Germanic law

Last updated
Opening of the Edictum Rothari in an 11th- or 12th-century manuscript BL, Add MS 5411, f. 1v.png
Opening of the Edictum Rothari in an 11th- or 12th-century manuscript

Germanic law is a scholarly term used to describe a series of commonalities between the various law codes (the Leges Barbarorum, 'laws of the barbarians', also called Leges) of the early Germanic peoples. These were compared with statements in Tacitus and Caesar as well as with high and late medieval law codes from Germany and Scandinavia. Until the 1950s, these commonalities were held to be the result of a distinct Germanic legal culture. Scholarship since then has questioned this premise and argued that many "Germanic" features instead derive from provincial Roman law. Although most scholars no longer hold that Germanic law was a distinct legal system, some still argue for the retention of the term and for the potential that some aspects of the Leges in particular derive from a Germanic culture. [1] [2] [3] Scholarly consensus as of 2023 is that Germanic law is best understood in opposition to Roman law, in that it was not "learned" and incorporated regional pecularities. [4]

Contents

While the Leges Barbarorum were written in Latin and not in any Germanic vernacular, codes of Anglo-Saxon law were produced in Old English. The study of Anglo-Saxon and continental Germanic law codes has never been fully integrated. [5]

Definition and controversy

As of 2023, scholarly consensus is that Germanic law is best understood in contrast with Roman law, in that whereas Roman law was "learned" and the same across regions, Germanic law was not learned and incorporated regional peculiarities. [4] This consensus has replaced an older one as a result of a reevaluation of notions of Germanic beginnings and the associated nationalist ideologies to which they were attached. [6] Earlier scholars, inspired by Tacitus and Julius Caesar, often conceived of the Germanic peoples as a unified entity, which they were not. [4] Because of this, Germanic law was not a single legal system, but a group of related systems. [7]

Although Germanic law never appears to have been a competing, unified system to Roman law, commonalities in the Germanic laws can still be described as "Germanic" when contrasted with Roman law. [8] [2] These include emphases on orality, gesture, formulaic language, legal symbolism, and ritual. [9] Some items in the Leges, such as the use of vernacular words, may reveal aspects of originally Germanic, or at least non-Roman, law. Legal historian Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand writes that this vernacular, often in the form of Latinized words, belongs to "the oldest layers of a Germanic legal language" and shows some similarities to Gothic. [10] [3] Philologist and historian, D.H. Green, stated that the introduction of Germanic "vernacular legal terms, even in partly Latinized form" does not occur until the early Middle Ages and that only "vernacular" terminology was "legally precise enough to convey what barbarian practice meant". [11]

Old Consensus and criticism

The study of "Germanic Law" arose in the modern period, at a time when scholars thought that the written and unwritten principles of the ancient Germanic peoples could be reconstructed in a reasonably coherent form. [12] Beginning in the Reformation, the study of "Germanic law" was typically conflated with "German law", a tradition continued by influential scholars Jacob Grimm, Karl von Amira, and Heinrich Brunner. This law supposedly revealed the national character of the Germans. [6] Until the middle of the 20th century, the majority of scholars assumed the existence of a distinct Germanic legal culture and law. This law was seen as an essential element in the formation of modern European law and identity, alongside Roman and canon law. [13] Scholars reconstructed Germanic law on the basis of antique (Caesar and Tacitus), early medieval (mainly the so-called Leges Barbarorum, laws written by various continental Germanic peoples from the fifth to eighth centuries), [14] and late medieval sources (mostly Scandinavian). [15] According to these scholars, Germanic law was based on a society ruled by assemblies of free farmers (the things), policing themselves in clan groups (Sippes), and engaging in the blood feud outside of clan groups, which were settled via compensation in the form of (wergild). This reconstructed legal system also excluded certain criminals by outlawry, and administratively contained a degree of sacral kingship; retinues formed around the kings bound by oaths of loyalty. [16]

Early ideas about Germanic law have come under intense scholarly scrutiny since the 1950s and specific aspects of it such as the legal importance of kinship groups, retinues, and loyalty, and the concept of outlawry, can no longer be justified. [17] [18] Besides the assumption of a common Germanic legal tradition and the use of sources of different types from different places and time periods, [17] there are no known native sources for early Germanic law. Caesar and Tacitus do mention some aspects of Germanic legal culture that reappear in later sources, however their texts are not objective reports of facts and there are no other antique sources to corroborate whether there were common Germanic institutions. [19] [20] Reinhard Wenskus has shown that one important "Germanic" element, the use of popular assemblies, displays marked similarities to developments among the Gauls and Romans, and was therefore likely the result of external influence rather than specifically Germanic. [21] Even the Leges Barbarorum were all written under Roman and Christian influence and often with the help of Roman jurists. [22] Beginning with Walter Goffart, scholars have argued the Leges contain large amounts of "Vulgar Latin law", an unofficial legal system that they argue functioned in the Roman provinces. [23] This makes it difficult to determine whether commonalities between them derive from a common Germanic legal conception or not. [24]

