Celtic questions

[Cyrus]

Ok so since i noticed that no one would answer my question on celtic reforms in my topic "nomad questions" i've decided to post it here among with other curiosities:
1) what does it mean when in the faq it sais collactively on the celtic reforms?
2) did celts and northern "barbarians" bathe as it would seem from the many soap makers and bathing places they can build?
3) where germans celts?
4) What condition were celtic women in? where like the greek slave-women , the etruscan obscene whores (according to greeks and romans) or like the hetaireias (or whatever the name was for the greek trophy girlfriends) or something else?
Thx in advance

[Shylence]

if i can get in before the true professionals i will answer in a quick response to your Questions.

1) when the celtic kingdoms/confederacies become more organised towards a civilised culture rather then just a tribal state.

2) Yes i belive somewhere in Gaul soap was first created. making the gauls at least cleaner than the romans when they first met lol.

3) No. Germans were not celts not Celtic they were Germans therefore Germanic. These labels are being re-investigated as such but Germans were not Celts they came from Scandanavia. The whole "Celt/Celtic peoples theory is in debate atm. Celts are seen as Central european based or maybe a Atlantic coast type culture from the western end of europe.

4) As far as i know, if we label Britons and Irish as part of the Celtic peoples. Quite a bit of more equality Queens ruling as true rulers as opposed to the kings trophy wench. were common in ancient Ireland and Britain.

[Cyrus]

3) No. Germans were not celts not Celtic they were Germans therefore Germanic.

??????? sorry but i really don't understand what that means....
thx for the rest though

[Shylence]

Germanic peoples and Celtic peoples are considered seperate cultures and languages. Both Indo-European but seperate like Greek from Roman. Romans are part of the Italic branch which is related to both the Celtic and Germanic branch. Do you understand now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Celts_in_Europe.png current determination of Celts and their limit in the ancient world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G...750BC-1AD).png current accepted theory of Germanics in the ancient world.

[Power2the1]

Ok so since i noticed that no one would answer my question on celtic reforms in my topic "nomad questions" i've decided to post it here among with other curiosities:
1) what does it mean when in the faq it sais collactively on the celtic reforms?
2) did celts and northern "barbarians" bathe as it would seem from the many soap makers and bathing places they can build?
3) where germans celts?
4) What condition were celtic women in? where like the greek slave-women , the etruscan obscene whores (according to greeks and romans) or like the hetaireias (or whatever the name was for the greek trophy girlfriends) or something else?
Thx in advance

1)Not sure what you mean here

2) Yes they did. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about Northern Europeans (Celts, Germans, etc...) in the Iron Age that I can think of. soap was known to have been made by the Celts first, but it appears soap was used by Germanic tribes as well. Consider these tidbits of info that I have came across.

-Pliny mention soap as an invention of the Gauls:

-Galen (lived in the late 100's A.D.) says German soap was the most fatty and thought to be the overall best. Gallic (Celtic) soap was second best and removed all impurities from the body and clothing.

-In Ireland, Gaul, and Britain the fat, ashes, and oils were used to make the soap for hygiene and harden or spike hair. Chalky water mixes were used to spike hair also. Put into wooden tubs iirc, this mix was allowed to harden/gel and then the soap would be cut into squarish shapes, whereas we today use a more rectangular soap shape.

-Roman baths were more or less social houses. Hygiene cold be argued to be a secondary purpose. Murders, plots, deals, trades, and business was taken care of at a Roman bath. For the Celts it was hygiene first and foremost. Any social activity took a backseat to cleaning. Celtic communal bathouses/spas were only in the largest settlements and before Roman conquest. To be fair, i am unsure how often Roman bath houses hanged their water, but with all those guys coming in and out of the bath, the accumulation of filth in the water was probably counter productive as you'd bathe in dirty water.

-At Lugdunum, a steam room (not water immersion bath) was uncovered that was apparently built over by Romans. Had a charcoal pit and the works. Might have been used by aristocracy/nobility to meet and discuss things in the Romans manner or to help with headaches or sinus issues.

