JeanryChandler wrote:Gene,
I'm sorry, with all due respect I disagree. The Jury came to England (and Normandy, incidentally) directly from Scandinavian law, as did the traditions which made up the Allthing. In pagan Scandinavia, the Jury was appointed at the "Thing", regional councils just like the Allthing, to arbitrate disputes. The normal proecdure was for the empaneled members to determine guilt and assign an appropriate fine, or in extreme cases, order an exile, or even (very rarely) an execution, exactly as took place in English Common Law centuries later. A duel could always occur in any Norse legal procedure as a kind of appeal, according to Norse law, but that was not what a Jury was all about. To the contrary they were intended to prevent inter-tribal violence.
Did they have a representative system of government whereby citizens of a state (and the word "citizen" is a term of art developed by the Greeks and Romans and their idea of "citizenship" is strikingly similar to ours) could elect representatives?
They had freely federated coalitions of disparate tribal groups which joined together to elect representatives, which in my opinion is more sophisticated and civilized system than a State (not unlike what was originally envisioned for the USA by founding fathers such as Jefferson and Tom Paine). Such decentralized arrangements are certainly what would distinguish Europe from other high centers of civilization around the world.
You can argue how sophisticated a society could be given such a system of organization, but in the era of the Fencing Masters, the Swiss Confederacy was organied in exactly such a manner, under an ancient Barbairan principle called "Eidgenossenschaft" meaning 'Free Confederation', or more literally 'oath fellowship' which was the basis of many small federations in Europe and the governing principle of the Swiss confederacy from the late 13th century until 1798. It is arguably a major principle in the way Switzerland is governed today. It's no accident that the Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV despised the very notion which he attempted to outlaw in 1356 calling the idea "
conjurationes, confederationes, and conspirationes"
Again, whether you feel that a sophisticated civilization could be organized under such a principle or not, tying directly into the issue of Martial Heritage, the Swiss confederacy, consisting of both free cities and diverse rural cantons, managed to be the single most dangerous and feared military power in Europe for at least 200 years.
As for the accomplishments of the "Barbarians", including Roads, again I reccomend you read Jones or any up to date overview of Celtic archeology.
JR
Jeanry, we radically differ on this and it is getting off-topic, so best to stop it. The only points I will make is that your examples of "trial by jury" can also be found in Native civilizations that inhabited America and in several preindustrial civilizations. Anthropologists even suggest that humans practiced these "trials" as far back as 30,000 years ago. These types of trials in which a person's guilt or innocence can be judged by individuals within a clan is not limited to the Norse. What became known as jury trials in Anglo-American law can be traced to England with Germanic influence, as I have already posted. The "jury" in this case being a panel of ones peers to determine the facts of a case.
The Celts were a highly advanced and unique peoples. However, they were chased out by the Romans. Sorry, it's a fact of life. Don't believe me? Look at a linguistic map of Europe. Where are the Celtic languages still spoken? On the fringes of what used to be the Roman Empire: Welsh (in Wales), Gaelic (in Scotland and Ireland), Cornish (in Cornwall), Manx (on the Isle of Man) etc. There are other reasons, of course, for this. However, the fact that they were chased out by Latin speakers is a primary reason. And, one of the reasons the Celts were chased out was because of the superior war making capabilities of the highly organized, literate and in many ways technologically superior Romans. I am not justifying the actions of the Romans, I am pointing out historical fact. (and if you are going to say the Romans used the technique of "divide and conquer" does this not imply superior organization and use of politics by the Romans?)
As for your citations to the Swiss, I have no idea how this fits into this discussion. Are you saying that the Swiss are a democracy? No argument here. Many of the Swiss are also descendents of the Romans, like many European peoples. They are also a literate people. Strangely enough, three of the four languages that are the official languages of that country are Latin based (one of the languages is the closest living relative to classical Latin). I see a connection here.
Finally, stop attributing the use of the term "barbarian" to me. I have already stated several times that I respect and admire many aspects of the pre-Roman Celtic cultures. They were an advanced peoples. But, they were conquered by the Romans for (some) of the reasons I mentioned. They did not have the civil or military engineering capabilities of the Romans, AFAIK. Show me Celtic aquaducts, amphitheaters, war machines, fortifications, use of written military strategy, ballistic technology, and yes, intercontinental roadways and then I'll sit up and notice.
As I said this is getting off-topic and I admit that it's partly my fault. Unless further posts relate to ARMA's purpose, this thread will be closed.