The Leges barbarorum

The term leges barbarorum, 'laws of the barbarians', used by editor Paolo Canciani  [ it ] as early as 1781, reflects a negative value judgement on the actual law codes produced by these Germanic peoples. It was retained by the editors of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica in the 19th century. [25] The law codes are written in Latin, often using many Latinized Germanic terms, with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon law codes, which were written in the vernacular as early as the sixth century. [14] The Leges share features such as orality, the importance of court procedure, and a reliance on compensatory justice to settle disputes. [26]

The Leges are the product of a mixture of Germanic, late Roman, and early Christian legal cultures. [27] Generally speaking, the further on the periphery of the Roman Empire these law codes were issued, the less influence they appear to show from Roman jurisprudence. [28] Thus, Dusil, Kannowski, and Schwedler argue that the Visigothic law codes show a great deal of Roman influence, whereas the Lex Salica shows basically none. [29]

History

The earliest of the Leges dealt with Germanic groups living either as foederati or conquerors among Roman people and regulating their relationship to them. [30] These earliest codes, written by Visigoths in Spain (475), [lower-alpha 1] were probably not intended to be valid solely for the Germanic inhabitants of these kingdoms, but for the Roman ones as well. [32] [33] These earliest law codes influenced those that followed, such as the Burgundian Lex Burgundionum (between 480 and 501) issued by king Gundobad, and the Frankish Lex Salica (between 507 and 511), possibly issued by Clovis I. The final law code of this earliest series of codifications was the Edictus Rothari, issued in 643 by the Lombard King Rothari. [30] [34]

The next set of law codes to be composed, the Lex and Pactus Alemannorum and the Lex Bajuvariorum, were written in the 8th century, probably at the behest of the Catholic Church. [35] The final set of law codes issued on the continent, the Ewa ad Amorem , Lex Frisonum , Lex Saxonum , and Lex Thuringorum , were written under the patronage of Charlemagne in the 9th century; these codes all show marked similarities to the early codes. [36]

Law code PeopleIssuerYear of completion/
approval
Code of Euric Visigoths Euric c. 480
Lex Burgundionum Burgundians Gundobad c. 500
Lex Salica Salian Franks Clovis I c. 500
Law of Æthelberht Kingdom of Kent Æthelberht of Kent early 7th century
Pactus Alamannorum Alamanni c. 620
Lex Ripuaria Ripuarian Franks 630s
Edictum Rothari Lombards Rothari 643
Lex Visigothorum Visigoths Recceswinth 654
Law of Hlothhere and Eadric Kingdom of Kent Hlothhere and Eadric of Kent late 7th century
Law of Wihtred Kingdom of Kent Wihtred of Kent after 690
Lex Alamannorum Alamanni 730
Lex Bajuvariorum Bavarians c. 745
Lex Frisionum Frisians Charlemagne c. 785
Lex Saxonum Saxons Charlemagne 803
Lex Thuringorum Thuringians Charlemagne 9th century
Ewa ad Amorem Part of the
Low Countries		Unknown9th century

Common elements

Sources and nature of the law

In contrast to Roman Law, which was generally created by the emperors, Germanic legal culture regarded the law as unchanging, and it was thus necessary to find the law in any individual case. Laws existed because they were traditional and because similar cases had been decided before. [7] This is clearly displayed in the prologue of the Lex Salica, in which four men are described as having ascertained what the law was rather than creating it. [29] Most of the Leges refer to having been composed through a meeting of the great men of the kingdom, of its army, or of its people; whereas the southern Leges mention the role of the king, the northern ones do not. [37]

A word attested meaning "law" as well as "religion" in West Germanic languages is represented by Old High German êwa; [lower-alpha 2] there is some evidence for the word's existence from names preserved in Old Norse and Gothic. [39] Êwa is used in the Latin texts of the Leges barbaroum to mean the unwritten laws and customs of the people, but comes also to refer to the codified written laws as well. [40] Jacob Grimm argued that Êwa's use to also mean "religion" meant there was also a religious dimension to pre-Christian Germanic law; [41] Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand  [ de ] argues instead that the legal term êwa was given a Christian religious significance by Christian missionaries, in common with other legal terms that lacked any pagan religious significance that acquired Christian meanings. [42]

Orality and literacy

The Germanic peoples had an originally entirely oral legal culture, which involved a great deal of legal significant ritual, gesture, language, and symbolism, in order to create a specific legal procedure. [43] Because oral law can never be fixed in the same way as written law, the use of correct procedure was in fact more important than the ultimate legal decision reached and the law was ultimately whatever the community decided was valid at a given time. [44]

Due to the originally oral nature of Germanic law, the act of putting the Leges into writing was already an act of synthesis with the Roman legal culture. [1] The development of the different law codes shows a general trend away from an oral legal culture toward a text-based writing culture. [45] It is unclear to what extent the written legal texts were used in court: whereas Patrick Wormald and many German scholars have argued that the Leges texts mostly existed for reasons of representation and prestige, other scholars, such as Rosamund McKitterick, have argued that the number of surviving manuscripts and physical indications of their frequent use means that they were in fact employed in practice. [46]

Germanic legal vocabulary is reconstructed from multiple sources, including early loanwords in Finnic languages, supposed translations of Germanic terms in Tacitus, apparently legal terms in the Gothic Bible, elements in Germanic names, Germanic words found in the Leges barbarorum, as well as in later vernacular legal texts, beginning with Old English (7th–9th centuries). [47] There is no evidence for a universal Proto-Germanic legal terminology; rather the individual languages show a diversity of legal terminologies, with the earliest examples lacking even a common Germanic word for "law". [48] There are, however, many examples of Germanic legal terms shared across the different early codes which point to shared legal traditions. [49] [50]

