THEME 3.

WESTERN EUROPE.

Unlike the Roman slave-owning society, the barbarians were at the stage of the late tribal system. The bulk of them were free community members. The tribal nobility has already been formed, but has not yet emerged as a special estate. Among the numerous primitive ethnic masses that inhabited Europe by the beginning of the medieval period, the Germans and Slavs were the most active, of which the first, due to the place and conditions of their habitat, came into contact with Rome earlier and more actively.

RESETTLEMENT. The Germanic tribes played a key role in the sad fate of Late Rome. They also opened a new page in Western European history. Like those conquered by the Romans at the end of the 1st millennium BC. the Celts, like the Slavs, the Germans descended from the Indo-Europeans, who settled in Europe from about the middle of the 4th millennium BC. In the middle of the II millennium BC. the Germans mastered Southern Scandinavia, by the VI century. BC. - also lived in the interfluve of the lower reaches of the Weser and Oder rivers with borders in the West - along the Rhine, and in the East - in the interfluve of the Oder and Vistula. Their neighbors, the Celts, called them Germans. The earliest information about the Germans was obtained by archaeologists and dates back to the 7th century BC. BC.

LIFE. The Germans lived in small villages, in houses, usually scattered without a special plan. The settlements were located in clusters in treeless places, usually in river valleys on hills among lowlands. These clusters were separated by huge tracts of primeval, virgin forests. Forests were the natural borders of tribes. The villages were long-term, which makes it possible to doubt the accuracy of the Roman sources (Caesar, Tacitus, Strabo, etc.), reporting on the nomadic, wandering way of life of the Germans. The villages varied in size, sometimes with more than a dozen houses. But small villages prevailed. A feature of the German settlements was manor buildings: each residential building was surrounded by outbuildings and vegetable gardens. Such estates were surrounded by fences and often located at a distance from each other, sometimes so significant that it is not clear whether they constituted a single village, or a complex of farms. Houses were located without any plan, chaotically. In historical geography, such development is called scattered and irregular. Houses, ground (more often) and recessed, built of wood and stone, were coated with colored clay, which, according to the Romans, introduced some aesthetics into the rather wretched German landscape compared to ancient settlements.

ECONOMY. The basis of the economy of the ancient Germans was agriculture and cattle breeding. But, unlike the Celts who lived to the south and west, who had a heavy plow in the last centuries BC, which allowed deep plowing, the Germans for many centuries used a primitive ral, which did not turn over, but only cut the earth layer. Among the coastal and coastal tribes, fishing and hunting played an important role.

The reports of Roman authors about the weak development of agriculture among the Germans now do not inspire confidence. Around some villages dating back to the middle of the 1st millennium BC, archaeologists have discovered fields divided into plots ranging from 2 to 200 hectares. These fields could belong to both individual families and entire communities. It is possible that irregular crop rotation was used, although more primitive slash-and-burn agriculture and forest fallows were not ruled out. It is precisely such agricultural practices that may have given rise to the Roman eyewitnesses, accustomed to repeated plowing and regular crop rotation, the idea that the Germans are predominantly cattle breeding, and they are "not engaged in agriculture very diligently"1. In addition, many tribes bordering on the Romans were in the process of resettlement, which suggested their nomadic life. The Germans grew barley, oats, wheat, rye.

PUBLIC RELATIONS. The movement of the Germans from their primary habitats to the more climatically favorable southern and western regions began as early as the 1st century BC. BC. By the beginning of the new era, they had already reached the borders of the Roman provinces, and in subsequent centuries they increasingly crossed them, until in the 4th-5th centuries. did not settle within the Western Roman Empire, burying it. The rapid activity and even aggressiveness of the Germans is explained by the stage of social development they have reached.

By the end of the 1st millennium BC. The Germans lived in a tribal system. The supreme power belonged to the people's assembly, tribal elders performed judicial functions. For the duration of the hostilities, a military leader was chosen. The lower cell of society was a tribal community with the same property status for all. Caesar drew attention to property equality and the lack of property among the Germans.

But already in the 1st century AD. serious social changes begin in German society. Separate families stand out from the previously united tribal groups, which lead a separate economy on plots of land allocated by the community. Families of elders, leaders, priests receive more significant allotments, "accordingly", as Tacitus noted. The heredity of officials who are chosen from the same families gradually develops. This is how knowledge is formed. Following social inequality, property inequality also arises. Larger land plots are concentrated in the families of the nobility. After all, during elections to positions from the same families, these families retain more extensive areas allocated "by merit." The same Tacitus also noted the traditions of voluntary gifts, offerings to leaders and elders in gratitude for well-being. They also received tribute from the conquered population and military booty. The nobility has a need for additional labor, especially since they themselves no longer have time to deal with routine daily economic affairs - patriarchal slavery arises. Warriors are concentrated around the nobility, who even in peacetime no longer return to everyday work, but prefer to live at the expense of their commander and provide him with various services - squads arise under military leaders. In the literature, such leaders are called kings, although this term is fixed only in the ninth century. Their ancient Germanic name is kings(similar to lat. rex). Kings with retinues are the prototype of the future state power.

These processes took place among the Germans in the I-IV centuries. AD Their main essence is radical transformations in the primary cell of primitive society - the tribal (blood relatives) community. Its main, initial feature is the joint labor of all and the joint consumption of the extracted products among the members of one large, undivided family. The increase in production experience reduced the need for collective labor and increased the individual capabilities of community members. A gradual process of narrowing the circle of persons with whom an adult community member was supposed to share begins. The tribal community begins to break up into separate, smaller cells - families, which become the main economic units and are no longer obliged to share the results of their labor with neighboring, albeit kindred, families. This is how the transition from equal distribution in the tribal community to distribution according to work took place. Communities of a new type, consisting of separate large families - peasant households - ethnographers call prapeasant. Their main difference from tribal ones is the division of the main communal property - land into individual family plots and individual labor on them. In educational literature, such communities are also called agricultural. The function of such communities is to control land use, to allocate land to families fairly (according to the number, first of all, of workers, and nobles - "by dignity"). The rest of the land remains undivided, in the joint use of all. It is precisely such communities that form among the Germans in the first centuries of the new era. From II-III centuries. in communities, isolated peasant households with land allotments stand out.

In the future, households in such communities become more and more isolated, family ties cease to play a decisive role. Non-relatives may also appear in communities in the neighborhood. These communities are called neighboring. Among the Germans, they are formed in the 4th-5th centuries, most intensively - in the process of settling on Roman lands. These were already new types of communities. Such social changes lead to the formation of the early German states.

PSU named after Sh-A

Coursework on the subject:
"Story"

Job title:
"" The evolution of the social system of the ancient Germans from the middle of the 1st century BC to the end of the 1st century AD (according to the works of Caesar and Tacitus). ""

Brief excerpt from the text of the work (Abstract)

Introduction

The period of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages reflects the most important events associated with the formation of early medieval states and peoples in Europe. It was in the early Middle Ages that the expansion of the Germanic tribes in Europe ensured the change of eras and laid the foundation for the formation of European civilization.

The specifics of the German order, combined with partially assimilated and peculiarly reworked ancient traditions, became the initial basis for the formation of feudalism. The Germanic tribes vividly and consistently reflected the dominant trends at the turn of antiquity and the early Middle Ages: with their active participation, grandiose social cataclysms unfolded, borders collapsed, peoples came into motion. The German ethnic space of the Migration era was the most significant.

The Germans are the tribes of the Indo-European language group, who occupied the lands between the North and Baltic Seas, the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula and Southern Scandinavia before the Migration of Peoples. Despite the fact that the Germanic tribes came to the attention of the ancient world rather late (222 BC), they took an active part in many historical processes of early medieval society. The Romans, in an effort to conquer and annex new lands to their empire, arrived in Europe, where they encountered many barbarian tribes, one of which, but not unimportant in importance, were the tribes of the ancient Germans. The result of the collision of the Romans with the Germans was the works that describe not only the wars with these barbarian tribes, but also their way of life, social organization, economic structure, religion.

Despite some confusion and erroneous information given by Roman authors, these works are very valuable, because they allow us to trace the change in ancient German society. As a result, the study of the economy and social life of the ancient Germans, actively participating in the historical processes that led to the destruction of the old slave-owning world and the beginning of the birth of feudalism, is an important topic in the history of the Middle Ages. Thus, the purpose of this course work is to analyze and compare data on the ancient Germans, which are especially fully covered in the works of Gaius Julius Caesar "Notes on the Gallic War" (58 - 50 years) and Publius Cornelius Tacitus "On the origin of the Germans and the location of Germany" (c. 98).

In the course of studying the sources, the author intends to criticize these works, since the information contained in them does not always correspond to reality or is misinterpreted by authors who are alien to German culture. Therefore, it is very important to find out the source of Caesar's and Tacitus' information about the Germans, the goals with which they wrote about them, the influence of the authors' own worldview in assessing the life of the ancient Germans. In addition, the purpose of the work is to study the management of the Germans, highlighting its main industries, the principle by which the division of labor took place, ascertaining the presence or absence of trade.

Speaking about the historiography of this topic, a huge contribution of two famous people who brought exceptional extended knowledge about the Germans of that time.

Gaius Julius Cesvrus (102 - 44 BC), an outstanding political and military leader of Ancient Rome, was a remarkable orator and writer. World celebrity was given to his Notes on the Gallic War and Notes on the Civil War. Both works were left unfinished.

"Notes on the Gallic War" tells about the activities of Caesar in Gaul, where he was proconsul for almost ten years, waging numerous wars with the Gallic and Germanic tribes who resisted the Roman invasion. "Notes on the Civil War" tells about the beginning of the war between Caesar and Pompey. In the first work, Caesar wants to present his activities in Gaul in a favorable light, to show himself as an invincible commander and a wise politician. In a strictly deliberate presentation, the reader is inspired by the idea that the war in Gaul was aimed solely at protecting the legitimate interests of Rome and the tribes allied with it. With regard to the factual side of the narrative, Caesar tries to avoid outright lies, but often acts by default.

In Notes on the Civil War, he seeks to show that the blame for the outbreak of civil war in Rome lies not with him, but with his opponents - Pompey and the Senate party.

Caesar's writings are a valuable historical source. So, in the Notes on the Gallic War, he reports important ethnographic information about the inhabitants of Europe at that time - Gauls, Germans, British.

Caesar enjoyed the fame of an outstanding stylist. His writings are distinguished by their simplicity and clarity of style. However, this conciseness, strict selection of lexical means does not reduce the expressiveness of the text.

"Germania" by Tacitus is an invaluable source on the history, life and customs of the Germanic tribes of the 1st century BC. AD Tacitus characterizes in detail the tribal system, economy, culture and customs, the customs of the ancient Germans; he does not idealize them: he writes about their greed, passion for drunkenness and fights leading to murder. He advises the Romans to study the enemy well. But at the same time, Tacitus points out that these barbarian Germans do not have those destructive vices - luxury, venality, greed, depravity, slavery, with which the great imperial Rome is afflicted.

The study of history is always associated with personal preferences and the very personality of the historian (ethnos, religious views, political views, moral values, ethical standards, race, education, way of life, and much more), so the study of different approaches to the problem, which has long been a textbook in history (Evolution of the social system of the ancient Germans), is relevant regardless of the era, in what situation the historian works.

The object of research is the social and political structure of barbarian societies, the subject of study is the evolution of the social system of the ancient Germans. The chronological framework of the work is the middle of the 1st century BC to the end of the 1st century AD.

The purpose of the work is to find out the general and particular in the works of Tacitus and Caesar concerning the social and political system of the ancient Germans, the goals with which they wrote about them, the influence of the authors' own worldview in assessing the life of the ancient Germans.

To achieve this goal, it is planned to solve the following tasks:

Determine the level of influence of the authors' own worldview in assessing the life of the ancient Germans;

Highlight the main points of the formation of ancient German society as a whole.

1.1 The system of agriculture, cattle breeding, handicraft, the beginnings of exchange.

By the 1st millennium BC. e. refers to the acquaintance of the tribes inhabiting the territory of modern Germany, with iron metallurgy. The abundance of marsh iron ore contributed to the development of rich cultures of the Iron Age - Lusatian, Hallstatt and La Tène.

Thus, by the time the Romans became acquainted with the inhabitants of Germany, there were already centuries-old skills in agriculture and iron metallurgy. There was an interaction of cultures; so, apparently, the Celts handed over to the later inhabitants of the country - the Germans - the plow and iron metallurgy. There were multiple movements of the tribes.

Ancient for several centuries - VI-I centuries. Germans BC. e. - Numerous tribes settled on the territory of Germany, close in language, material and spiritual culture. They came from Southern Scandinavia, Jutland, from the coast of the Baltic and North Seas and gradually occupied the Weser and Odra basins, penetrating south to the Danube. They reached the Rhine and partially occupied the left bank of this powerful river.

The Romans called these tribes the Germans. The origin and meaning of this name is unclear. The Germans constituted one of the powerful detachments of the "barbarian" world and, along with other "barbarians", played a huge role in the collapse of the slave-owning Roman Empire and in the development of feudal relations in Europe.

The first information about the Germans known to us is the data of the Greek traveler Piteas from Massalia (a Greek colony on the site of modern Marseilles). Around 325 BC e. he made a brave journey by sea to the northern shores of Europe and reported that the Teutons, that is, undoubtedly the Germans, live on the coast of the Baltic Sea (the coast of Amber). We are talking, obviously, about the coast of the North Sea.

In the Hellenistic era, Germanic mercenaries often appeared in the troops of Eastern monarchs. In the II century. BC e. the Romans faced the formidable Germanic hordes. About 120 BC. e. the Teutons and Cimbri, the inhabitants of Jutland, left their homes, perhaps as a result of a natural disaster - a flood, and moved south. They reached the modern Czech Republic, from where, having met the stubborn resistance of the Celts - Boii, they turned to Gaul. V. the end of the II century. the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons plunged Rome into awe, and only in 102 BC. e. the Roman commander Marius was able to defeat the forces of the Germans in two battles at the Sextian Aquas (modern Aix in Provence) and at Vercelles (later Piedmont).

Half a century later, the work of Gaius Julius Caesar on the Germans informs about the Germans. Having conquered Gaul as a result of a series of campaigns, Caesar around 49 BC. e. Wrote Notes on the Gallic War. Here we also find relatively detailed information about the western neighbors of the Gauls - the Germans. Judging by the description of Caesar, the Germans lived in a tribal system; the Roman commander is best known for the powerful tribal union of the Suebi. The occupations of the Germans are agriculture and cattle breeding, and, according to Caesar’s characteristic remark, the Germans “are not particularly diligent in agriculture”, their food does not consist of agricultural products, but of products delivered by hunting and cattle breeding. However, they are undoubtedly farmers. Caesar tells of communal ownership of land; the land was occupied only for one year, after which new plots were allocated for arable land. It must be emphasized that Caesar writes about the change of arable land, and not about migration to new places. Apparently, here we have a slash-and-burn system of agriculture, in which there is a rapid depletion of the land and the allotment of new plots. Perhaps Caesar's remark about the annual redistribution of land requires adjustments, such a redistribution, most likely, was carried out every two or three years.

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….…... .3

CHAPTER 1 Economic development.

1.1 The system of agriculture, cattle breeding, craft, the beginnings of exchange….…..5

CHAPTER 2 Land use change and community evolution....14

CHAPTER 3 The origin of property and social inequality………22

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….…..……….31

LIST OF USED LITERATURE……………….…..……….33

Introduction

In this work, we will touch on a very interesting and at the same time not sufficiently studied topic, like the social system and economic development of the ancient Germans. This group of peoples is of interest to us for many reasons, the main of which will be cultural development and militancy; the first was of interest to ancient authors and still attracts both professional researchers and ordinary inhabitants interested in European civilization, while the second is interesting to us from the point of view of that spirit and desire for militancy and freedom that was inherent in the Germans then and lost until now.

In that distant time, the Germans kept the whole of Europe in fear, and therefore many researchers and travelers were interested in these tribes. Some were attracted by the culture, lifestyle, mythology and way of life of these ancient tribes. Others looked in their direction solely from a selfish point of view, either as enemies or as a means of profit. But still, as will be known later from this work, the latter attracted.

The interest of Roman society in the life of the peoples who inhabited the lands bordering the empire, in particular the Germans, was associated with constant wars waged by the emperor: in the 1st century BC. the Romans managed to put the Germans living east of the Rhine (up to the Weser) under their nominal dependence, but as a result of the uprising of the Cherusci and other Germanic tribes that destroyed three Roman legions in the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, the Rhine and Danube. The expansion of Roman possessions to the Rhine and Danube temporarily stopped the further spread of the Germans to the south and west. Under Domitian in 83 AD the left-bank regions of the Rhine, the Decumates fields were conquered.

Starting work, we should delve into the history of the very appearance of the Germanic tribes in this area. After all, other groups of peoples also lived on the territory that is considered to be originally German: they were Slavs, Finno-Ugric peoples, Balts, Laplanders, Turks; and even more people passed through this area.

The settlement of the north of Europe by Indo-European tribes took place approximately 3000-2500 BC, as evidenced by archeological data. Prior to this, the coasts of the North and Baltic Seas were inhabited by tribes, apparently of a different ethnic group. From the mixing of Indo-European aliens with them, the tribes that gave rise to the Germans originated. Their language, separated from other Indo-European languages, was the Germanic language - the basis from which, in the process of subsequent fragmentation, new tribal languages ​​of the Germans arose.

The prehistoric period of the existence of the Germanic tribes can only be judged from the data of archeology and ethnography, as well as from some borrowings in the languages ​​of those tribes that in ancient times roamed in their neighborhood - the Finns, the Laplanders.

The Germans lived in the north of central Europe between the Elbe and the Oder and in the south of Scandinavia, including the Jutland peninsula. Archaeological data suggest that these territories were inhabited by Germanic tribes from the beginning of the Neolithic, that is, from the third millennium BC.

The first information about the ancient Germans is found in the writings of Greek and Roman authors. The earliest mention of them was made by the merchant Pytheas from Massilia (Marseilles), who lived in the second half of the 4th century. BC. Pytheas traveled by sea along the western coast of Europe, then along the southern coast of the North Sea. He mentions the tribes of the Guttons and Teutons, with whom he had to meet during his voyage. The description of Pytheas' journey has not come down to us, but it was used by later historians and geographers, Greek authors Polybius, Posidonius (II century BC), Roman historian Titus Livius (I century BC - early I century AD). They cite extracts from the writings of Pytheas, and also mention the raids of the Germanic tribes on the Hellenistic states of southeastern Europe and on southern Gaul and northern Italy at the end of the 2nd century. BC.

From the first centuries of the new era, information about the Germans becomes somewhat more detailed. The Greek historian Strabo (died in 20 BC) writes that the Germans (Suebi) roam in the forests, build huts and are engaged in cattle breeding. The Greek writer Plutarch (46 - 127 AD) describes the Germans as wild nomads who are alien to all peaceful pursuits, such as agriculture and cattle breeding; their only occupation is war.

By the end of the II century. BC. Germanic tribes of Cimbri appear near the northeastern outskirts of the Apennine Peninsula. According to the descriptions of ancient authors, they were tall, fair-haired, strong people, often dressed in animal skins or skins, with wooden shields, armed with burnt stakes and stone-tipped arrows. They defeated the Roman troops and then moved west, linking up with the Teutons. For several years they won victories over the Roman armies until they were defeated by the Roman general Marius (102 - 101 BC).

In the future, the Germans do not stop raids on Rome and more and more threaten the Roman Empire.

At a later time, when in the middle of the 1st c. BC. Julius Caesar (100 - 44 BC) encountered Germanic tribes in Gaul, they lived in a large area of ​​central Europe; in the west, the territory occupied by the Germanic tribes reached the Rhine, in the south - to the Danube, in the east - to the Vistula, and in the north - to the North and Baltic Seas, capturing the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. In his Notes on the Gallic War, Caesar describes the Germans in more detail than his predecessors. He writes about the social system, economic structure and life of the ancient Germans, and also outlines the course of military events and clashes with individual Germanic tribes. He also mentions that the Germanic tribes are superior in courage to the Gauls. As governor of Gaul in 58 - 51, Caesar made two expeditions from there against the Germans, who tried to capture the area on the left bank of the Rhine. One expedition was organized by him against the Suebi, who had crossed to the left bank of the Rhine. In the battle with the Suebi, the Romans were victorious; Ariovistus, the leader of the Suebi, fled, crossing to the right bank of the Rhine. As a result of another expedition, Caesar expelled the Germanic tribes of the Usipetes and Tencters from the north of Gaul. Talking about clashes with German troops during these expeditions, Caesar describes in detail their military tactics, methods of attack and defense. The Germans were built for the offensive in phalanxes, by tribes. They used the cover of the forest to surprise the attack. The main way to protect against enemies was to fence off forests. This natural method was known not only by the Germans, but also by other tribes who lived in wooded areas.

