'Fraid not. I wrote a dissertation on the political impacts Scandinavia had on England during the Viking Age that was about 5000 words. The essay included a comparison of Anglo-Saxon kingship, Norse kingship in Danish-occupied England and Norman feudalism.
I don't disagree with the crux of Bret's statement, yet many of the 300-odd Germanic tribes had no ruling Kingship; they would have been guided by a council or elder. Many of these tribes were eventually enveloped by powerful marauding forces, such as the Romans and Merovingians, and ruled by a single overlord, emperor, or king. Just saying.
I have no problem with hierarchies, I just don't happen to think they should be led by unelected people. We are no better than North Korea as it stands, yet we laugh at their leader being given complete power by his father.
They never got the better of Alfred, our second greatest King. Just ask Ubba, Ivar, Guthrum et al. All this talk of the mighty Vikings is bollocks. And is that Matthew Kelly in your picture?
Some tribes had kings and some had chieftains. Some tribes were, like you say, ruled by an oligarchic council of elders. Historically, as Germanic tribes conquer other tribes, absorb them and grow in size, they establish some form of kingship. For example, the Old Saxons (ones who didn't migrate to Britain) had no king or leader but were ruled by aristocrats equal in power. In the event of war, the Saxon aristocracy elected a military commander like Widukind during the Saxon Wars.
The Vikings and the English done us over. It was only they Roman pussies that couldny. Veni, vidi, vici indeed ya tally ****ers.
Nup, didne happen. The Vikings seen that we were as mad as they ****s and we all ganged up against Nigel. That is a histyrical fact that