Marriage

Modern scholarship no longer posits a common Germanic marriage practice, [51] and there is no common Germanic term for "marriage". [52] Until the latter 20th century, legal historians, using the Leges and later Norse narrative and legal sources, divided Germanic marriages into three types:

  1. Muntehe, characterized by a marriage treaty, the granting of a bride gift or morning gift to the bride, and the acquisition of munt (mundium in the Lombard Laws, meaning "protection", originally "hand"), [53] or legal power, of the husband over the wife; [54]
  2. Friedelehe, (from Old High German : friudila, Old Norse : friðla, frilla "beloved"), a form of marriage lacking a bride or morning gift and in which the husband did not have munt over his wife (this remained with her family); [55]
  3. Kebsehe (concubinage), the marriage of a free man to an unfree woman. [55]

According to this theory, in the course of the early Middle Ages, the Friedelehe, Kebsehe, and polygamy were abolished in favor of the Muntehe through the attacks of the Church. [56] [57]

None of the three forms of marriage posited by older scholarship appear as such in medieval sources. [58] Academic works in the 1990s and 2000s rejected the notion of Friedelehe as a construct for which no evidence is found in the sources, [59] while Kebsehe has been explained as not being a form of marriage at all. [60]

Institutions

The "Tribe"/gens

Traditionally, the earliest state organization among the Germanic peoples has been described as a "tribe". "Tribes" were argued to have been stable, genetically and culturally united nations that had their own laws, territories, and state proto-state institutions. [61] The use of the word "tribe" includes the implication that the various Germanic peoples were in fact subdivisions of a larger "Germanic" people. [62] According to this understanding, the "tribes" would then go on to found the individual early Germanic kingdoms of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages as "tribal states". [63]

Since the work of Reinhard Wenskus in the 1960s, scholars have begun to use the term gens (plural gentes), communities claiming (rather than possessing) shared biological descent, as a way to distance discussion of Germanic tribes from this earlier way of thinking. [64] [65] In this new understanding, Germanic peoples were not stable ethnic units, but were constantly breaking up and reforming in a process of ethnogenesis. [66] Moreover, it is unclear whether the gentes formed the early Germanic kingdoms, or whether they were not instead created as part of the process of state formation. [67]

Besides the claim of shared descent, Wenskus also saw the individual gentes as having and developing their own legal orders. [64] Almost all gentes that became post-Roman polities adopted their own law, [68] and the individual Leges, as well as other early medieval sources, mention that the laws belong to individual "people" under various Latin terms (including populus, natio, gens). [69] However, disagreement exists about whether these written sources are still part of the "gentile system" of laws, or whether such a system even lasted into the High Middle Ages with the Sachsenspiegel. [64]

Traditionally, the Leges have been understood as only applying to one ethnically defined gens within a kingdom, thus excluding Romans and any other gens that was incorporated into a polity - persons belonging to that group would be judged by their own law ("personality of law"). [70] This principle originated in Roman law. [71] However, scholarly disagreement exists whether the earliest law codes, those of the Goths and Burgundians, were meant for all persons in their territory or only those of a particular ethnicity. [72] [73] The Lex Salica is far clearer in making ethnic distinctions in the text, perhaps encouraging assimilation to Frankish identity. [74] By the Carolingian period, confusion between social status and ethnicity on the one hand and between ethnic and territorial law on the other had essentially turned the system into one of "mobile territorial law", in which a person could claim the law of their territory of birth. [75]

The Assembly

In common with many archaic societies without a strong monarchy, [76] early Germanic law appears to have had a form of popular assembly. [77] The earliest attested term for these assemblies in Germanic is the thing. [lower-alpha 3] According to Tacitus, during the Roman period, such assemblies were called at the new or full moon and were where important decisions were made (Tacitus, Germania 11–13). [77] Germanic assemblies functioned both to make important political decisions—or to legitimate decisions taken by rulers—as well as functioning as courts of law. [80] In their earliest function as courts, the assemblies do not appear to have had presiding judges. Rather, the members collectively came to judgments based on consensus and acted more as arbiters than as courts in the modern sense. [81]

The assembly stood under the protection of the gods, and feuding parties could visit it without fear of violence. [82] The use of thing as an epithet in an 3rd-century AD inscription dedicated to "Mars Thingsus", apparently referring to the Germanic god Tyr, as well as the translation of the Roman dies Martii ("day of Mars", Tuesday) as dingsdag ("day of the thing", modern German Dienstag) as a variant of tîsdag ("day of Tyr"), has led to the theory that the thing stood under the protection of Tyr in pagan times. [83]

The Leges Alamannorum specified that all free men were required to appear at a popular assembly, but such a specification is otherwise absent for the Frankish Merovingian period. [84] In later periods outside Scandinavia, the assemblies were composed of important persons rather than the entire free population. [85] The Visigothic laws lack any mention of a popular assembly, [86] while the Anglo-Saxon laws and history show no evidence of any kingdom-wide popular assemblies, only smaller local or regional assemblies held under various names. [87]

Kingship

Medallion or triple solidus of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great, reading: Rex Theodericus Pius Princis "King Theodoric, pious prince(?)" Teodorico re dei Goti (493-526).png
Medallion or triple solidus of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great, reading: Rex Theodericus Pius Princis "King Theodoric, pious prince(?)"