A reliable source of information about the ancient Germans are the writings of Pliny the Elder (23-79). Pliny spent many years in the Roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Upper Germania while in military service. In his Natural History and in other works that have come down to us far from completely, Pliny described not only military operations, but also the physical and geographical features of a large territory occupied by Germanic tribes, listed and was the first to give a classification of Germanic tribes, based mainly on , from my own experience.

The most complete information about the ancient Germans is given by Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55 - c. 120). In his work "Germany" he tells about the way of life, way of life, customs and beliefs of the Germans; in the "Histories" and "Annals" he sets out the details of the Roman-German military clashes. Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians. He himself had never been to Germany and used the information that he, as a Roman senator, could receive from generals, from secret and official reports, from travelers and participants in military campaigns; he also widely used information about the Germans in the writings of his predecessors and, first of all, in the writings of Pliny the Elder.

The era of Tacitus, as well as subsequent centuries, is filled with military clashes between the Romans and the Germans. Numerous attempts by the Roman generals to subdue the Germans failed. To prevent their advance into the territories conquered by the Romans from the Celts, Emperor Hadrian (who ruled in 117-138) erects powerful defensive structures along the Rhine and the upper reaches of the Danube, on the border between Roman and German possessions. Numerous military camps-settlements become strongholds of the Romans in this territory; subsequently, cities arose in their place, in the modern names of which echoes of their former history are stored.

In the second half of the 2nd century, after a short lull, the Germans again intensify offensive operations. In 167, the Marcomanni, in alliance with other Germanic tribes, break through the fortifications on the Danube and occupy Roman territory in northern Italy. Only in 180 did the Romans manage to push them back to the northern bank of the Danube. Until the beginning of the III century. relatively peaceful relations are established between the Germans and the Romans, which contributed to significant changes in the economic and social life of the Germans.

1. Social system and material culture of the ancient Germans

In this part of our study, we will deal with the social structure of the ancient Germans. This is perhaps the most difficult problem in our work, since, unlike, for example, military affairs, which can be judged “from the outside”, it is possible to understand the social system only by merging into this society, or being a part of it or having close contact with him. But to understand society, relationships in it is impossible without ideas about material culture.

The Germans, like the Gauls, did not know political unity. They broke up into tribes, each of which occupied on average an area with an area equal to approximately 100 square meters. miles. The border parts of the region were not inhabited for fear of an enemy invasion. Therefore, even from the most remote villages it was possible to reach the place of the people's assembly, located in the center of the region, within a one-day march.

Since a very large part of the country was covered with forests and swamps, and therefore its inhabitants were only to a very small extent engaged in agriculture, living mainly on milk, cheese and meat, the average population density could not exceed 250 people per 1 square meter. a mile Thus, the tribe numbered approximately 25,000 people, and larger tribes could reach 35,000 or even 40,000 people. This gives 6000-10000 men, i.e. as much as in the most extreme case, taking into account 1000-2000 absentees, a human voice can capture and as much as can form an integral and capable of discussing issues of the people's assembly. This general popular assembly possessed the highest sovereign power.

The tribes broke up into clans, or hundreds. These associations are called clans, since they were not formed arbitrarily, but united people on the basis of a natural blood connection and unity of origin. There were no cities to which part of the population growth could be transferred, forming new connections there. Each remained in the union within which he was born. Clans were also called hundreds, because each of them had about 100 families or warriors. However, this figure in practice was often more, since the Germans used the word "hundred, hundred" in the sense of a generally large rounded number. The digital, quantitative name was preserved along with the patriarchal one, since the actual relationship between members of the clan was very distant. The genera could not have arisen as a result of the fact that the families originally living in the neighborhood formed large genera over the centuries. Rather, it should be considered that the overgrown clans had to be divided into several parts in order to feed on the place where they lived. Thus, a certain size, a certain value, a certain amount, equal to approximately 100, were the forming element of the association along with the origin. Both gave their name to this union. Genus and hundred are identical.

What can we say about such an important part of social life and material culture as the dwelling and life of the ancient Germans. In his essay on the Germans, Tacitus constantly compares their way of life and customs with those of the Romans. The description of the German settlements was no exception: “It is well known that the peoples of Germany do not live in cities and do not even tolerate their dwellings adjoining close to each other. The Germans settle, each separately and on their own, where someone likes a spring, a clearing or an oak forest. They do not arrange their villages in the same way as we do, and do not get crowded with buildings crowded and clinging to one another, but each leaves a vast area around his house, either to protect himself from fire if a neighbor catches fire, or because of the inability to build “It can be concluded that the Germans did not even create urban-type settlements, not to mention cities in the Roman or modern sense of the word. Apparently, the German settlements of that period were farm-type villages, which are characterized by a fairly large distance between buildings and a piece of land next to the house.

The members of the clan, who at the same time were neighbors in the village, formed during the war one common group, one horde. Therefore, even now in the north they call the military corps "thorp", and in Switzerland they say "village" - instead of "detachment", "dorfen" - instead of "convene a meeting", and the current German word "troop", "detachment" (Truppe) comes from the same root. Transferred by the Franks to the Romanesque peoples, and from them returned to Germany, it still retains the memory of the social system of our ancestors, dating back to such ancient times that no written source testifies. The horde that went to war together and that settled together was one and the same horde. Therefore, the names of the settlement, village and soldier, military unit were formed from the same word.

Thus, the ancient Germanic community is: a village - according to the type of settlement, a district - according to the place of settlement, a hundred - in terms of size and genus - in terms of its internal connections. Land and subsoil do not constitute private property, but belong to the totality of this strictly closed community. According to a later expression, it forms a regional partnership.

At the head of each community was an elected official, who was called "alderman" (elder), or "hunno", just as the community was called either "clan" or "hundred".

The Aldermans, or Hunnies, are the chiefs and leaders of the communities in times of peace, and the leaders of the men in times of war. But they live with the people and among the people. Socially, they are just as free members of the community as everyone else. Their authority is not so high as to keep the peace in case of major strife or serious crimes. Their position is not so high, and their horizons are not so broad as to guide politics. In each tribe there were one or more noble families, who stood high above the free members of the community, who, towering above the mass of the population, formed a special estate and traced their origin from the gods. From their midst, the general people's assembly elected several "princes", "first", "principes", who were supposed to travel around the districts ("through villages and villages") to hold court, negotiate with foreign states, jointly discuss public affairs, involving the Hunni in this discussion as well, in order to then make their proposals at public meetings. During the war, one of these princes, as a duke, was invested with the supreme command.

In princely families - thanks to their participation in military booty, tribute, gifts, prisoners of war who were serving their corvee, and profitable marriages with wealthy families - concentrated large, from the point of view of the Germans, wealth6. These riches made it possible for the princes to surround themselves with a retinue consisting of free people, the bravest warriors who swore allegiance to their master for life and death and who lived with him as his companions, providing him "in time of peace, splendor, and in time war defense." And where the prince spoke, his retinue strengthened the authority and significance of his words.

Of course, there was no law that categorically and positively demanded that only the offspring of one of the noble families be elected to the princes. But in fact, these families were so far removed from the mass of the population that it was not so easy for a person from the people to cross this line and enter the circle of noble families. And why on earth would the community choose a prince from the crowd who would not rise in any way above any other? Nevertheless, it often happened that those Huns in whose families this position was preserved for several generations and who, thanks to this, achieved special honor, as well as well-being, entered the circle of princes. This is how the process of formation of princely families went. And the natural advantage that the sons of distinguished fathers had in the election of officials gradually created the habit of choosing in the place of the deceased - subject to appropriate qualifications - his son. And the advantages associated with the position elevated such a family so much above the general level of the mass that it became more and more difficult for the rest of them to compete with it. If we now feel a weaker effect of this socio-psychological process in social life, this is due to the fact that other forces are exerting significant opposition to such a natural formation of estates. But there is no doubt that in ancient Germany a hereditary estate was gradually formed from the initially elected bureaucracy. In conquered Britain, kings appeared from the ancient princes, and erli (earls) from the eldermen. But in the era we are talking about now, this process has not yet ended. Although the princely estate has already separated from the mass of the population, having formed a class, the Hunni still belong to the mass of the population and in general have not yet separated themselves on the continent as a separate estate.

The assembly of the German princes and the Huns was called by the Romans the Senate of the Germanic Tribes. The sons of the most noble families were clothed already in their early youth with princely dignity and were involved in the meetings of the senate. In other cases, the retinue was a school for those young men who tried to escape from the circle of free members of the community, striving for a higher position.

The rule of princes passes into royal power when there is only one prince, or when one of them removes or subjugates the others. The basis and essence of the state system does not change from this, since the highest and decisive authority is still, as before, the general assembly of soldiers. Princely and royal power still fundamentally differ so little from each other that the Romans sometimes use the title of king even where there are not even one, but two princes. And royal power, as well as princely power, is not transferred by mere inheritance from one of its bearers to another, but the people endow this dignity with the one who has the greatest right to this through elections, or by calling his name screams. An heir who is physically or mentally incapable of doing this could and would have been bypassed. But although, therefore, royal and princely power primarily differed from each other only in quantitative terms, nevertheless, of course, the circumstance was of tremendous importance, whether the authorities and leadership were in the hands of one or several. And in this, of course, there was a very big difference. In the presence of royal power, the possibility of contradiction was completely eliminated, the possibility of presenting various plans and making various proposals to the people's assembly. The sovereign power of the popular assembly is more and more reduced to mere exclamations. But this exclamation of approval remains necessary for the king. The German retained even under the king the pride and spirit of independence of a free man. "They were kings," says Tacitus, "as far as the Germans allowed themselves to be ruled."

Communication between the district-community and the state was fairly loose. It could happen that the district, changing the place of its settlement and moving farther and farther, could gradually separate from the state to which it previously belonged. Attendance at general public meetings became more and more difficult and rare. Interests have changed. The district was only in a kind of allied relationship with the state and formed over time, when the clan increased quantitatively, its own separate state. The former Xiongnu family turned into a princely family. Or it happened that in the distribution of judicial districts among the various princes, the princes organized their districts as separate units, which they firmly held in their hands, gradually forming a kingdom, and then separated from the state. There are no direct indications of this in the sources, but this is reflected in the uncertainty of the terminology that has been preserved. The Cherusci and the Hutts, who are tribes in the sense of the state, own such wide territories that we should rather see them as a union of states. With regard to many tribal names, it may be doubted whether they are simple district names. And again, the word "district" (pagus) can often be applied not to a hundred, but to a princely district, which covered several hundred. We find the strongest internal ties in a hundred, in a clan that led a semi-communist way of life within itself and which did not disintegrate so easily under the influence of internal or external causes.

We next turn to the question of German population density. This task is very difficult, since there were no specific studies, let alone statistical data on this. Nevertheless, let's try to understand this issue.

We must do justice to the excellent powers of observation of the famous writers of antiquity, while rejecting, however, their conclusion about the considerable population density and the presence of large masses of the people, about which the Romans are so fond of talking.

We know the geography of ancient Germany well enough to establish quite accurately that in the area between the Rhine, the North Sea, the Elbe and the line drawn from the Main near Hanau to the confluence of the Saal with the Elbe, there lived approximately 23 tribes, namely: two tribes of Frisians , Kaninefats, Batavs, Hamavs, Amsivars, Angrivars, Tubants, two tribes of Khavks, Usipets, Tenkhters, two tribes of Brukters, Marses, Khasuarii, Dulgibins, Lombards, Cherusci, Hatti, Hattuarii, Innerions, Intvergi, Calukons. This whole area covers about 2300 km 2, so that on average each tribe accounted for approximately 100 km 2. The supreme power of each of these tribes belonged to the general popular assembly or assembly of warriors. This was the case in Athens and Rome, however, the industrial population of these civilized states attended only a very small part of the people's meetings. As for the Germans, we can really admit that very often almost all the soldiers were at the meeting. That is why the states were comparatively small, since if the remotest villages were more than a day away from the central point, genuine general meetings would no longer be possible. This requirement corresponds to an area equal to approximately 100 square meters. miles. Similarly, a meeting can be conducted more or less in order only with a maximum number of 6000-8000 people. If this figure was the maximum, then the average figure was a figure a little over 5000, which gives 25,000 people per tribe, or 250 per square meter. mile (4-5 per 1 km 2). It should be noted that this is primarily the maximum figure, the upper limit. But this figure cannot be greatly reduced for other reasons - for reasons of a military nature. The military activity of the ancient Germans against the Roman world power and its battle-tested legions was so significant that it suggests a certain population. And the figure of 5,000 warriors for each tribe seems so insignificant in comparison with this activity that, perhaps, no one will be inclined to reduce this figure still.

Thus - in spite of the complete absence of positive data that we could use - we are still in a position to establish positive figures with reasonable certainty. The conditions are so simple, and economic, military, geographical and political factors are so closely intertwined that we can now, using firmly established methods of scientific research, fill in the gaps in the information that has come down to us and better determine the number of Germans than the Romans, who had them. before their eyes and communicated with them daily.

Next, we turn to the question of supreme power among the Germans. The fact that the German officials fell into two different groups follows both from the nature of things, the political organization and the dismemberment of the tribe, and directly from the direct indications of the sources.

Caesar tells that "princes and elders" of the Usipets and Tenchters came to him. Speaking of the assassins, he mentions not only their princes, but also their senate, and tells that the senate of the Nervii, who, although they were not Germans, were very close to them in their social and state system, consisted of 600 members. Although we have a somewhat exaggerated figure here, it is nevertheless clear that the Romans could apply the name "senate" only to a fairly large deliberative assembly. It could not be a meeting of princes alone, it was a larger meeting. Consequently, the Germans had, in addition to the princes, another type of public authority.

Speaking about the land use of the Germans, Caesar not only mentions the princes, but also indicates that "officials and princes" distributed arable land. The addition of the "office of the person" cannot be considered a simple pleonasm: such an understanding would be contrary to the compressed style of Caesar. It would be very strange if Caesar, for the sake of verbosity alone, added additional words precisely to the very simple concept of “princes”.

These two categories of officials are not as clear in Tacitus as they are in Caesar. It was with regard to the concept of “hundreds” that Tacitus made a fatal mistake, which later caused scientists a lot of trouble. But even from Tacitus we can still deduce with certainty the same fact. If the Germans had only one category of officials, then this category would in any case have to be very numerous. But we constantly read that in every tribe the individual families were so superior to the mass of the population that others could not compare with them, and that these individual families are definitely called "royal line". Modern scholars have unanimously established that the ancient Germans did not have a petty nobility. The nobility (nobilitas), which is constantly referred to, was the princely nobility. These families elevated their clan to the gods, and "they took kings from the nobility." The Cherusci beg for their nephew Arminius from Emperor Claudius as the only survivor of the royal family. In the northern states there was no other nobility besides the royal families.

Such a sharp differentiation between noble families and the people would be impossible if there were a noble family for every hundred. To explain this fact, however, it is not enough to admit that among these numerous families of chiefs, some have achieved special honor. If the whole matter were reduced to only such a difference in rank, then other families would undoubtedly come forward to take the place of the extinct families. And then the name "royal family" would be assigned not only to a few genera, but, on the contrary, their number would no longer be so small. Of course, the difference was not absolute, and there was no impassable abyss. The old Xiongnu family could sometimes penetrate into the environment of the princes. But still, this difference was not only of rank, but also purely specific: the princely families formed the nobility, in which the significance of the position strongly receded into the background, and the Hunni belonged to the free members of the community, and their rank largely depended on the position, which all could also acquire a certain degree of hereditary character. So, what Tacitus tells about the German princely families indicates that their number was very limited, and the limited number of this number, in turn, indicates that below the princes there was another category of lower officials.

And from a military point of view, it was necessary that a large military unit break up into smaller units, with a number of people not more than 200-300 people, who were to be under the command of special commanders. The German contingent, which consisted of 5,000 soldiers, was supposed to have at least 20, and maybe even 50 lower commanders. It is absolutely impossible that the number of princes (principes) should be so great.

The study of economic life leads to the same conclusion. Each village had to have its own headman. This was due to the needs of agrarian communism and the diverse measures that were necessary for pasturing and protecting the herds. The social life of the village every moment required the presence of a manager and could not wait for the arrival and orders of the prince, who lived at a distance of several miles. Although we must admit that the villages were quite extensive, yet the village chiefs were very insignificant officials. Families whose origin was considered royal were to have more significant authority, and the number of these families is much smaller. Thus, princes and village chiefs are essentially different officials.

In continuation of our work, I would like to mention such a phenomenon in the life of Germany as the change of settlements and arable land. Caesar points out that the Germans annually changed both arable land and settlement sites. However, this fact, transmitted in such a general form, I consider disputable, since the annual change of the place of settlement does not find any grounds for itself. Even if it was possible to easily move the hut with household belongings, supplies and livestock, nevertheless, the restoration of the entire economy in a new place was associated with certain difficulties. And it was especially difficult to dig cellars with the help of those few and imperfect shovels that the Germans could have at that time. Therefore, I have no doubt that the "annual" change of settlement sites, which the Gauls and Germans told Caesar about, is either a strong exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

As for Tacitus, he nowhere directly speaks of a change in the places of settlement, but only points to a change in arable land. This difference was tried to be explained by a higher degree of economic development. But I fundamentally disagree with this. True, it is very possible and probable that already in the time of Tacitus and even Caesar, the Germans lived firmly and settled in many villages, namely where there were fertile and solid land. In such places, it was enough to change the arable land and fallow land around the village every year. But the inhabitants of those villages that were in areas covered for the most part by forests and swamps, where the soil was less fertile, could no longer be content with this. They were compelled to make full and consecutive use of all individual fields suitable for cultivation, all relevant parts of a vast territory, and therefore had to change the place of settlement from time to time for this purpose. As Thudichum has already rightly noted, Tacitus's words do not absolutely exclude the fact of such changes in the places of settlement, and if they do not directly indicate this, then nevertheless I am almost convinced that this is precisely what Tacitus thought in this case. His words read: “Whole villages alternately occupy such a number of fields as would correspond to the number of workers, and then these fields are distributed among the inhabitants depending on their social status and wealth. Extensive margin sizes make the section easier. Arable lands are changed every year, and there is a surplus of fields. Of particular interest in these words is an indication of a double shift. First, it is said that the fields (agri) are occupied or seized alternately, and then that the arable land (arvi) changes every year. If it were only that the village alternately assigned a more or less significant part of the territory to arable land, and that within this arable land again arable land and fallow changed annually, then this description would be too detailed and would not correspond to the usual brevity of Tacitus' style. This fact would be, so to speak, too meager for so many words. The situation would be quite different if the Roman writer put into these words at the same time the idea that the community, which alternately occupied entire territories and then divided these lands among its members, along with the change of fields, also changed the places of settlements. . Tacitus does not directly and precisely tell us about this. But just this circumstance is easily explained by the extreme conciseness of his style, and, of course, by no means can we assume that this phenomenon is observed in all villages. The inhabitants of the villages, which had small but fertile lands, did not need to change the places of their settlements.

Therefore, I have no doubt that Tacitus, making a certain distinction between the fact that “villages occupy fields” and that “arable land changes annually”, does not at all mean to depict a new stage in the development of German economic life, but rather does a tacit correction to Caesar's description. If we take into account that a German village with a population of 750 people had a territorial district equal to 3 sq. miles, then this indication of Tacitus immediately acquires a completely clear meaning for us. With the then existing primitive method of cultivating the land, it was absolutely necessary to annually work with a plow (or hoe) a new arable land. And if the supply of arable land in the vicinity of the village was exhausted, then it was easier to move the entire village to another part of the district than to cultivate and protect the fields that lie far from the old village. After a number of years, and, perhaps, after numerous migrations, the inhabitants again returned to their old place and again had the opportunity to use their former cellars.

And what can be said about the size of the villages. Gregory of Tours, according to Sulpicius Alexander, tells in the 9th chapter of Book II that the Roman army in 388, during its campaign in the country of the Franks, discovered "huge villages" among them.

The identity of the village and the clan is not subject to any doubt, and it has been positively proved that the clans were quite large.

In accordance with this, Kikebusch, using prehistory data, established the population of the Germanic settlement in the first two centuries AD. at least 800 people. The Dartsau cemetery, containing about 4,000 burial urns, existed for 200 years. This gives an average of approximately 20 deaths per year and indicates a population of at least 800 people.

