Talk:Ancient Germanic law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Move proposal[edit]

Should this be moved to simply Germanic law? Srnec 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep it as Early Germanic law, so that legal codes of modern Germanic peoples can be treated separately should the need arise. 128.187.0.164 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is Anglo-Saxon law?[edit]

Why isn't Anglo-Saxon law included among the list of Early Germanic law. It's actually in a Germanic language, rather than Latin, and there's already a Wikipedia article on it: Anglo-Saxon_law 128.187.0.164 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality[edit]

First of all the word homosexuality and our modern concept of it did not exist prior to the 1880'th. That is why I use the term "samesex erotisism" below. The translation of "corpore infames" as "unnatural prostitutes" is an anacronism. The argument of branding samesex erotisism as unnatural was mainly put forward by the christian church, long time after Tacitus. There is nothing to surgest that Tacitus or the germans about whom he wrote thought of samesex erotisism as either unnatural or "dishonorable". The latter being the correct translation of the latin word "infames." The sentence "corpore infames" means "those who has dishonored their body." It is placed in a long line of words discribing unwanted behaveour in battle. There is no reason why a sexual practis would suddenly appear in such a context. The grecco-roman view on samesex erotisism may or may not have been the same amongst the germanic peoples. We don't know. and Taitus text doesn't sayanything about it. The grecco-roman view on samesex erotisism would have been Tacitus background. To him there would have been nothing "unnatural" or "dishonorable" about buggering an other man. And even though the one being buggerd would have been rediculed if he was a real roman he-man there where no laws against it and there is nothing to surgest that Tacitus thought it was a problem. The assosiation of "corpore infames" with homosexuality is a 19'th century christian prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.107.12.196 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can argue your own POV based on original research til the cows come home, but ultimately you're going to need some RSS we can attribute such a POV to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Rouche quotes[edit]

Rouche seems to have a political agenda maligning the oral judges system, in favor of a more rationalistic constructivist one. If you look at the analogous lawspeaker article for medieval scandinavian law there seems to be no indication that these people were viewed as unpredictably terrifying or overly subjective. The quotes should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.134.170 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)