Germanic languages attest many different terms that mean king, including þiudans, truhtin and cuning. [88] Terms for Germanic rulers in Roman sources include reges ("kings"), principes ("chieftains"), and duces ("leaders/dukes") - however, all of these terms are foreign ascriptions rather than necessarily reflecting native terminology. [89] Stefanie Dick suggests that these terms are not used with any real differentiation in Roman sources and should all be translated as "leaders". [90]

Not all Germanic peoples are attested as having had kings, and different kings seem to have different functions and roles. [91] Peoples without kings included at various times the Herules, the Gepids, and the Saxons. [92] According to Tacitus kings were elected from a group of eligible candidates by the people, but had no power of command (Germania, 7). [93] Walter Pohl argues that the authority of the king was probably personal rather than directly related to the office. [94] The power of the kings grew over time: while they originally seem to have been mostly military leaders, they became more institutionalized, authoritative rulers in the course of the migration period. [95]

Scholars debate the origins of Germanic kingship. Tacitus makes a distinction existed between "kings" and "dukes", in that the kings were chosen because of their nobility and the dukes for their prowess in battle. This statement has been used to explain Germanic kingship as having had a sacral and a military component, which were later united. [96] However, more recent scholarship has shown that sacral kingship is not well attested outside of much later Scandinavian sources, whereas kingship for military leadership is. [97] Dennis Howard Green argues for a development of the terminology from þiudans to truhtin to cuning, reflecting a change in the nature of Germanic kingship first to a primarily military institution and then to a more permanent, dynastic institution. [98]

The kinship group

The Germanic languages attest several words for clans or kinship groups, most prominently the cognates of Old High German sibba and kunni, found in this meaning in all Germanic languages. [99] According to the traditional understanding of Germanic law, the clan contained all blood relations and was essential for the protection and help of the individual. [100] Individuals were argued to have no relation to the larger tribal state outside of the clan. [101] It aided him in seeking revenge (see feuding), receiving wergild for those who were slain or injured (see compensatory justice), and acted as oath helpers. [100] Current scholarship acknowledges the existence of clan groups as a social factor among the Germanic peoples, but argues that there was never an organized, legally recognized clan organization as postulated by older scholarship. [102] Both Germanic terms and those found in the Leges for kinship groups are not precise enough to indicate that the clans existed as legal entities: instead, the group of "relations" that a person could call on were not fixed or stable. [103]

Feuding

The feud (in the Leges, faida) [lower-alpha 4] refers to a form of violent self-help whereby a wronged party sought to address a wrong by exacting violence or vengeance themselves. [105] German scholars tend to understand the feud as a legal institution based on individual liberty, the lack of a powerful public authority, and the need for local conflict resolution, whereas Francophone scholarship has instead emphasized feuding as illegal activity. [106] Whereas Roman law did not allow feuding, the Leges generally treated any legal matter as something that might be settled privately. [105]

While some scholars have argued that the feud may have originated in "vulgar Latin law," the feud is ubiquitous in the Leges and of later Germanic literature, making a non-Roman origin fairly certain. [107] However, the different Leges make different assumptions about feuds and do provide a uniform picture of how they looked or functioned. [108] The existence of feuds between kindred groups among the earlier Germanic peoples is mentioned by Tacitus in Germania chap. 12 and 21, including the various steps taken for conflict resolution. [109] The post-Roman Barbarian kingdoms appear to have seen an increase in non-state violence and violent deaths with the decline in central authority. [110] The various Leges show attempts to limit the practice in feuding, without, however, ultimately preventing it. [111]

Compensatory justice

Image of the murder of a minor and the subsequent paying of wergild, Heidelberger Sachsenspiegel Cgm 165 fol. 11r. This is one of the only images of wergild payment from the Middle Ages. Cpg164 0035 wergild.jpg
Image of the murder of a minor and the subsequent paying of wergild, Heidelberger Sachsenspiegel Cgm 165 fol. 11r. This is one of the only images of wergild payment from the Middle Ages.

All of the Leges contain catalogues of compensation prices to be paid by the perpetrator to his victims or the victim's relatives for committing a personal offense. [113] In the West Germanic languages, this payment is known by the term Old High German : buoza, Old English : bōta. [114] This form of legal reconciliation aimed to prevent the erupting of feuds by offering a peaceful way to end disputes between groups. [115] The codification of these catalogues was encouraged by the kings of the individual Germanic kingdoms, who had an interest in preventing bloodshed. Some of the laws, such as the Lex Salica and the Lex Thuringiorum, require that part of the compensation for theft be paid to the king. Later, some kings attempted to replace the compensation system with other forms of justice, such as the death penalty. [116]

Scholarship had emphasized the variety of compensations for various offenses and taken this as an indication of the absence of uniformity across the codes. [117] Noel Lenski has instead argued that the range of enumerated offenses for personal injury is generally uniform across the codes and that the compositions mirror one another closely if calculated as a percentage of an individual's Wergild value, indications of a shared tradition. [118]

