Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

Hello Robert,

[size=18]

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.

Mike, apartheid suggests segregation in daily life, exclusion from your part of society and treatment as inferiors. Apartheid is the fornmer South-African system, not some new thingy that we can define on our own. Every nation has laws that treat non-citizens differently from citizens.

Well, I think you've just agreed with me, then, Robert. :o
If Britons were classified in law as being of lesser value by Ine's Law
(which they were) and (as you suggested) Gallo-Romans were likewise
classified by the Franks, then that is 'apartheid'. If you classify native
Britons as being worth less Wergild than a Saxon, and you manintain
the differential between Briton and Saxon by segregation (otherwise,
the system would simply not work) then that is apartheid. You are
not allowing fraternization between the ethnic groups becaue then how
the Hell could you enforce this Law? So please explain to me why the
segregation of Britons and Saxons is different from that anywhere else
where 'apartheid' is or was practised. And for incoming Anglo-Saxons
to classifiy native Britons as 'non-citizens' (as you word it, above, in
your revised definition of Ine's Laws) in their own land is adding
yet another insult to the injury of invading them in the first place.

I mean, it's one thing to invade somebody, but to call them 'Wealas',
or foreigners, in their own land, then classify them in law as 'non-citizens',
and segregate them (which is what we see from the placename evidence
of sites such as 'Walton') is 'apartheid'. I'm sorry, it just is. :evil:

Romans treated Roman citizens different from non-cotizen Romans. Was that apartheid? Of course it wasn't.

I think you'll find it was, actually. But then that is why I
(like you) have always preferred the late-Empire. And even in the early
Empire, there was mobility between 'castes' in society. A non-citizen
could 'earn' citizenship. A slave could 'earn' manumission. There is at
least one Emperor who started out as a slave. But if the Laws of Ine
set in stone that a Briton, from birth, was worth less than a Saxon,
then that is an irreversible form of 'apartheid'.

The Frank treated Romans differently from Franks, sure. But not lesser - they made sure Franks fell under Frankish (Salian) law and Romans were judged by Roman law.

Oh, well that's alright, then. Only I thought you were
telling us that the Franks treated the Gallo-Romans similarly to the
Britons under the Laws of Ine. The quote from your original post is
still there, at the top of this one, if you wanted the check it.


Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike