolin_%28town%29#cite_note-Piskorski31-3 - [4]} Despite a victory of Mieszko in a 967 battle, the Polish dukes did not succeed to subdue the area. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolin_%28town%29#cite_note-Piskorski31-3 - [4]}

In 1121/22, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piast_Poland - Polish duke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_III_Wrymouth - Bolesław III Wrymouth conquered the area along with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Pomerania - Duchy of Pomerania under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartislaw_I,_Duke_of_Pomerania - Wartislaw I .

 

 

What is also intresting is that there was a celtic tribe the Lemovici that orginated in that area, later moved into Gaul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jomsborg wasnt destroyed by Norwegians but by Danes. As for its dependancy from Polish ruler - this statement comes from scandinavians sources and from Thietmar of Merserburg - German bishop and chronicler.

 

As for Isle of Rugia (or Rugen) it was inhabittated by slavic tribe and was important centre of slavic pagan religion what is well known fact.

 

 

As for the notion Wends - it was always describing western Slavic people. And it is clear that in the sagas king of Poland is described as king of Wends/Vinds. While many things in sagas are fantastic or mixed with fantasy, the marriage of king Svein of Denmark with Polish princess was confirmed by German chroniclers who lived in the same time, Thietmar of Merserburg and Adam of Bremen. Im very astonished to see that you know so well and you are so sure if Wends were in Jomsborg brotherhood or not while iv been reading works of scandinavian historians who wrote that after year 1000 there was probably more Slavs in Jomsborg than Scandinavians.

And Jomsborg was attacked by Danes because Jomsvikings raided Denmark. The king who did it just happend to be the king of Denmark and Norway.

 

 

 

 

You seems to have knowledge that lack people who write books about vikings . Especially the theory about people who were reslavized after WW2 I find ridicullous. Could you please give any sources - especially German from the 10th or 11th century that claim that isle of Rugia was Germanic not Slavic? And I mean the people from Rugia in the 9th-12th century, not migrations of Germanic tribes in the 1th century.

 

You seems to have knowledge that lack people who write books about vikings . Especially the theory about people who were reslavized after WW2 I find ridicullous. Could you please give any sources - especially German from the 10-11thth century that claim that isle of Rugia was Germanic not Slavic? And I mean the people from Rugia in the 9th-12th century, not migrations of Germanic tribes in the 1th century. However the isle took name from Germanic tribe who lived there centuries earlier......

 

Maximus you are mixing things more than icelandic saga's.....

 

 

chceck this topic too - unlike here in that debate took part several scandinavians:

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14616&KW=jomsborg&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14616&KW=jomsborg&PN=1

 

 

 

Your knowledge is based on some Slavic revisionist history.

 

Mosquito you said:

 

As for Isle of Rugia (or Rugen) it was inhabittated by slavic tribe and was important centre of slavic pagan religion what is well known fact.

 

Are you really this silly-Where do you think the name Rugia came from? Where did it come from. It was named for the Eastern Germanic tribe the Rugii, they ruled there until the 5th century (they were weakened by half the ribe going to Austria, and there llies the Brugndi leaving west cent Europe. but we do know that a kingdom of Burgandi stayed in the Rugi area according to the sagas) as the rulers, they were conqurerd by the Rani, and were Salvized

 

Further if the Slavs did indeed ever join the Joms they would have had to give up the Slavic god and embarce Thor and Odin, becuase it was also well known that is wht the Jomsvikings built the fortress, to preserve thier warrior culture and devotion to their gods, norse paganism. So if that is why the built it, so why would they let slav paganism in?

 

By the way you deny the Re slavization of Pomerinia after WW2-Are you carzy?!!

 

Read this: Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948
edited by Philip Ther and Ana Siljak.

 

 

After World War II, 12 million Germans, 3 million Poles and Ukrainians, and tens of thousands of Hungarians were expelled from their homes and forced to migrate to their supposed countries of origin. This work gives an account of the turmoil caused by the migration during the nascent Cold War.

 

CONTENTS

Introduction
Mark Kramer

1. A Century of Forced Migration: The Origins and Consequences of "Ethnic Cleansing"
Philipp Ther

Part I: Creating a Polish Nation-State

2. Forced Migration and the Transformation of Polish Society in the Postwar Period
Krystyna Kersten

3. "Cleansing" Poland of Germans: The Province of Pomerania, 1945-1949
Stanislaw Jankowiak

4. Who Is a Pole, and Who Is a German? The Province of Olsztyn in 1945
Claudia Kraft

5. "De-Germanization" and "Re-Polonization" in Upper Silesia, 1945-1950
Bernard Linek

6. Gathering Poles into Poland: Forced Migration from Poland's Former Eastern Territories
Jerzy Kochanowski

7. Expulsion, Resettlement, Civil Strife: The Fate of Poland's Ukranians, 1944-1947
Orest Subtelny

8. Overcoming Ukranian Resistance: The Deportation of Ukranians within Poland in 1947
Marek Jasiak

 

 

 

Magnus - I dont want to offend you in any way. I really appreciate that you take part in this discussion.

 

 American BA or MA in european history is considered here in europe as primary school or highschool level. European history is pretty long and contains history of many nations, even proffesors of european history do specialise in some regions or time periods. Your informations about Pomerania came from article in English wikipedia "Pomerania".

 

Now try to consider one thing and compare it with wikipedia article that you quoted.

 

In the year 1000 AD Emperor Otto III visited Poland and Polish ruler Boleslaw the Brave. It was so callled Congress in Gniezno. Emperor agreed to create Polish Metropolitan See independent from German with archbishopric in Gniezno and 3 new Polish dioceses subordinate to Gniezno: in Krakow for Lessser Poland, in Breslau for Silesia and Kolobrzeg (Kolberg) for Pomerania. So unlike you stated before, as it is on the maps - Pomerania was still under Polish rules. Only bishopric of my city - Poznan under bishop Unger, remained directly subdued to Rome and wasnt part of metropolital Gniezno.

 

 

 

 

 

I got friend from Denmark on a different forum who says that for 100% those who destroyed Jomsborg were Danes, not Norwegians.

 

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I   So once again you are wrong, I think most of your mistakes are a species of not undersatnding the nuiances of the english language, like in the quote you had earlier, the author didn't say the slavs were Viking, but he was making the point they raided like Vikings. Further the term Viking meant basically raider or pirate, in the Norse language anyone who was a pirate could be called a Viking, but they were not Vikings in the sense that we use Viking, they didn't use the dragon boats or raid Europe or travel the seas they were the bullys of the baltic.

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Im not so sure about it. We have no contemporary sources and claiming that one small tribe lived on one small island for 1000 years, that was conquered by Slavic tribe that adopted their name and mixed with them is for me just a pure speculation....

 

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I     Further if the Slavs did indeed ever join the Joms they would have had to give up the Slavic god and embarce Thor and Odin, becuase it was also well known that is wht the Jomsvikings built the fortress, to preserve thier warrior culture and devotion to their gods, norse paganism. So if that is why the built it, so why would they let slav paganism in?