In the event that a person was killed or wounded, an animal was stolen, or other offenses committed the compensation is referred to as wergild. [lower-alpha 5] Scholars debate if wergild was a traditional Germanic legal concept, or if it developed from a Roman predecessor. [120] The various codes uniformly gradate compensations according to whether an individual was fully free, half free, or enslaved. Some also make distinctions by status among free persons, as with the Lex Burgundonum, while the Lex Salica shows no gradation among free males. [121] The prices were sometimes higher than could readily be paid, which could result in a compromise. [122] In other cases, social networks were enlisted to help a defendant, or the church lent money to end the feud. [123] Payment could be taken in kind rather than in currency. [122] When compensations could not be paid, the plaintiff had the option to enslave the defendant [124]

Judicial ordeal

Ordeal of boiling water, from manuscript HAB Cod. Guelf. 3.1 Aug. 2deg of the Sachsenspiegel, fol. 19v. Ordeal of boiling water.jpg
Ordeal of boiling water, from manuscript HAB Cod. Guelf. 3.1 Aug. 2° of the Sachsenspiegel, fol. 19v.

The ordeal (judicium Dei "judgment of God") was a method used to cause God to reveal the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. It relied on the notion that God would intervene in the world to prevent the condemnation of an innocent person. [125] Similar practices are attested in other cultures around the world, including in the Code of Hammurabi. [126] Methods found in the Leges and in later medieval laws included the trial by hot water, in which a person dipped their hand into a boiling cauldron, of hot iron, in which a person carried a burning hot iron, and trial by combat, in which two fighters fought to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused party. [127] The most important of these was the trial by combat. [125]

A Germanic origin for the trial by combat is generally accepted. [128] It appears early and widely among many Germanic peoples. [129] Dusil, Kannowski, and Schwedler write that it is an important difference between Germanic and Roman law, and derive it from the time prior to Germanic contact with the Romans. [130]

Unlike for the trial by combat, scholars debate whether the trials by fire and water were inspired by Christianity or derive from pre-Christian Germanic tradition. [131] [64] Robert Bartlett argues for a Frankish origin of the practice of trial by fire and water, with Frankish influence spreading it around Europe. He argues that the practice is absent in the early Burgundian, Alemannic, Bavarian, and Kentish law codes and therefore cannot have a pan-Germanic origin. [132] Heinz Holzhauer instead argues that ordeal by fire and water was a common Germanic, pre-Christian method of trial, which he connects to the casting of lots found in Tacitus. [133]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ A second early listing of some laws, the fragmentary Edictum Theodorici, is either ascribed to the Ostrogoths in Italy (probably in the reign of Theodoric the Great) or is another example of a Visigothic code by their king Theodoric II. [31] [32]
  2. ↑ The etymology is unclear but probably represents a Proto-Germanic *aiwa-, which may have been a combination of two roots, one related to Sanskrit eva (law) and one related to Latin aevum eternity. [38]
  3. ↑ Probably related to þeihs "time" (from PGmc *þinhaz) and meaning originally the time at which the assembly was appointed to meet. [78] In the Lex Salica and laws influenced by it, the Latinized vernacular term mallus or mallum, from PGmc *maþla- "speech, assembly", is used to refer to the assembly instead. [79]
  4. ↑ The Latin form derives from one of several descendants of Proto-Germanic *ga-faih-iþō-, meaning "enmity," "vengeance". [104]
  5. ↑ The term is the most frequent one found in Old English and Old High German. In the Nordic languages the term mangæld is used. Alternative terms in the Leges include leudardi, from leod ("man"). [119]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Germanic peoples</span> Historical group of European people

The Germanic peoples were historical groups of people that once occupied Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. Since the 19th century, they have traditionally been defined by the use of ancient and early medieval Germanic languages and are thus equated at least approximately with Germanic-speaking peoples, although different academic disciplines have their own definitions of what makes someone or something "Germanic". The Romans named the area belonging to North-Central Europe in which Germanic peoples lived Germania, stretching east to west between the Vistula and Rhine rivers and north to south from southern Scandinavia to the upper Danube. In discussions of the Roman period, the Germanic peoples are sometimes referred to as Germani or ancient Germans, although many scholars consider the second term problematic since it suggests identity with present-day Germans. The very concept of "Germanic peoples" has become the subject of controversy among contemporary scholars. Some scholars call for its total abandonment as a modern construct since lumping "Germanic peoples" together implies a common group identity for which there is little evidence. Other scholars have defended the term's continued use and argue that a common Germanic language allows one to speak of "Germanic peoples", regardless of whether these ancient and medieval peoples saw themselves as having a common identity. While several historians and archaeologists continue to use the term "Germanic peoples" to refer to historical people groups from the 1st to 4th centuries CE, the term is no longer used by most historians and archaeologists for the period around the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weregild</span> Paid in atonement for blood guilt

Weregild, also known as man price, was a precept in some historical legal codes whereby a monetary value was established for a person's life, to be paid as a fine or as compensatory damages to the person's family if that person was killed or injured by another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cherusci</span> Germanic tribe in present-day northwestern Germany in the 1st centuries BC and AD

