Talk:Danewerk
To JHK on Danewerk, I have a lot of reading material for you : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16071c.htm Roskilde http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13542a.htm Schleswig http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16070b.htm Ribe Ripen http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16001a.htm Aarhus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07141b.htm Harald Bluetooth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07121b.htm Hamburg http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal5349 H. Bluetooth (Jomsburg=Jomsborg=Jumne(Danish)= near Wollin, Pomerania) 823 Danish chief Harald Klack went to imperial Ingelheim and he and entire retinue were baptized by Louis the Pious.
Gorm the Old fought, was subdued by Otto I the Great, son Harald Bluetooth pledged allegiance to Otto I. He had to find rescue in Jomsburg from his son. Jomsburg was destroyed by Danes ca 1040. (Later Wollin and Pomerania).
Danewerk, Dannewerk was started around 600 (till 1200) to ward off Slavs .Of course the heathen Danes (Vikings) also used it. It was still used in 1800.
Actually, Danewerk was me. But your date range is well out. The wall was definitely in use at the time of Charlemagne although whether or not it was complete is in dispute; it was breached during the Slavic destruction of Hedeby which was early 12th century: this kind of implies that it was on its last legs at this point. (and yes I know about the Schleswig-Holstein wars hence the reference to Austrian/Germanic destruction of a major viking strongpoint). But the real reason it was built was to keep those pesky Franks out! sjc
Yep, Dahmus's Dictionary of Medieval Civilizations - a low-level, but reasonably recent resource I happen to have a copy of in my office, gives 808 as the date for the wall. --MichaelTinkler
I believe your are all due for a little visit at the site and do a little digging on your own. See the websites from the Museum I put on (date 650-1200 and still digging) user:H.J.
- HJ, I would like to clarify something here: when I ask for sources, I am not looking for an Internet search. There is no regulation on the internet as far as what people can or can't say; there is no peer review to ensure accuracy. You can't trust much on the web, unless you know the source. Also, different search engines find different things -- some require sites to register with them, for example, before they will show the site in a search. Wikipedia is in many ways an exception from the inaccuracy rule -- but only because there are casess where many people have an interest and knowledge on a specific subject and so try to keep it clean. To me, sources are scholarly texts and articles and, more importantly, primary sources.
- As for the encyclopedia entries on the web that you cite as evidence, I'm not sure I understand why you've cited them. All they really are are descriptions of bishoprics...the fact that one is in Schleswig Holstein NOW, for example, doesn't mean S-H existed in the 9th century... Could you please explain on this page how the websites you want us to read support your argument? Thanks! JHK
- HJ: your unhelpful and presumably ideologically motivated contributions are not at all appreciated - if I wanted to pepper articles with seemingly arbitrary links I would have done so from the outset.
- The C14 dating of the Danewerk definitely puts it inside the 8th/10th century range and is consonant with all reliable sources. I have a number of Danish friends who have done serious research into the Danewerk and none of them have ever suggested that it was anything other than what the original text stated that it was. For example, Annales Regni Francorum, a fairly reliable primary source,in annotating the raid by the Danish King Godfred on the German Baltic town of Reric makes explicit note of the fact that work is being performed on the ramparts of the Danewerk in 808. Later additions to the works, such as King Valdemar's brick wall in the 1160s are a peripheral addition and not wholly consonant with the central purpose for which the wall was built, the restraint of Frankish and German invaders. sjc
You have removed the links to the Danewerk and Dannewerk town and museum, which states the dates from 650 to 1200 ,after the latest archealogical digs at the sites.
You (several wikipedians) are bringing text from hundreds of years old books, yet you (several wikipedians) claim constantly that todays historians do not go by any older books, maps anything that is not by 20/21st century English/American language speaking historians approved. You (several wikipedians) constantly discredit older sources , often the only ones available.
Be consistant !!!! user:H.J.