The stories about the change of arable land and places of settlements that have come down to us, perhaps with some exaggeration, still contain a grain of truth. This change of all arable land, and even the change of places of settlement, becomes meaningful only in large villages with a large territorial district. Small villages with little land have the opportunity to change only arable land for fallow. Large villages do not have enough arable land in their vicinity for this purpose and are therefore forced to look for land in remote parts of their district, and this in turn entails the transfer of the whole village to other places.

Each village was required to have a headman. Common ownership of arable land, common pasture and protection of herds, frequent threat of enemy invasions and danger from wild animals - all this certainly required the presence of a local authority. You can’t wait for the leader to arrive from another place when you need to immediately organize protection from a pack of wolves or hunt wolves, when you need to repel an enemy attack and hide families and livestock from the enemy, or to protect a spilled river with a dam, or put out a fire, sort out disputes and petty lawsuits. , to announce the beginning of plowing and reaping, which, under communal land tenure, took place simultaneously. If all this happens as it should, and if, therefore, the village had its headman, then this headman - since the village was at the same time a clan - was a clan master, an elder of the clan. And this one, in turn, as we have already seen above, coincided with the Xiongnu. Therefore, the village was a hundred, i.e. numbered 100 or more warriors, and therefore was not so small.

Smaller villages had the advantage of being easier to get food from. However, large villages, although they necessitated a more frequent change of place of settlement, were nevertheless most convenient for the Germans in the constant dangers in which they lived. They made it possible to counter the threat from wild animals or even wilder people with a strong body of warriors, always ready to face the danger face to face. If we find small villages among other barbarian peoples, for example, later among the Slavs, this circumstance cannot weaken the significance of the evidence and arguments we have cited above. The Slavs do not belong to the Germans, and some analogies do not yet indicate the complete identity of the remaining conditions; moreover, the evidence concerning the Slavs belongs to such a later time that they can already describe a different stage of development. However, the German large village later - in connection with the growth of the population and the greater intensity of tillage, when the Germans had already ceased to change the places of their settlements - broke up into groups of small villages.

In his narrative about the Germans, Cornelius Tacitus gave a short description of the German land and the climatic conditions of Germany: “Although the country differs in appearance in some places, nevertheless, on the whole, it terrifies and disgusts with its forests and swamps; it is wettest on the side where it faces Gaul, and most exposed to the winds where it faces Noricum and Pannonia; in general, quite fertile, it is unsuitable for fruit trees. ”From these words, we can conclude that most of the territory of Germany at the beginning of our era was covered with dense forests and abounded in swamps, however, at the same time, land was occupied by sufficient space for agriculture. The remark about the unsuitability of the land for fruit trees is also important. Further, Tacitus directly said that the Germans "do not plant fruit trees." This is reflected, for example, in the division of the year by the Germans into three parts, which is also highlighted in Tacitus's "Germany": "And for this reason they divide the year less fractionally than we do: they distinguish winter, and spring, and summer, and they have their own names, but the name of autumn and its fruits are unknown to them. The name of autumn among the Germans really appeared later, with the development of horticulture and viticulture, since under the autumn fruits Tacitus meant the fruits of fruit trees and grapes.

The saying of Tacitus about the Germans is well-known: "They annually change arable land, they always have a surplus of fields." Most scientists agree that this indicates the custom of redistribution of land within the community. However, in these words, some scientists saw evidence of the existence of a shifting system of land use among the Germans, in which arable land had to be systematically abandoned so that the soil, depleted by extensive cultivation, could restore its fertility. Perhaps the words "et superest ager" meant something else: the author had in mind the vastness of unoccupied settlement and uncultivated spaces in Germany. Evidence of this can be the easily noticeable attitude of Cornelius Tacitus to the Germans as to people who treated agriculture with a share of indifference: gardens." And sometimes Tacitus directly accused the Germans of contempt for work: “And it is much more difficult to convince them to plow the field and wait for a whole year of harvest than to persuade them to fight the enemy and suffer wounds; moreover, according to their ideas, then to get what can be acquired with blood is laziness and cowardice. In addition, apparently, adults and men capable of bearing arms did not work on the land at all: “the most brave and militant of them, without bearing any duties, entrust the care of housing, household and arable land to women, the elderly and the weakest of the household, while they themselves wallow in inactivity. However, speaking about the way of life of the Aestians, Tacitus noted that "They grow bread and other fruits of the earth more diligently than is customary among the Germans with their inherent negligence."

Slavery developed in the German society of that time, although it did not yet play a big role in the economy, and most of the work lay on the shoulders of the master's family members: “They use slaves, however, not in the same way as we do: they do not keep them with them and do not distribute duties between them: each of them independently manages on his site and in his family. The master taxes him as if he were a column, the established measure of grain, or sheep and pigs, or clothes, and only this consists of the duties sent by the slave. The rest of the work in the household of the master is carried out by his wife and children.

Regarding the crops grown by the Germans, Tacitus is unequivocal: "They expect only the harvest of bread from the earth." However, now there is evidence that in addition to barley, wheat, oats and rye, the Germans also sowed lentils, peas, beans, leeks, flax, hemp and dyeing woad, or blueberry.

Cattle breeding occupied a huge place in the German economy. According to Tacitus about Germany, “there are a great many small cattle” and “the Germans rejoice at the abundance of their herds, and they are their only and most beloved asset.” However, he noted that "for the most part, he is small, and the bulls are usually deprived of the proud decoration that usually crowns their heads."

Evidence that cattle really played an important role in the economy of the Germans of that time can be the fact that in case of a slight violation of any norms of customary law, the fine was paid precisely by cattle: “for lighter offenses, the punishment is commensurate with their importance: a certain number of horses are recovered from those convicted and sheep." Cattle also played an important role in the wedding ceremony: the groom had to present the bride with bulls and a horse as a gift.

The Germans used horses not only for household purposes, but also for military purposes - Tacitus spoke with admiration about the power of the tencters' cavalry: "Endowed with all the qualities appropriate for valiant warriors, the tencters are also skillful and dashing riders, and the tencters' cavalry is not inferior in glory to the infantry of the Hutts" . However, describing the fens, Tacitus with disgust notes the general low level of their development, in particular, pointing out the absence of horses in them.

As for the presence of appropriating branches of the economy among the Germans, Tacitus also mentioned in his work that "when they do not wage wars, they hunt a lot." However, no further details about this follow. Tacitus does not mention fishing at all, although he often focused on the fact that many Germans lived along the banks of rivers.

Tacitus singled out the Aestii tribe in particular, narrating that “they rummage both the sea and on the shore, and on the shallows they are the only ones of all who collect amber, which they themselves call eye. But the question of its nature and how it arises, they, being barbarians, did not ask and know nothing about it; for for a long time he lay with everything that the sea throws up, until the passion for luxury gave him a name. They themselves do not use it in any way; they collect it in its natural form, deliver it to our merchants in the same raw form and, to their amazement, receive a price for it. However, in this case, Tacitus was wrong: even in the Stone Age, long before establishing relations with the Romans, the Aestii collected amber and made all kinds of jewelry from it.

Thus, the economic activity of the Germans was a combination of agriculture, possibly shifting, with settled cattle breeding. However, agricultural activity did not play such a big role and was not as prestigious as cattle breeding. Agriculture was mainly the lot of women, children and the elderly, while strong men were engaged in livestock, which played a significant role not only in the economic system, but also in the regulation of interpersonal relations in German society. I would especially like to note that the Germans widely used horses in their economy. A small role in economic activity was played by slaves, whose situation can hardly be described as difficult. Sometimes the economy was directly influenced by natural conditions, as, for example, among the Germanic tribe of the Aestii.

2. The economic structure of the ancient Germans

In this chapter, we will study the economic activities of the ancient Germanic tribes. The economy, and the economy in general, are closely connected with the social life of the tribes. As we know from the training course, the economy is the economic activity of society, as well as the totality of relations that develop in the system of production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

Characteristics of the economic system of the ancient Germans in the representation

historians of different schools and directions was extremely contradictory: from the primitive nomadic life to the developed arable farming. Caesar, having caught the Suebi during their migration, quite definitely says: the Suebi were attracted by the fertile arable lands of Gaul; the words of the leader of the Suebi, Ariovistus, which he cites that his people had not had a roof over their heads for fourteen years (De bell. Gall., I, 36), rather testifies to a violation of the habitual way of life of the Germans, which under normal conditions, apparently, was settled. Indeed, having settled in Gaul, the Suebi took away a third of the lands from its inhabitants, then claimed the second third. Caesar’s words that the Germans “are not zealous in cultivating the land” cannot be understood in such a way that agriculture is generally alien to them - simply the culture of agriculture in Germany was inferior to the culture of agriculture in Italy, Gaul and other parts of the Roman state.

The textbook saying of Caesar about the Suebi: “Their land is not divided and is not privately owned, and they cannot stay more than a year

in the same place for cultivating the land, ”a number of researchers were inclined to interpret in such a way that the Roman commander encountered this tribe during the period of his conquest of foreign territory and that the military-migration movement of huge masses of the population created an exceptional situation, which necessarily led to a significant "distortion" of their traditional agricultural way of life. No less widely known are the words of Tacitus: "They change the arable land every year and there is still a field." These words are seen as evidence of the existence of a shifting system of land use among the Germans, in which arable land had to be systematically abandoned so that the soil, depleted by extensive cultivation, could restore its fertility. The descriptions of the nature of Germany by ancient authors also served as an argument against the theory of the nomadic life of the Germans. If the country was either an endless virgin forest, or was swampy (Germ., 5), then there was simply no room for nomadic pastoralism. True, a closer reading of Tacitus' narratives about the wars of the Roman generals in Germany shows that the forests were used by its inhabitants not for settlement, but as shelters, where they hid their belongings and their families when the enemy approached, as well as for ambushes, from where they suddenly attacked on the Roman legions, not accustomed to war in such conditions. The Germans settled in glades, on the edge of the forest, near streams and rivers (Germ., 16), and not in the forest thicket.

This deformation was expressed in the fact that the war gave rise to "state socialism" among the Suebi - their rejection of private ownership of land. Consequently, the territory of Germany at the beginning of our era was not completely covered with primeval forest, and Tacitus himself, drawing a very stylized picture of its nature, immediately admits that the country is "fertile for crops", although "it is not suitable for growing fruit trees" (Germ ., 5).

Archeology of settlements, inventory and cartography of finds of things and burials, paleobotanical data, soil studies showed that settlements on the territory of ancient Germany were distributed extremely unevenly, isolated enclaves separated by more or less extensive "voids". These uninhabited spaces in that era were entirely forested. The landscape of Central Europe in the first centuries of our era was not forest-steppe, but

predominantly forest. The fields near the settlements separated from each other were small - human habitats were surrounded by forest, although it was already partly sparse or completely reduced by industrial activity. In general, it must be emphasized that the old idea of ​​the hostility of the ancient forest to man, whose economic life allegedly could unfold exclusively outside the forests, has not received support in modern science. On the contrary, this economic life found its essential premises and conditions in the forests. The opinion about the negative role of the forest in the life of the Germans was dictated by the trust of historians in the statement of Tacitus that they supposedly had little iron. From this it followed that they were powerless before nature and could not exert an active influence either on the forests surrounding them or on the soil. However, Tacitus was mistaken in this case. Archaeological finds testify to the prevalence of iron mining among the Germans, which provided them with the tools necessary for clearing forests and plowing the soil, as well as weapons.

With the clearing of forests for arable land, old settlements were often abandoned for reasons that are difficult to ascertain. Perhaps the movement of the population to new places was caused by climatic changes (around the beginning of a new era in Central and Northern Europe there was some cooling), but another explanation is not ruled out: the search for better soils. At the same time, it is necessary not to lose sight of the social reasons for the inhabitants to leave their settlements - wars, invasions, internal troubles. So, the end of the settlement in the Hodde area (Western Jutland) was marked by a fire. Almost all the villages discovered by archaeologists on the islands of Öland and Gotland died from a fire during the era of the Great Migration. These fires are possibly the result of political events unknown to us. The study of traces of fields found in Jutland, which were cultivated in antiquity, showed that these fields were located mainly in places cleared from under the forest. In many areas of settlement of the Germanic peoples, a light plow or coxa was used - a tool that did not turn over a layer of soil (apparently, such an arable tool is also depicted on the rock carvings of Scandinavia of the Bronze Age: it is driven by a team of oxen. In the northern parts of the continent in the last centuries before the beginning of our era ... a heavy plow with a moldboard and a plowshare appears, such a plow was an essential condition for raising clay soils, and its introduction into agriculture is regarded in the scientific literature as a revolutionary innovation, indicating an important step towards the intensification of tillage. to the need to build more permanent dwellings.In the houses of this period (they are better studied in the northern regions of the settlement of the Germanic peoples, in Friesland, Lower Germany, in Norway, on the island of Gotland and to a lesser extent in Central Europe, along with housing premises, there were stalls for winter keeping pets. the so-called long houses (from 10 to 30 m long and 4-7 m wide) belonged to a firmly settled population. While in the pre-Roman Iron Age, the population occupied light soils for cultivation, starting from the last centuries BC. it began to move to heavier soils. This transition was made possible by the spread of iron tools and the associated progress in tillage, forest clearing, and construction. A typical "original" form of German settlements, according to the unanimous opinion of modern experts, were farmsteads consisting of several houses, or separate estates. They were small "cores" that gradually grew. An example is the village of Oesinge near Groningen. On the site of the original courtyard, a small village has grown here.

On the territory of Jutland, traces of fields were found, which date back to the period starting from the middle of the 1st millennium BC. and up to the 4th c. AD Such fields have been cultivated for several generations. These lands were eventually abandoned due to leaching of the soil, which led to

diseases and deaths of livestock.

The distribution of settlement finds on the territory occupied by the Germanic peoples is extremely uneven. As a rule, these finds were found in the northern part of the German range, which is explained by favorable conditions for the preservation of material remains in the coastal regions of Lower Germany and the Netherlands, as well as in Jutland and on the islands of the Baltic Sea - in the southern regions of Germany, such conditions were absent. It arose on a low artificial embankment erected by the inhabitants in order to avoid the threat of flooding - such "residential hills" were poured and restored from generation to generation in the coastal zone of Friesland and Lower Germany, which attracted the population with meadows that favored cattle breeding. Under the numerous layers of earth and manure, which were compressed over the centuries, the remains of wooden dwellings and various objects are well preserved. The "long houses" in Esing had both rooms with a hearth intended for housing and stalls for livestock. At the next stage, the settlement increased to about fourteen large courtyards, built radially around a free area. This settlement existed since the IV-III centuries. BC. until the end of the Empire. The layout of the settlement gives grounds to believe that its inhabitants formed a kind of community, whose tasks, apparently, included the construction and strengthening of the "residential hill". In many ways, a similar picture was given by the excavations of the village of Feddersen Virde, located on the territory between the mouths of the Weser and the Elbe, north of the present Bremerhaven (Lower Saxony). This settlement existed from the 1st century. BC. until the 5th century AD And here the same “long houses” are open, which are typical for the German settlements of the Iron Age. As in Oesing, in Feddersen Wierde the houses were arranged radially. The settlement grew from a small farm to approximately 25 estates of various sizes and, apparently, unequal material well-being. It is assumed that during the period of greatest expansion, the village was inhabited by 200 to 250 inhabitants. Along with agriculture and cattle breeding, handicrafts played a prominent role among the occupations of a part of the village population. Other settlements studied by archaeologists were not built according to any plan - cases of radial planning, like Esinge and Feddersen Wirde, are possibly due to specific natural conditions and were the so-called cumulus villages. However, few large villages have been found. Common forms of settlements were, as already mentioned, a small farm or a separate yard. Unlike villages, isolated farms had a different “life span” and continuity in time: one or two centuries after their foundation, such a single settlement could disappear, but some time later a new farm arose in the same place.

Noteworthy are the words of Tacitus that the Germans arrange villages “not in our way” (that is, not in the way that was customary among the Romans) and “cannot stand their dwellings touching each other; they settle at a distance from each other and randomly, where they liked a stream, or a clearing, or a forest. The Romans, who were accustomed to living in close quarters and saw it as a kind of norm, must have been struck by the tendency of the barbarians to live in individual, scattered homesteads, a trend confirmed by archaeological research. These data are consistent with the indications of historical linguistics. In Germanic dialects, the word "dorf" ("dorp, baurp, thorp") meant both a group settlement and a separate estate; what was essential was not this opposition, but the opposition "fenced" - "unfenced". Experts believe that the concept of "group settlement" developed from the concept of "estate". However, the radially built agrarian settlement of Eketorp on the island of Öland was apparently surrounded by a wall for defense reasons. The existence of "circular" settlements on the territory of Norway, some researchers explain the needs of the cult.

Archeology confirms the assumption that the characteristic direction of the development of settlements was the expansion of the original separate estate or farm into a village. Together with the settlements, they acquired constancy and economic forms. This is evidenced by the study of traces of early Iron Age fields found in Jutland, Holland, inner Germany, the British Isles, the islands of Gotland and Öland, Sweden and Norway. They are usually called "ancient fields" - oldtidsagre, fornakrar (or digevoldingsagre - "fields fenced with ramparts") or "fields of the Celtic type. They are associated with settlements whose inhabitants cultivated them from generation to generation. The remains of pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age fields on the territory of Jutland have been studied in particular detail. These fields were plots in the form of irregular rectangles. The margins were either wide and short or long and narrow; judging by the preserved traces of tillage, the former were plowed up and down, as it is supposed, with a primitive plow, which had not yet turned over the earth layer, but cut and crumbled it, while the latter were plowed in one direction, and here a plow with a mouldboard was used. It is possible that both varieties of the plow were used at the same time. Each section of the field was separated from the neighboring ones by an unplowed boundary - stones collected from the field were piled on these boundaries, and the natural movement of the soil along the slopes and the dust deposits that settled on the weeds at the boundaries from year to year created low, wide boundaries separating one plot. from another. The boundaries were large enough so that the farmer could drive along with a plow and a team of draft animals to his plot without damaging the neighboring allotments. There is no doubt that these allotments were in long-term use. The area of ​​the studied "ancient fields" varies from 2 to 100 hectares, but there are fields reaching an area of ​​up to 500 hectares; the area of ​​individual plots in the fields - from 200 to 7000 square meters. m. The inequality of their sizes and the lack of a single standard for the site indicate, according to the famous Danish archaeologist G. Hatt, who is the main merit in the study of "ancient fields", the absence of redistribution of land. In a number of cases, it can be established that new boundaries arose inside the enclosed space, so that the plot turned out to be divided into two or more (up to seven) more or less equal shares.

Individual fenced fields adjoined homesteads in the "cumulus village" on Gotland (excavations at Vallhagar); on the island of Öland (near the coast

Southern Sweden) fields belonging to individual farms were fenced off from the plots of neighboring estates with stone embankments and border paths. These settlements with fields date back to the era of the Great Migration. Similar fields have also been studied in mountainous Norway. The location of the plots and the isolated nature of their cultivation give researchers reason to believe that in the Iron Age agricultural settlements studied so far, there was no striping or any other communal routines that would find their expression in the system of fields. The discovery of traces of such "ancient fields" leaves no doubt that agriculture among the peoples of Central and Northern Europe dates back to the pre-Roman period.

However, in cases where there was a shortage of arable land (as on the North Frisian island of Sylt), small farms that separated from the "big families" had to reunite. Consequently, residence was sedentary and more intense than previously thought. It remained so in the first half of the 1st millennium AD.

From crops barley, oats, wheat, rye were bred. It was in the light of these discoveries, made possible as a result of the improvement of archaeological technology, that the groundlessness of the statements of ancient authors regarding the characteristics of agriculture of the northern barbarians became finally clear. From now on, the researcher of the agrarian system of the ancient Germans stands on the firm ground of established and repeatedly attested facts, and does not depend on the unclear and scattered statements of narrative monuments, the tendentiousness and bias of which cannot be eliminated. In addition, if the messages of Caesar and Tacitus in general could only concern the Rhine regions of Germany, where the Romans penetrated, then, as already mentioned, traces of the “ancient fields” were found throughout the territory of the settlement of Germanic tribes - from Scandinavia to continental Germany; their dating is pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age.