The Cherusci were a Germanic tribe that inhabited parts of the plains and forests of northwestern Germany in the area of the Weser River and present-day Hanover during the first centuries BC and AD. Roman sources reported they considered themselves kin with other Irmino tribes and claimed common descent from an ancestor called Mannus. During the early Roman Empire under Augustus, the Cherusci first served as allies of Rome and sent sons of their chieftains to receive Roman education and serve in the Roman army as auxiliaries. The Cherusci leader Arminius led a confederation of tribes in the ambush that destroyed three Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest in AD 9. He was subsequently kept from further damaging Rome by disputes with the Marcomanni and reprisal attacks led by Germanicus. After rebel Cherusci killed Arminius in AD 21, infighting among the royal family led to the highly Romanized line of his brother Flavus coming to power. Following their defeat by the Chatti around AD 88, the Cherusci do not appear in further accounts of the German tribes, apparently being absorbed into the late classical groups such as the Saxons, Thuringians, Franks, Bavarians, and Allemanni.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Germania</span> Historical region in north-central Europe

Germania, also called Magna Germania, Germania Libera, or Germanic Barbaricum to distinguish it from the Roman province of the same name, was a historical region in north-central Europe during the Roman era, which was associated by Roman authors with the Germanic people. The region stretched roughly from the Middle and Lower Rhine in the west to the Vistula in the east. It also extended at some point as far south as the Upper and Middle Danube and Pannonia, and to the known parts of southern Scandinavia in the north. Archaeologically, these people correspond roughly to the Roman Iron Age of those regions. While dominated by Germanic people, Magna Germania was also inhabited by a few other Indo-European people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bructeri</span> Germanic tribe

The Bructeri were a Germanic tribe in Roman imperial times, located in northwestern Germany, in present-day North Rhine-Westphalia. Their territory included both sides of the upper Ems and Lippe rivers. At its greatest extent, their territory apparently stretched between the vicinities of the Rhine in the west and the Teutoburg Forest and Weser river in the east. In late Roman times they moved south to settle upon the east bank of the Rhine facing Cologne, an area later associated with the Ripuarian Franks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Istvaeones</span> Historical ethnic group

The Istvaeones were a Germanic group of tribes living near the banks of the Rhine during the Roman Empire which reportedly shared a common culture and origin. The Istaevones were contrasted to neighbouring groups, the Ingaevones on the North Sea coast, and the Herminones, living inland of these groups.

<i>Visigothic Code</i> Set of laws used in the Visigothic Kingdom

The Visigothic Code, also called Lex Visigothorum, is a set of laws first promulgated by king Chindasuinth of the Visigothic Kingdom in his second year of rule (642–643) that survives only in fragments. In 654 his son, king Recceswinth (649–672), published the enlarged law code, which was the first law code that applied equally to the conquering Goths and the general population, of which the majority had Roman roots, and had lived under Roman laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Germanic paganism</span> Traditional religion of Germanic peoples

Germanic paganism or Germanic religion refers to the traditional, culturally significant religion of the Germanic peoples. With a chronological range of at least one thousand years in an area covering Scandinavia, the British Isles, modern Germany, and at times other parts of Europe, the beliefs and practices of Germanic paganism varied. Scholars typically assume some degree of continuity between Roman-era beliefs and those found in Norse paganism, as well as between Germanic religion and reconstructed Indo-European religion and post-conversion folklore, though the precise degree and details of this continuity are subjects of debate. Germanic religion was influenced by neighboring cultures, including that of the Celts, the Romans, and, later, by the Christian religion. Very few sources exist that were written by pagan adherents themselves; instead, most were written by outsiders and can thus present problems for reconstructing authentic Germanic beliefs and practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Salian Franks</span> 4th and 5th century Franks in todays Netherlands and Belgium

The Salian Franks, also called the Salians, were a northwestern subgroup of the early Franks who appear in the historical record in the fourth and fifth centuries. They lived west of the Lower Rhine in what was then the Roman Empire and today the Netherlands and Belgium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Walter Pohl</span> Austrian historian

Walter Pohl is an Austrian historian who is Professor of Auxiliary Sciences of History and Medieval History at the University of Vienna. He is a leading member of the Vienna School of History.

Charles Patrick Wormald was a British historian born in Neston, Cheshire, son of historian Brian Wormald.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Early Germanic warfare</span>

Warfare seems to have been a constant in Germanic society, and archaeology indicates this was the case prior to the arrival of the Romans in the 1st century BCE. Wars were frequent between and within the individual Germanic peoples. The early Germanic languages preserve various words for "war", and they did not necessarily clearly differentiate between warfare and other forms of violent interaction. The Romans note that for the Germans, robbery in warfare was not shameful, and most Germanic warfare both against Rome and against other Germanic peoples was motivated by the potential to acquire booty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rudolf Much</span> Austrian philologist

Rudolf Much was an Austrian philologist and historian who specialized in Germanic studies. Much was Professor and Chair of Germanic Linguistic History and Germanic Antiquity at the University of Vienna, during which he tutored generations of students and published a number of influential works, some of which have remained standard works up to the present day.

