Talk:Germanic heroic legend

Guðmundsdóttir 2000, p. 6.

Berig, you included a citation "Guðmundsdóttir 2000, p. 6. " that doesn't match any of the existing articles by Guðmundsdóttir in page numbers or year. Is it another article, or is there a mistake somewhere?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My bad! I both made a typo and thought I had already used the source. It is fixed now!--Berig (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Exaggerated historiography

English participation in Germanic heroic legend didn't suddenly end in 1066 and is still ongoing, with major legends appreciated in England even through the Norman filter as well as domestic tales. Hamlet, Havelok the Dane, Holger Danske, Robin Hood and even William Tell have historically been told to an English audience, given an English version, or came from England and retold elsewhere. All of these stories were enjoyed long before the printing press, so it's not merely global curiosity stemming from the internet either. 76.177.11.75 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are not typically classified as Germanic heroic legends.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Because of this arbitrarily unjustified exclusion of Englishmen from the Germanic category at 1066... Well, if an outside dynasty of Germanic origin, being Northmen followed by Franks is the reason, then Slavic overlords Albert of Mecklenburg and Eric of Pomerania should disqualify Sweden and Denmark around the time of the Kalmar Union. If English wars of a Viking origin in the Danelaw and Normandy against their formerly friendly West Frankish allies against said Vikings did an about-face after 1066 and that imaginatively strips England and its culture simply because bastardised French is understood, then a Sweden obsessed with Poland-Lithuania during the Deluge and just as enthusiastically embracing Latin at court including in naming conventions unlike England but like the Holy Roman Empire should be just as good if not more reason to strip the Swedes of their Germanic heritage, to reclassify them as Slavic aliens in the way some bigots are wont to do to the English, even some English over the topic of Norman yoke and Whig history. If Tudor engagement with Spain was a problem, what of Vasa attachment to Russia?

If Luther could describe the German peoples of the Continent in the Holy Roman Empire as depreciated due to Papal slavery, why then do they get a free pass despite cohabiting with Italians (Romance yet actually Lombards) and Bohemians (more Slavs), or even Burgundians (Romance but another double standard), whereas English never cohabited with non-Germanic Kingdoms until the Union of Great Britain and then later including Ireland, although all said Celts became Anglicised tributary or satellite states unlike in Europe where Germanic kingdoms became Latinised? In fact, Charles V of ROME was King of Spain, Sicily, the Indies and Jerusalem, etc yet the debased sense of Germanic tradition somehow doesn't stick to the Teflon Continental Germanics unlike the gibberish and gelatinous excuses for treating English traditions outside of the Germanic category.

England would continue with a Germanic heritage outside Holy Roman conventions as well as in them with the Dutch and Hanoverian successions, with the later Saxon Windsors--even now, England has the Oldenburg dynasty originally planned to succeed in the reign of Queen Anne's son by her Danish husband, while Denmark now has a French dynasty to keep up with Sweden's Bonapartist stooges the Bernadottes. The Crusades involved excursions to the Baltic as well as the Mediterranean and the Lancastrians took part in the Lithuanian campaigns, whereas the Teutonic Order followed the "non-Germanic" Franks to the Mediterranean and so, that is another arbitrary sense of distinction, for although Richard the Lionheart took Cyprus, Frederick Barbarossa himself was crowned King of Jerusalem. Even though the Reformation took hold almost exclusively in Germanic nations, Germany belonged to Catholic culture in the Austrian mold far longer, so that Bavarian identity may seem more central to German cultural identity of a Hochdeutsch type as opposed to the Saxon Plattdeutsch type in England. Verily, Ingvaeonic tongues are now a minority in the Continent, whereas Irminonic and Istvaeonic ones are in the majority between them, but I suppose HRE and EU affiliation must somehow mean in or out of the Germanic category. Who decides these things? Are we to conflate Germanic with Catholic Hochdeutsch rather than Protestant Plattdeutsch?

Why is English society supposedly no longer Germanic but that of the Holy Roman Empire is? With the casual, indistinct "reasons" for treating English cultural heritage as "non-Germanic" and therefore omitting Germanic heroic legends due to politics despite inconsistencies of logic, categorical inclusion or exclusion means nothing but a cudgel to beat the English with. When in 1066, Northmen took England from the Saxons of Winchester and firmly established the capital more neutrally in London that was a Danish marketplace and burh at one point, on the line of the Danelaw, the said disinherited Saxons ran off to Constantinople for assistance after conspiracies with other Viking dynasties than the one in Rouen to uproot the latter had failed. Harald Hardrada's Varangians by Kiev and the Normans of Rouen also went there by way of Sicily. We see political rhetoric arbitrarily used in the historiography involved.

Other examples of debased Germanic states: Swedish cohabitation with Finns and Austrians with Hungarians, Croatians, etc...but the rhetorical standard is about the Welsh principality annexed to England somehow sullying the good name of Anglo-Saxons? Wales, like Finland and Hungary, is no longer within a Germanic realm, but at least Welsh find English tongue more native than Finns do Swedish and not so much the Hungarians with German. More reason why inclusion vs exclusion of Englishness is bogus. 76.177.11.75 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)