 

 

 

I dont see the problem which you see here. Both pagan religions - slavic and nordic were politeistic. One didnt have to stop belive in his own gods to worship Odin and Thor. Not to mention that many deities of slavs and nordics were very similar - nordic Odin = slavic Perun. It wasnt christianity where worshiping 1 God was making people unable to worship other Gods.

 

 

So once again you are wrong, I don't think you have ever won an argument with me. Better luck next time Jr.

 

What was the last one, who has the better tank-Every Defense journal from Jane’s to MM supported my position.

 

Or my favorite on the Western Way of War, I provided numbers and stats-you provided nothing, nothing but you guys aren’t talking about the winged Hussars—They are the best, the best- you sound like a little kid.

 

Does it get old? Like I said someday you and your top notch European high school education may be able to match wits with me (but really you need about 7 more years of education). Oh and by in High school I didn't go to Public schools I want to a LaSalliean school, that would rival the best Euro Primary school, if you think a Polish or even German high school can compare to a Christian Brothers school you are nuts. So I was ahead of you when I was 18, that was 15 years ago. My French teacer was from France, my Latin teacher an Irish Priest, every teacher I had my SR year had at least a Masters. For instance my econ teacher had a Masters from Duke

 

In all seriousness, in order to be a professional or even passable historian, you need to drop your biases, you have a small mans complex that the Slavs and Poles have been overlooked so much you want to get out here and show how great they are, and how great the Warsaw pact weapons were was, because those are the weapons you used. You were educated in a very biased environment. You are proud of your country and that is fine, you have a great country. But you insist on this Slavic supremacy path, it gets old.

 

You are jingoistic and really fail to provide solid facts to support your position, the facts you do provide are very biased.

 

Once again do you not what an MA is—It is a Masters degree, to compare that to a Euro high school degree just shows how ignorant you are.

 

Im not bashing America. I dont know why do you missunderstand me and missinterpretate my posts so much that you came to conclusion that im against America and bash everything whats american. People from my country like general Pulaski or General Kosciuszko went to USA to help Americans get independence from British. Over century later Americans came to my country to help fight against Soviet invasion in the war of 1920-1921 (Im talking about famous Kosciuszko Squadron of major Cedric Fauntleroy and Captain Merian Cooper). But I remember an interviev with British professor saying that teaching european history on american universities is almost limited to history of England and France.

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I Danes were in on the destruction, but the Norwegians ruled Denmark at the time. so really it was the Norwegians, but semantics.

 

I think that this is classic American missinterpretation of european history. Do you think that if 2 countries had one and the same king, it means that one nation was ruling the other? Norwegians were not ruling Denmark, if they tried they would be quickly kicked out especially that Norway was less powerfull than Denmark.

 

 

here:

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=212&PN=1&RN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=212&PN=1&RN=3

 

I do like Poland one of my Hero's is JP2

 

You stated that In America we have a specality in our College degree's yes that is true, I have two area of concentration- Primary Reformation Germany, secondary Roman era Germany.

 

When I have worked with the Dutch they have always been really good. As for Bosnia I was their in the mid nineties, Beautifull country, but so spoiled and defiled. Haven't been back to Tuzla since 98 hopefully it has changed.

I will wait for you to continue our debate :)

 

Most tribal societies are / were agrarian.  Nomadic hunters were / are relatively rare except in Australia where all the aboriginal peoples were hunter gathers.  Also, some tribal groups were hybrid (practiced very basic agriculture, but also lived as hunter gathers for part of the year).

 

Here is a rough breakdown

-Africa:  All most all agrarian except Kung, pygmies

-USA: Mostly agrarian east and southwest, California, HGs in plains and great Basin

-New Guinea: Mostly agrarian

-South America:Agrarian Incas, Amazonian Indians are mixed agrarians, hybrid and nomadic

 

Originally posted by Carol   Also what might we know of the difference between how these tribes approached war?  What separates the warrior from the soldier?

Nomadic hunters tended to be small scale raiders and to fight as individual warriors.  Their smaller populations could not support many casualties. Also, individual tribesmen in nomadic hunters groups tended to have far more individual autonomy than members of agrarian groups.

 

For example, during the Indian wars, famous Cheyenne and Lakota warriors would ocassionaly refuse to fight in key battles because they: "had received a bad omen, did not like the battle plan, had personal disagreements with a war leader" etc.  This behavior was probably accepted far more in nomadic cultures than in more authority centeralized agrarian tribes. Agrarian groups tended to have a semi standing army and fight as units instead of individuals.     

 

Originally posted by Carol Most curious, why did the Germans hold formation, behaving as soldiers, instead of behaving as warriors?  Really I am dying to know the answer of this question.

Probably because the Germans were a settled people with agriculture and domesticated animals. They had the population base for a semi standing army and they also had centerlized authority to fight more as units and not as individual warriors.

Though I  said it was only a rough breakdown, You are right.  

Originally posted by Athena The Huns and Mongols are not known for their farming skills.

Good point, but the mongols were not hunter gathers, they were pastorlists. Though the may have disliked urban settlement, they were willing to incorperate them into their empire and benefit from them.  Carol's question seemed to be more focused on the differences between small hunter gather tribes and small agricultural based tribes. 

Originally posted by Athena   Native Americans used to migrate from California, through Oregon and north.  These were hunter gathers, not agrarian people.

Good point.  The California w]Indians were mostly hunter gathers.  I was thinking of the more settled Chumash indians.  As you pointed out, settled tribes were a rarity in California.

I think all people have the same core social aspects.  Rather, it is the different environments (hunting verse agriculture) that leads to a different social development.

 

As for what the differences are, I think these maybe some differences:

 

Personal; autonomy: I think hunting / nomadic cultures place alot more emphasis on individual autonomy.  Group leaders are fewer and are often not present.   In agricultural societies, group leaders are more numerous and are often physycally present.  Indivuduals have far less autonomy.

 

Honor culture: Agrarian societies tend to be more legalistic.  Laws and customs are written down. Legal issues are resolved by refering to a written code or in the cases where there is no written language, the oral tradition maintained by elders.  Hunting cultures (and subsistance agriculture) tend to be more honor culture based. There are fewer formal codes.  Legal issues are resolved face to face.

 

Religous development:  I bet that agricultural peoples tend to have a religous hierarchy, fixed sacred sites, large religous paraphanelia etc.   A good comparison might be Islam and nomads.  The early arabs could have picked Judaism or Christianity.  Instead, they chose Islam because Islam is tailor made for nomads.  

 

Good point Mosquito, politistic people were much more tolerant of each other's God.  Knowing the difference between these people and those who worship the God of Abraham, makes me regret we are no longer politistic people.  Imaging living without religious persecution and having true freedom of religion, without having to have laws to protect it.  Wouldn't that be more open minded and Misquito, are you suggesting people might have mingled without antagonism?

 

Actually I see I made a mistake. Slavic Perun was similar not to Odin but to Thor.

 

As for the antagonism - I belive that there were no religious conflicts. For example it is well known that Vikings - who in the east were known as Varangian's, created or at least played a some role in the creation of the state known as Rus or Kievan Rus. As they were in minority soon they adopted slavic language and slavic pagan religion. I think its moreless similar to Greeks and Romans who had similar Gods, on the begining more different, later mixed in almost the same Gods, who were only named different eg Zeus/Jovius, Ares/Mars.