The Leges Henrici Primi or Laws of Henry I is a legal treatise, written in about 1115, that records the legal customs of medieval England in the reign of King Henry I of England. Although it is not an official document, it was written by someone apparently associated with the royal administration. It lists and explains the laws, and includes explanations of how to conduct legal proceedings. Although its title implies that these laws were issued by King Henry, it lists laws issued by earlier monarchs that were still in force in Henry's reign; the only law of Henry that is included is the coronation charter he issued at the start of his reign. It covers a diverse range of subjects, including ecclesiastical cases, treason, murder, theft, feuds, assessment of danegeld, and the amounts of judicial fines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Æthelberht</span> Set of Legal Provisions, first known document in English

The Law of Æthelberht is a set of legal provisions written in Old English, probably dating to the early 7th century. It originates in the kingdom of Kent, and is the first Germanic-language law code. It is also thought to be the earliest example of a document written in English, or indeed in any form of a surviving Germanic language, though extant only in an early 12th-century manuscript, Textus Roffensis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ganna (seeress)</span> Germanic prophet

Ganna was a Germanic seeress, of the Semnoni tribe, who succeeded the seeress Veleda as the leader of a Germanic alliance in rebellion against the Roman Empire. She went together with her king Masyus as envoys to Rome to discuss with Roman emperor Domitian himself, and was received with honours, after which she returned home. She is only mentioned by name in the works of Cassius Dio, but she also appears to have provided posterity with select information about the religious practices and the mythology of the early Germanic tribes, through the contemporary Roman historian Tacitus who wrote them down in Germania. Her name may be a reference to her priestly insignia, the wand, or to her spiritual abilities, and she probably taught her craft to Waluburg who would serve as a seeress in Roman Egypt at the First Cataract of the Nile.

The Lex Thuringorum is a law code that survives today in one 10th-century manuscript, the Codex Corbeiensis, alongside a copy of the Lex Saxonum, the law of the Saxons. The code was compiled in the first decade of the 9th century, probably 802–3, under Frankish patronage. The language of the law code is Latin and few Thuringians could have read it, nonetheless some must have cooperated with Frankish officials during the process of collecting and codifying the customs. The Lex Thuringorum, the Lex Saxonum, the Lex Francorum Chamavorum and the Lex Frisionum comprise the four so-called "Carolingian tribal laws", because they were produced at the same time at the direction of King Charles I in order to accommodate the differing legal customs of the nations living within his empire. They were neither totally faithful nor comprehensive reproductions of tribal law, but were created as part of a process of official christianisation. The historian Timothy Reuter writes that "the manuscript transmission does not suggest that [the Thuringian law] was extensively used, though there are enough different strata of law still visible in the text to suggest that it was not merely a literary exercise."

<i>Lex Romana Curiensis</i>

The Lex Romana Curiensis, also known as the Lex Romana Raetica, Lex Romana Utinensis or Epitome Sancti Galli, is a Latin legal treatise of the eighth century from the region of Churraetia. It was not a law code in force, but a handbook for use in legal education. Nonetheless, it may be the basis of the Raetian lex et consuetudo that Charlemagne confirmed in the early 770s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dieter Timpe</span> German historian (1931–2021)

Dieter Timpe was a German historian best known for his theories on Arminius and the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest.

<i>Ewa ad Amorem</i> 9th-century germanic law code

Ewa ad Amorem, traditionally known as the Lex Francorum Chamavorum, is a 9th-century law code from the Carolingian Empire. It is generally counted among the leges barbarorum, but it was not a national law. It applied only to a certain region in the Low Countries, although exactly where is disputed. Its association with the Chamavi is a modern conjecture.

