Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
More than writing, the ONE thing necessary for a fixed hierarchy is agriculture, or some form of reliable surplus. Hierarchies are unproductive. The people at the top suck up resources rather than generate them. In order to keep them going year after year, generation after generation, you need a reliable source of support for them. Agriculture generally fills that role. I know of no other surplus source, though it seems possible there would be examples.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Thanks for looking into it, but of course, I’ve already read the Wikipedia article. I was hoping you had amore in-depth source, since authoritative, comprehensive and interpretative texts on Ancient German social structure is hard to come by.

---

Quote:

---

The Wikipedia article says little about Pre-Roman Germanic society and instead talks about mostly post-classical Germanic society. It specifically mentions the Anglo-Saxons and the Alemanni, both of which were late antiquity Germanic confederations of tribes that had already had significant interactions with the Romans.

---

Quote:

---

What is being described sounds like it could have come directly from the Romans,

---

Quote:

---

and in fact, if you follow the link for “Early Germanic Law,” it specifically states that Roman law played a big part in Early German legal codes. Furthermore, if you follow the links to the articles describing the individual Germanic codices, you’ll note that many of them specifically spell out rules for succession of the thrown. Once again, this goes back to the idea that a stable ruling nobility requires a legal framework to function.

---

Quote:

---

What I’m interested in understanding is the social structure of Germanic tribes in the Early Antiquity, prior to Roman interaction. It is my assertion that at this time, the German society was composed of small clans lead by a chieftain backed by a warrior class, and while this chieftain may have traced his lineage to the divine, the other clan members shared in that lineage. That is to say that the society was not broken into castes of nobility and peasantry, but it was united by clan loyalty to a chief warlord. There was little specialization, and everyone shared in the toils and spoils of the clan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I still think it helped support my point, which you didn't really respond to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I do think that the passages I quoted specifically mentioned early Germanic society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Could have isn't exactly a stable basis for your argument, though, is it? You never did reply to the part early where I compared your description of early Germanic society to Ottonian society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
That very same article also says this:

"Several Latin law codes of the Germanic peoples written in the Early Middle Ages (also known as leges barbarorum "laws of the barbarians") survive, dating to between the 5th and 9th centuries. They are influenced by Roman law, ecclesiastical law, and earlier tribal customs."

Hardly saying much about the specifics of those earlier tribal customs, nor about what parts of Roman law had influence. Plebeians/patricians, necessarily?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So if this is your assertation, where are your cites?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Note, I never claimed that they had a feudalistic distinction of aristocracy and "peasantry", that there could not have been social mobility (as existed even n feudalism to a small extent) or that there were unbroken dynasties of monarchy. It was obviously all much flatter than that. But I'm confident I'll find more cites giving weight to the existence of traditional ruling families, fealty, serfdom and other such ingredients that would form the basis of feudalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What I claim - and have given some evidence of, though not completely, yes - is that the system of feudalism did specifically NOT develop on the model of patrician-plebeian relations in Roman society, as you originally posted. Influence of accumulating wealth through trade with Romans, Christianisation and its levels of organisation, literacy and language very likely did play roles, but the particulars of Roman social structure probably not, since Germanic society already had a concept of fealty and kingship that work just as well for laying those foundations. What happened was a stratification of existing forms, not a taking on of completely foreign social structures.

---