How did the Germanic peoples elect the kuningaz?

[Calypze]

I've a historical question about the Sweboz. As this is not strictly a question related to the game, I don't know if it is permitted to ask this question, but I'll give it a try.

The Sweboz (and Germanic tribes in general) did, according to vague information on the EB site and from the game, elect their kings rather than having a hereditary ruler (though the king had to be of noble birth). I wonder how they did go about electing them? Did all the people have a vote in the matter? Men, women, slaves etc. Or was it just the nobles who elected? Or did they do as the Celts did (according to the EB information), i.e the people elected a chief for their village, the chiefs elected a chieftain for a larger area and so on until finally a kuningaz was elected as the highest authority. Or how did they do?

I also wonder, what is the closest equivalent today to the Harjanaz? Obviously the kuningaz was the equivalent to the head of the state, wasn't he?

[kalkwerk]

Im not sure about this, but I think they rather bought their clients with gifts.

[Watchman]

Potlach, huh ? For some reason I can't avoid the feeling not much had really changed by the days when would-be Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire de facto had to buy the support of the Elector Counts...

[georgejung]

Iam relativly sure that they had a sort of big meeting, called "thingaz" where all free men (whatever that means) diskussed important things and elected the king (who must be of noble birth). it is said that this was a very democratic element for that time and region.

[kalkwerk]

This institution was a place of jurisdiction and politics of course too. Which still doesnt exclude the bribing phenomenon (I only know this from medievial scandinavian history, where they had similar institutions. Often local kings turned up with a lot of men to the "ting" and it helped out when voting should be done. A sack full of gold was also great to let people change their opinion).

[Calypze]

Thank you for the answers.


Iam relativly sure that they had a sort of big meeting, called "thingaz" where all free men (whatever that means) diskussed important things and elected the king (who must be of noble birth). it is said that this was a very democratic element for that time and region.

Yes that seems reasonable. I guess free men included the men who were not slaves. I don't know if women were allowed to participate, but from what I know, the "barbarians" treated their women better that the Greeks.

In any case, while the Thengaz probably worked well on the village level, how would it work for a larger tribe (or confederacy) such as the Sweboz and the Chatti? For some reason I'm fairly certain that not every tribesman left his(/her?) home to assemble somewhere far away to elect the king.

I agree that this was a relatively democratic practice, and I don't understand why the Greeks get all the credits every time.

[kalkwerk]

Thank you for the answers.


I agree that this was a relatively democratic practice, and I don't understand why the Greeks get all the credits every time.
They dont. In Norway the parliament is called "Storting" - which means big "ting" (counsel). There has been a strong tradition in 19th century to seek democratic roots in the barbarian times. But there wasnt a similar written tradition about these things which could compete with the greek/roman. They were still barbarians, you know.

[Sakkura]

Thank you for the answers.



Yes that seems reasonable. I guess free men included the men who were not slaves. I don't know if women were allowed to participate, but from what I know, the "barbarians" treated their women better that the Greeks.

In any case, while the Thengaz probably worked well on the village level, how would it work for a larger tribe (or confederacy) such as the Sweboz and the Chatti? For some reason I'm fairly certain that not every tribesman left his(/her?) home to assemble somewhere far away to elect the king.

I agree that this was a relatively democratic practice, and I don't understand why the Greeks get all the credits every time.
Well the Greeks were a bit earlier to it*, and they weren't just electing kings.

*well, hard to know what exactly was going on up north at 500 BC or earlier.

[Teutobod II]

Thank you for the answers.
Yes that seems reasonable. I guess free men included the men who were not slaves. I don't know if women were allowed to participate, but from what I know, the "barbarians" treated their women better that the Greeks.

In any case, while the Thengaz probably worked well on the village level, how would it work for a larger tribe (or confederacy) such as the Sweboz and the Chatti? For some reason I'm fairly certain that not every tribesman left his(/her?) home to assemble somewhere far away to elect the king.

I agree that this was a relatively democratic practice, and I don't understand why the Greeks get all the credits every time.

All free men who were allowed to carry arms... (no women, children, slaves or half-free, cowards, deserters)

I think the clans and villages in a Gau (gawjam) usually kept to themselves unless they were at war.
Then all warriors would gather anyway; and if a "Volkskrieg" (last used by the Saxons in 8th? century), an all out total war was declared, every able bodied man who was allowed to carry arms was mobilized and they elected their kuningaz (or hertog) to lead them to war.