Similar fields were cultivated in Celtic Britain. Hutt draws other, more far-reaching conclusions from the data he has collected. He proceeds from the fact of long-term cultivation of the same land areas and the absence of indications of communal routines and redistribution of arable land in the settlements that he studied. Since land use was clearly individual in nature, and the new boundaries within the plots testify, in his opinion, to divisions of ownership between heirs, then there was private ownership of land. Meanwhile, in the same territory in the following era - in medieval Danish rural communities - forced crop rotation was used, collective agricultural work was carried out and the inhabitants resorted to remeasurements and redistribution of plots. It is impossible, in the light of new discoveries, to regard these communal agrarian practices as "original" and to trace back to deep antiquity - they are the product of medieval development itself. We can agree with the last conclusion. In Denmark, development supposedly went from the individual to the collective, and not vice versa. The thesis about private ownership of land among the Germanic peoples at the turn of the BC. established itself in the latest Western historiography. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on this issue. Historians who studied the problem of the agrarian system of the Germans in the period preceding these discoveries, even attaching great importance to arable farming, nevertheless tended to think about its extensive nature and assumed a shifting (or fallow) system associated with a frequent change of arable land. Back in 1931, at the initial stage of research, for Jutland alone, “ancient fields” were recorded. However, traces of the "ancient fields" have not been found anywhere for the time after the Great Migration of Peoples. The conclusions of other researchers regarding ancient agricultural settlements, field systems and farming methods are extremely important. However, the question of whether the duration of the cultivation of the land and the presence of boundaries between the plots testifies to the existence of individual ownership of the land is unlawful to decide with the help of only those means that the archaeologist has at his disposal. Social relations, especially property relations, are projected onto archaeological material in a very one-sided and incomplete way, and the plans of the ancient Germanic fields do not yet reveal the secrets of the social structure of their owners. The absence of redistribution and a system of leveling plots in itself hardly gives us an answer to the question: what were the real rights to the fields of their farmers? After all, it is quite possible to admit - and a similar assumption was expressed. That such a system of land use, as is drawn in the study of the "ancient fields" of the Germans, was associated with the property of large families. The "long houses" of the early Iron Age are considered by a number of archaeologists precisely as the dwellings of large families, house communities. But the ownership of land by members of a large family is extremely far from individual in nature. The study of Scandinavian material relating to the early Middle Ages showed that even the division of the economy between small families united in a house community did not lead to the separation of plots into their private property. To resolve the issue of real rights to land from their farmers, it is necessary to involve completely different sources than archeological data. Unfortunately, there are no such sources for the early Iron Age, and retrospective conclusions drawn from later legal records would be too risky. However, a more general question arises: what was the attitude of the man of the era we are studying to cultivated land? For there is no doubt that, in the final analysis, the right of ownership reflected both the practical attitude of the tiller of the land to the subject of the application of his labor, and certain comprehensive attitudes, the “model of the world” that existed in his mind. Archaeological material testifies that the inhabitants of Central and Northern Europe were by no means inclined to frequently change their places of residence and lands under cultivation (the impression of the ease with which they abandoned arable land is created only when reading Caesar and Tacitus), - for many generations they inhabited all the same farms and villages, cultivating their fields enclosed by ramparts. They had to leave their habitual places only due to natural or social disasters: due to the depletion of arable land or pastures, the inability to feed the increased population, or under the pressure of warlike neighbors. The norm was a close, strong connection with the land - a source of livelihood. The German, like any other person of archaic society, was directly included in natural rhythms, formed a single whole with nature and saw in the land on which he lived and worked his organic continuation, just as he was organically connected with his family. - tribal team. It must be assumed that the relation to reality of a member of barbarian society was comparatively weakly divided, and it would be premature to speak of the right to property here. Law was only one of the aspects of a single undifferentiated worldview and behavior - an aspect that highlights modern analytical thought, but which in the real life of ancient people was closely and directly related to their cosmology, beliefs, myth. That the inhabitants of an ancient settlement near Grantoft Fede (western Jutland) changed their location over time is the exception rather than the rule; in addition, the duration of habitation in the houses of this settlement is about a century. Linguistics is able to help us to some extent restore the idea of ​​the Germanic peoples about the world and about the place of man in it. In the Germanic languages, the world inhabited by people was designated as the "middle court": midjungar Is ( Gothic), middangeard (OE), mi ðgary r (Old Norse), mittingart, mittilgart (Other - Upper German). Gar ðr, gart, geard - "a place surrounded by a fence." The world of people was perceived as well-organized, i.e. a fenced, protected "place in the middle", and the fact that this term is found in all Germanic languages ​​\u200b\u200bis evidence of the antiquity of such a concept. Another component of the cosmology and mythology of the Germans associated with it was utgar ðr - "what is outside the fence", and this outer space was perceived as the seat of evil and hostile forces to people, as the realm of monsters and giants. Opposition mi ðgarðr -utg aryr gave the defining coordinates of the whole picture of the world, culture resisted chaos. The term heimr (Old Norse; cf.: Goth haims, OE ham, OE Frisian ham, hem, OE Saxon, hem, OE High German heim), occurring again However, mainly in a mythological context, it meant both “peace”, “homeland”, and “house”, “dwelling”, “fenced estate”. Thus, the world, cultivated and humanized, was modeled after the house and the estate.

Another term that cannot fail to attract the attention of a historian who analyzes the relationship of the Germans to the land is oð al. Again, there are correspondences to this Old Norse term in Gothic (haim - obli), Old English (about ð e;, ea ð ele), Old High German (uodal, uodil), Old Frisian (ethel), Old Saxon (o il). Odal, as it turns out from a study of medieval Norwegian and Icelandic monuments, is a hereditary family property, land, in fact, inalienable outside the collective of relatives. But "odal" was called not only arable land, which was in the permanent and stable possession of the family group - this was also the name of the "homeland". Odal is a “patrimony”, “fatherland” both in the narrow and in the broad sense. A man saw his fatherland where his father and ancestors lived and where he himself lived and worked; patrimonium was perceived as patria, and the microcosm of his homestead was identified with the inhabited world as a whole. But then it turns out that the concept of “odal” was related not only to the land on which the family lives, but also to its owners themselves: the term “odal” was akin to a group of concepts that expressed innate qualities in the Germanic languages: nobility, generosity, nobility of the face (a ðal, aeðel, ethel, adal, eðel, adel, aeðelingr, oðlingr). Moreover, nobleness and nobility here should be understood not in the spirit of medieval aristocracy, inherent or attributed only to representatives of the social elite, but as descent from free ancestors, among whom there are no slaves or freedmen, therefore, as full rights, full freedom, personal independence. Referring to a long and glorious pedigree, the German proved at the same time both his nobility and his rights to the land, since in fact one was inextricably linked with the other. Odal was nothing more than the generosity of a person, transferred to land ownership and rooted in it. A Alborinn ("well-born", "noble") was a synonym for o Alborinn (“a person born with the right to inherit and own ancestral land”). Descent from free and noble ancestors "ennobled" the land owned by their descendant, and, conversely, the possession of such land could increase the social status of the owner. According to Scandinavian mythology, the world of the aesir gods was also a fenced estate - asgarar. Land for a German is not just an object of possession; he was connected with her by many close ties, including not least psychological, emotional. This is evidenced by the cult of fertility, to which the Germans attached great importance, and the worship of their "mother earth", and the magical rituals that they resorted to when occupying land spaces. The fact that we learn about many aspects of their relationship to the land from later sources can hardly cast doubt on the fact that this was also the case at the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. and even earlier. The main thing is, apparently, that the ancient man who cultivated the land did not see and could not see in it a soulless object that can be manipulated instrumentally; between the human group and the piece of soil cultivated by it, there was no abstract relationship "subject - object". Man was included in nature and was in constant interaction with it; this was also the case in the Middle Ages, and this statement is all the more true in relation to ancient German times. But the connection of the farmer with his plot did not contradict the high mobility of the population of Central Europe throughout this era. In the end, the movements of human groups and entire tribes and tribal unions were dictated to a large extent by the need to take possession of arable land, i.e. the same relation of man to the earth, as to its natural continuation. Therefore, the recognition of the fact of the permanent possession of a plot of arable land, fenced with a boundary and a rampart and cultivated from generation to generation by members of the same family - a fact that emerges thanks to new archaeological discoveries - does not yet give any grounds for asserting that the Germans were at the turn of a new era were "private landowners". The use of the concept of “private property” in this case can only indicate a terminological confusion or an abuse of this concept. The man of the archaic era, regardless of whether he was a member of the community and obeyed its agrarian regulations or ran a household completely independently, was not a "private" owner. There was a very close organic connection between him and his plot of land: he owned the land, but the land also “owned” him; the possession of an allotment must be understood here as the incomplete isolation of a person and his team from the “people - nature” system. When discussing the problem of the attitude of the ancient Germans to the land they inhabited and cultivated, it is apparently impossible to confine oneself to the traditional historiographical dilemma "private property - communal property". The Mark community among the Germanic barbarians was found by those scholars who relied on the words of Roman authors and considered it possible to trace back to hoary antiquity the communal routines discovered during the classical and late Middle Ages. In this regard, let us turn again to the all-German policy mentioned above.

The human sacrifices reported by Tacitus (Germ., 40) and which are attested by many archaeological finds are apparently also connected with the fertility cult. The goddess Nerthus, who, according to Tacitus, was worshiped by a number of tribes and which he interprets as Terra mater, apparently corresponded to Njord, the god of fertility, known from Scandinavian mythology.

During the settlement of Iceland, a person, occupying a certain territory, had to go around it with a torch and light fires on its borders.

The inhabitants of the villages discovered by archaeologists, no doubt, carried out some kind of collective work: at least the construction and strengthening of "residential hills" in the flooded areas of the North Sea coast. On the possibility of community between individual farms in the Jutland village of Hodde. As we have seen, a dwelling surrounded by a fence forms, according to these ideas, mi ðgarðr, " middle courtyard”, a kind of center of the universe; around him stretches Utgard, the hostile world of chaos; it is simultaneously located somewhere far away, in uninhabited mountains and wastelands, and begins right there behind the fence of the estate. Opposition mi ðgarðr - utgarðr fully corresponds to the opposition of the concepts innan garðs - utangaris in medieval Scandinavian legal monuments; these are two types of possessions: “land located within the fence”, and “land outside the fence” - land allocated from

community fund. Thus, the cosmological model of the world was at the same time a real social model: the center of both was the household yard, house, estate - with the only essential difference that in the real life of the earth utangar Is, not being fenced, nevertheless they did not surrender to the forces of Chaos - they were used, they were essential for the peasant economy; however, the householder's rights to them are limited, and in case of violation of the latter, he received a lower compensation than for violation of his rights to lands located innangar Is. Meanwhile in the world-simulating consciousness of the earth utangar Is belong to Utgard. How to explain it? The picture of the world that emerges when studying the data of German linguistics and mythology, undoubtedly, developed in a very distant era, and the community was not reflected in it; "reference points" in the mythological picture of the world were a separate courtyard and house. This does not mean that the community was absent at that stage, but, apparently, the importance of the community among the Germanic peoples increased after their mythological consciousness developed a certain cosmological structure.

It is quite possible that the ancient Germans had large family groups, patronymics, close and branched relations of kinship and properties - integral structural units of the tribal system. At that stage of development, when the first news about the Germans appeared, it was natural for a person to seek help and support from his relatives, and he was hardly able to live outside such organically formed groups. However, the brand community is a formation of a different nature than the clan or extended family, and it is by no means necessarily associated with them. If there was some reality behind the gentes and cognationes of the Germans mentioned by Caesar, then most likely these are consanguineous associations. Any reading of Tacitus's words: "agri pro numero cultorum ab universis vicinis (or: in vices, or: invices, invicem) occupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem partiuntur" has always been and is doomed to continue to remain guesswork. To build on such a shaky foundation a picture of the ancient Germanic rural community is extremely risky.

Statements about the presence of a rural community among the Germans are based, in addition to the interpretation of the words of Caesar and Tacitus, on retrospective conclusions from material that belongs to the subsequent era. However, the transfer of medieval data on agriculture and settlements to antiquity is an operation hardly justified. First of all, one should not lose sight of the break in the history of German settlements noted above, associated with the movement of peoples in the 4th-6th centuries. After this era, there were both a change in the location of settlements and changes in the land use system. For the most part, the data on communal routines in the medieval mark date back to the period no earlier than the 12th-13th centuries; in relation to the initial period of the Middle Ages, such data are extremely scarce and controversial. It is impossible to put an equal sign between the Ancient community among the Germans and the medieval "classical" brand. This is clear from the few indications of the communal ties of the inhabitants of the ancient German villages, which nevertheless exist. The radial structure of settlements such as Feddersen Virde is evidence that the population placed their houses and built roads based on a general plan. The struggle with the sea and the erection of "residential hills" on which villages were built also required the combined efforts of householders. It is likely that the grazing of cattle in the meadows was regulated by communal rules and that neighborhood relations led to some organization of the villagers. However, we have no information about the system of forced field orders (Flurzwang) in these settlements. The structure of the "ancient fields", the traces of which have been studied in the vast territory of the settlement of the ancient Germans, did not imply such a routine. There are no grounds for the hypothesis of the existence of "supreme ownership" of the community in arable land. When discussing the problem of the ancient Germanic community, one more circumstance must be taken into account. The question of the mutual rights of neighbors to land and the delimitation of these rights, their settlement arose when the population increased and the inhabitants of the village became crowded, and there were not enough new lands. Meanwhile, starting from the II-III centuries. AD and until the end of the Great Migration, there was a decline in the population of Europe, caused, in particular, by epidemics. Since a large part of the settlements in Germany were separate estates or farms, there was hardly any need for collective regulation of land use. The human unions in which members of the barbarian society united were, on the one hand, narrower than villages (large and small families, kindred groups), and on the other, wider (“hundreds”, “districts”, tribes, unions of tribes). Just as the German himself was far from becoming a peasant, the social groups in which he was located were not yet built on an agricultural, economic basis in general - they united relatives, family members, warriors, participants in gatherings, and not direct producers, while while in the medieval society the peasants will be united precisely by the rural communities that regulate the production agrarian order. In general, it must be admitted that the structure of the community among the ancient Germans is little known to us. Hence, those extremes that are often found in historiography: one, expressed in the complete denial of the community in the era under study (meanwhile, the inhabitants of the settlements studied by archaeologists, undoubtedly, were united by certain forms of community); the other extreme is the modeling of the ancient Germanic community on the model of the medieval rural community-mark, generated by the conditions of later social and agrarian development. Perhaps a more correct approach to the problem of the German community would have been given the essential fact that in the economy of the inhabitants of non-Romanized Europe, with a strong sedentary population, cattle breeding still retained the leading role. Not the use of arable land, but the grazing of cattle in meadows, pastures and forests, apparently, should primarily affect the interests of neighbors and give rise to communal routines.

As Tacitus reports, Germany “cattle is plentiful, but for the most part small in stature; even working cattle are not imposing, nor can they boast of horns. The Germans like to have a lot of cattle: this is the only and most pleasant kind of wealth for them. This observation of the Romans who visited Germany is consistent with what is found in the remains of ancient settlements of the early Iron Age: an abundance of bones of domestic animals, indicating that the cattle were indeed undersized. As already noted, in the "long houses", in which the Germans mostly lived, along with the living quarters, there were stalls for livestock. Based on the size of these premises, it is believed that a large number of animals could be kept in the stalls, sometimes up to three or more tens of cattle.

Cattle served the barbarians as a means of payment. Even in a later period, vira and other compensations could be paid by large and small livestock, and the very word fehu among the Germans meant not only “cattle”, but also “property”, “possession”, “money”. Hunting, judging by the archaeological finds, was not an essential occupation of the Germans, and the percentage of bones of wild animals is very insignificant in the total mass of remains of animal bones in the studied settlements. Obviously, the population satisfied their needs through agricultural activities. However, a study of the contents of the stomachs of corpses found in swamps (these people were apparently drowned as punishment for crimes or sacrificed) indicates that sometimes the population had to eat, in addition to cultivated plants, also weeds and wild plants. As already mentioned, the ancient authors, not sufficiently aware of the life of the population in Germania libera, argued that the country was poor in iron, which gave a character to the primitive picture of the economy of the Germans as a whole. Undoubtedly, the Germans lagged behind the Celts and Romans in the scale and technology of iron production. Nevertheless, archaeological studies have radically altered the picture drawn by Tacitus Iron was mined everywhere in Central and Northern Europe in both the pre-Roman and Roman periods.

Iron ore was easily accessible due to its surface occurrence, in which it was quite possible to mine it in an open way. But underground iron mining already existed, and ancient adits and mines were found, as well as iron-smelting furnaces. German iron tools and other metal products, according to modern experts, were of good quality. Judging by the surviving "burials of blacksmiths", their social position in society was high.

If in the early Roman period the extraction and processing of iron remained, perhaps, still a rural occupation, then metallurgy is more and more clearly distinguished into an independent trade. Its centers are found in Schleswig-Holstein and Poland. Blacksmithing has become an important integral component of the German economy. Iron in the form of bars served as a trade item. But the processing of iron was also carried out in the villages. A study of the settlement of Fedderzen Virde showed that workshops were concentrated near the largest estate, where metal products were processed; it is possible that they were not only used to meet local needs, but were also sold to the outside. The words of Tacitus, that the Germans had few weapons made of iron and they rarely used swords and long spears, were also not confirmed in the light of archaeological finds. Swords were found in the rich burials of the nobility. Although spears and shields in the burials predominate over swords, still from 1/4 to 1/2 of all burials with weapons contain swords or their remains. In some areas up to

% of men were buried with iron weapons.

Also questioned is Tacitus' statement that armor and metal helmets are almost never found among the Germans. In addition to iron products necessary for the economy and war, German craftsmen were able to make jewelry from precious metals, vessels, household utensils, build boats and ships, wagons; textile industry took on various forms. The lively trade of Rome with the Germans served for the latter as a source of many products that they themselves did not possess: jewelry, vessels, jewelry, clothes, wine (they obtained Roman weapons in battle). Rome received from the Germans amber collected on the coast of the Baltic Sea, bull skins, cattle, mill wheels made of basalt, slaves (Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus mention the slave trade among the Germans). However, in addition to income from trade in Rome

German taxes and indemnities were received. The busiest exchange took place on the border between the empire and Germania libera, where Roman camps and urban settlements were located. However, Roman merchants also penetrated deep into Germany. Tacitus notes that food exchange flourished in the interior of the country, while Germans living near the border with the empire used (Roman) money (Germ., 5). This message is confirmed by archaeological finds: while Roman items have been found throughout the territory of the settlement of the Germanic tribes, right up to Scandinavia, Roman coins are found mainly in a relatively narrow strip along the border of the empire. In more remote areas (Scandinavia, Northern Germany), along with individual coins, there are pieces of silver items cut, possibly for use in exchange. The level of economic development was not uniform in different parts of Central and Northern Europe in the first centuries AD. Differences are especially noticeable between the interior regions of Germany and the areas adjacent to the "limes". Rhenish Germany, with its Roman cities and fortifications, paved roads and other elements of ancient civilization, had a significant impact on the tribes living nearby. In the settlements created by the Romans, the Germans also lived, adopting a new way of life for them. Here, their upper stratum learned Latin as the language of official use, and adopted new customs and religious cults. Here they got acquainted with viticulture and horticulture, with more advanced types of crafts and with monetary trade. Here they were included in social relations that had very little in common with the order within "free Germany".

Conclusion

culture tradition ancient german

Describing the culture of the ancient Germans, let us once again emphasize its historical value: it was on this “barbarian”, semi-primitive, archaic culture that many peoples of Western Europe grew up. The peoples of modern Germany, Great Britain, and Scandinavia owe their culture to the amazing fusion that the interaction of ancient Latin culture and ancient German culture brought.

Despite the fact that the ancient Germans were at a rather low level of development compared to their powerful neighbor, the Roman Empire (which, by the way, was defeated by these “barbarians”), and was just moving from a tribal system to a class system, the spiritual culture of the ancient Germanic tribes is of interest due to the richness of forms.

First of all, the religion of the ancient Germans, despite a number of archaic forms (primarily totemism, human sacrifice), provides rich material for studying the common Indo-Aryan roots in the religious beliefs of Europe and Asia, for drawing mythological parallels. Of course, in this field, future researchers will have hard work, since there are a lot of "blank spots" in this issue. In addition, there are many questions about the representativeness of sources. Therefore, this problem needs further development.

Much can also be emphasized from material culture and economics. Trade with the Germans gave their neighbors food, furs, weapons and, paradoxically, slaves. Indeed, since some of the Germans were valiant warriors, often making predatory raids, from which they brought with them both selected material values, and took a large number of people into slavery. This is what their neighbors did.

Finally, the artistic culture of the ancient Germans also awaits further research, primarily archaeological. According to the currently available data, we can judge the high level of artistic craft, how skillfully and original the ancient Germans borrowed elements of the Roman and Black Sea style, etc. However, it is also undoubted that any question is fraught with limitless possibilities for its further study; that is why the author of this term paper considers this essay far from the last step in the study of the rich and ancient spiritual culture of the ancient Germans.