References

  1. 1 2 Dilcher 2011, p. 251.
  2. 1 2 Fruscione 2010.
  3. 1 2 Timpe & Scardigli 2010, p. 801.
  4. 1 2 3 Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, p. 78.
  5. ↑ Shoemaker 2018, pp. 251–252.
  6. 1 2 Kalb 2016.
  7. 1 2 Wauters & de Benito 2017, p. 33.
  8. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, pp. 78–79.
  9. ↑ Dilcher 2011, pp. 246–247.
  10. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, p. 396.
  11. ↑ Green 1998, p. 30.
  12. ↑ Shoemaker 2018, p. 249.
  13. ↑ Dilcher 2011, pp. 241–242.
  14. 1 2 Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, p. 389.
  15. ↑ Lück 2010, p. 423.
  16. ↑ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 790–791.
  17. 1 2 Timpe & Scardigli 2010, p. 811.
  18. ↑ Dilcher 2011, p. 245.
  19. ↑ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 798–799.
  20. ↑ Dilcher 2011, p. 243.
  21. ↑ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 811–812.
  22. ↑ Lück 2010, pp. 423–424.
  23. ↑ Lenski 2023, pp. 357–358.
  24. ↑ Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 800–801.
  25. ↑ Shoemaker 2018, p. 251.
  26. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, p. 79.
  27. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010b, p. 585.
  28. ↑ Drew 1991, p. 21–22.
  29. 1 2 Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, p. 86.
  30. 1 2 Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, p. 392.
  31. ↑ Drew 1991, p. 22.
  32. 1 2 Wormald 2002, pp. 27.
  33. ↑ Lück 2010, pp. 425–426.
  34. ↑ Lück 2010, p. 426.
  35. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, p. 393.
  36. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, p. 394.
  37. ↑ Lück 2010, p. 427.
  38. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010d, pp. 70–71.
  39. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 31–32.
  40. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010d, p. 70.
  41. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 31–34.
  42. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010d, p. 72.
  43. ↑ Lück 2010, p. 419–420.
  44. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, pp. 135–136.
  45. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010a, pp. 394–395.
  46. ↑ Hoppenbouwers 2013, p. 265.
  47. ↑ Naumann & Schmidt-Wiegand 2010, pp. 535–537.
  48. ↑ Naumann & Schmidt-Wiegand 2010, p. 537.
  49. ↑ Munske 1973, p. 537.
  50. ↑ von Olberg 1991.
  51. ↑ Karras 2006, pp. 124.
  52. ↑ Schulze 2010, p. 480.
  53. ↑ Karras 2006, p. 128.
  54. ↑ Schulze 2010, p. 483.
  55. 1 2 Schulze 2010, p. 488.
  56. ↑ Buchholz 2008, p. 1193.
  57. ↑ Schulze 2010, p. 481.
  58. ↑ Karras 2006, pp. 124, 127–130, 139–140.
  59. ↑ Schumann 2008a, pp. 1807–1809.
  60. ↑ Schumann 2008b, pp. 1695–1696.
  61. ↑ Springer & Steuer 2010, pp. 997–999.
  62. ↑ Springer & Steuer 2010, p. 995-997.
  63. ↑ Springer & Steuer 2010, pp. 999.
  64. 1 2 3 4 Pohl 2016.
  65. ↑ Springer & Steuer 2010, p. 1001.
  66. ↑ Goetz 2002, p. 5.
  67. ↑ Goetz 2002, p. 3.
  68. ↑ Wormald 2002, p. 21.
  69. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010b, pp. 1171–1173.
  70. ↑ Wormald 2002, p. 22.
  71. ↑ Hoppenbouwers 2013, p. 266.
  72. ↑ Lenski 2023, pp. 359–360.
  73. ↑ Wormald 2002, pp. 24–28.
  74. ↑ Wormald 2002, pp. 31–32.
  75. ↑ Hoppenbouwers 2013, pp. 263–264.
  76. ↑ Beck & Wenskus 2010, p. 887.
  77. 1 2 Hardt 2010, p. 1177.
  78. ↑ Beck & Wenskus 2010, pp. 886.
  79. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010b, pp. 381–382.
  80. ↑ Beck & Wenskus 2010, pp. 900–901.
  81. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, pp. 131–133.
  82. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, p. 131.
  83. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 34–35.
  84. ↑ Hardt 2010, p. 1178.
  85. ↑ Hardt 2010, p. 1179.
  86. ↑ Drew 1991, p. 23.
  87. ↑ Beck & Wenskus 2010, p. 896.
  88. ↑ Seebold & Schneider 2010, pp. 204–205.
  89. ↑ Seebold & Schneider 2010, pp. 206–207.
  90. ↑ Dick 2008, p. 211.
  91. ↑ Pohl 2004, p. 65.
  92. ↑ Green 1998, p. 121.
  93. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 121–122.
  94. ↑ Pohl 2004, p. 68.
  95. ↑ Dick 2008, pp. 211–214.
  96. ↑ Seebold & Schneider 2010, p. 207.
  97. ↑ Pohl 2004, pp. 67–68.
  98. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 134–139.
  99. ↑ Green 1998, pp. 59, 62.
  100. 1 2 Timpe & Scardigli 2010, p. 791.
  101. ↑ Saar & Strauch 2010, p. 947.
  102. ↑ Saar & Strauch 2010, pp. 948–949.
  103. ↑ Saar & Strauch 2010, pp. 950–953.
  104. ↑ Meineke & Kaufmann 2010, pp. 560–563.
  105. 1 2 Shoemaker 2018, p. 253.
  106. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, p. 135.
  107. ↑ Wormald 2002, p. 30.
  108. ↑ Meineke & Kaufmann 2010, p. 569.
  109. ↑ Meineke & Kaufmann 2010, pp. 564–565.
  110. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, pp. 130–131.
  111. ↑ Meineke & Kaufmann 2010, pp. 567–570.
  112. ↑ Esders 2021, p. 1.
  113. ↑ Körntgen 2010, p. 359.
  114. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010e, p. 917.
  115. ↑ Beck 2010, p. 215.
  116. ↑ Körntgen 2010, pp. 459–460.
  117. ↑ Wormald 2002.
  118. ↑ Lenski 2023, pp. 384–400.
  119. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010e, pp. 914–915.
  120. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010e, pp. 922–923.
  121. ↑ Schmidt-Wiegand 2010e, p. 915–917.
  122. 1 2 Schmidt-Wiegand 2010e, pp. 917–918.
  123. ↑ Esders 2021, pp. 1–2.
  124. ↑ Lenski 2022, pp. 262–265.
  125. 1 2 Kalb 2016a.
  126. ↑ Bartlett 1986, p. 2.
  127. ↑ Holzhauer & Pesch 2010, pp. 301–304.
  128. ↑ Holzhauer & Pesch 2010, pp. 299–300.
  129. ↑ Bartlett 1986, p. 103.
  130. ↑ Dusil, Kannowski & Schwedler 2023, pp. 140–141.
  131. ↑ Holzhauer & Pesch 2010, p. 298.
  132. ↑ Bartlett 1986, pp. 5–7.
  133. ↑ Holzhauer & Pesch 2010, pp. 298–299.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.