-Though not a common occurrence water was piped into Celtic towns using 'civilized' methods of stone waterway, canals, etc...like what Greeks and Romans used themselves. Before this one would simply jump in a river all the time or having a tub or basin filled. Springs and that sort of things were probably used as well, although many of these would have been devoted to a goddess so I'm unsure if they'd also bath in these offering pools...

- A huge public stone basin for water, thought to be aligned to astrological star movements has been discovered at the capitol of Aedui, Bibracte. Bibracte has also shown that the Gauls would used stone channels to bring in fresh water throughout the town.

3) Not really. Its thought that early Germans, or many of them, can from the Scandinavian areas, while the early Celts (Halstatt era) were centered in modern south Germany, Austria, and places around this. Overall, however, IMHO the Germans and Celts were closer in cultures that separate. Caesar's division of Germanic and Celtic based on the Rhine is rubbish and should be disregarded. No river is going to stop the mixing and exchange of cultures and since the Celts and Germans were close to each other, no doubt they intermingled more than we think they did.

4) If you were a woman, you'd want to live with the Celts. Here you could own land, divorce your husband if grounds were found for it, and you could even join or lead an army! Although woman were not allowed into the public assembly (in Gaul at least), they could weigh in behind the scenes. Plutarch mentions that woman intervened in the 4th century to help prevent war among the Gauls in north Italy. When Hannibal met the Volcae Arecomici in southern France, many/all of the ambassadors sent to him were women.

If you want to talk about sexual matters/morals, again it appears that Celtic woman, overall, had much more of a say on who they chose to marry. One of my favorite saying by any woman is what a Caledonian woman, wife of the chieftain Argentocoxus of the Caldonians, said to empress Julia Augusta, who disliked Caledonian morals:

"We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than you Roman women: for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched by the vilest!" -Dio 77.16.5

Still, Celtic woman were often pawns in dynastic alliances and wedding alliances, but probably not on the same scale as the Greco-Roman world.



Hope this helps. Anything else, just ask

[cmacq]

3) where germans celts?

This may provide a very small window into this rather complex issue.

Again, I'd put the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones as predominatly Brythonic; center, southwest, and southern Germany as Celt; and only extreme northeast Germany as Hermiones or Deutsch. Of course, this in the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, after which the picture changed very quickly, and very dramatically. All I can say is they; that is the Lugii, were considered Germans but not Celt, not Belgic, not Deutsch, most likely not Balt, and by all means not Slav. However, with that said, the attributes of this ethnos appear to have been usurped by, and eventually came to characterize the Deutsch speakers. I’m speculating this process began in the very late 4th century, but more likely to have occurred in the late 3rd BC. However, it is clear that it wasn’t until after the Cimbric event of the late 2nd century that the followers of Irmin became the dominant force in northwest Germany, which lead to significant territorial expansion to the east, west, and south. Of course, these expansions were greatly facilitated by the a dramatic shift to a much cooler-dryer global climate, the relative depopulation of Nordic Scandinavia with a steady demographic flow of the displaced south into northern Germany and Poland, as well as the late Gallo-Roman and early Germano-Roman wars of the 1st centuries BC and AD. Nonetheless, an interesting scenario that fits the archaeology very well.

Not to slight anyone, however those wiki articles are of very little value, as they reflect a particular school that was largely discredited, nearly 20 years ago. I do understand that this view is still being taught; strange isn’t it??? One only need look at the placement of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. Please look here for a little more info. Of course, it does help a bit, if one can read and comprehend the Deutsch archaeological literature.

Again, strangely enough from wiki, yet this time a wee bit more accurate.

Overview of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. The core Hallstatt territory (800 BC) is shown in solid yellow, the area of influence by 500 BC (HaD) in light yellow. The core territory of the La Tène culture (450 BC) is shown in solid green, the eventual area of La Tène influence by 50 BC in light green. The territories of some major Celtic tribes are labelled.


CmacQ

[Celtic_Punk]

I remember when i visited the site of Emain Macha this year, part of the tour included goin into this hut and seeing how they lived day to day. Women could leave their man at anytime if he became abusive, a drunkard, or just plain couldn't provide for her. And she takes her dowry with her! Women were almost equals.


funny how a civilization and culture considered barbaric were actually ahead in social structure, hygiene and swordcraft. Take that you filthy romanophiles!