Bibliography

.Strabo. GEOGRAPHY in 17 books // M.: Ladomir, 1994. // Translation, article and comments by G.A. Stratanovsky under the general editorship of prof. S.L. Utchenko // Translation editor prof. O.O. Kruger./M.: "Ladomir", 1994.p. 772;

.Notes of Julius Caesar and his successors on the Gallic War, on the Civil War, on the Alexandrian War, on the African War // Translation and comments by Acad. MM. Pokrovsky // Research Center "Ladomir" - "Science", M.1993.560 p.;

Cornelius Tacitus. Works in two volumes. Volume one. Annals. Small works // Iz-vo "Nauka", L.1970/634 p.;

G. Delbrück "History of military art within the framework of political history" vol. II "Science" "Juventa" St. Petersburg, 1994 Translated from German and notes by prof. IN AND. Avdieva. Published according to the publication: Delbrück G. "History of military art within the framework of political history." in 7 vols. M., Mrs. military Publishing house, 1936-1939, 564 pp.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus

educational institution

"Gomel State University

named after Francysk Skaryna"

Correspondence faculty

Department of General History

Course work

"Ancient Germans: socio-political, economic and cultural life (I-V centuries)"

Executor:

Student of group I-21 _________________ Skripnik Ya.N.

Supervisor:

Senior Lecturer _________________ Cherepko S.A.

Gomel 2006

Introduction

Historiography and sources

Social and political life

1 The evolution of the political system and military skills

2 Social order

Economic and cultural life

1 Household and life

2 Appearance, tradition and cultural development

Conclusion

Sources and literature

Introduction

ancient german life culture

On the vast territory of the western provinces of the Roman Empire, on its borders and far beyond, numerous tribes and nationalities have long lived, which Greek and Roman writers united into three large ethnic groups. These were the Celts, Germans and Slavs, who settled in the forests and large rivers of Western and Central Europe. As a result of frequent movements and wars, ethnic processes became more complicated, integration, assimilation or, conversely, disunity took place; therefore, it is only conditionally possible to speak about the main places of settlement of individual ethnic groups.

Due to the “depth” of the time of the topic being studied, the number of sources that have survived to this day, both written and material, is not enough to accurately describe the life of the ancient Germans. Written sources are contradictory and may carry incorrect information. This topic has not been sufficiently studied and remains relevant today.

The purpose of the course work is to highlight the socio-political, economic and cultural life of the ancient Germans (I-V centuries) based on available sources and their analysis.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: to study the sources on this topic, to analyze and characterize and describe the spheres of life of the ancient Germans in the 1st-5th centuries. To trace the previous stage of development of the ancient Germans, determine their position at the stage of the 1st-5th centuries, point out the main points that accompany the next stage of development and influence certain outcomes in the future; to compare the degree of development and the course of evolution at a given stage (I-V centuries) of the ancient Germans with parallel developing peoples; consider the spheres of life of the Germans as a whole, determine the degree of their influence among themselves, identify the main points of influence and determine their results.

1. Historiography and sources

To write a term paper, the information of Gaius Julius Caesar and Cornelius Publius Tacitus that has come down to us was used.

We cannot draw a clear and reliable picture of the nature, conditions of life and occupations of the Germans. It depends on the nature of the sources available. Great care must be taken in using Caesar's account of the conquest of Gaul, for this account not only provides a one-sided Roman coverage, but cannot even be controlled by other sources. Tacitus also lived a century later than those campaigns of Germanicus, which he describes. But these shortcomings of the sources are not the only ones. The literature of this era is thoroughly imbued with rhetoric. These writers do not at all seek to tell what really happened or that these events unfolded exactly as they want to portray it; they, first of all, strive to make a certain impression on the reader with their oratory. This is often emphasized in the literature, however, it is not critically taken into account.

There are many contradictions in the stories of Caesar and Tacitus, but there are also additions.

The Germans, in the description of Caesar, are not even completely settled people yet. Their agriculture at that time was of a primitive, crudely shifting nature. The field, somehow loosened, was sown for a year or two in a row, after which the farmers left the old arable land and moved to a new place. The land itself, as Caesar definitely notes, was not yet the subject of private property: "Their land is not divided into private property, and they cannot stay more than a year in one place." “No one,” he continues, “has an accurately measured plot of land or possession in private property, but officials and leaders annually allocate land to clans and associations of relatives living together, where and how much will be needed ...” The moment of tribal ownership of land is is quite clear here. Cattle breeding and hunting played an important role among the Germans of Caesar's time: "They are not particularly diligent in agriculture ... They eat not so much bread as milk, cheese and meat" (Caesar). At that time, only some Germanic tribes had royal power and, at the same time, it was purely military and temporary. Kings were elected for the duration of the war. In peacetime, clans and tribes were ruled by tribal elders and leaders.

The Germans in the description of Tacitus are already at a higher stage of development. Tacitus considers them as a definitely settled population. They have villages and farms. They are much more diligent than in the time of Caesar, they are engaged in agriculture. They are developing wastelands and clearing forests. A heavy plow is used as an agricultural implement. From the description of Tacitus it is clear that the Germans knew the main crafts - blacksmithing, weaving and pottery, mining of iron and other metals. But their social system continued to be very archaic.

The Germans did not yet have private ownership of land even under Tacitus. The clan and tribe were the supreme manager (and owner) of the land. But at the same time, the Germans developed individual land use. It is characteristic that the distribution of land at the time of Tacitus no longer occurs equally between different families: “The land,” writes Tacitus, “according to the number of farmers, is occupied by everyone in turn, and then they divide it among themselves according to dignity ...” Tribal system and under Tacitus played an extremely important role among the Germans. The tribal organization disposed of the land. In battles, relatives were built in battle formation, standing next to each other. Members of the clan were obliged to avenge the insults inflicted on their relatives (family vengeance). In the presence of relatives, marriages were concluded, a young German was declared an adult, the alienation and acquisition of property, the consideration of court cases and all sorts of disputes.

Given the bias in the description of the Germans and their lives in Caesar's stories, Tacitus's stories seem to be more authentic and truthful. Although those sources used by Tacitus could also meet someone's interests and carry incorrect content.

When writing a term paper, a number of scientific literature was also used: G. Weiss. The history of civilization. Classical antiquity up to the 4th century. T. 1., History of civilization. "Dark Ages" in the Middle Ages, IV-XIV centuries; World history (Roman period). T. 6.; Davis N. History of Europe.; Neusykhin A.I. The social structure of the ancient Germans.; Udaltsov A.D., Skazkin S.D. History of the Middle Ages.; Reader on the history of the Middle Ages, ed. Gratsiansky N.P. and Skazkina S.D. T. 1.; Osokin N.A. History of the Middle Ages.; Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 19.

The most valuable of them were the books of Weiss, Neusykhin's monograph and an anthology on the history of the Middle Ages. In these literary sources, the issue of the ancient Germans, their political, economic and social life is considered in more detail.

In this literature, attention is most specifically paid to problematic points on the topic of the course work. Monograph Neusykhin A.I. "The Social System of the Ancient Germans" is a work entirely dedicated to the ancient Germans, in particular to a single area of ​​their life - the socio-social issue. Nevertheless, the monograph was used as reference literature, as it is already a definite conclusion from the sources studied by the author.

In the editions of Weiss G. and the reader on the history of the Middle Ages, more generalized information, since this literature contains a more extensive object of study. Therefore, with the help of these books, you can draw your own conclusions.

The rest, used in writing term papers, scientific publications contain either too general information or are encyclopedic in nature. Therefore, they were used mainly as literature for general acquaintance, although some valuable information was taken from them and some points were noted in the course work.

Thus, the main role, of course, in writing the term paper was played by primary sources: the works of Caesar and Tacitus. Additional scientific literature played a secondary role, but was a very valuable source of information, since it specifically and clearly reflects the plots of the works of Caesar and Tacitus, which makes it possible to compare the points of view on this topic of modern authors, and allows you to more clearly formulate your own conclusions.

2. Social and political life

1 The evolution of the political system and military skills

Barbarian society was not yet divided into estates and did not have mechanisms by which part of the population could be freed from productive labor. The barbarian army is a peasant army, with all the ensuing consequences. The Romans noted that the Germans, although they outnumber the legionnaires in strength, are significantly inferior to them in experience, firstly, hunting practice allowed everyone to gain some experience in handling throwing weapons. The Germans themselves have always considered themselves full-fledged warriors and were proud of it.

Among the features of the military art of the ancient Germans, two are most often mentioned: an original combination of reckless courage with a complete lack of stamina and a preference for throwing weapons over contact.

The Germans sought to stun the enemy with a surprise attack, a battle cry and a hail of darts. If this failed, they immediately retreated. Several such attacks could have been made, but it never came to hand-to-hand combat, or only a small part of the soldiers entered into close combat.

Consistent melee avoidance did allow the barbarians to avoid heavy losses. The only problem was that it allowed them to avoid any losses and their opponent. It was possible to injure a shield keeper in the ranks only by firing a dozen arrows at him.

And it was impossible to run forever from the enemy. Guerrilla methods of war are good for everyone, but the guerrillas are not capable of protecting the civilian population. Sticking to tactics hit and run , the Germans carried out successful raids, but they could not protect their land from the legions.

The barbarians received from civilized peoples not only technical, but also military knowledge. When the Romans crossed the Rhine, the Germans had the opportunity to become familiar with their tactics and reproduce them successfully. The barbarians acquired heavy shields made of leather and oak, and began to line up in pig's head (square pointed in front) or hird (classic phalanx).

The only problem was that the transition to actions as part of the phalanx required the complete overcoming of tribal separatism. And this implied a sharp increase in the powers of the leader. And the increase in its share in production. After all, he could build barbarians (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) only by relying on his squad.

The condition for the participation of the bulk of the soldiers in the battle was that the leader with his retinue would stand in the front row. Hence, by the way, the protrusion on the front face of the Frankish pig's head . The leader with bodyguards stood in front, behind him tribal nobility , for the nobility squad, and only then only the militias.

Sometimes the hird was covered by a small number of archers. The cavalry, if any, operated separately from the infantry. After all, the leaders and combatants had war horses, and if the militia participated in the battle, the squad had to mix.

According to Tacitus, iron, judging by the weapons they make, they do not have in abundance. Rarely did anyone use swords and large pikes; they carried with them spears, or, as they themselves called them in their own language, frames, with narrow and short tips, but so sharp and convenient in battle that with the same weapon, depending on the circumstances, they fought both from afar and in hand-to-hand combat. And the rider was also content with a shield and frame, while those on foot, moreover, threw javelins, of which each had several, and they threw them amazingly far. The Germans did not teach horses to make turns in any direction, as is customary, for example, among the Romans: they are driven either straight ahead or with a slope to the right, forming such a vicious circle that no rider is the last. And generally speaking, the German strength is greater in the infantry; for this reason they fought together; the footmen, whom they selected from the whole army for this and placed in front of the battle formation, are so swift and mobile that they were not inferior in speed to the horsemen and acted together with them in the equestrian battle. The number of these footmen was also established: from each district, a hundred. In general, the way the Germans waged war was based on the courage of individual soldiers, and not on joint tactical actions. In the battle, the Germans were built in a wedge-shaped manner, and were divided by families and clans into detachments, each with its own banner - "an image and a sacred sign." Leaning back, in order to then again rush at the enemy, was considered by them to be military sharpness, and not a consequence of fear. There was a custom to start the battle swiftly, with songs and the sound of weapons. The Germans carried away their bodies, even when they were defeated. Throwing down a shield, and in general, the loss of a weapon is the greatest shame, extreme dishonor, and those who were subjected to such dishonor were forbidden to attend sacred rites and appear in the people's assembly, and many, saving their lives in wars, ended their dishonor by throwing a noose on themselves. Falling heroically in battle, dying on your shield - that was in his eyes the highest glory, the true goal of life.

An important factor in the battle was the terrain. Tacitus reports that it was more profitable for the Germans to keep the enemy in the forests, where the Germans, not burdened with protective shells, deftly moved between the trees and could dodge enemy spears. The Germans could not resist the right battles on suitable terrain: “... they were helped by forests, swamps, short summers and early winters” (Tacitus); in actions against the Germans, the enemy did not suffer so much from wounds as from the long distances that they had to travel, and from the loss of weapons.

By the III century, with the decomposition of the primitive communal system, the Germans gradually change their way of life, their customs, way of life, society itself. All this is the imprint of "communication" with civilized peoples. And in military moments, progress is also observed. Tacitus notes this in the Annals: “The Germans do not randomly rush at the enemy, as they once did, and do not fight in discordant crowds; for during the long war with us, they have learned to follow the badges, save their strength for a decisive blow and obey the commanders.

Sea robbery brought rich booty, as well as slaves for sale. Improved agriculture and animal husbandry. The latter made it possible to breed excellent breeds of horses, thanks to which the Germans managed to create cavalry, which became their main military force.

The decay of the primitive communal system among the Germans reached the stage when military campaigns to seize booty and new lands acquired great importance. Large masses of people appeared who did not find use for their forces in their homeland and were forced to seek their happiness in other lands. Very often they began to recruit into the Roman troops. Roman emperors and usurpers willingly used the services of German soldiers and especially cavalry during the endless internecine wars of the 3rd century. For them, not only the high fighting qualities of the Germans were important, but also the fact that they did not have, like the Roman soldiers, close ties with the local population of the empire. Many Germans who served Rome received land in the border areas of the empire. They were obliged to process it and protect it. For service in the army, the commanders of the Germans were endowed with the right of Roman citizenship, and their land plots passed to their sons if they also entered the Roman army. Often the imperial government supplied them with grain and livestock, implements and even slaves to help them establish their economy. This system developed more and more and gradually replaced the former system of client kingdoms, which had completely outlived itself by the 3rd century. The experience of the Marcomannic wars showed the emperors that the first to oppose the rule of the empire were those peoples who, more than others, suffered from exorbitant tribute. But by the 3rd century, the situation had changed radically: now, on the contrary, the emperors were forced to pay large taxes to the neighboring tribes in order to buy peace with them, but if the payment of such subsidies was delayed, the tribal leaders came to the empire along with the troops in order to demand with weapons in their hands timely payment.

In the I-II centuries. AD most European tribes experienced a period of rapid development. It was during this period that the economic and social prerequisites for the formation of large tribal unions were outlined, which resulted in the emergence of peoples who later played a major role in the history of medieval Europe.

The Germans inhabited mainly the northern regions of Europe (Scandinavia, Jutland) and the Rhine basin. At the turn of our era, they lived on the Rhine and Main (a tributary of the Rhine) and on the lower Oder. On the Scheldt and the coast of the German (North) Sea - the Frisians (Friesland), to the east of them the Anglo-Saxons. After the Anglo-Saxons moved to Britain in the 5th c. the Frisians advanced to the east and occupied the lands between the Rhine and the Weser (in the 7th-8th centuries they were subjugated by the Franks).

In the III century. the lower Rhine regions were occupied by the Franks: the Salian Franks were advancing closer to the sea, and the Ripuarian Franks settled on the middle Rhine (the area of ​​Cologne, Trier, Mainz). Before the appearance of the Franks, numerous small tribes were known in these places (Hamavs, Hattuars, Bructers, Tencters, Ampi Tubans, Usipii, Khazuarii). Ethnic integration probably led to rapprochement and partial absorption, even assimilation of some within the military-political union, which was reflected in the new ethnonym. "Frank" - "free", "brave" (at that time the words were synonyms); both were considered a characteristic sign of a full-fledged member of the organization of the collective, represented by the army, the people's militia. The new ethnonym emphasizes the principle of political equality of all united tribes. In the IV century. epic Franks moved to the lands of Gaul. The Elba divided the tribes of the Suevian group into western and eastern (Goto-Vandal). From the Suebi in the III century. Alemanni stood out, settled in the upper reaches of the Rhine and Main.

The Saxons appeared at the mouth of the Elbe in the 1st century. AD They subjugated and then assimilated some other Germanic tribes living on the Weser (Havks, Angrivarii, Ingrs), and began to move towards the coast of the German Sea. From there, together with the Angles, they raided Britain. Another part of the Saxons remained in the Elbe basin, their neighbors were the Lombards.

The Langobards separated from the Vinnils and received a new ethnonym, indicating a characteristic ethnic feature - long-bearded (or, according to another explanation of the lexical meaning, armed with long spears). Later, the Lombards moved southeast, reached the Morava basin, and then occupied first the Rugiland region, and then Pannonia.

Rugi lived on the Oder, and by the III century. went to the Tisza valley. Skiri from the Lower Vistula in the 3rd century. reached Galicia. The Vandals on the Elbe were neighbors of the Lombards. In the III century. one branch of the Vandals (Silings) settled in the Bohemian Forest, from where it later went west to the Main, the other (Asdingi) settled in southern Pannonni, next to the Suebi, Quadi, Marcomanni.

Quads and Marcomanni lived on the Danube, after the Marcomannic wars they occupied the territory of the Dekumat fields. From the end of the 4th century Thuringians are known; having united with the remnants of the Angles and Varnas, they occupied vast areas between the Rhine and the upper Lake, and by the 5th century. the Thuringians extended their borders to the Danube. Ethnic processes among the Marcomanni, Suebi, Quads, who found themselves in the 4th century. in the Upper Danube regions, led to the emergence of a new ethnic group - the Bavarians, who occupied part of the territory of Slovakia, later Pannonia, Norica. Over time, they spread south of the Danube. The Alemanni, pressed by the Thuringians and Bavarians, crossed to the left bank of the Rhine (in the Alsace region).

The Danube was not only the border of the Roman and barbarian world, it became the main road for resettlement, rapprochement and clashes of peoples of various ethnic origins. In the basin of the Danube and its tributaries lived Germans, Slavs, Celts, Danube tribes of Norics, Pannonians, Dacians, Sarmatians.

In the IV century. the Huns with their allies and the Avars passed along the Danube. At the end of the IV century. AD the Huns united with the Alans, who then lived in the steppes of Ciscaucasia. The Alans subjugated and assimilated the neighboring tribes, extended their ethnonym to them, and then divided under the onslaught of the Huns. Part went to the mountains of the Caucasus, the rest, together with the Huns, came to the Danube. The Huns, Alans and Goths were considered the most dangerous enemies of the Roman Empire (in 378, under Adrianople, the Huns and Alans took the side of the Goths). The Alans scattered throughout Thrace and Greece, reached Pannonia and even Gaul. Further moving west, to Spain and Africa, the Alans united with the Vandals.

In the Danube regions in the IV-V centuries. Slavs (Slavs or Slavs) and Germans (Goths, Lombards, Gepids, Heruli) also settled in large numbers.

In the III century AD. German tribes united in strong tribal unions, in which the main role was played by people from the inner regions of Germany. Already earlier, the Germanic tribes united in military alliances. But these unions did not last long and disintegrated, and the tribes that were part of them again became isolated. So, for example, formed in the middle of the 1st century. BC. The Suebian Union united almost all of Germany under its rule. But after the defeat of Ariovistus in the war with Caesar, the alliance broke up. Later, several more similar alliances developed (the Marcomanno-Suebian alliance of Maroboda at the end of the 1st century BC, the alliance of the Cherusci under the leadership of Arminius at the beginning of the new era), but they were fragile and fell apart after the death of their founders. Tribal associations that arose in the III-IV centuries. within Germany and in the reclaimed territory, proved to be more viable and eventually turned into new ethnic communities.

In the III-IV centuries, the tribes of North-Eastern Germany became especially active, which were militarily stronger than the rest of the Germanic tribes. They had a fairly developed trade, which they conducted with the empire, with Scandinavia and the nearest regions of Eastern Europe. In the eastern part of Germany and on the shores of the Baltic Sea, alliances of the Vandals were strengthened, who, even during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, began their advance to the south and were partially settled by the emperor in Dacia, as well as the Burgundians, who at the beginning of the 3rd century advanced to the area of ​​the Main River. To the west of them, between the Oder and the Elbe, an alliance of the Alemanni arose. The Lombards lived in the region of the mouth of the Elbe, and in the south of the Jutland peninsula - the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were good sailors and cruel pirates who attacked Britain and the western coast of Gaul. The tribes that lived along the Rhine valley - the Batavians, the Hatti - formed a tribal union of the Franks. In the III century, all these tribal unions began their attack on the empire.

2 Social order

Caesar personally observed the Germans, with whom he waged wars in Gaul. He crossed the Rhine twice and invaded the German regions. In addition, he collected information about the Germans from scouts and merchants and was familiar with the writings of authors who had previously described the life of the “barbarians” surrounding the empire.

According to Caesar, the Germans did little agriculture. Their main occupation is cattle breeding and hunting. Their diet was dominated by meat, milk and cheese; they ate little bread. Agricultural machinery was low, although already at that time the Germans had plowing. The land was in the general use of tribal communities. "Their land is not divided and is not privately owned." “And none of them owns a land plot of exact size or with certain boundaries, but officials and elders annually allocate clans and groups of relatives living together where and how much they find, necessary, land, and a year later they force them to move to another place". (Caesar) The fallow system of agriculture is very clearly described here. The tribal community occupies a jointly known piece of land, plows it, harvests it, and then abandons it for a long time, transferring plowing annually to a new place. At the same time, the Germans also moved their huts to a new place.