 

 The legend says that eastern slavic tribes were invaded by Varangians who forced them to pay tribute. But the slavs revolted and sent away the Vikings over the sea without tribute. After that they started to fight one tribe against other for hegemony but noone was able to deafeat the rest just like between the western Slavs in Germany where no tribe was able to become the ruling one. So instead making confederation like in the west, they decided to send envoys to Varangians and to choose one of them for their prince, to rule them all. They brought from Sweden a viking named Rurik and his wariors, no one knows how many. Rurik became a prince and his descendant Oleg was official founder of Rus. They interrmarried with local slavic population, forgott their language, adopted slavic names and religion, what led to creation of one of most powerfull states in early Europe, which was able to fight and defeat the Byzantines, Khazars and Bulgars.

 

So in the early Poland the legend of noble Awdaniec familly says that its founder was a Scandinavian viking named Audun (Treasure). In the 10th century he came to Poland with his wariors and offered his services to Polish rulers. In exchange for his loyal service, he and his men recived land and power, getting the highest offices in the early monarchy. The name "Audun" changed into Polish "Awdaniec" and most popular name was "Skarbek" (Treasure in Polish).

One of more popular names in Awdaniec familly was Wilk and Wilczek (Wolf and Wolf Cub)

and on the territory of Awdaniec familly was created village named "Wargawa" (scandinavian Vargar - wolf). Also there were villages named "Besiekier" and "Besiekierza" which probably come from snadinavian words: "berserkr" and "berserkir" - mad menfighting in bear's skin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is one possible example

 

Personal autonomy: Nomadic Apaches could chose as individuals whether to follow Geronimo as a war leader on raids.  As Geronimo crossed the fuzzy line between guerilla warfare and banditry (especially after one particular incident), many warriors in his band refused to serve under him.  In addition, Apache bands were autonomous from each other and had to be negotiated with seperatly.

 

Meanwhile, agricultural Pueblo Indians and more sedentary Navahos could be negotiated with as complete tribes.   This is doubly so for the city dwelling settled Aztecs. I really doubt that Aztec warriors could refuse service after a commander committed a war crime.

 

Another semi comparison would be Israel in 1948:

 

Israelis:  Fought European style with mass conscription, established units, standard supplies etc.

 

More tribal or clan oriented arabs: Fought as clans, not units.  Individual clans could leave the fight at will, conduct sperate negotiations, conscription was frowned upon (individual fighters had more leeway in chosing when they served and who they served with), clans made their own supply arrangements (or lack there of).

 

Originally posted by Athena How about tribal relationships are based on personally knowing one another.  That is an intimate knowing of who is born to whom and really knowing these people and their relatioships.  Under feudal order that personal quality has changed with differences in power and social status assigned to people who do not really know each other, right?

Good points.  This lack of personal relationship also made large scale wars more likely.  Leaders of small tribal societies are likely to personally know casualties and their families.  As a result, they are more likely to limit warfare to raids.

 

Also, when the capture of territitory is the goal, total warfare is more likely as the combatants are not going to be satisfied with victories that simply restore honor or gain revenge for past raids etc.

 

 

 

Especially when I got into Greek history, I realized the interplay between military order and social order.  All Spartan males were in the military when they came of age, and as firm control was held over their lives in military formation, as in their daily lives.  These folks did not have liberty, as the folks of Athens had liberty.  On Athenian ships everyone had to work together, but in their daily lives, each one was on his own.   To some degree their government did organize them into a working economy, but not a an overly controlling way.  Feudal lords assumed control over everything, as though it were all their property, including the humans, right? 

 

Where are the people who started this thread?  

 

Can we assume feudalism is very much about land ownership?  What do you think Cryptic?  Going on what you said of small tribes likely knowing each other, and therefore very limited warfare, more like a rough game of foot ball, than real war, can we assume feudalism is the result of invaders who have no personal ties with the invaded people claiming the land as their own, and allowing others to live on it, so long as they prove useful?  I don't think these owners of land, would be the origin tribal people who shared land like a family.   Tribes can have territory, but isn't the territory shared in common?  Not at all like a landlord over the serfs. 

 

 

Yes, especially in early feudalism.  The feudal lord was seen as an intermediary for God. The French had the term of  "droit de seigneur" (right of the lord). In theory, a feudal lord owned the virginity of women. Though  enforced claims on wedding night virginity were rare or non existant (usually it was coercion / customary tribute of sexual favors), the core concept was that the feudal lord owned everything.

 

In practice, feudal lords had less "ownership" over knights, clergy and merchants than serfs.  The Maga Carta in 1225 was the first post classical era European document that placed at least token limitations on feudal power and provided a token concept of individual rights.

 

 

Originally posted by Athena Can we assume feudalism is very much about land ownership?

I agree competely.  With the collapse of trade and Roman era manufacturing, land was the only source of wealth and capital in the early feudal period.

 

I think the early feudal period was the "perfect storm" for land based feudalism.  The economy was advanced enough to give some one with absolute owenrship of land tangibe wealth (where as the economics of most tribal societies did not) yet feudal Europe as not advanced enough to offer other options.

 

Originally posted by Athena can we assume feudalism is the result of invaders who have no personal ties with the invaded people claiming the land as their own, and allowing others to live on it, so long as they prove useful?  I don't think these owners of land, would be the origin tribal people who shared land like a family.

Possibly, absolute authoritarian rule and imposing alien concepts about ownership is psychologicaly easier when you do not have a connection to the under class.

 

But then, many original feudal lords were probably opportunistic  tribal cheiftains or clan leaders who pledged allegiance to an over lord and then latched on to the idea of private property. The new lords could then lessen the psychological impact of ruling over once autonomous clan members by making key relatives "knights".

Originally posted by Athena    Tribes can have territory, but isn't the territory shared in common?  Not at all like a landlord over the serfs.

In almost all cases, yes. In the Americas, some very large empire building tribes such as Aztecs and Incas may of had the concept of individual land ownership but these were the exception and not the rule.  Likewise some Chinese minority tribal members had serf systems (probably copied from the Han Chinese), but almost all other indigenous tribal peoples in Australia, New Guinea, Phillipines, Indonesia and else where had communal property. 

 

I think it was different for different countries which we can in my opinion divide on 2 different groups:

 

1. The countries which were former Roman provinces, where actually feudalism did start before the fall of the empire, where came barbarian tribes of Franks, Visigoths, Longobardians and others. Actually they have inherrited this early feudalism after Romans and it did evolved farther. In the Roman empire it was known as "colonatus". Those countries already had big population and invaders became its masters, replacing old Roman masters - except for those who started to serve to the new barbarian king instead of emperor because part of the land was left in the hands of old roman powerful famillies.

 

 

2. The countries which were not within the borders of Roman empire imported it together with christianity. Like Hungary, Denmark or Poland, with rather small population and big forested areas.

 

The begining of the "knights" class were horse soldiers of the prince who was paying them with his own money, what was guaranting him the loyalty of the soldiers and hegemony over the rest of the society. In slavic countries those soldiers were called "Druzhina". Later they changed into knights - feudal lords who had land and their paesants.