[Ca Putt]

I'm impressed, that is extremely interesting.

1. collectively means that the 3 Celtic factions together have to have the required buildings. it does not matter whether one faction has all or they are spread over the three. so it makes no difference is the casse have 4 forums and the other two may even be wiped out or two of them each have 1 and the third 2 forums, the reform will occur.

[cmacq]

I thought that Navan was not so much a residential site, than it was ritual, which was abandoned very shortly after it was built? This part and parcel of the period of massive abandonment of nearly all well established settlements throughout all of Ireland, between the mid 1st century BC and AD 300. The population didn't seem to have recovered to the Pre-Roman Period levels till as late as the AD 600s.




CmacQ

[lobf]

4) As far as i know, if we label Britons and Irish as part of the Celtic peoples. Quite a bit of more equality Queens ruling as true rulers as opposed to the kings trophy wench. were common in ancient Ireland and Britain.

I'm pretty sure the British are descendants of Germans.

[Cyrus]

I'm impressed, that is extremely interesting.

1. collectively means that the 3 Celtic factions together have to have the required buildings. it does not matter whether one faction has all or they are spread over the three. so it makes no difference is the casse have 4 forums and the other two may even be wiped out or two of them each have 1 and the third 2 forums, the reform will occur.

So does it mean if I destroy the aedui with arverni before they build the stuff the reforms won't happen?
thx all for your many answers, i am however not really understanding why celtic women were so "free". usually in a "warrior centric" society that viewed man as the warrior and sole provider, the women would be seen as ultimately useless if not for procreation right?

[Shylence]

I'm pretty sure the British are descendants of Germans.

Im going on the most common theory that Britain was more "celtic" during the pre roman era than during the "germanic" migrations of the late roman empire.

Now if you mean now... then yes maybe they are since that the Angles and Saxons are supposed to have migrated into britain forming the kingdoms that would make up auld Angle-land and the lowlands of scotland were never really gaelic and more Northumbrian in dark age Britain.

Reading Oppenheimer on the genetic make up of Britain and Ireland shows that maybe the population hasnt changed much at all since the ice age ended.

Maybe you should go into more detail Lobf?

[Shylence]

So does it mean if I destroy the aedui with arverni before they build the stuff the reforms won't happen?
thx all for your many answers, i am however not really understanding why celtic women were so "free". usually in a "warrior centric" society that viewed man as the warrior and sole provider, the women would be seen as ultimately useless if not for procreation right?

No I think the reforms will still happen! Its all about a built up of infrastructure in your cities. having a certain number of large temples and market places and somthing else i forget in the Celtic faction's cities leads to the trigger of the reforms. Although atm im still on 1.1 if 1.2 has been changed i cant help you.


Talking about celtic woman. Usually does not mean 100% certain. Maybe Celtic tribes were warrior centric tribes. Just because it may have been a warrior soceity does not mean women were just breeding machines lol.

I did read a while ago in a newspaper that mens testosterone levels generally increase while being exposed to direct sunlight.

Mediterranian(sp) men are known for being part of a Macho culture, while in northern europe this is not always the case lol. Aussies too, Famous Machos. And since women rights have always seemed to be a bit unfair in the Middle east and indian sub-continent. MAYBE that because Northern europe is generally cloud covered more oftenthe men were just a wee bit less macho on their women. And these macho male dominated cultures have lots of sunlight

^ take that all as a bit tongue-in-cheek

Of course Chimps and Benobos, our closest relatives. Are seperated only by the Congo river they are so similar that Benobos were called and somtimes still are called Pygmy Chimps. Chimps have a definate Male dominated society. While across the river Benobos seemed to be run by their women.