From the words of Caesar it is quite clear that the cultivation of the land was carried out by the whole family together. Under such a system, everyone got the same share of the product. Caesar is trying to explain what causes such social orders, unusual for the Romans, and he puts his explanations into the mouths of the Germans themselves: “According to them, he does not allow them to be seduced by a settled way of life and exchange war for agricultural work; thanks to him no one seeks to expand his possessions, the more powerful do not drive out the weaker, and no one devotes too much care to building dwellings to protect from cold and heat; prevents the emergence of greed for money, because of which party strife and strife occur, and helps to maintain peace in the common people by feeling their property equality with the most powerful people. All this, of course, is the speculation of Caesar, understandable in his mouth as a reflection of the social struggle in Roman society.

Caesar has no indication of the existence of classes among the Germans. He does not mention the existence of slavery among them, although it can be assumed that they had a few slaves from among the prisoners of war. Caesar, however, mentions "leaders" and officials, he speaks of elders and "powerful people." But at the same time, he emphasizes that in terms of property there was no difference between ordinary Germans and "the most powerful people." Obviously, here he means tribal elders and elected military leaders of the tribe. War, military campaigns and raids play a prominent role in the life of the Germans portrayed by Caesar. Robbery raids and robbery were not considered shameful by the Germans. Caesar describes the set of detachments for such raids as follows: “... When one of the first persons in the tribe declares in the national assembly his intention to lead in a military enterprise and calls on those who want to follow him to express their readiness for this, then rise those who approve of both the undertaking and the leader, and, greeted by those assembled, promise him their help. Those who promised who did not follow are considered fugitives and traitors and subsequently lose all confidence.

The military squads created in this way were of a temporary nature and, apparently, disintegrated after the campaign.

In the absence of classes, there is also no organ of class coercion - the state. The Germans of the era of Caesar appear before us in the form of many fragmented tribes. In peacetime, they have no permanent authorities, except for tribal elders, whose main business was the court. The supreme power belonged to the people's assembly. For the duration of the war, a military leader was chosen who had the right to punish by death. Sometimes several tribes temporarily united under the rule of one leader for common military enterprises.

Tacitus draws a higher stage of social development. Agriculture among the Germans described by him already plays a more significant role than in the time of Caesar. The fallow system of agriculture with the transfer of arable land from one place to another still dominates, but cultivation has been carried out in one place for several years now, not for a year. Among the Germans of the era of Tacitus, a more stable settled way of life is observed. They build houses from logs plastered with clay. They have permanent villages. Each village was a clan settlement and represented a tribal community. Improved agricultural technology. The light plow was replaced by a heavy plow. But the Germans knew neither horticulture nor viticulture.

Tacitus notes that the Germans had no cities. Their handicraft has not yet separated from agriculture. However, they already knew how to make woolen and linen fabrics, pottery, they knew how to mine and process metals. They had blacksmiths who knew how to make household utensils and weapons; they knew the trade in salt and metals. An important subject of trade was amber mined on the shores of the Baltic Sea. It was in great demand in the empire. The border cities of the empire traded with the Germans. Roman coins were used in this trade. Tacitus says that the Germans preferred silver to gold, because "when trading in ordinary and cheap items, it is more convenient to have a supply of silver coins" .

With the development of agriculture, the Germans cease to cultivate the land by whole clans, in common.

Tacitus so enters the distribution of land among the Germans. The village inhabited by relatives occupied land for cultivation in a certain order, according to the number of workers. Then the land was divided among separate, apparently, the so-called "home communities" "by merit." After a few years, the land was abandoned, and the processing was transferred to another place. Tacitus emphasizes the extensive nature of agriculture - there is a lot of free land. This whole system was possible only thanks to the vastness of the fields not occupied by agriculture. Only the land allotted for cultivation passed into private use of individual families. Most of the land remained in the common use of the entire tribal community.

Temporarily occupied land was distributed among "large families", representing a transitional stage from a clan to a later family. Such large families (home communities) usually covered three generations and could include several dozen members.

It should be especially noted that the division was not made equally, but “on merit”. Not all families were considered equal. In the era described by Tacitus, the process of social differentiation of the “barbarian” society had already begun. From the environment of equal free relatives, the tribal nobility began to stand out. Some families began to take precedence. Differing from others and a large amount of land allotted to them and a large number of livestock. The "barbarians" have slaves. Tacitus dwells on the question of slavery and the position of slaves among the "barbarians". Prisoners of war were usually enslaved. Sometimes, however, members of the tribe also fell into slavery; it was most often those who lost their freedom in gambling (dice). But the "barbarians" did not keep such slaves and tried to sell them as soon as possible.

Tacitus notes that the "barbarians" used slaves differently from the Romans. Slaves were planted on the ground, each of them had his own household. Such a slave paid his master dues in bread, small livestock, and fabrics. The position of slaves among the Germans reminded Tacitus rather of the position of Roman columns than Roman slaves. The Germans treated slaves more gently than the Romans. "A slave is seldom beaten, bound in chains, and punished with forced labor." It is unlikely that the slaves were numerous. This was the initial stage of slavery, the so-called “patriarchal slavery. Between masters and slaves there was no such impassable line as the Romans. The children of slaves and masters grew up together, "in the same filth," says Tacitus. There was no very significant difference in property between the noble and the simple free, although the nobles had the best clothes and weapons. Among the Germans of the era of Tacitus, only the beginning of the process of social differentiation is observed. The basis of the social system is still made up of a mass of simple free people, who have equal property, equal rights and equal social status. There were still strong tribal ties that united the free. The population of the village belongs to the same clan, during the war relatives fight together. The nobility also grew out of a tribal organization. By its origin, this is a tribal nobility. But the separation of the nobility and the beginning of social differentiation, however weak it may be, is already introducing elements of decomposition into the tribal system.

The tribal aristocracy, which has concentrated in its hands more significant land holdings, a large number of livestock, using slave labor, is acquiring more and more power in the tribe. Tribal leaders surround themselves with military squads. These squads no longer have a temporary character, as they did 150 years ago, in the era of Caesar; combatants live at the court of the leader, receive from him maintenance, horses and weapons, are connected with him by a promise of loyalty. The leader shares with them booty, feeds them, undertakes military raids with them. Noble young men tried to get into the squad of the famous leaders.

The booty captured in the raids increased the wealth of the leaders, increased their social influence, and at the same time the difference between them and ordinary free people.

War and raids were the main occupation of military leaders and their squads. “... You can feed a large squad only by robbery and war,” says Tacitus. The emergence of the nobility and military squads, living only by war and robbery, increased the importance of military enterprises in the life of the "barbarians". “They consider it laziness and cowardice to acquire later what can be obtained with blood,” Tacitus says about the German combatants. With the beginning of the process of class differentiation, thus, the “belligerence” of the “barbarians” increased, a layer of people arose who devoted themselves entirely to war and robbery and lived on this, as well as on the exploitation of the labor of slaves, which were also acquired through war.

Next to the old tribal organization, growing out of it, a new, retinue, based on the connection between the leader and his military comrades, arises. This organization found its expression, first of all, in the military system of the “barbarians”: in battle, members of the clan fought together, while the squad followed their leader. The combatants were better armed, they apparently made up cavalry units, while ordinary soldiers fought on foot.

The Germans described by Tacitus still lived in the pre-state system. In peacetime, the function of the court and the resolution of disputes was performed by elected foremen, who created the court "by districts and towns", and the people also took part in the trials. As before, the supreme power of the tribe belonged to an assembly of all adult men who came to these meetings armed. These people's meetings resolved the most important issues facing the tribe - questions about war and peace, the conclusion of treaties; here they were tried for those crimes that the "barbarians" considered the most serious - for treason and cowardice. Traitors were hung on trees, cowards were drowned in swamps. Those assembled greeted with the sound of arms those proposals with which they agreed. Disagreement was expressed by discordant cries. But in the popular assemblies there was no longer the former equality. Usually only nobles made proposals; the mass of ordinary warriors expressed only agreement or disagreement. Along with the people's assembly, there was a council of the nobility, which prepared matters for the people's assembly. Less important of the matters concerning the whole tribe, the council decided itself, without referring to the popular assembly. So the nobility became increasingly important in the life of the "barbarian" tribes.

At the head of many "barbarian" tribes appear permanent princes, as the Slavs called them, kings, as the Germans called them, "reges" (kings), as Tacitus called them, and not just leaders elected for the duration of the war. The prince was chosen by the people's assembly (at the same time, as a sign of election, he was raised on a shield), but the choice was usually made from among noble families. A kind of "dynasties" are already being established - ruling families, from among which princes are selected. The power of the prince was very limited. He had to reckon with the people's assembly and even more with the advice of the nobility. The "barbarians" did not know any permanent taxes and taxes. It was customary to give gifts to the prince, but the prince had no right to demand these gifts. In addition, tribute was levied from the conquered tribes. But basically, the prince had to rely on his own funds, which he had as the largest owner of land, cattle and slaves in the tribe, as the leader of the strongest squad.

The burials of noble persons differ little from the burials of ordinary warriors. The difference between the leaders and their warriors is the swords found in their burial places, which are rarely found among ordinary warriors; the armament of the latter usually consisted of spears (frames). Such was the social system of the Germans described by Tacitus. It was still a pre-state system, but "it was the most developed management organization that could have developed at all under a tribal structure ...". “The military leader, the council, the popular assembly form the organs of military democracy developing out of the tribal system. Military because war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of people's life ... War, which was previously waged only to avenge attacks, or to expand the territory that has become insufficient, is now waged only for the sake of robbery, becomes constant industry." The most important internal changes in the social system are also connected with this: “the organs of the tribal system are gradually breaking away from their roots in the people ...”, they are gradually “turning from tools of the people's will into independent organs of domination and oppression directed against their own people”.

Military democracy was a stage of social development that immediately preceded the formation of the state. Tacitus shows that not all "barbarians" were at the same stage of development in his time. The structure of some tribes bore more primitive features, while others went further along the path of social development.

According to Caesar in the 1st century BC. the Germans stood at a lower stage of social development than, for example, the Gauls, who already had a division into classes and the emergence of a state and a pronounced social differentiation.

It follows that by the time of Tacitus, the Germans could belong to those “barbarians” whose system bore more primitive features, with which one can disagree, highlighting the facts indicating that in the era of Tacitus, the ancient Germanic society was experiencing the last stage of the tribal system and was characterized as a “military democracy".

In the subsequent period, important changes also took place in the social system of the "barbarian" tribes - the nobility gained more and more influence, the power of the princes was strengthened, and the elements of the state were strengthened. This is especially noticeable among those tribes that came into direct contact with the Roman Empire. Their nobility begins to turn into large landowners, like the Romans. But in general, the main features of the social system of the "barbarians" that Rome had to face were communal organization, freedom and equality for most of the members of the tribe.

The transition to plow farming radically changed the entire structure of social organization. Separate households of large and small families were united by a single economic order within the territory, which was subject to the general right to all land. Peasant estates-yards were located among the Germans at a distance from each other and formed a neighboring community with certain boundaries of developed and uncultivated land. This territorial community among the Germans was called the mark (the concept of "mark" had the meaning of any border). Initially, the ties of consanguinity connected many families, in the future they weaken and are inferior in importance to neighboring ones. As the primitive communal system disintegrated, a small independent peasant economy arose within the framework of this community. The increase in the population of Europe in the 3rd-4th centuries, the increase in its density, that is, the well-known overpopulation, became the impetus for mass migrations and the intensification of the military activity of the Germans against Rome.

Resettlements destroyed blood relations, strengthened the individual economy of a free community member, the neighboring community, and stimulated the emergence of private property. The bulk of the Germans were free community members, united like warriors in an army.

The army had the value of a public organization of full-fledged free people. The most important matters were decided in the national assembly: they elected king-leaders, approved the norms of customary law, received ambassadors, concluded treaties and alliances, declared war. The army was organized in hundreds, which were recruited from communities within the same territorial district. The kinship ties that were preserved in the communities, respectively, were important in the army. The ancient Germanic community was called genealogy, headlight, which indicates its origin from a group of close patriarchal families. As the hundreds-territorial division emerged and neighborly ties strengthened during the resettlement, the community became a brand.

Within the boundaries of the brand community, each farmstead had the right to use the forest, meadows, river lands, reservoirs, and country roads. These lands were in common ownership. It also extended to the arable land of individual families. The allotments that lay in the common fields were not alienated, they belonged to the members of the community on the basis of hereditary possession and were called allod. Allodial possessions could be fenced, but first they put up temporary fences so that after the harvest the whole field became a common pasture for cattle. Over time, the rights of private ownership to the allod expand, the fences are made permanent, and allotments were allowed to be inherited not only by sons, but also by daughters.

Communal lands remained in communal use for a long time, it was forbidden to make a dam on the river, to build a mill; if other members of the community objected, she was immediately demolished, as in the case if she caused harm to someone. The forests were used in common, but they put marks on the trees, they were valid only for a limited period (1 year, for example).

The concept of "foreign field", "foreign land" was not considered equivalent to the concept of unlimited property. Therefore, in the laws, the motive of the offense is recognized as unintentional burial in a foreign land, harvesting in a foreign field, plowing a foreign field; malicious acts are contrasted with accidental violations committed without malicious intent. The isolation of the estate and its individual possessions showed a fence, its destruction is one of the most common offenses punishable by customary law.

The growth of productive forces led to the accumulation of movable property, the emergence of inequality between community members. A characteristic evidence of the formation of private ownership of movable property is the custom of oral will (affatomia). Customary law protected private ownership of personal items from the effect of old norms, especially in the performance of religious rites. Under the threat of a fine, it was forbidden to throw someone else's property into the grave, to tear up graves for the purpose of robbery. Cattle were of particular value. This object of private property ensured the livelihoods of the peasant economy and the maintenance of military squads.

The development of private property is reflected in the isolation of property acquired in the service of a private person. This property was excluded from the family property, and the son disposed of it against the will of his father and mother. Property differentiation among the majority of free producers was manifested in the unequal number of livestock, in different sizes of houses, grain granaries, in the possibilities of using dependent people who paid the owner-master a share of the harvest.

Thanks to Roman influence, elements of social differentiation had a stronger effect in the Rhine-Weser region, in northeastern Gaul (from the middle of the 4th century) and in the middle Elbe, especially among the federates (the so-called barbarians who entered into an agreement with the Roman government on military service for remuneration ). The top of the federates (military leaders and commanders) are quickly romanized. The attack on Roman territory strengthened the influence of the military nobility, who assimilated the Roman order and the Roman way of life. This exacerbated the contrasts in the position of the free Germans.

The bulk of the free were full-fledged landowners-soldiers who made up the army - people's militias who participated in popular meetings.

Slavery existed, although it was not patriarchal. Slaves received livestock and plots of land, for which they had to contribute part of the harvest to the farmers. The children of slaves were brought up together with the children of the free, and therefore the difference between slaves not free was not as striking as in Rome. Although the tribal nobility and tribal leaders, who gathered around themselves devoted squads from among the militant youth, played a significant role, the supreme decision in important matters still belonged to the popular assembly.

3. Economic and cultural life

1 Household and life

Beginning of the 1st century AD The Germans are still at the "initial stage of development" as an organized society. According to Caesar and Tacitus, the Germans were not yet fully agricultural people. They received their main livelihood from cattle breeding. But some data show that in a large part of Germany and on the Jutland Peninsula, the agricultural culture was already sufficiently developed in the last centuries BC. Plowing of the land was carried out in most cases with a light plow or plow twice before sowing. Contrary to Caesar's reports that the Suebi changed the cultivated fields every year, the Germans for a long time used the plots, which they surrounded with a rampart of earth and stone. Household plots were in constant use of individual households. The Germans sowed rye, wheat, barley, oats, millet, beans, and flax. Compared with Roman agriculture, German agriculture was, of course, primitive. Often used slash and shifting system of agriculture. The Germans did not yet have horticulture and grassland. The more backward tribes, who lived in wooded and swampy areas, retained a primitive way of life with a predominance of cattle breeding and hunting for wild animals.

And, as Caesar noted, they did little agriculture; their food consisted mainly of milk, cheese and meat. None of them had definite plots of land or landed property in general; but the authorities and princes every year endowed land, as far as and where they found it necessary, to clans and united unions of relatives, and a year later forced them to move to another place. They explained this order by various considerations; namely, so that in their enthusiasm for a settled life people do not exchange their interest in war for occupations in agriculture, so that they do not strive to acquire vast estates and strong people do not drive the weak out of their possessions; so that people are not built too thoroughly out of fear of cold and heat; lest greed for money be born in them, thanks to which parties and strife arise; finally, this is the best means of governing the people by strengthening contentment in them, since everyone sees that in property terms he is not inferior to the strongest people.

At the same time, according to Tacitus, the Germans did not shy away from festivities and gratuitous profits: “When they do not wage wars, they hunt a lot, and spend even more time in sheer idleness, indulging in sleep and gluttony, and the most brave and warlike of them, without incurring any duties, they entrust the care of housing, household and arable land to women, the elderly and the weakest of the household, while they themselves wallow in inactivity, by their own example showing the amazing contradictory nature, for the same people love idleness so much and hate peace so much. It is a custom among their communities that each voluntarily give to the chiefs something of his livestock and the fruits of the earth, and this, taken by them as a tribute, also serves to meet their needs. They are especially pleased with gifts from neighboring tribes, sent not only by individuals, but also on behalf of the entire tribe, such as selected horses, superbly finished weapons, falers and honorary necklaces; and now we have taught them to accept money.”

In the economic life of the Germans, a significant place was occupied by fishing and gathering, and among the tribes living along the sea coast, sea fishing and the collection of amber. In general, the economy of the ancient Germans was natural in nature. Each tribal community and large family produced almost everything necessary for their life - tools, clothes, utensils, weapons. The craft has not yet become a separate branch of the economy. Tacitus notes that the Germans had long since learned to extract iron and make tools and weapons from it, but they had little iron, and it was valued very dearly. According to archaeological finds, the Germans also mined silver, tin and copper. Significant progress was made in pottery and weaving. Fabrics were colored with vegetable substances. The coastal tribes, familiar with navigation, developed shipbuilding, as evidenced by the images of sea vessels in rock art dating back to the end of the Bronze Age.

“During the war, those who stay at home feed both themselves and those who went to fight; these, in turn, become under arms a year later, and those remain at home. Thus, they have no break either in the cultivation of the fields, or in the acquisition of military knowledge and experience. They have no land property, and no one is allowed to stay in one place for more than a year to cultivate the land” “..they spend a lot of time hunting. It develops their physical strength and gives them great growth, through special food, daily exercise and complete freedom; since they are not taught obedience and discipline from childhood, and they do only what they like ”(Caesar). The Germans were so hardened that even in the coldest areas they put on only short skins, leaving a significant part of the body exposed.

Rome's trade with the Germans was already active in the middle of the 1st century BC. BC. Its centers were Roman settlements along the Rhine and Danube - Cologne, Trier, Augsburg, Regensburg, Vienna. The Romans built a network of roads along their borders with the Germans. The Romans had the busiest trade relations with neighboring tribes, but, as the hoards of Roman coins testify, Roman merchants also visited remote areas along the Danube and its tributaries, as well as along the Elbe and Oder. The Germans bought bronze, glass, weapons and some tools from the Romans. Horses and pottery were imported from Roman Gaul. In turn, the Romans exported slaves, cattle, amber, leather, furs, vegetable dyes from Germany. But, according to Caesar, the Germans allowed merchants more to sell war booty than from a desire to receive any imported goods. Imported horses, which were valued by other peoples, the Germans did not buy; they, in their home-grown, small and ugly horses, developed extraordinary endurance by daily exercise. (In equestrian battles, they often jumped off their horses and fought like that, and the horses were accustomed to remain in place, and if necessary, they quickly retreated to them.) The Germans generally did not allow wine to be imported to them, since, in their opinion, it pampers a person and makes him incapable of enduring deprivation.

The diverse peoples of Germanic, Slavic and Celtic roots have long been in close ethno-cultural contacts between themselves and the Romanesque population of the Roman Empire. This contributed to the mastery of a more perfect agriculture, the development of handicraft activities, the breeding of new, improved breeds of livestock.