 

In those tribal countries covered mostly by forests where population was free, the paesants or rather their lack was a problem so the wars and raids were not only an opportunity for plunder and getting loot to pay the soldiers of druzhyna but also an opportunity to get the prisoners and settle them on the land given to soldiers - later knights. For example Mieszko II king of Poland commited 2 devastating raids in Saxony in years 1028 and 1030 when he plundered and burned hundrieds of villages but also captured about 9000 people whom brought to Poland. Another example is bohemian prince Bretislaus I who in year 1038 invaded Poland during civil war and interregnum, and captured city of Giecz, taking all its inhabittants into slavery and settling them in Bohemia. So there was no mass killing of the enemies but rather stealing people and moving them to the country of invaders.

 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Druzhina

 

Druzhina, Drużyna or Družyna ( /wiki/Russian_language - Russian and /wiki/Ukrainian_language - Ukrainian : Дружи́на, Druzhýna) in the history of early /wiki/East_Slavs - East Slavs and /wiki/West_Slavs - West Slavs was a detachment of select troops in personal service of a /wiki/Tribal_chief - chieftain , later /wiki/Knyaz - knyaz . Its original functions were /wiki/Bodyguard - bodyguarding , raising tribute from the conquered territories and serving as the core of an army during war campaigns. For example, at the /wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Peipus - Battle of Lake Peipus the army of the /wiki/Novgorod_Republic - Novgorod Republic had about 5000 men in all , and around 3000 men in both the cavalry and infantry, were part of /wiki/Alexander_Nevsky - Alexander Nevsky 's druzhina. The druzhina organization varied with time and survived in one form or another until the 16th century.

The name is derived from the Slavic word drug ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3 - друг ) with the meaning of "companion, friend". It is a /wiki/Cognate - cognate of the Germanic /wiki/Drott - drottin ( /wiki/Proto-Germanic - Proto-Germanic *druhtinaz) meaning "war band".

Archaeological excavations suggest that druzhinas existed in the region as far back as the 6th and 7th centuries.

Druzhinniks (members of the druzhina) served freely. At any moment any of them could leave one knyaz and join another one. Modern estimates of sizes of a druzhina match that of /wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan - ibn Fadlan 's: sizes varied, but never exceeded several hundred persons. During military campaigns a druzhina was a /wiki/Nucleus - nucleus of the troops formed by means of a kind of /wiki/Conscription#Medieval_levies - levy .

A druzhina was paid by a knyaz, and received a share of military loot. For example /wiki/Abraham_ben_Jacob - Abraham ben Jacob who traveled in 961–62 in /wiki/Central_Europe - Central Europe , mentions that the drużyna of /wiki/Poland - Polish /wiki/Mieszko_I_of_Poland - Mieszko I had 3000 men, paid by duke. ^{#cite_note-0 - [1]}

In the 11th and 12th centuries the druzhina separates into two layers: elder druzhina, also called better druzhina or fore druzhina, and younger druzhina. The elder druzhina consisted of knyaz's men (княжие мужи) who eventually became /wiki/Boyar - boyars . They held higher military and civil positions ( /wiki/Posadnik - posadnik , /wiki/Voivode - Voivode ) and were advisors of a knyaz.

In addition to military service, druzhinniks of the younger druzhina (called otroki or gridni) ran errands for a knyaz and served as his /wiki/Bodyguard - bodyguards . Younger druzhina did not take part in knyaz's councils, with the exception of military ones, which had a very broad representation.

Starting in the 12th century in /wiki/Vladimir-Suzdal - northern principalities , a land-endowed military class had formed from druzhina.

 

 

 

He wrote a relation about his travel which i try to translate into english:

 

"As for the country ruled by Mesko (Mieszko I of Poland) it is the biggest of all them (slavic countries). There is a lot of honey, meat and (agriculture or fish). All the taxes the Mesko collects are being spent to pay his soldiers. He got 3000 armoured soldiers and 100 of them is worth as much as 1000 other soldiers. He gives them cloths, horses, arms, armours and everything whatever they need. If one of them got a child Mesko is paying him since his birth."

 

So according to Abraham/Ibrahim - the prince was paying for everything what needed soldiers of his Druzyhna. So transfering to feudalism - giving the land to his soldiers and demanding from them to live from the land they got was much cheaper for the prince.

 

Next i found part about Veletii-Luticii:

 

"West from them lives Slavic tribe called Welteba [Veletii]. They live in the forests near the border with Mesko. They got powerfull city at the ocean side (Baltic sea) which has 12 gates. They make wars with Mesko and their power is great. They have no king and they dont give power to one man. The power over them is held by Elders."

 

I have difficulty with distinguishing these people as not slaves.  I suppose the color gray is not black, but neither is it white.  Hum, the picture of this social order should color the people differently from a lighter color to a darker color, to indicate the degree of freedom or lack of it, they had. 

 

It might be helpful to consider money.  What was it made of and where did it come from?  Romans had coins, but who in the north had coins before the Romans came?  When Rome fell, what happened to the money supply?   Money is essential to having an army, right?  And does the metal for weapons and armor come from?  I would like to see a map of the fuedal area with piles of coins, indicating the wealth of each area. 

 

Wealth, and therefore power, would be a combination of land area, number of laborers, coins and soldiers, right?    As I learned in a thread about Japan, constant warfare led to a trained warroir class, and that is brought up again here, but I am not clear on these distinctions.  There is mention of a division by age, the young and elders, but not I am not sure of division of skill. 

 

I think there is the makings of an excellent computer game here.  What do you think?  The Nintendo game Genghis Khan does not include moving laborers, but this fuedual game should include moving laborers.  Purhaps the word laborer, can serve for all levels of slavery?  I think it would greatly help me grasp the concepts here if they were put into a game, like the Genghis Khan game or Civilizations or  Age of Empires.   Kingdoms stealing from each other as they compete for survival.   It is dawning on me, as never before, why humanity did not advance.  Too much was wasted on fighting, and I guess not much else was happening?  This is far from the philosophy of Athens that lead to science, and the development of the arts and commerce, and yet there must be some commerce to get coins. 

 

I think you have a negative out look on life.  We do not need religion nor force, because it is human nature to cooperate.  We are born wanting social acceptence and social pressure is very effective in getting us to comform to social expectations.  In fact, I am in awe how powerful this is.  Thoushands of people accepted being subject to another, who benefitted greatly from their willingness to be subjects. 

 

Surely, some barbarian groups were opposed to this, and there had to have been resistance.  Surely religion made this unnatural state of social order acceptable to many.  Like it is our nature to be cooperative and to conform to group norms, and even to be submissive to the alpha leader, but our urge for independence seems quite strong as well.  I don't know?  I am enjoying this discussion very much as I struggle to comprehend a consciousness that is unaware of anything beyond 20 miles of where I live.   What is it that determines my boundaries?  If I live in a forested region, I may not venture too far into the forest.  But if I start walking and nothing prevents me from walking further, than why do I stay on the same land for my whole life?  Am I like an obedient child, or an independent adult?   Is the bible my only knowledge of the world outside of my 20 miles radius?  Is all I want enough food to fill my belly and shelter from the elements, and social accept in my group?