So who knows why..someone probably does and will tell you soon enough lol

[blitzkrieg80]

So does it mean if I destroy the aedui with arverni before they build the stuff the reforms won't happen?
thx all for your many answers, i am however not really understanding why celtic women were so "free". usually in a "warrior centric" society that viewed man as the warrior and sole provider, the women would be seen as ultimately useless if not for procreation right?

fertility cults were more popular in tribal cultures than urban... generally, urban cultures have more emphasis on 'law' - thus seen in the many roles of Jupiter, ect. versus Tyr / Odin for example

the boar and its emphasis and it's relationship to fertility and widespread symbology (along with the sun-wheel) show the Celtic angle... which is consequently why women had more rights, imo. I also think Old European / Stone Age cultures with their many fertility gods and Venus-cults are related to this in that they were supposed to have matriarchal societies or at least more-so than the clear patriarchy that followed with urbanization and agriculture. the yin and yang had more meaning to them... balance. rather than one-sided domination and self-indulgence which 'decadence' is known for.

testosterone probably never failed to have the inherent value contained biologically within society in various combinations amidst human development. men were typically more successful at hunting and defending the family / social nucleus, even among 'egalitarian' nomadic peoples. i think, if anything, agrarian society tries to enslave and hoard as a result of that human aspect necessary for practice of agriculture to be successful, such as ownership of 'land' (later property) despite communal living and theoretically equal natural rights.

[Ibrahim]

. And since women rights have always seemed to be a bit unfair in the Middle east and indian sub-continent.

that's the most shallow understanding of the middle east I've ever seen*-Its way more complex than that: attitudes to women were, are, and will always be complex and varied: from ethnicity to ethnicity, and even (with the Arabs), from tribe to tribe, sociological station, and even personal interpretation of Islam (if you lived after the 7th century). hence you cannot say that it was always like that-ever.**

*I dunno about India-so I won't say a word.
**Historians have written books about the Arab and middle eastern social climate (e.g. the colege book my grandfather handed down)

[lobf]

Im going on the most common theory that Britain was more "celtic" during the pre roman era than during the "germanic" migrations of the late roman empire.

Now if you mean now... then yes maybe they are since that the Angles and Saxons are supposed to have migrated into britain forming the kingdoms that would make up auld Angle-land and the lowlands of scotland were never really gaelic and more Northumbrian in dark age Britain.

Reading Oppenheimer on the genetic make up of Britain and Ireland shows that maybe the population hasnt changed much at all since the ice age ended.

Maybe you should go into more detail Lobf?

I was in fact referring to present-day descendants of Saxons and Angles. Did the Normans leave a serious genetic footprint on the island?

[Gleemonex]

i am however not really understanding why celtic women were so "free". usually in a "warrior centric" society that viewed man as the warrior and sole provider, the women would be seen as ultimately useless if not for procreation right?

Talking about celtic woman. Usually does not mean 100% certain. Maybe Celtic tribes were warrior centric tribes. Just because it may have been a warrior soceity does not mean women were just breeding machines lol.

It may seem paradoxical, but many warrior societies saw women with increased freedom and/or ability to participate. Among numerous examples, I'll point out the martial training of Spartan women, and the numerous Soviet female snipers and fighter aces of the Second World War (although that was more 'communist society' than 'warrior society', but anways).

In warrior societies, women are vital in maintaining the homestead, and in bringing a peace-like mindset to civilian issues like farming and tanning. They also offer an avenue for civil and mutually beneficial compromise that would weaken the authority of war-minded male leaders.

testosterone probably never failed to have the inherent value contained biologically within society in various combinations amidst human development. men were typically more successful at hunting and defending the family / social nucleus, even among 'egalitarian' nomadic peoples. i think, if anything, agrarian society tries to enslave and hoard as a result of that human aspect necessary for practice of agriculture to be successful, such as ownership of 'land' (later property) despite communal living and theoretically equal natural rights.

I agree, FWIW. Also, with respect to the testosterone/estrogen issue: in the body, as in society, both are vital, and imbalances in the body can result in some pretty drastic knock-on effects. Combine this with social factors affecting the body's generation and metabolysis of these hormones, and we can safely assume that men and women still need eachother in warrior societies.

-Glee

[Taliferno]

I thought that Navan was not so much a residential site, than it was ritual, which was abandoned very shortly after it was built? This part and parcel of the period of massive abandonment of nearly all well established settlements throughout all of Ireland, between the mid 1st century BC and AD 300. The population didn't seem to have recovered to the Pre-Roman Period levels till as late as the AD 600s.




