From: Torsten
Message: 66285
Date: 2010-07-10
>Erh, I kind of knew that, but there are people reading here who don't know German.
>
>
> >This also means that the two senses are not immobile and mutually
> >exclusive, they are stages in the development af a function as
> >changed by outer circumstances. In other words, in an established
> >sedentary state, a Heeres-führer
>
> Heeresführer (without hyphenation) is 100% OK.
> >under a duke/Herzog might be 'mere' but in the nomadicYou have a tendency to ignore what I write and substitute what you think. The *ÅWod- would be the whole people, inasmuch as they are on a single campaign. The *ÅWod-in- is its leader, and there's no implication in that of a subdivided hierarchy.
> >people/army (where the people *is* the army) the Herzog and the
> >Heeres-führer is the same person (Attila, Djengis Khan etc).
>
> A "bit" above the "mere" rank of a "general". Esp. such leaders as
> Attila, Temüdjin-Djingis, who were kagans of the khans (some
> kind of "shah-in-shah"). Moreover, many of them were perceived
> by their underlings as members of (even "ancient") "royal" clans
> (often of Scythian extraction) or at least of "white" (noble)
> tribes.
> They weren't always simple "meritocrats".I don't understand what you are trying to say, other than that it seems you are still distinguishing between civilian and military 'imperium' which is meaningless in a nomadic society at war.
> (AFAIK even Arminius wasn't "hoi-polloi". And some Sarmatians whoAnd?
> disappeared in Germanic masses also had their own clan symbols =
> tamgas, didn't they?)
> Even in today's governments: often the Heeresführer is theCivilian society, so irrelevant.
> minister or secretary of Defense, but his senior colleague, the
> president of the cabinet or the president of the state, is often
> the "supreme chief of the armed forces." (Much the more in
> medieval times the monarch as compared with his carrier of
> the "spatha".)
> So, in Asian terms, Odin, if not a deity, but a "prophet", mightYou might be interested in Germanic kingship then
> have been a kakhan (kagan) "king of kings" and at the same
> time tarkhan "chief over metallurgy (weapons) and shamanic or
> religious matters" (usually, a tarkhan was a "viceroy" or kind of a
> duke or a Herzog in Western terms). (Unfortunately, I am not
> quite acquainted with the corresponding Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan
> & Persian termini. I vaguely remember only "ban", seemingly
> introduced by Avar's Bayan, and bäg/beg/bey.)
> GeorgeHe would have been, after the pre-Indo-European, Pre-Uralic civilization, which lived on the rivers before the advent of cavalry and which coined the phrase, disappeared. But the word survived.
>
> PS: Anyway, the assumptions "water + hunting" seem quite an
> den Haaren herbeigezogen. Warriors "castes" usually used other
> metaphors in order to illustrate their prowess. Esp. those mounted
> ones in the East, whose beloved symbols were eagles and other
> accipiter-like birds (mythical symbols for many "royal" clans of
> the steppes, esp. the Tögrül bird), the lion, the leopard (cf.
> Turkic names Baybars), the Cervidae (the founding mythical
> symbol for the Hungarians, along with the kartal eagle, the symbol
> of the founding dynasty) and, of course, the horse. Even Goths,
> Gepids et al. borrowed these accipiter symbols & customs (see
> their ornaments and jewelry). The famous Vandals were actually an
> Alan-Vandal symbiosis, as was the Goth-Alan one that founded
> Catalonia. (They were ahead of their times as far as chivalry, the
> long joust lance techniques (against which the Roman legionnaire was
> a consummate victim), the long sword, the curved sabre, esp. the
> Scythian bow and the "arkan" lasso on a pole. Compared to that,
> what could have been a swamp and marsh hopping "Recke" that hid
> in forests? Perhaps a... hit-and-run guerrilla fighter. :-))