What makes me happy and what gets my back up? 

 

As I walked my dog this morning, I got to thinking about the missions in the west/south of the US.  It appears that by turning land into productive farms and orchids, natives allowed them the use of this land, and even agreed to work the land.  Worked land produces more, so the missionaries would have something to give.  This could lead to trading and eventually a whole community, right? Surely there must be records of monastaries, and the growth of communities around them.

This also goes with what John Locke said about ownership.  He said it is our labor that gives us the right to claim ownership.   The creator gives us equal right to land, the produce of our labor is something we can claim, and what is ours can be shared and we can set conditions of the sharing.

I am just trying to figure out how anyone can claim land, and why others would agree to this.  It trouble me that this concept of ownership, includes owning people, and it only being a technicality that this is not slavery.

 

 

Originally posted by Athena I think you have a negative out look on life.  We do not need religion nor force, because it is human nature to cooperate.  We are born wanting social acceptence and social pressure is very effective in getting us to comform to social expectations.

I dont think he is being negative.  Instead, Opuslola is expressing a core principal.  In every society, there are going to be those who produce or contribute less than their fair share to the group.  Social pressure does not work with everyone. 

 

Those who contribute / produce more are going to conclude that they own more of the benefits, even if the property is communaly owned.  Therefore, every society must have some kind of societal "stick" to discourage or prevent people from taking advantage of others.  

 

As Opuslola mentioned, banishment is the most likely "stick" for hunter gathers and small agricultural tribes.  And.... as Opuslola mentioned, banishment can be a de facto death penalty.  That  makes it a very heavy stick, heavier than the sticks used by some advanced societies such as jail, forced labor, slavery etc.

Originally posted by Athena No one is going to be banished for being lazy.  I think you guys are showing an autocratic, industrial society prejudice.

I think you may be romanticizing hunter gathers and subsistance agricultural tribes. Extreme punishment of the lazy maybe more common with hunter / gathers and subistance agriculture tribes than with industrial societies.

 

Industrial societies usually produce more food than is consumed. This means that there is room for eror and the lazy probably wont directly impact the groups survival. Food can also be stored, purchased or bartered for in the future. The population is also larger allowing for the lazy to be more anonymous.

 

Then compare that to a hunter gather societies in extreme envorinments such as the inuit. There is no room for error.  The lazy have a noticable impact on the group and can endanger the entire group.

 

 

Actually at least one tribe left the child at 3 of age to forge for itself.  This is because these people are dying.  They do not have the technology to better use their environment, and their environment does not naturally produce enough food to sustain the tribe.  I such conditions, the behaviors we assume are human behaviors stop.  Mothers will not feed babies that doen't cry and babies that are starving to death, stop crying.  I don't know if you have ever felt overwhelmed by it is kind of like going to a state of shock.  People who are overwhelmed, just stop functioning as we assume human beings function.   This extreme is not equal to large cities ignoring their needy.  In the large city the needs of everyone can be met, but the huge number of people, causes another breakdown in human behavior.  To avoid being overwhelmed in large cities, we stop seeing eachother as human beings like ourselves. 

 

I guess what I have said could apply to the subject of the thread.  How we treat others does depend to some degree on our abundance of lack of it, and the size of the population.  A kingdom that could support 3000 soldiers, would have to be quite large.  When a group is larger than 500 hundred, we start loosing the ability to have intimate relationships with all the members of the group.  This results is forming subgroups.  We may or may not recognize members in the subgroup to be humans equal to ourselves.  They are perhaps the lazy laborers who need to whipped to make them work our lands. 

 

The thread is about the transition from tribal organization to feudal organization.  It is agreed this is about a changing relationship with the land.  It is also about coins and the ability to pay for soldiers, and this ties the transition to access to gold and silver and the ability to make coins.  How would a barbarian get coins?  How would anyone get coins enough to pay for an army? 

 

If you all want to discuss human nature, what is normal and what is not, and the impact of environment and food supply on human behavior, I would gladly do so, but let us keep this within the context of the thread, or start another for thread to discuss human behavior,  okay?   I strongly believe we should study animal behavior to understand human behavior, and what I say of human behavior is based on what I know of animal behavior.  Humans are social animals, as are baboons and chimps.  I do not think knowledge of animal behavior has lead me to romanticize about humans.    however, I guess we are talking about Romanizing barbarians in this thread.  You do get the word "romanticizing" means "making like Romans" don't you? 

A valid point

Originally posted by Athena The thread is about the transition from tribal organization to feudal organization.  It is agreed this is about a changing relationship with the land.  It is also about coins and the ability to pay for soldiers, and this ties the transition to access to gold and silver and the ability to make coins.  How would a barbarian get coins?  How would anyone get coins enough to pay for an army?

The european tribal peoples in question were not like the pre contact amerindians.   Rather, they had been in contact with settled peoples, monetary systems, advanced economies etc. for a long time.  The Celts, for instance, issued their own coins or used modified roman coins.  

http://www.romancoins.info/Celtic.html - http://www.romancoins.info/Celtic.html

 

I am hoping that Mosquito can provide more information.....   

Can anyone find something about how they understood property rights?  Who would own the mine?  How much was labor diivided?  Was there a hierarchy of power?

 

Ever since I was a kid I wanted a fliud map that would show the migrations of people and the changes when someone invaded.  Each group represented in the different color, so history could be more visual.   

 

I know that Germany generally has poor quality sandy soil.  Low farm yields coupled with a labor intensive farming and food processing system really hurt the German war effort in WWI and WWII (German agricultural policy discouraged mechanization and consolidation to keep family farms and small rural businesses viable).

 

Back on topic....

 

In regards to maps, this publication routinely has beautiful, survey quality maps of specific archaeological sites and other types of maps.  One of their back issues might have maps with some of the information that you are looking for. 

 

   http://www.athenapub.com/ - http://www.athenapub.com/

 

You will probably like the name of the magazine

I'm back

 

A couple of points just because some one is from a place (I.e. when Mosq said well some people from Scandinavia said blah, blah, blah) doesn't mean they are right. I know plenty of people who are ignorant of their countries history or view it thr/ rose colored glasses.

 

Second- I may be wrong on this but I recall that the world Barbarians came from the fact that the Greeks thought the language of the "Barbarians sounded like "bar, Bar, bar" to them

Thanks Cryptic, I checked out the magazine and would order it, but my funds are short.  Following what you said about German farming, I googled ancient German farming and got this:

 

tp://people.usd.edu/~clehmann/pir/germany.htm

 

As I understand the story:

Early on Germany was settled into farming communities near water.  It also expoliting its iron resource, and became a main supplier of iron products for Rome.  I know no reason to think of these people as being warrior type people.  Why would they be unless they had to defend their territory?

 

Rome was interested in Germany mainly for the iron products and strategic reasons.  This resulted in Rome trying to befriend tribal leaders, and Romanize them, and of course,  militarily dominate Germany.  This leads to Romans teaching them to build fortified cities.   Some of Roman culture was accepted, but these people were pretty resistant to Rome, and when Franks and others moved in,  they sided with barbarians against Rome.  So when Rome falls there is the basic organization for feudalism, without the power of Rome to unify these fortified cities, and the result was feudal wars, right? 