At the end of the 1st century AD Great changes took place in the economy and social structure of the Germans. Now these were far from the tribes that inhabited the local lands in the time of Caesar. Now the Germans have finally switched over to settled agriculture, although cattle breeding continued to play a major role. The former temporary huts were replaced by stone-built and tiled houses. The importance of hunting in the economy has decreased. The tribal community, which cultivated the land together in the time of Caesar, was replaced by large family communities that lived in separate settlements. Such a community plowed a new plot of land every year, leaving the old fallow. Pastures, pastures and other lands were common property that belonged to several settlements at once. Nevertheless, the way of life of the Germans remained primitive. Roman money was distributed only in the regions bordering the Roman Empire, and the most remote tribes did not even know them. Natural exchange prevailed there. Crafts, including metallurgy, were poorly developed. The armament of the Germans remained imperfect.

According to Tacitus, the Germans settled in scattered villages. Dwellings were built of wood, coated with clay. These were oblong structures, several tens of meters in length. Part of the premises was reserved for livestock. Dungeons and cellars were arranged for food storage. The Germans did not have urban-type settlements, but to protect themselves from attack, they erected earthen and wooden fortifications. “... The peoples of Germany do not live in cities and do not even tolerate their dwellings adjoining close to each other. The Germans settle, each separately and on their own, where someone likes a spring, a clearing or an oak forest. They do not arrange their villages in the same way as we do, and do not get crowded with buildings crowded and clinging to one another, but each leaves a vast area around his house, either to protect himself from fire if a neighbor catches fire, or because of the inability to build . They build without using either stone or tiles; everything they need, they build from wood, with almost no finishing it and not caring about the appearance of the structure and that it was pleasant to look at. However, they cover some places on it with great care with earth, so clean and shiny40<#"justify">“... The tribes inhabiting Germany, who have never been mixed through marriages with any foreigners, from time immemorial constitute a special people that have retained their original purity and only look like themselves. Hence, despite such a number of people, they all have the same appearance: hard blue eyes, blond hair, tall bodies capable of only short-term effort; at the same time, they lack the patience to work hard and hard, and they cannot endure thirst and heat at all, while bad weather and soil have taught them to easily endure cold and hunger ”(Tacitus).

The image of Hercules - armed with a club and a bow of a mighty warrior in a lion's skin - quite accurately corresponds to the usual ideas about barbarians. The skin thrown over the shoulders and the animal skull worn over the head were indeed the usual armor of a half-savage warrior. In the stories of Tacitus, the Germans are presented as “... completely naked or covered only with a light cloak. They do not have the slightest desire to flaunt their decoration, and only they paint their shields with bright colors. Only a few have shells, only one or two have a metal or leather helmet. Their horses are not distinguished by either beauty or agility.

It is noteworthy that impenetrable armor covers the back, and not the chest of a warrior. The Germans considered it more important to cover their backs. The reason why they preferred to do without protective equipment, but also without clothes, was to successfully dodge the enemy - maximum mobility was required. As for the skin on the shoulders, shells thrown at the chest can still be repelled, and arrows at the back are more difficult to avoid.

According to Tacitus - everyone's outerwear is a short cloak fastened with a buckle, and if it is not there, then with a spike. Caesar also mentions only short skins, leaving a significant part of the body exposed. Uncovered by anything else, they spent whole days at the fire kindled in the hearth. The richest were distinguished by the fact that, in addition to the cloak, they also had other clothes on, but not fluttering, like the Sarmatians or Parthians, but narrow and tightly fitting the body. They also wore the skins of wild animals, those that lived along the banks of the river. Rites associated with coming of age or adoption consisted of symbolic actions with hair (the father, as a sign of full rights, cut his son's hair or cut off a lock of hair). The Frisians and Bavarians took an oath with their hair. Among the Lombards, daughters in their father's house wore loose hair, in the husband's house they tied them in braids. Adult men (Langobards) styled long hair around the face (to the line of the mouth), dividing it with a parting in the middle.

In the social organization of the Germans, the traditions of the tribal system, the strength of blood and family ties and the remnants of matriarchy were preserved for a long time. In different regions, they manifested themselves to different degrees, which depended on the pace of social development.

Traces of maternal right, high social position of a woman reflect pagan cults, folk traditions, legends. Among the Alemanni, Bavarians, Lombards, the personality of a woman was protected by an increased wergeld and fines. The motive for establishing such an order by the Bavarians is interesting: a woman cannot fight and defend herself with weapons, but if she is able to do this, then the composition was lowered to the usual one. The cults of Frikka, Odin's wife Freya, their daughter, are central to the religion of all tribes; the names of women, progenitors and soothsayers Aurinia, Veleda, Gambara were known to medieval writers even before the 9th century.

Respect for relatives by mother was a mandatory norm of morality. When marrying, a woman did not break ties with her family: for example, among the Anglo-Saxons, a woman was punished for crimes not by her husband, but by her family (the husband punished only for treason and an attempt on his life). A woman could inherit movable property, appear in court, testify, and take an oath. After marriage, part of the property, including the marriage gift of the groom, was considered the property of the wife.

As part of a large patriarchal family, paternal relatives within several generations (more often three: father - sons - grandchildren) ran the household together. Among the Germans (as well as among the Celts and Slavs), a man, in addition to his legal wife, could keep a concubine in the house, whose children had their share in the inheritance, although less compared to the legal ones. The Lombards called such illegitimate "bastards".

Paternal power over children was manifested in the right to marry and give children in marriage, to punish and distribute the inheritance.

Community members-relatives and neighbors were bound by customs of mutual assistance and common responsibility for crimes. They were obliged to pursue and punish offenders operating on the territory of the community. Relatives took part in marriages, acted as guardians of the woman's honor, and took care of minors. Community to the 5th century. was agricultural, based on ties of consanguinity and territorial neighborly ties. It consisted of large patriarchal families (consanguineous unions) and separate individual households of small families, separated with the division of property between adult sons. The ties of consanguinity were not only recognized, but honored.

In the time of Caesar, the Germans did not have druids to supervise worship, and they attached little importance to sacrifices. They believed only in such gods, whom they saw and who obviously helped them, namely: in the sun, the volcano and the moon. Their whole life was spent in hunting and in military occupations: from childhood they were accustomed to work and to a harsh life. The longer young people remained chaste, the more glory they had with their own: in their opinion, this increased growth and strengthened muscular strength; to know before the age of twenty what a woman is, they considered it the greatest shame. However, this was not hidden, since both sexes bathed together in the rivers and dressed in skins or small furs, which left a significant part of the body naked.

In the works of Tacitus, there is an evolution in the customs and beliefs of the Germans, and as he reports: “Of the gods, they honor Mercury most of all and consider it necessary to sacrifice people to him on certain days. They propitiate Hercules and Mars by slaughtering the animals doomed to him as a sacrifice There were no real temples, they prayed in the open air. The presence of the gods was seen in all natural phenomena. To appease the spirits, huge altars were laid down and blood sacrifices were made. The forms of stone monuments, known as Celtic or Druidic, are very diverse: from a vertically placed stone block to entire structures consisting of many such blocks arranged in rows according to a certain plan.

At the end of the 5th century, many Germanic tribes converted to Christianity, and Arianism spread.

Germanic tribes in the III-V centuries. Roman written sources contain little information about the life of the Germanic tribes in these centuries, but archaeological evidence indicates a significant development of material culture and art.

The Germans developed runic writing. Inscriptions on wood, metal products and tombstones have been preserved. Runic writing was most widespread among the Scandinavians. She was associated with magic and witchcraft. Only priests and a few people who kept cherished secrets knew her (the rune means “secret”). Writing among the Germans in the 5th century was only in its infancy and was used only by priests for magical rites and divination.

The maternal right was replaced by the paternal one, although the remnants of the former were still preserved. They were reflected in the fact that women occupied a special place of honor in the family and in the cult.

If in the first centuries of our era the Germans were at a lower stage of cultural development than the Celts and Gauls, then by the 5th century, due to constant “communication” with more developed civilizations, the Germans had fully reached the level of development at which the rest of the “barbarian” tribes were .

Conclusion

In the course of writing the term paper, the issue of the socio-political, economic and cultural life of the ancient Germans (I-V centuries) was considered in detail. A number of sources were studied and analyzed: Gaius Julius Caesar "Gallic War"; Publius Cornelius Tacitus "Small Works", "Annals". Despite the fact that these are one-sided sources (of Roman origin), they are very valuable, since these written sources are one of the few that have survived to our time.

In the course work, attention was paid to the main points of the socio-political, socio-economic, religious and cultural life of the ancient Germans, the connection, relationship and influence of these areas among themselves, the consequences and results.

As for the socio-political life, it is quite obvious that during the period of the I-V centuries. the ancient Germans went through several stages of development: I-II - the stage of decomposition of the tribal system, II-III - the transitional period, characterized by the formation of relatively stable tribal unions, IV-V - the period of military democracy. The result of the evolution of social and political life for the I-V centuries. - the formation of the first kingdoms. The tribal nobility played a decisive role in the formation of these kingdoms.

The economic sphere of life among the ancient Germans for the period I-V centuries. has also undergone a number of significant changes. If at the time of Caesar they were semi-wild tribes - “barbarians” who were not engaged in economic life and productive labor, cruel and warlike, then Tacitus considers the Germans as a more developed society, without making constant parallels in development with the Romans. Although Tacitus also points to the warlike mood of the Germanic tribes, which is quite characteristic of the emerging ethnic group. Here it is possible to emphasize the interconnection of various spheres of social life and single out one of the chains of development. Warlike and cruel "barbarians" wage continuous wars with a more developed society (i.e. the Romans), periodically falling under the influence of each other. In the process of such “communication”, the ancient Germans acquire skills and abilities in tillage, trade, crafts, a different attitude towards money and luxury appears, and, accordingly, the cultural level and the level of worldview change.

Obviously, in comparison with the Roman civilization, the ancient Germans looked like “subhumans” with economic skills lagging behind the Romans for several centuries, a primitive way of life and a far from perfect management organization. But, if we compare the level of development of the ancient Germans with parallel developing societies, for example, the Slavs or the Celts, then there is no significant difference in the stages of evolution of the political system, socio-economic, in the development of everyday life and economic life.

Thus, one cannot speak of the ancient Germans of the 1st-5th centuries. as a backward "barbaric" world. Simply due to some climatic and natural conditions, the development of this society began much later than that of the same Romans, but by the 5th-7th centuries. the Germans reached a relatively high level of development, which civilized peoples achieved for more than one millennium.

Sources

1. Guy Julius Caesar. Gallic war. // Notes. M.: Publishing house "OLMA-press Invest", 2004. - 477 p.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus. Small works: On the origin of the Germans and the location of Germany. // http: yandex.ru/ www.arcietrome.ru/Osouree/1inos/tacit.php

Publius Cornelius Tacitus. Annals. // http: yandex.ru/books.swarog.ru/antlitr/tacit/index.htm

Literature

4. Weiss G. History of civilization. Classical antiquity up to the 4th century. T. 1. M .: Eksmo-press, 1999. - 751 p.

5. Weiss G. History of civilization. "Dark Ages" in the Middle Ages, IV-XIV centuries. T. 2. M .: Publishing house "Eksmo-press", 1999. - 599 p.

6.World history (Roman period). T. 6. - Mn .: Publishing house "Eksmo-press", 1998. - 511 p.

Davis N. History of Europe. M.: Iz-vo "Transitbook", 2004. - 943 p.

Neusykhin A.I. The social structure of the ancient Germans. M .: From-vo "Ronion", 1929. - 223 p.

Udaltsov A.D., Skazkin S.D. History of the Middle Ages. M .: Printing house of the Higher Party School of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1952. - 214 p.

Ancient Celts and Germans // Reader on the history of the Middle Ages, ed. Gratsiansky N.P. and Skazkina S.D. T. 1. M .: From the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1949. - p. 49-72.

Osokin N.A. History of the Middle Ages. M.: Iz-vo "AST", Minsk: Iz-vo "Harvest", 2005. - 668 p.

Engels F. On the history of the ancient Germans. // Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 19. M .: State publishing house of political literature, 1961. - p. 442-494.

BBK 74.266.3ya73 Printed by decision of the UMS VSPU

And 90 from 19.06.2013

Compilers - M.V. Vasiliev, Associate Professor of the Department of World History and Historical Disciplines; Yu.S. Egorova, Assistant of the Department of General History and Historical Disciplines

Reviewer - M.A. Tumanov, PhD in History, Associate Professor of the Department of General History and Historical Disciplines

Responsible for release V.A. Sablin, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head. Department of General History and Historical Disciplines

I 90 History of the Middle Ages (Module 1. Early Western European

Peyskoe Middle Ages): workshop / M.V. Vasilyeva,
Yu.S. Egorova. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation; Vologda. state Pedagogical University. - Vologda: VSPU, 2013. - 84 p.

The workshop includes educational and methodological materials designed to help students prepare for practical exercises in the course "History of the Middle Ages", module 1 "Early Western European Middle Ages". The workshop is intended for full-time and part-time students of the Faculty of History (training area - 050100 Pedagogical Education; training profiles: historical education, historical and legal education; qualification (degree) of a graduate - bachelor).

BBC 74.266.3ya73

© VSPU, 2013

Introduction ................................................ ........................................ 4

Theme I. Ancient Germans .............................................. ................... 7

Theme II. Frankish society according to the "Salic law" .... 31

Topic III. Genesis of feudal relations (on the example of Frankish society) 52

Textbooks, educational and teaching aids. Electronic resources 83

INTRODUCTION

The workshop is designed to conduct practical classes in the first part of the discipline "History of the Middle Ages", studied in the second year of the Faculty of History. The plans of practical classes for the first module "Early Western European Middle Ages" are aimed at students of the full-time and part-time departments of the Faculty of History (training area - 050100 Pedagogical Education; training profiles: historical education, historical and legal education; qualification (degree) of the graduate - bachelor). For both of these profiles of training in the full-time department, 18 hours (9 lessons) are allotted for practical classes in this module, and 4 hours (2 lessons) in the distance learning department.

The workshop is designed to help students study a number of complex debatable problems of the course related to the formation of feudal relations in Western Europe. In the first half of the academic year (third semester), the following topics are presented for practical classes: "Ancient Germans", "Frankish society according to the Salic law", "Genesis of feudal relations (on the example of Frankish society)". They are inextricably linked with each other, and studying them in the proposed sequence allows us to get a holistic view of what the pre-feudal society of Western Europe was like (using the example of the Germans, studied on the eve of their resettlement to the territory of the Western Roman Empire, and the Franks, shortly after their resettlement) how the process of formation of a feudally dependent population and large land ownership took place (on the example of the Frankish state of the 7th–9th centuries) and how the completion of the formation of feudal relations was expressed (on the example of the West Frankish state of the 10th–11th centuries). The study of the problems of the genesis of feudalism is based on sources related to the history of Frankish society, where, as is commonly believed, the process of feudal synthesis of the "barbarian" and Roman ways was the most balanced, "balanced" and the genesis of feudal relations took place in the variant, which, according to the established tradition, agreed to consider "classic". When preparing for a practical lesson, the student must clearly understand the place of the topic being studied in the history of the Western European Middle Ages.

For each topic, the manual contains lesson plans, information about available publications in Russian of texts of sources or excerpts from them, a list of required and additional literature, methodological recommendations for preparing for classes. In preparation for the seminar, the student should carefully read the issues and methodological recommendations outlined for discussion, work out the recommended sources and literature. The methods of teaching on the topics presented may be different. During the classes, reports and reports of students on certain issues of the topic can be heard. At the same time, those students who do not make a report or report should be prepared and take an active part in the discussion of the issues under consideration.

In practical classes, the main attention should be paid to working with historical sources, so all students in the course of preparation should familiarize themselves with the content of the main sources on the topic of the lesson, be prepared to analyze and comment on their texts. It is necessary to start working with each new source with its general characteristics: determining the type and type of source, finding out the time and place of its occurrence, authorship, original language, history of its research and publications, text structure, etc. All this later, when analyzing the content of the source, will help determine the degree of reliability of the information contained in it.

Getting acquainted with the recommended scientific literature, the student must compare the points of view of various researchers and, giving preference to one or another concept, or offering their own vision of the problem, justify their position based on historical sources considered in practical classes.

The study of the topics "Ancient Germans", "Frankish society according to the "Salic law"" ends with the preparation of an independent work by students "General characteristics of pre-feudal societies (on the example of the ancient Germans and Franks
6th century). Having studied the topic "Genesis of feudal relations (on the example of Frankish society)", students should prepare an independent work on the topic "The main content of the process of the genesis of feudal relations and its characteristic features of feudalism."

The purpose of the practical classes is to deepen the knowledge of students in the discipline "History of the Middle Ages" in the course of working with historical sources and scientific literature, mastering the practical skills of researching a historical source and scientific presentation of its results. Practical classes are aimed at developing a number of competencies in the student, including:

general cultural:

- possession of a culture of thinking, the ability to generalize, analyze, perceive information, set a goal and choose ways to achieve it;

- the ability to logically correctly build oral and written speech;

- readiness for a tolerant perception of social and cultural differences, respectful and careful attitude to the historical heritage and cultural traditions;

- the ability to understand the driving forces and patterns of the historical process, the place of man in the historical process, the political organization of society;

- the ability to use the skills of public speech, discussion and polemics;

professional:

– the ability to use systematized theoretical and practical knowledge of the humanities, social and economic sciences in solving social and professional problems;

- possession of the basics of speech professional culture;

special:

– the ability to determine the spatial framework of historical processes and phenomena at the local, national and global levels;

- the ability to analyze historical events, phenomena and processes in their spatio-temporal characteristics;

- the ability to characterize models of socio-historical development;

- the ability to navigate in scientific concepts that explain the unity and diversity of the historical process, the specifics of the interpretation of the past by various schools and trends in historical science;

- willingness to apply methods of complex analysis of historical sources to explain historical facts;

- the ability to use general scientific principles and methods of cognition in the analysis of specific historical problems, in predicting the consequences of social processes;

- willingness to correlate their own value-orientation-
rational installations with historically established worldview systems, religious and scientific pictures of the world.

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the direction of training "implementation of a competency-based approach in order to form and develop the professional skills of students", the use of active and interactive forms of conducting practical classes is envisaged. It is planned to conduct colloquia, perform written independent tasks, interviews on scientific research read by students, regulated educational discussion, preparation of presentations for classes and their defense, preparation of messages.

THEME I

ANCIENT GERMANS

(4 hours)

Lesson 1 (2 hours)

Lesson plan

1. Characteristics of sources.

2. The economy of the ancient Germans and its branches.

Lesson 2 (2 hours)

Land ownership, community and organization of power
among the ancient Germans

Lesson plan

1. The problem of land use and land ownership among the ancient Germans.

2. Communal and tribal organization of the ancient Germans.

3. Social organization of ancient German society.

4. The control system of the ancient Germans.

5. Formation of the German chiefdoms.

Sources

1. Ancient Germans: collection of documents / comp. B.N. Grakov, S.P. Moravsky, A.I. Neusykhin. - M.: State publishing house of socio-economic literature, 1937. - 228 p.

2. Educational and methodological complex on the history of the Middle Ages: textbook. allowance for ist. fak. high fur boots in the specialty "History" - 032600: in 5 books. Book. 1: The author's program of the course. Workshop / ed. S.A. Vasyutin. - M .: Book House University, 2008. - 407 p.

3. Educational and methodological complex on the history of the Middle Ages: textbook. allowance for ist. fak. high fur boots in the specialty "History" - 032600: in 5 books. Book. 2: Lectures on the early Middle Ages / ed. S.A. Vasyutin. - M .: Book House University, 2008. - 408 p.

4. Educational and methodological complex on the history of the Middle Ages: textbook. allowance for ist. fak. high fur boots in the specialty "History" - 032600: in 5 books. Book. 3: Lectures on the classical and late Middle Ages / ed. S.A. Vasyutin. - M .: Book House University, 2008. - 352 p.

5. Educational and methodological complex on the history of the Middle Ages: textbook. allowance for ist. fak. high fur boots in the specialty "History" - 032600: in 5 books. Book. 4: The author's program of the course. Seminar plans. Reader / ed. S.A. Vasyutin. - M .: Book House University, 2008. - 304 p.

6. Reader on the history of the Middle Ages / ed. S.D. Skazkin. - M.: Higher school, 1961. - T. 1. - 471 p.

1. Alekseev V.P. History of primitive society / V.P. Alekseev, A.I. Peppers. - M.: Higher school, 1990. - 298 p.

2. Bimakhimov K.S. "Modern school" of bourgeois medieval studies of Germany about the ancient German royal power / K.S. Bimakhimov // Problems of General History. – M.: Nauka, 1976. – S. 261–289.

3. Budanova V.P. The barbarian world of the era of the Great Migration of Peoples / V.P. Budanov. – M.: Nauka, 2000. – 544 p.

4. Gorsky A.A. Socio-economic conditions in the era of class formation and the concept of "military democracy" / A.A. Gorsky // Middle Ages. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - Issue. 49. - S. 213-220.

