Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[Robert Vermaat]

[size=150:1leiu8sn]

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.

Romans treated Roman citizens different from non-cotizen Romans. Was that apartheid? Of course it wasn't.
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.
Was that apartheid? Far from it! I call that being very considerate. Gallo-Romans were never forced to move from areas where Franks lived. They could hold every job, right to the top. They could marry Franks without problems.
Apartheid? Never. Racist? To the contrary.[/size]