 

The church tried to unify everyone.  I read somewhere that one of the causes of the crusades, was a Pope used war to unify the fuedal kingdoms.

 

This makes sense to me. Though it would be interesting to see if the Christianization of the area accelerated the development of feudalism.  I have a sneaking suspision that Germanic paganism allowed for more individual independence and autonomy than Christianity.

 

But then maybe it is the reverse. Perhaps Christianity was structurally altered and changed into a hierarchal system becaue the various lords rapidly decided that:

a. Christiantity was the wave of the future

b. conversions to Christianity would be permitted, or even encouraged so long as Christianity never challenged the social system.

c. a hiearchial style of Christianity would mirror and support feudalism.

 

The Christians wanted converts and the feudal lords did not want challenges to their growing feudal social system.  Maybe it was a good "marriage" to advance both Christianity and feudalism. Over time, the two almost merged.   

 

I just googled "Christian and feudalism" and there are so many explanations of feudalism and the church I figure I'll just let everyone know where to look, and I am going to bed.  I am spending way too much time reading these post and searching information, and I am just loving it.  But I really some sleep.   

 

King James for sure thought kings were chosen by God, and as a father to the his subjects.  John Locke argues the goal of parents is prepare their children for adulthood, not to keep them as children forever.  However, the bible does give us this father and child imagery.  The bible was written in a time of kings and slavery, and the bible supports both.   No one saw democracy in the bible, until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. 

 

In both cases Poland and Bohemia - the churches were burn, the monasteries plundered and the monks and priests murdered. When people stopped paying to church they also have stopped paying to their feudal lords. In case of Poland the pagans were also reciving help from other pagan people in the area, from Veletii-Luticii in northern Germany, from Pomeranians who revolted earlier and destroyed the bishoprick of Kolberg which was erected by king Boleslav the Brave, and from the pagan Prussians.

 

 

 

Then there was also the chopping down of Thors Oak in the land of the Chatti--Thats what started the German conversion.

Stating that Christanity was introduced by force seems to be an over simplification.   Religous coversions through force simply do not work.  That is doubly so for near 100% conversions of entire populations.

 

Christianity must of had some genuine popular support to be so successful.  Of course, not everyone was satisfied as the revolts indicate. Though the Polish revoilt also had political aspects.  In all probablity, conversion was done through the combination of approaches.  Thanks fo the information about anti Christian revolts.

Agreed

 

I think you are right and not right. Will you convert to islam if your goverment will decide that your country must be islamic republic like Iran? Or someone will have to force you to do it. In the pagan countries in Europe, like in Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, Hungary, Sweden and Norway, it were the rulers who decided to convert themselves, their countries and their people to christianity, refusal was not an option. From those times till today it is remembered that king of Poland Bolesław I the Brave (967-1025) ordered to knock out teeth of those, who didn't refrain oneself from eating the meat in Fast days.  The church, its organisation and ideology was giving benefits only to the rulers. The kings were no longer kings because people elected them or they won a crown in a civil war or inherrited it after ancestros but they were rulers by "the God's grace". So disobeying the king or revolting against him was not only a crime but also a sin, the church gave also the administrative organisation which was helping ruling the country and it provinces which were the same as the church provinces, the church brought also the skill of writting and the people who could use it. Feudal social order  was backed by the church and its ideology. These were the benefits which convinced the pagan rulers to christianise their states and to forget the traditions and beliefs of their ancestors including destroying their old temples and killing their pagan priests. In fact the church helped to strenghten the power of the rulers and ruling class in the old tribal pagan countries.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Mosquito Will you convert to islam if your goverment will decide that your country must be islamic republic like Iran? Or someone will have to force you to do it.

The king would need people willing to enforce that order.  That would mean some, or perhaps many people were pre disposed to the new religion.  The top down conversion of Indonesians from Hinduism to Islam was more complex than the Hindu ruler waking up one morning, converting to Islam while eating breakfast, and telling his people to "convert or die".

 

-Charismatic and effective Islamic missionaries had been active in Indonesia for many generations

-Many locals had already accepted some Islamic teachings and were no longer fully Hindu. 

-Local Hindu rulers were weakened by internal feuds

 

Then consider econnomic advantages for converts. I do not see why the situation in Europe would have been different than Indonesia. I am not saying that no forced conversions occured.  Rather, I am saying that it was more complex than "convert or die".

 

Originally posted by Mosquito The kings were no longer kings because people elected them or they won a crown in a civil war or inherrited it after ancestros but they were rulers by "the God's grace".

Such concepts are not unique to Christianity. They are common in almost all religous systems. For example in Confucian China, the Emeperor only had authority if he followed the confucian "Mandate of Heaven".

 

In all probablity, pagan and societies followed a similar concept (you are only "free" if you follow pagan religous and social norms of your tribe). If so, many pagans probably concluded that Christianity and paganism could both be equally coercive and then they picked Christianity for a variety of reasons (genuine spiritual reasons, economic advantages, political rivalry, clan rivalries etc).

 

 

 

Or maybe it was enough that as Abraham ben Jacob described it:" Mesko.... got 3000 armoured soldiers and 100 of them is worth as much as 1000 other soldiers. He gives them cloths, horses, arms, armours and everything whatever they need..." ? And he simply travelled from one village to another enforcing new order? As for the missionaries there were no such until Mesko imported them from Italy, starting with bishop Jordan of Poznan.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_%28Bishop_of_Poland%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_(Bishop_of_Poland)

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Cryptic   -Charismatic and effective Islamic missionaries had been active in Indonesia for many generations -Many locals had already accepted some Islamic teachings and were no longer fully Hindu.  -Local Hindu rulers were weakened by internal feuds

 

There is no evidence about any earlier missionaries. Those who came, came with princess Dobravka, when Mieszko accepted christianity and married her. There was no place for christian teaching. And the ruler wasnt weakened but in opposite, he was extremly strong.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Cryptic Then consider econnomic advantages for converts. I do not see why the situation in Europe would have been different than Indonesia. I am not saying that no forced conversions occured.  Rather, I am saying that it was more complex than "convert or die".

 

There were no economic advantages for converts. In opposite, people had to pay for church 1/10 of all their incomes. Only men who wanted to become powerful and important and who already were close to ruler had advanatage of converting together with him - like his troops and commanders.

Whats more, the people of western Pomerania left christianity exactly in the same moment when during Polish - German war 1002-1018, Polish king had to withdrawn his troops from their territory.

 

 

 

 

When we look at the Romans and Constantine, or the Franks and Charlemagne, or Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush junior, we see leaders who chose Christianity when they came to a position of great power.  Quite obviously they did so to secure their power.  Given, those who gave them power want to believe they are God's choosen people and this God will take care of them by giving them leaders.  If a person be a leader of a servant is determined by the will of God, and thus it is the person's distiny to follow the path set by birth.  