- This was done to prevent the unholy clutter of linkages which you seem hell-bent on bringing to every page. We are writing an encyclopaedia here, not a search-engine. I have to say, that as far as historical method is concerned, we (and I speak here collectively for the vast majority of Wikipedia historians) are obviously all wrong and you are right. Or is it, I wonder, the other way around? The Danevirke museum (which I have been to) and its site are all very interesting, but frankly these are loose and approximate dates, and have, shall we say, a certain agenda of their own. However, the oldest Carbon-14 dated wood in the main rampart, the oldest part of the wall is only late 7th century. It is unlikely that any part of the wall is older than this; if you find anything that counter-indicates this then please let the world know. Otherwise, leave well alone. sjc
- H.J. -- we are being consistant. We are asking you use your sources critically, as we do. Some are more reliable than others. Unfortunately, many of the sources you have chosen are not the most reliable sources for what you are trying to prove. If you read carefully what we've tried to explain about sources, you'll see that no one has made a blanket statement that all old sources are wrong. Most of our criticism has been about maps and secondary sources -- most of us know and use primary sources pretty often. JHK
650 is stated by the museum,that is why I did put up the museum website, which has been taken off. To me it does not make much difference , but for the point of accuracy, as always ponted out by wikipedians , I need to bring this to attention, when I know of a different date. user:H.J.
- No, some, i.e. a little wood has been C14 dated to the end of the 7th century. This does not mean it was put there then, or that the wall per se was erected then. In fact, it was probably salvaged from earlier works which were not the Danewerk. Most of the wood is mid - late 8th century, a much more likely date for the Danewerk's construction. sjc
Another question to sjc . The year 808 is the year that Charlemagne made an arrangement with the Abodrites and took off Saxons from Jutland and south , to give to Abodrites for their cooperation with him again the Saxons who fought against Frankish take-over/Christianization attempts. I cannot find the material on this again. Do you have a source on this ? user:H.J.
- You might start with the principal primary source Annales Regni Francorum which details the struggles between Godefrid and Charlemagne and the consequent hostage exchanges. This is kind of basic stuff, if you're even remotely into this period. sjc
- I will point out that from a Frankish point of view the Saxons were rebelling rather than resisting expansion. The Saxons had been tributary to the Merovingian Frankish kings through most of the 7th century, so the Carolingian Franks saw them as breaking their obligations. Despite the idea that all relationships involved forced Christianization, the Franks were willing to accept tribute from pagans - they *did* object to people killing missionaries. That, of course, was the Frankish p.o.v. - not necessarily true, but worth mentioning, since HJ's approach is from the Saxon p.o.v. All these histories are very complex. --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler How died early Saints become saints ? They were looking forward to the according to them "only worthwhile cause of death- martyrdom". One's people's freedom fighter was/(still is) another's saint. Read Saxon history Widukind, Wittekind and Charlemagne etc. Saxons did get help from Danes, the "still heathen" ones . Read the 'Northern Crusades" , by Eric Christiansen, Penguin Books and Saint Adalbert of Prague etc etc. These missionaries by itself may have been "harmless" and "only chopped down the oaktrees", but to heathen natives these were the most sacred places,taboo to none-believers. Chopping down an oaktree was equivalent to burning down a church. (By funny coincedence , the town of Fair Oaks, CA has an ordinance that you cannot chop down an oak tree. Oak trees are sacred to native Americans as well).
To the point of Saxons having been tribuaries to Merovingian Frankish kings. The Bohemian and Poljanen dukes had also pledge allegiance to the kings/emperors and thereby received landliens as dukes. That did not keep them from trying to keep and claim it all for themselves . You are right about the complexity. user:H.J.
- I think when we use the word saint, we are using it in a very strict sense of someone canonized by the Church (Catholic, since there was no other). And I think you're just a bit off as to your freedom fighter analogy. There was no real nobility to any of these Germanic peoples, just attempts to take over as much territory as possible -- the way leaders stayed in power was by giving the spoils of war to their warriors. As for another's saint, I think you mean martyr. Very different. Also not really appropriate in this context, but that's the proper English phrase.