CmacQ

Yeah, Navan was primary a ceremonial site that was constructed in the 1st century BC and ritually burned about two years later. The site itself dates back to the neolithic, with a few farms being built there during the Bronze Age. Eventually a feasting hall (or so its supposed going by the amount of pig bone and its proximity to the nearby hill fort Haughey's Fort) was built in the later bronze age. Early Iron age there was a couple of small structures built (reconed by some to be "Druid houses") that were then replaced by the final ritually burned temple.

Navan Fort: Archaeology and Myth by Chris Lynn takes a more detailed look into it, for those interested.

The reconstructed Irish Iron Age House at the Navan Centre is actually built wrong. It was meant to replicate Early Christian houses found at Deer Park Farms but uses the incorrect weaving techniques.

[Elmetiacos]

I was in fact referring to present-day descendants of Saxons and Angles. Did the Normans leave a serious genetic footprint on the island?

The study quoted suggests Angles, Saxons and Jutes left not much of a genetic footprint anywhere except along the coast of East Anglia (the "Saxon Shore" of Late Roman Britain, in fact) Oppenheimer's interpretation of the results in Myths of British Ancestry unfortunately might be politely called a little eccentric and less politely, outright faces-on-Mars crankery. I agree that "migrationism" and the idea of genocidal Saxons is probably wrong, but if he wants to demonstrate that the Belgae spoke Germanic, he needs to explain why all their placenames and personal names seem to be Celtic. Shifting proto-Celtic back to 7000BC may also raise some eyebrows.

[HunGeneral]

I know it's a bit offtopic but since were (also) talking about how misunderstood barbarians were:

- Stirrups (more known as a fact) aswell as Shirts and Underwear were brought to Europa by the Nomads of the east. (as much as I know even Herodot wrote about it but declared it as a sign of barbarism)

- These nomads did place meat under the staddle but not to soften it but to make sure the saddle doesn't rub too much in the horses back.

- The Germanic tribes were also quite democratic. The King (konig - I think its not written with ö as in Modern German) was elected by the Thing (gemanic council) and came from the nobility. He had to travel is his realm all the time to spread the "königsglück" (kings - luck: some kind of blessing by the gods). In case of war he lead the warriors to battle but if he wasn't capeable then the Thing elected a "Herzog" who would lead the army of the tribe (he didn't need to be a noble, infact he could be anyone who was held apropiate).
In case of great disasters (natural or military) the konig had to be sacraficed to the gods since the "königsglück" had abandoned him. ( if I know right then this Tradition survived to the 11. century in the Scandinavian Peninsula) (correct me if I'm wrong)

- There was a similar Instituion among the eastern nomads - a leader was elected by the nobles (or named by the Ruler of another People if the tribe had been subjucated). The high-shaman had pronounced the choosen as the leader of their People. Somehow like this: "You shall lead our people for 40 years... but after that you must die". After the time elapsed or a great disaster had struck them they sacraficed the ruler. (sounds cruel but here is some explenation: a very spread form of rule amongst theese Nomads was the so called "dual principality" (or something like that) - this meant there were two leaders: one who was the tribal (religious) leader "- his naming has been stated above) and a miltary leader who would lead the warriors of the tribe. The first was held a more important position - he represented the soul of the Tribe and was the conection to the gods. He couldn't take part in any battle (think of the effect on moral it would have if he fell - or just seemd to have fallen). By "sacraficing" him they just sent him back to the gods who he had represented for years. (besides on the steppes every weakness could have decisive consequences - a tribe always needed a clear minded Leader).

[cmacq]

A Branch Too Far



Sometimes it doesn't take too long to find the fatal flaw in these thingy’s. Right, I've looked into this population replacement/augmentation thing, by way of the archaeology, for a good deal of time now, and I've noticed several interesting patterns. I'll share them, but first I've got to get myself to work, as its both a field day, and I'm thinking a rain day.