 

This was not a remarkable conversion of barbarians, when it is believed those who won wars are those who have the most powerful god.  It is the shift from commonly owned territory to private property, and unquestioned rights, to being considered property, that is a complex transition, and without question, this can not happen without a religion that shapes the human consciouness to accept this.    

 

Please, can we pass on the romatized idea that people hungered for spiritual truth and choose to give up all their human rights and be considered as property to be sold with the land?  It is not like there was a printing press and people could read the bible, and compare it to other explanations of Gods and make an informed and rational judgement about spiritual truth.  Human behavior during the fuedal period was very much tied to the ownership of private property, and the lack of a concept of human rights, mixed with servival needs during such a hard time.

 

 Land ownership during the trbial period was communally shared land.  Land ownership during feudal times was private property, dividing the well off who ruled, from the landless who were ruled.  This drove the impluse for war, and wasted resources and human potential in almost constant warfare.  When the Christians didn't have enemies to unite them, they turned on each other.   During the feulal period, how else was a person to get a fief, except by fighting for the king?  The economic and social organization demanded constant warfare.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar Christianity supported this.  It teaches God will provide leaders and from this came the idea that kings are divine.  It stresses the importance of obedience and even says if a person is a slave, being a good slave honors God.  Martan Luther was sure God so controlled our lives that if a person were born into the position of becoming a master that was his fate, and  the fate of a person born into the position of servitude was to be a servant.  The only way to change a person's fate during the feudal period was to fight for the king, right?  I am sure this was a gradual shift from loyalty to a choosen leader, to becoming no more than a peice of property.  Christianity most certianily manifested this new social order.  It is mind blowing that human beings could go  from such extremes of freedom to such an extreme of servitude, and endure this servitude for generations, before the human spirit raised up and rebelled against being no more than subjects to a king and the landlord.   Why would a human being accept such a loss of human rights?    

 

Could it be that survival was so difficult is was better to have a system that tied people to the land, than a system that could deny them all property rights, such as we have today?  I mean, our capitalism is great for those who can compete, but it is not so great for those who can not.  May be before the industrial age, being tied to the land was the best social and economic security the masses could expect to have?  May be Christianity instead of being the cause of their oppression was an important source of comfort, making life somewhat tolerable?   For sure homeless today with no right to access any kind of resources without the money to pay for them, could be considered even more dehumanizing and  oppressive? 

 

It is about property rights isn't it?  Religion plays a role and so can philosophy.  During the 1970 recession, I put my son in the military service, believing we were so powerful no country would put us in a position of war.  My son didn't get a fief, but may be those who are willing to  fight for the country should get fief? 

Originally posted by Athena  May be before the industrial age, being tied to the land was the best social and economic security the masses could expect to have?  May be Christianity instead of being the cause of their oppression was an important source of comfort, making life somewhat tolerable?

I think this a very good point. Many fiefs could be a pretty intimate environment where the fief holder, the christian clergy and serf families knew each other for generations and developed a relatively accomodating system of unwritten customs, rules, expectations, and quid pro quo.

 

A working agreement with the serfs was in the best long term interests of every one. In the industrial revolution, this generations long rural bond was broken. Factory owners had no personal knowledge of their employees as individuals, long standing customary rules and quid pro quos were discarded and the social upheavel was severe.  

 

Originally posted by Athena It is mind blowing that human beings could go  from such extremes of freedom to such an extreme of servitude, and endure this servitude for generations, before the human spirit raised up and rebelled against being no more than subjects to a king and the landlord.   Why would a human being accept such a loss of human rights?

Romanticizing pre feudal tribal societies is not going to give an accurate picture.  Are we sure that all tribal societies had vast levels of personal freedom or for that matter, had community property? 

What level of individual rights did pre christian European tribals have to begin with?  Were these real freedoms or simply "freedom" to follow tribal norms. For example, to what degree was a tribal viking, celt or german "free" to refuse military service to his clan leader?   

 

 

Here you got me friend! What Iv said wasnt fortunate. However I rather meant that Ireland was isolated for centuries and there was no such feudal system as was in HRE.My intention was to say that in 10th and early11th century Europe were "civilised" feudal countries (that is on territories of modern Germany, Austria, France and Italy) compared to tribal monarchies that were surrounding them. I have no doubt that Ireland that time was far more civilised that Scandinavia, Poland and Hungary.

Originally posted by Athena So Cryptic, if I understand you correctly, the tribe and feudal state would both have intimate personal relationships, however the tribe could be nomadic and the feudal fief obviously is not.   I think John Locke would argue the social positions imposed by the fief are man made and not natural.  Can we argue this is the same for tribes?   I don't think so.

I guess that is correct if one argues that humanity's "natural state" is living as an arid environment, hunter gather.  

 

I, however, do not think that humanity has a "natural state".  Rather, the trend is towards social complexity. The social structures of more complex civilizations, both tribal and feudal are as natural as the those of hunter gatherers.

Originally posted by Athena Hey, hey we might look at the subject of this thread through a study of marriage.  The population of a fief would be too small for healthy breeding, wouldn't it?  When people moved around they could mix and have healthy breeding.  If they aren't moving around, breeding can become a problem.

Moving around does not mean alot of outside contact.  Hunter gather bands only met people from different bands at sporadic festivals, trade rendevous etc.  The Australians avoided incest by having complex and strictly enforced social avoidance taboos. Europeans had a formal religous laws (old testament)  Whether one was a Aborigine or lived on a fief, I bet most match making occurred during festivals, market days etc when people from other bands / fiefs were present.  

Originally posted by Athena It also seems tribes took on the character of strong leaders.  One tribe might be tolerant and another intolerant, depending on the leader.  The preferences of such leadership may be passed on for generations, so that they become a tribal identity.

I think that is a very good point.  In a very intimate leadership environment (no diluting intermediaries), minimal alternative role models (religous, educated elite etc) it would be easy for a charismatic / strong leader to pass on his personality traits (good and bad) as the social norm for the group.  Then factor in that sucessession was usually hereditary. I bet this was a strong factor in some tribes / groups becoming known as being aggressive or brutal and others not.

  

Originally posted by Athena   May be should we clarifying the size of these populations, because size makes a big difference.  Always small social organizations will operate on a personal level.  Large social organizations become impersonal and operate by laws and customs.

Good point.  For reference, Australian Desert Aborigines, Inuit, Piautes, Bushmen and most other nomadic hunter gathers lived in autonomous bands of between 30-50 people.  Having more depleted food recesources quickly. Mounted H/Gs nomads in more fertile areas may have slightly larger clans (autonomous plains Indians bands could have up to several hundred individuals)

 

Even when in contact with settled peoples, band autonomy and small size could be maintained. At the height of influence, Geronimo had authority over a few hundred people.  Usually, it was less. 

I imgaine that mounted pastoral nomads could sustain larger groups (expecially in more fertile areas).  Even still, I do not think the month to month size of these groups was much more than a few hundred.  