5. Gratsiansky N.P. . To the question of agrarian relations among the ancient Germans of the time of Caesar / N.P. Gratsiansky // From the socio-economic history of the Western European Middle Ages: a collection of articles. – M.: AN SSSR, 1960. – S. 51–71.

6. Gurevich A.Ya. Agrarian system of the barbarians / A.Ya. Gurevich // History of the Peasantry in Europe: The Epoch of Feudalism. T. 1: Formation of the feudal dependent peasantry. – M.: Nauka, 1985. – S. 90–126.

7. Gurevich A.Ya Selected works. T. 1: Ancient Germans. Vikings / A.Ya. Gurevich - M.; St. Petersburg: TsGNII INION RAN: Universitetskaya kniga, 1999. – 360 p.

8. Dryakhlov V.N. The wars of the Germanic tribes with Rome in the III century. and their influence on the development of ancient Germanic society on the Rhine /
V.N. Dryakhlov // Bulletin of ancient history. - 1987. - No. 2. - S. 151-168.

9. Durov V.S. Julius Caesar - man and writer / V.S. Durov. – L.: LGU. - 1991. - 206 p.

10. Zhumagulov K.T. Agrarian system of the ancient Germans in the interpretation of archaeologists of Germany / K.T. Zhumagulov // Middle Ages. - M.: Nauka, 1987. - Issue. 50. - S. 282-289.

11. History of primitive society: the era of class formation / under. ed. Yu.V. Bromley. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – 568 p.

12. Cardini F. The origins of medieval chivalry / F. Cardini. – M.: Progress, 1987. – 360 p.

13. Knabe G.S. Cornelius Tacitus. Time. A life. Books / G.S. Knabe. – M.: Nauka, 1981. – 210 p.

14. Kolesnitsky N.F. Ethnic communities and political formations among the Germans of the 1st–5th centuries. / N.F. Kolesnitsky // Middle Ages. - M.: Nauka, 1985. - Issue. 48. – P. 5–26.

15. Kosven M.O. Family community and patronymic / M.O. Indirect. – M.: AN SSSR, 1963. – 220 p.

16. Kradin N.N. . Political anthropology: textbook / N.N. Kradin. – M.: Ladomir, 2001. – 213 p.

17. Kovalevsky S.D. To the question of the concept of "military democracy" / S.D. Kovalevsky // Middle Ages. - M.: Nauka, 1983. -
Issue. 46. ​​- S. 188-213.

18. Kolesnitsky N.F. Feudal state (VI-XV centuries) / N.F. Kolesnitsky. - M.: Enlightenment, 1967. - 272 p.

19. Le Goff J. Civilization of the medieval West: trans.
from fr. / J. Le Goff; total ed. Yu.L. Immortal; post-last
AND I. Gurevich. - M.: Progress, Progress-Academy, 1992. - 376 p.

20. Millennium experience. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance: life, customs, ideals / M. Timofeev [and others]. - M.: Jurist, 1996. - 576 p.

21. Mezhuga V.I. Royal authority and the church in the Frankish state / V.I. Mezhuga // Political structures of the era of feudalism in Western Europe (VI-XVII centuries). - L .: Nauka, 1990. -
pp. 46–70.

22. Meletinsky E.M. Germano-Scandinavian mythology /
EAT. Meletinsky, A.Ya. Gurevich // Myths of the peoples of the world: encyclopedia. T. 1. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1991. - S. 284–292.

23. Melnikova E.A. From tribe to early state. Iron Age / E.A. Melnikova // History of Denmark from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. – M.: Nauka, 1996. – S. 26–29.

24. Milskaya L.T. Alexander Iosifovich Neusykhin: the thorny path of a scientist / L.T. Milskaya // Modern and recent history. - 1992. - No. 3. - S. 147-173.

25. Neusykhin A.N. Military alliances of the Germanic tribes of the beginning of our era / A.I. Neusykhin // Problems of European feudalism: selected works. - M.: Nauka, 1974. - S. 390-412.

26. Neusykhin A.I. On the issue of the study of the social system of the ancient Germans / A.I. Neusykhin // Problems of European feudalism: Selected works. – M.: Nauka, 1974. – S. 377–389.

27. Neusykhin A.I. Essays on the history of Germany in the Middle Ages (up to the 15th century) / A.I. Neusykhin // Problems of European feudalism: selected works. – M.: Nauka, 1974. – S. 218–225.

28. Neusykhin A.I. The evolution of the social system of the barbarians from the early forms of the community to the emergence of an individual economy / A.I. Neusykhin // History of the peasantry in Europe. The era of feudalism. T. 1: Formation of the feudal peasantry. - M.: Nauka, 1985. - S. 137-139.

29. Ideas about death and localization of the other world among the ancient Celts and Germans / under. ed. T.A. Mikhailova. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures, 2002. - 464 p.

30. Repina L.P. Barbarian world / L.P. Repin // Medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries and historians. Part I: The Birth and Formation of Medieval Europe, V-XI centuries. – M.: Interpraks, 1995. – S. 44–48.

31. Skazkin S.D. Essays from the history of the Western European peasantry in the Middle Ages / S.D. Skazkin. – M.: Media, 1968. – 381 p.

32. Code of ethnographic concepts and terms. Socio-economic relations and socio-normative culture / ed. Yu.V. Bromley. – M.: Nauka, 1986. – 240 p.

33. Todd M. Barbarians. Ancient Germans. Life, religion, culture / M. Todd. - M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005. - 223 p.

34. Utchenko S.L. . Julius Caesar / S.L. Utchenko. - M.: Thought, 1976. - 365 p.

35. Khlevov A.A. Viking forerunners. Northern Europe in the I–VIII centuries / A.A. Khlevov. - St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 2002. - 336 p.

36. Shkunaev S.V. The tribal world of Europe before the era of the late empire. Germanic tribes and unions of tribes / S.V. Shkunaev // History of Europe from ancient times to the present day. T. 1: Ancient Europe. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – S. 594–605.

Documentation

NOTES ON THE GALLIC WAR

Book 1. ch. 31... Arverns and Sequans invited the Germans [to help] for a fee. First, the Germans crossed to them across the Rhine 15 thousand people. But after these Wild barbarians liked both the lifestyle of the lands and the wealth of the Gauls, a lot of them crossed: at present there are up to 120 thousand of them in Gaul ...

Ch. 33... Caesar saw that if the Germans gradually get used to crossing the Rhine and there are many of them in Gaul, then this will be a great danger to the Roman people themselves; he understood that, having mastered all of Gaul, the Germans - these wild barbarians - would not be able to resist the invasion of the Roman province, and from there to Italy ...

Ch. 48... Ariovistus kept his infantry in the camp all these days, but competed daily in cavalry combat. This was the kind of battle in which the Germans perfected themselves. They had b thousand horsemen and as many foot soldiers, the bravest and most agile, whom each horseman chose for himself one by one from the whole army for his protection. They accompanied horsemen during battles; under their cover, the riders retreated; they ran [to defend] when the riders had a hard time; if someone fell from a horse, having received a serious wound, they surrounded him.
In cases of advancing to an unusually long distance or a particularly rapid retreat, their speed, thanks to the exercise, turned out to be so great that, holding on to the mane of the horses, they did not lag behind the riders.

Ch. fifty... When Caesar began to question the prisoners why Ariovistus did not enter the battle, he learned that the reason for this was the custom existing among the Germans [namely]: the mothers of families, on the basis of divination by lot sticks and divination, proclaim whether it is advisable to enter the battle or no, and they said this: It is not permitted for the Germans to win if they fight before the new moon.

Ch. 51... [Then the Germans] brought their army out of the camp and built it according to the tribes so that all the tribes are garudas, marcomanni, tribocks, vangions, nemets, sedusii, suevi - were at an equal distance from each other. They surrounded their entire battle line with road wagons and carts so that there was no hope of escape. On them they put women who, stretching out their hands to them, with tears begged the soldiers going into battle not to give them into slavery to the Romans.

Book IV. ch. one. The following winter, in the year of the consulate of Gnaeus Pompey and Marcus Crassus, the Germanic tribes of the Usipetes and Tencters crossed the Rhine in large numbers not far from its confluence with the sea. The reason for the transition was the fact that for many years they were disturbed by the Suebi, who pressed them with war and prevented them from cultivating the fields.

The Suebi tribe is the largest and most warlike of all the Germanic tribes. They say that they have a hundred districts, and each [district] annually sends a thousand armed soldiers from its borders to the war. The rest, staying at home, feed themselves and them; a year later, these [the latter] in turn go to war, and they remain at home. Thanks to this, neither agricultural work nor military affairs are interrupted. But their land is not divided and is not privately owned, and they are not allowed to remain in the same place for more than a year to cultivate the land.

They live not so much on bread as - and mainly - on milk and at the expense of cattle: they hunt a lot: All this taken together, as well as the properties of food, daily military exercises, a free lifestyle, by virtue of which they , not accustomed from childhood to either obedience or order, they do nothing against their will - all this strengthens their strength and gives birth to people of such enormous growth. In addition, they have accustomed themselves, [living] in countries with a very cold [climate], not to wear any other clothes than animal skins, which, due to their small size, leave a significant part of the body exposed, and also used to bathe in rivers.

Chapter 2 They open access to merchants more in order to have someone to sell what they captured in the war, than because they themselves need any kind of import. The Germans do not even use imported horses , which the Gauls hold so dear, some they acquire at a high price, and use their native horses, short and plain, and bring them by daily exercise to the greatest endurance. During equestrian battles, they often jump off their horses - they fight on foot; they taught the horses to remain in the same place, and if necessary, quickly sit on them again; according to their concepts, there is nothing more shameful and cowardly than using saddles. Therefore, they dare - even when in small numbers - to attack any number of riders who use saddles. They do not allow themselves to import wine at all, because they believe that it pampers people and makes them incapable of work.

Ch. 3. They see the greatest glory for the people in that as much land as possible around its borders should remain uninhabited and uncultivated; this means, in their opinion, that many tribes could not withstand the strength of this people. Thus, in one direction from the borders of the Suebi region, there is, as they say, a territory about 600 thousand paces wide. On the other side they are joined by the murders; their country was, according to the Germans, vast and flourishing, and the people somewhat more cultured than other Germans, since the killers live on the banks of the Rhine, many merchants come to them, and, thanks to their proximity to the Gauls, they learned their customs. The Suebi often faced off against them in numerous wars; and although they, due to the importance and power of the [killers], were not able to expel [these latter] from their country, they turned them, however, into their tributaries and made them much weaker and weaker.

Book VI. ch. 21.[Life] of the Germans is very different from this way of life. For they have no druids who preside over the rites of worship, and they are not particularly zealous in sacrificial offerings. As gods, they worship only the sun, fire and the moon, that is, only those [forces of nature] that they see [with their own eyes] and whose favorable influence they have the opportunity to see for themselves; they had not even heard of the rest of the gods. Their whole life is spent in hunting and military pursuits: from early childhood they [are hardened], accustoming themselves to the hardships of their harsh lifestyle.

Chapter 22. They do not farm particularly hard, and subsist mainly on milk, cheese, and meat. And none of them owns a land plot of exact size or with certain boundaries, but officials and elders annually allocate land to clans and groups of relatives living together, where and how much they find necessary, land, and a year later they are forced to move to another place. [The Germans] give numerous reasons [for explaining] this order: [according to them] it does not allow them to be seduced by a settled way of life and exchange war for agricultural work; thanks to him, no one seeks to expand their possessions, the more powerful do not drive [from the earth] the weaker, and no one devotes too much care to building dwellings to protect from cold and heat; [finally, this order] prevents the emergence of greed for money, which causes party strife and strife, and [helps] maintain peace in the common people by feeling their property equality with the most powerful people.

Ch. 23. The greatest glory among them is that tribe, which, having ruined a number of neighboring regions, surrounds itself with the largest possible wastelands. [The Germans] consider it a hallmark of the valor [of a given tribe] that the fact that its neighbors expelled from their possessions retreat and no one dares to settle near this tribe; at the same time, it can consider itself [thanks to this] to be more secure for the future and not be afraid of sudden enemy invasions. When a tribe wages an offensive or defensive war, then officials are elected who bear the duties of military leaders and who have the right to dispose of life and death [members of the tribe]. In peacetime, the tribe does not have a common government, the elders of individual regions and districts create court there and settle disputes. Bandit raids, as long as they are carried out outside the territory of a given tribe, are not considered a disgrace; [the Germans] expose their necessity as an exercise for youth and as a remedy against idleness. And so, when one of the leaders of the tribe declares in the popular assembly his intention to lead [in a military enterprise] and calls on those who want to follow him to express their readiness for this, then those who approve of the enterprise also rise, and the leader, and, being greeted by those gathered, promise him their help; those who promised who did not follow [the leader] are considered fugitives and traitors and subsequently lose all confidence. To offend a guest [the Germans] consider it a sin; for whatever reason [guests] come to them, they protect them from offense, consider their person as sacred and inviolable, put their house at their disposal and share their food with them.

Workshop on the history of the Middle Ages for part-time students of historical faculties of pedagogical institutes / M.L. Abramson, S.A. Slivko, M.M. Freudenberg. - M., 1981. - Issue. I. - P. 9-13.

PUBLIS CORNELIUS TACITOUS

GERMANY

Ch. I. Germany as a whole is separated from the [country] of the Gauls, Retes and Pannonians by the rivers Rhine and Danube, and from the Sarmatians and Dacians by mutual fear, as well as by mountains; the rest is surrounded by the Ocean, which contains vast bays and vast expanses of islands ... The Rhine, originating on the steep and inaccessible peaks of the Rhaetian Alps, makes a slight turn to the west and flows into the northern Ocean ...

Ch. II. I think that the Germans themselves are the original inhabitants [of their country], not at all mixed with other peoples, whether as a result of migration [them] or peaceful relations [with them], since in former times those who wanted to migrate did not arrive by land, but on ships. The ocean, which extends beyond Germany for a vast expanse and, so to speak, opposite to us, is rarely visited by ships from our side. Moreover, apart from the dangers of sailing on a terrible and unknown sea, who would leave Asia, Africa or Italy in order to rush to Germany with its ugly landscapes, harsh climate and depressing views due to uncultivation, unless it is his homeland?

In their old songs, which are among the Germans the only type of historical legends and chronicles, they glorify
the earth-born god Tuiscon and his son Mann as the founders of their tribe, from whom it descends. They attribute to Mann three sons, by whose name the Germans closest to the Ocean are called Ingaevons, those living inland - Germinons, and the rest - Istevons ... The name "Germany" is new and has recently come into use ...

Ch. IV.... They all [i.e. the Germans] have the same appearance, as far as possible in so many people: fierce dark blue eyes, golden hair, a large body, but strong only when attacking, and not hardy enough for strenuous activity and labor; they cannot endure heat and heat at all, but they are accustomed to cold and hunger by [their] climate and soil.

Ch. v. Although [their] country is different to some extent in its appearance, but in general it is either a terrible forest or a disgusting swamp. That part of it, which is turned towards Gaul, is more damp, and in the part adjacent to Noricum and Pannonia, there are more winds; for crops, it is fertile, but not suitable for growing fruit trees; cattle is plentiful, but for the most part they are small, even working cattle do not have an impressive appearance and cannot boast of horns. The Germans like to have plenty of cattle: this is the only and most pleasant kind of wealth for them. AT h The gods refused them gold and silver, I don’t know - out of favor to them or because they were angry with them. However, I do not claim that there are no deposits of silver and gold in Germany at all; but who scouted them? However, the Germans are not possessed by such a passion for the possession [of precious metals] and for their use [as other peoples]; one can see among them silver vessels presented to their ambassadors and elders in no less disdain than earthenware. However, the tribes closest [to the Rhine and Danube] value gold and silver for use in trade: they value certain types of our coins and give preference to them; those living within the country use a simpler and more ancient form of trade, namely, barter. Of the coins, they most of all approve of the ancient and long-known ones - serrats and bigats; in general, they covet more silver than gold, not out of love for it, but because it is more convenient to have a supply of silver coins when trading in common and cheap things.

Ch. VI. They also have little iron, as can be inferred from the nature of their offensive weapons. They seldom use swords or long spears, but operate with a dart, or, as they call it, a frame, with a narrow, short iron tip, a weapon so sharp and convenient that with the same dart they, according to circumstances, fight hand-to-hand and from a distance. . Even the horsemen are content with a frame and a shield, while the infantrymen also launch throwing spears, each in a few pieces, and they, naked or in a short cloak, throw them at a great distance. The Germans have no boasting of luxury [weapons] at all; only they paint their shields with the finest colors.
A few [have] a shell, and a helmet, metal or leather, is hardly [found] in one or two. Their horses are not distinguished by either external beauty or speed; Yes, the Germans did not learn how to make different [turns and] circles according to our custom: they drive [their horses] either straight or to the right in such a closed circle that no one is left last.

In general, they consider that the infantry is stronger than [the cavalry], and therefore they fight in mixed detachments, introducing into the cavalry battle the infantry, adapted to this by its speed and coordinated with the cavalry; such infantrymen are selected from all the youth and put in front of the battle line. Their number is definite - one hundred from each district; they are called among the Germans ["hundreds"], and what used to really mean quantity has now become the name [of the detachment] and the honorary name.

The battle formation [of the Germans] is made up of wedges. To retreat, but in order to attack again, [among them] is considered not cowardice, but prudence. The bodies of their [killed and wounded] they carry away from the battlefield even when its outcome is doubtful. Leaving your shield is a particularly shameful deed: one who dishonors himself in this way cannot be present at a divine service or participate in a public meeting, and many who come out alive from the battle end their shameful life with a noose.

Ch. VII. Kings [the Germans] choose by nobility, and military leaders - by valor. [At the same time] kings do not have unlimited or arbitrary power, and leaders predominate rather [by being] an example than on the basis of the right to command, because they are bold, stand out [in battle], fight ahead of the line and this arouse surprise. However, no one is allowed to execute, imprison in chains and subject to corporal punishment, except for priests, and even then not in the form of punishment and by order of the leader, but as if by command of a god who, they believe, is present among the combatants; they bring sacred images and icons taken from the groves into battle. But what is a special activator of their courage is the fact that their turmas and wedges are not random accumulations of people, but are made up of families and clans, and beings dear to their hearts are nearby, and from there they hear the cry of women and the cry of babies; for everyone they are the most sacred witnesses, the most valuable praisers: they carry their wounds to their mothers and wives, and they are not afraid to count them and examine them, they also bring food to those who fight, and also encourage them.

Ch. VIII. It is said that sometimes the wavering and disordered ranks were restored by women thanks to their unceasing prayers and the fact that they offered their breasts and pointed to the inevitable captivity, which the Germans fear, especially for their women, to such an extent that those Germanic tribes are more firmly bound by their obligations. who are forced to give also noble girls among their hostages.

They think that there is something sacred and prophetic in women, they do not scorn their advice and do not disregard their prophecies ...

Ch. IX. Of the gods, the Germans most of all revere Mercury, who on certain days is also allowed to offer human sacrifices. They propitiate Hercules and Mars with the animals appointed for this ... However, the Germans consider it inappropriate for the greatness of divine beings to enclose them in the walls of temples, and also depict them in any human form; they dedicate groves and oak forests to them, and name the sacred things that they contemplate only with reverence, by the names of the gods.

Ch. x. Fortune-telling by birds and by lot sticks they revere like no one else ... And they also know this - to guess by the voices and flight of birds. The peculiarity of this people is that they are also looking for omens and warnings from horses.
In the same groves and oak forests [which are dedicated to the gods], [such horses] are kept at the public expense, white and not defiled by any work for mortals. They, harnessed to the sacred chariot, are accompanied by a priest, together with the king or the leader of the tribe, and notice their neighing and snorting; and the Germans do not treat any fortune-telling with greater faith, and, moreover, not only the common people, but also the nobility; priests consider themselves servants of the gods, and horses - initiated into their secrets. The Germans have another way of observing signs, by which they try to find out the outcome of important wars. They bring together a warrior of the nation with whom the war is being waged, captured in some way, with a chosen one from among their fellow tribesmen, each with his own national weapon, and the victory of one or the other is taken as an omen.

Ch. XI. On less important matters, the elders consult, on more important matters, everything, and those matters about which the people decide are [preliminarily] discussed by the elders. They converge on certain days, unless something unexpected and sudden happens, namely on the new moon or full moon, since the Germans believe that these days are the happiest for starting a business. They keep track of time not by day, as we do, but by night; so they do with persuasion and notice; they think that the night leads the day. From their freedom arises the disadvantage that they do not gather immediately, as if by someone's order, but they lose two and three days due to delay.