[Calypze]

All free men who were allowed to carry arms... (no women, children, slaves or half-free, cowards, deserters)

I think the clans and villages in a Gau (gawjam) usually kept to themselves unless they were at war.
Then all warriors would gather anyway; and if a "Volkskrieg" (last used by the Saxons in 8th? century), an all out total war was declared, every able bodied man who was allowed to carry arms was mobilized and they elected their kuningaz (or hertog) to lead them to war.

Oh, so they had no kuningaz except for when they were at war, and only elected their kuningaz as a general for that war?

[Cadwalader]

The system the norse used 1000 years later, was that a potential king came to the Thing, and presented his goals to the men there. And then they would take him as king, by everyone cheering. If they liked him, that is.. No voting, at least our idea of voting. So it must have been very influenced by group pressure.

[georgejung]

They were still barbarians, you know.

barbarians as descriept by roman and greek historians(nearly the only written source of what was going on in that time), who surely hadnt a objektive view on the people they wanted to defeat.



Well the Greeks were a bit earlier to it*, and they weren't just electing kings.

*well, hard to know what exactly was going on up north at 500 BC or earlier.

iam not sure but i think those celtic/germanic society structures were very stable and reached to 2000 b.c. but i wil check it

[Sakkura]

iam not sure but i think those celtic/germanic society structures were very stable and reached to 2000 b.c. but i wil check it
My only point was that it might be difficult to find out what was going on in those areas at such an early time, due to lack of written sources.

[Calypze]

I think I stumbled upon how it worked:

"The ting was the assembly of the free people of a country, province or a 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_%28assembly%29

So it seems like there were tings for different levels of society.

[abou]

Honestly? They just played a game of stick-ball.

Seemed to work pretty well...

[Sakkura]

I think I stumbled upon how it worked:

"The ting was the assembly of the free people of a country, province or a 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_%28assembly%29

So it seems like there were tings for different levels of society.
That article mainly describes the Thing/Ting of Scandinavia in the viking times and the descendants thereof.

[Calypze]

That article mainly describes the Thing/Ting of Scandinavia in the viking times and the descendants thereof.

But wasn't the ancient Germanic system quite the same? I mean southern Scandinavia was the craddle of the Germanic culture.

[kalkwerk]

Historians study the institutions of medieval ages because they got written proof of them and set up the hypothesis they developed in earlier times. This means for a big part that we have to rely on sources written as late as the 13th century! Still Norwegian historians regard the developments of tings as an early phenomenon as it originally was related to religous cult.

[Teutobod II]

Oh, so they had no kuningaz except for when they were at war, and only elected their kuningaz as a general for that war?


not all tribes had kings...
e.g. Arminius or Marobodus weren´t kings either although they here the two most powerful chieftains in their time...

[blitzkrieg80]

The original concept of the word "king" in Common Germanic (Old English cyning) came from "kin" (Proto-Germanic kuniz) and simply meant "descedant (-ing) of kindred." The idea that nobility or that certain families proven successful retain that trait along their family line is unfortunately common. Anyways, for someone to be a king then simply meant they had status within their tribe, that they were of a family whose importance was reknown.

One of the earliest terms for kings is seen in Gothic þiudans used by Wufila to render Greek basileús. The word means "lord of the people/tribe" and is widely attested in the Germanic languages (besides Indo-European, like Illyrian teutana "queen" & Gaulish personal name Toutonos), but the term loses importance in its specific sense as king as other words became more popular in usage.

One word that increasingly became more popular can be seen in Old Norse dróttinn, OE dryhten, Old High German truhtin which translates to "lord of the warband" and denotes the militaristic priority/purpose of the king and was part of why it became to be used much more than the chieftain-like OE þēoden. Not all warlords or chieftains were considered kings but the terminology became largely fused together with all those concepts of kingship just mentioned.

The þing as a representative legislative assembly is a relatively late invention of highly-developed Germanic peoples, such as the Norse cultures who made them so well known, and later created quite a sophisticated representative government. "Things" as we know them from Norse culture are not the same as what would have been known on a large scale Germanic cultural sense. They were indeed assemblies as recorded by Tacitus, but by no means were they true legislative bodies made up of all who attended- they functioned as floors to voice the concerns of the troop, but more importantly to affirm decisions already made by their war-leader and his wisemen/veterans. Can you say pep-rally? ~:)

Councils of wisemen are far more commonly recorded for holding the power of decision-making and appropriately so, because those considered "wise" such as elders cross-culturally retain possession of much of the power within society. Those wisemen would then be primarily composed of the leading members of the society, the lords (big men) and war-leaders, law-speakers and priests too, but primarily of the warrior aristocracy, including veterans too old to war that retain advisory positions.