- As for "landlien" (not an English term, but I know what you are trying to say), I think it would be a good thing if you could give dates with examples -- for instance, the Merovingians were much earlier than any Frankish-Bohemian relations (if you are talking about Carolingians and not the Ottonians or later Emperors. There are so many changes over time as to how the rulers of Francia and its successor kingdoms dealt with their neighbors that these blanket statements are really confusing. You should know, though, that most treaties between the Eastern Carolingians and their eastern neighbors (Ottonians, as well, I;m fairly sure) were TRIBUTARY. This is very different than granting an area as a fief. Yes, the "foreign leaders had to swear allegiance -- in exchange for which they were allowed to stay on as leaders in thier "own" areas in exchange for a yearly sum. I say "own" because often a leader of, say, the Sorbs got to be a leader because he sided with the Franks and the Franks supported his leadership. JHK
To JHK , Yes martyred. When you look at the early Saints, they declared that they wished to be martyred. It was one of the pre-requesits for later being declaired a saint. samples St Boniface - St Adalbert, St Brun and many others (A Catholic can tell you many more). And yes , just as the Germanic Cherusker under Arminius and I am sure other people ( just take Jews in 60 AD and Britains) did not join the Roman Empire of their own free will, the still remaining Free Germanic people had no wish to be taken over by Catholic Franks either, thereby loosing independence and having to turn over land to the pope and emperor. user:H.J.
- It was NOT one of the prerequisites. Let me note that you added Saint Adelaide of Italy (not martyred). The general use of martyrdom ended in 313 with the Peace of Milan. Later martyrs (like those you list, Adalbert, Boniface) did occur, but they were the exception. Your repeated complaint about 'turn over land' shows that you do not understand medieval politics or land tenure. Your repeated use of the term loan or lien shows the same. Now your insistence on martyrdom as a pre-requisite for sainthood shows that your aren't even being careful enough to remember your own work from this weekend. --MichaelTinkler.
- Thank you for the official information on Saints.I knew that there were many more, all in reference to early Saints in connection with take-over of Germanic tribes, but can/'t think of all the names.This is just in general, not as a specific entry I want to make.I did not have any intention to go into details on this, as I wrote someone else does have the knowledge on this subject ,I do not.Apparently you do not understand the turn-over or take-over land policy.
Taking on Christianity, being baptized , meant, that it was now either papal or imperial property. All "heathen" land was considered "Herrenloses Land", land without an overlord and property of the empire. The monks and bishps, archbishops were the government in many places, except in the imperial cities, which had self-government , each city had their own seperat Stadtrat , city council and right to mint coins , wage wars, hold court. The citizens, the members of a guild, like, carpentrers, bakers, shoemakers, whatever had to furnish so many men to the city army. The cities had to protect themselves, therefore they formed these different alliance leagues to aid each other, when attacked.
Overall, very complex and no matter what words you use, someone else can always point to other words being used as well . Anyway , when I mention Saints, then I do this only because somewhere it states, that this person has been canonized. Otherwise I would not even mention it. Now I have spend too much time on this martyred and Saint subject, which I had no intention of spending any time on. Enough of this. user:H.J.
- Sorry, H.J., but NONE of the early saints WANTED to be martyred, as far as we know. They CHOSE martyrdom over denying their Christian belief. As for Boniface, I've read EVERY primary source that deals with him (at least every Latin one, including his Vita and every citation in every annal and history of the period and every Papal letter still extant. In none of these documents does it say he wanted to be a martyr. Being slaughtered by the heathen was just a normal risk associated with the job. I'm sure that, given the choice, Boniface would have preferred to continue to preach, convert, and play politics. Also, I'm not sure what Arminius had to do with anything -- he kicked Varus' Roman butt, after all.
- (cutting in) H.J.'s suggestion is at least a common one - I've heard similar claims elsewhere. If it is a misperception, we should probably explain why somewhere, and give references to when the misperception arose, etc. If we don't already... Martin 16:05 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Finally, I have to disagree with you. Michael is correct and you really DON't understand medieveal landholding. You blithely mix places and times and make generalized statements that you think are true. You seem to understand that this is very complex, but don't seem to want to take the time necessary to apply those complexities to individual situations. You keep talking about papal and imperial property as if this were the norm before about the 11th and 12th century -- even then, you are talking about an ideal situation, not necessarily reality. For the years up to about 1100, that just isn't true. What we have is a bunch of Germans and Slavs of different varieties trying to grab as much land as they could. With the Carolingians and their heirs, Christianity played a big part because 1) the Carolingians were very pious, by and large, 2) Christianity meant papal support, and 3) it's easier to have everybody in your kingdom believing that their oaths all count the same and believing that God supports the king. I've known Michael for close to 15 years, and he knows his stuff -- he's one of the most natural scholars I've ever met -- if he says something, you can be assured that it's because he's studied it carefully over a long period. You might actually think about that fact -- or at least letting us know what valid sources you've used, so that we can speak as equals. JHK