In the meantime, can anyone familiar with the genetic study in question, tell me the number of actual individuals used in the study and how these plot out geographically, what were the range of attributes identified; and of these how many clusters were noted and how do they plot out geographically. I'm thinking that what we have here is a case of scientific slight of hand. For example; we have an island called X were 20 related women and 20 related man live (total 40 with no children). Then on year one a group of 65 adult men with no women invade island X and kill all but 5 of the adult native men. This group of 65 newcomers now represents about 2/3s of the total population, and they go on the bred and have children with all 20 of the native women. However using the type of DNA the study used, 1000 years later the newcomers would be represented in about 0/0 percent of the sample. If I'm correct, then these genetic studies are yet another huge waste of time and money. In other words, a wee bit meaningless.



CmacQ

[Cyrus]

wow all this is very interesting, so wich would be the society that inslaved women the most? if it's greeks don't bother explianing it ('cause i read all about that in school) but if it's not i'd like some more info on'em.
Let me get this straight if i build 4 LV3 markets and aedui only have a province(with however a LV3 market in it) and i am not shure about Casse will I get the reforms?
Can herodotus really be held in account here? i read every book by him and 1) he never mentions celts IIRC and 2) persians were the ones who wore underpants and pants, that's written in almost every Alexander the great biografy, eg Valerio Massimo Manzoni's Alexandros.

[Shylence]

that's the most shallow understanding of the middle east I've ever seen*-Its way more complex than that: attitudes to women were, are, and will always be complex and varied: from ethnicity to ethnicity, and even (with the Arabs), from tribe to tribe, sociological station, and even personal interpretation of Islam (if you lived after the 7th century). hence you cannot say that it was always like that-ever.**

*I dunno about India-so I won't say a word.
**Historians have written books about the Arab and middle eastern social climate (e.g. the colege book my grandfather handed down)

I know that would come back and bite me in the arse. I know its more complicated. and i was going to put "in my view" in that sentece. As you say women in different societies through the ages are complex.

I hope this sounds better. The social religious and political components that can help to repress women in a given society are used a bit more often in the regions i mentioned. Now im not attacking the culture its theirs not mine its just an outsiders comment on it. Im not saying that all Arab, persian, central asian and indian men are the lowlest and vilest of humanity and im well aware that there are plenty of sexist men in northern europe who would chain their women to the kitchen sink.

My post was in responce to cyrus very narrowminded view that if the celts were barbarians why the hell were their women free and not getting bonked on the head with a club and being taken back to the Rí's hut for a good raping

Tell me the name of this book im always interested in eveything so i would love to give it a read. Hopefully i can find it.

[Ca Putt]

No I think the reforms will still happen! Its all about a built up of infrastructure in your cities. having a certain number of large temples and market places and somthing else i forget in the Celtic faction's cities leads to the trigger of the reforms. Although atm im still on 1.1 if 1.2 has been changed i cant help you.
l

yea that's what i meant, sorry for my bad english.

Let me get this straight if i build 4 LV3 markets and aedui only have a province(with however a LV3 market in it) and i am not shure obut Casse will I get the reforms?

yea ye will

[Cyrus]

My post was in responce to cyrus very narrowminded view that if the celts were barbarians why the hell were their women free and not getting bonked on the head with a club and being taken back to the Rí's hut for a good raping

Hey! I was just asking to know better!

[Ibrahim]

Tell me the name of this book im always interested in eveything so i would love to give it a read. Hopefully i can find it.

Well, shylence, the best I can say about the name of the book grandad handed me is that it has none (as a seperate title). however that said, I can describe it: pink or blue-green cover(depends on volume number), inside written in Arabic (yes Arabic), arranged in IIRC 3 or 4 seperate books (i.e. a volume-he said 2 were lost). the history it gives stretches from 600-790AD (at least the early ones). printed either in Egypt or Lebanon (he went to universtity in Alexandreia and beirut).

He also handed me a very comprehensive arabic history book from Uncle Hussam's days: blue green book, again arabic script, the name history of the arab and islamic world: from jahiliyyah to the early Abbasid era (TPC might want to read that particular one-he'd like it).

they have really helped in starting on the Ancient Arab world. both are good reads, make sense, but are in Arabic (no, they aren't the type that blidly praise the faith-just the facts).

[Shylence]

Hey! I was just asking to know better!