 

Natural verses unnatural. This is related to this thread, but perhaps should become its own thread?  I think we need to have a strong handle on the transition from small tribes and personal relationships, verses large tribes and when a ruler has more power than the subjects.  This has everything to do with the limits or our brains, but may not be appropraite to discuss here?  The average person can identify 500 people.  When a population surpasses 500, we move into power over subjects, and this is when I would say, we begin to tip into the unnatural.  That is my brother isn't going get into your face in the same way if he and his brothers personally know you and your family, as when there is no such personal relationship.  If he and all his brothers don't have a personal relationship with you, something has to give you an unnatural power to rule over them.  All rulers would like their subjects to believe, it is God who gives them the unnatural power.  However, pragmatically speaking, it is social organization that gives some an unnatural power to rule over others. 

 

What goes with this discussion of natural verses unnatural, as you pointed out Cryptic,  is population size verses food and water supply.   When human beings learn to grow food and domesticate animals, and to control their water supply, they can increase in numbers to unnaturally large populations.   Having a firm grip on this, would help with this and  all other discussions.  Some civilizations managed to supply armies of thousands of men.  This is astonishing!  In this thread we are speaking only the size of a tribe or a the area held by a fuedal organization of power.  Who is going to win and dominate, will depend on who has the largest fighting population and best military technology.  Keeping an army feed when it moves far from home is essential.  This would control where the army can and can not go, and perhaps warfare between tirbes?  I am asking, Cryptic, because you seem to have enough information to give good answers. 

 

As for Irland and civilization, people on islands have the advantage of a degree of protection.  They also have a disadvantage of isolation.  If these people have something of value, outsiders come to get that something.  In Irland that is metals and the coal for smelting and the developed skill in working with metals.  They had contact with Greeks and later with Romans.  It is my understanding they got along with Greeks but not with Romans.  Their preChristian beliefs made Christianity acceptable and inspired a lot of art work.  So we have civilization, but not the feudal order of Europe, right?  This was the advantage of trade and isolation. 

 

I think so.  In addition to isolation, it is interesting that the Irish kept an "honor culture".  Feudalism is heavily based on many enforced rules, regulations etc. So, it seems to follow that honor culture peasants would not make good serfs. 

 

The highland Scots, Corscisans and some peasants in high mountains of southeren France converted to Christianity, but  they also kept their tribal honor based cultures (vendetta is a corscian word).  I dont think these groups were formally placed in the fief system.  Of course, living on islands or in isolated mountain areas with poor farmland also helped. Strangely, Viking groups seemed to have lost their honor based cultures when they converted to Christianity and they were feudalized. 

Originally posted by Athena The average person can identify 500 people.  When a population surpasses 500, we move into power over subjects, and this is when I would say, we begin to tip into the unnatural.  That is my brother isn't going get into your face in the same way if he and his brothers personally know you and your family, as when there is no such personal relationship.  If he and all his brothers don't have a personal relationship with you, something has to give you an unnatural power to rule over them.

500 does seem to be the magic maximum population number of people where  intimate, personal leadership is still possible.  One interesting point is that all cultures pagan, confucian, Christian, Islamic taught that  God had ordained "un natural", rule through intermediary leadership and social structures.  

 

What happens today in the heavily secularized western Europe and many parts of the USA?  We have "unatural" leadership and social structures, but many people no longer accept the Christianity. Therefore, Christianity's teaching that obediance is to be give to lawful authorities carries less weight.

Originally posted by Athena Keeping an army feed when it moves far from home is essential.  This would control where the army can and can not go, and perhaps warfare between tirbes?

To paraphrase a former member about the importance of supply: "logistics tells the manuver commander where he must stop".  A tribe can have feasome warriors, but if they cant be supplied with food, they are going to be more like raiders than conquerers.

 

Good logistics makes large scale warfare possible.  I think logistics is largely based on having domesticated draft animals to carry food and other things.  There are exceptions, Aztecs and Mayans conquered empires without draft animals, but they were the exception, not the rule. In addition, their empires were relatively small in geographic size.

 

 

 

    

I am also not aware of any  early Christian feuds between Irish and other monks attemting to convert england.  I know that in general terms the Irish focused on their fellow Celts (alot of the effort in Great Britain was centered on Scotland) Likewise, there were Irish missions to celtic cultural areas of France (Britanny) and Spain (Galicia).  

 

I dont know whether the Irish prefered other celtic peoples for cultural reasons or if there was a dispute /  territory split with rival monks.

Originally posted by Athena I love Cryptic's explanation of the honor society verses feudalism.  Man, I did not expect this thread to turn into a religious debate, but it is unavoidable.

Thanks for the compliment.  I think it is very interesting that honor society fringes were not heavily feudalized. Even in the USA, Appalachian mountaineers in the south retained an honor society and family based loyalty system to an even higher degree than other southerners.  The share cropper system (vaguely similar to feudalism) never developed in Appalachia. Of course, living in mountain areas with poor farm land also helped avoid share cropping as well.

 

A very good point.  I guess the my USA comparison is not correct.

 

The mining company store / script / housing system lasted in appalachia until the late 1950s.  That is about the same time that exploitive share cropping arrangements were phased out elsewhere in the south.

 

I have a sense that the Celts are still connected with nature and the Catholics are not?  But the Catholics adopted a lot of paganism, such as patron gods and goddesses, becoming Catholic saints, the Mother Goddess becoming Mary holding baby Jesus.   It seems Catholics worship Mother Mary as much they worship Jesus, and this would be important to many pagans.  May be this is getting off subject, but I would like more information about the Celtic and Frankish or Roman difference, regarding the subject of transition from tribe to feudal state. 

 

Cryptic, I believe it was mainly the Irish who settled in the Applache Mountians.  Interesting touch to mention the ways of these people retards modernization and is clanish.    I think this is totally relevant to the  subject.   We are back to marriage and the question of authority.  Is each man a king in his own castle, or the subject of a landlord?  Which is closer to the law of nature and which is closer to a human power structure?  I think this closely ties with modernization, advancing it or retarding it.  Of course I give you rep points for your post as well. 

 

Opuslola, I was wondering about the mine.  I believe it would have been communally owed, not private property.  It would have been defended by the tribe that depended on it, not an army that was paid for military service. 

 

Whoops. you were talking more modern times when it was assumed mines are private property.

In the west we had timber towns/. People didn't have cars and some jobs were far from town.  How would these sites, be they mines of a stand of timber , have housing and food. etc. if the the company did not provide them?  This is getting off subject, but not totally when we think of the transition from tribes to private property, and workers who do not share in the rights and duties of ownership.    Historically miners have devastated the environments and this has caused hardship for people who lived in the area or down stream of it.   A tribe would never intentionally destroy land they shared and counted on to support them for many generations.   However, low tech people have deforsted their region and thus their food source.  I am not saying low people are superior.  A combination of science and sense of ownership may be ideal? 

 

If the goal of feudalism was to preserve the agricultural based wealth of the ruling class, I am somewhat surprised that a more systematic effort was not made by the ruling class to apply the feudal concept to the industrial revolution.  Instead of being tied to the land, the ruling class coould have protected their wealth by making the laborers tied to the factories through coerced  "contracts", contrived debts, endless apprentinceships etc.

 

Perhaps after the rennasiance, society developed a concept of humans rights to the extent that "Feudal Factories" were no longer possible in Europe.  I doubt that it was because the ruling classes had a change of heart.