Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.
I think you should start reading my posts more carefully, since this is not the first time you mix my words(my English is not that good) ..
No, my point was that the word did not denote 'foreigner', but was more likely used for 'Roman'.

BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' -
OK

although you yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
No, of course not. Apartheid suggests an extreme (next to) total segregation of the population. [/quote]


Hmmm. I'm not sure I quite buy that, Robert. What you actually said
before was this:

I don't know the article by heart, but I recall that the
author (looking at all the names for the British and Welsh in this article)
finds parallels with the Franks, who not only call their Gallo-Roman
subjects walas, but in law also treat them similarly as the
wealhas are treated in Ine of Wessex' laws.

I agree with Raedwald. For the Franks to treat the Gallo-Romans as
differently in law as the Laws of Ine treated the Welsh, then this most
definitely is treating Gallo-Romans differently to Franks and it
does amount to a form of apartheid, in everything but name.
It doesn't matter if the Franks call Gallo-Romans 'foreigners', 'Romans',
or 'Pilsbury doughboys'. If it's true, as you imply, that they are classified
in law as being of lesser value than Franks, then that would indeed be
apartheid and racist. Period. :x

Ambrosius/Mike