We are but simple learners cyrus. Im not attacking you in away way

[blitzkrieg80]

The Germanic tribes were also quite democratic. The King (konig - I think its not written with ö as in Modern German) was elected by the Thing (gemanic council) and came from the nobility. He had to travel is his realm all the time to spread the "königsglück" (kings - luck: some kind of blessing by the gods). In case of war he lead the warriors to battle but if he wasn't capeable then the Thing elected a "Herzog" who would lead the army of the tribe (he didn't need to be a noble, infact he could be anyone who was held apropiate).
In case of great disasters (natural or military) the konig had to be sacraficed to the gods since the "königsglück" had abandoned him. ( if I know right then this Tradition survived to the 11. century in the Scandinavian Peninsula) (correct me if I'm wrong)

what you speak of is medieval and not to be confused with a timeline of late antiquity where the idea of 'king' actually develops in the first place. the reason kings seems less monarchical is because they are more like 'petty kings' aka chieftains. the very system of nobility set up in EB moreso represents the progression since they had developed native concepts of wide-reaching monarchy but the borrowing of Celtic rix along with Roman-inspire demand for a deal-making monarchy actually brought about what we know of in the Cyning / Kuning - 'descendant of [noble] kin'... the tradition of patrimonial title was due to Augustus and the Roman Emperor tradition, although the Celtic peoples similarly inspired such a thing to be en vogue, besides general overall legitimacy to control of the population. the less and less socially demanding of freedom and their natural rights the people became, the more hereditary nobility and government became. Christianity was widely adopted in Europe (not because Jesus said wise things, although he very much said wise things... so some conversion could be true) but because it solidified political control through 'divine right' and common religion. There are plenty of truly religious people who followed Jesus' word, but there are plenty who always do so in name only to fit in socially (rather than being burned at the stake) and those who use religion as a tool, Marx's opiate of the masses. Marxism is very 'realist' in that if you look to who has the most to gain, there you have any explanation of motivation and the means of the subsequent manipulation.

Luck has an interesting place in Germanic spirituality because it is 'grace bestowed from the gods' and it even has the same meaning as good fortune, good 'health' as well as 'whole'-someness... the origins of the modern words 'hail' 'whole' 'heal' 'health', 'holy' and 'hale' (more archaic but true to the etymology in usage). these aspects were indeed sort of implications of having the gods' grace and Wulfila in his Gothic bible uses the term Go weihs instead of heil because of the native religious implication which would always be tied to their spirituality / old pagan beliefs... he uses another native term, from IE weik which interestingly is related to 'life force,' this term was not immediately accessible, the word for 'awe/fear-inspiring holiness' of the gods, it was their remoteness where 'the taboo' penetrates the believer, this reflected the Christian God better to Wulfila while circumventing old terminology to redefine their awareness. 'Witch' comes from this word, literally as a 'practicer of weih.' I have made it so both of these terms are used in EB to educate these interesting concepts - the 'Taboo shrine of Nerthus' is clearly different from the benevolent 'Lake of Luck' in concept of spirituality.

also, the true reason for the King traveling the countrside was tax-collection aka tribute. before the tax-collectors of Rome whose system was borrowed ... the only alternative was for the ruling government to go around and force his subjects to pay respect. just like nowadays, nobody is going to go out of their way to lose money, especially to some arbitrary 'lord' who doesn't do anything for you except take your stuff. in times when the defense of the people was part of the deal and chivalry, there was more loyalty involved, but just as today, some people are greedy and would take protection and not pay, or take money and not protect. basically, it's a lot like gang 'protection' plans and their systematic collection as a political structure. there is also nothing wrong with it. some churches cast out people if they don't pay a certain percentage tithe, so no one is exempt from this... much why Benjamin Franklin said - "there are only 2 things certain in life... Death and Taxes" The 'sheriff' position of Norman England actually comes from OE 'shire-reeve' who was a magistrate court official who went around judging cases, but more so they helped unburden the personal load for the king to oversee to his tax-collection and tax-collectors, especially over a large domain, full of greedy nobles. Theses sheriffs actually only answered to him and he made them watch the loyalty and corruption of his other tax-collectors and governors.