European ethno-linguistic assimilation

Since you are the resident expert on Poland I hope you don't mind me asking a non-related question that I have been wondering about.

The germanization of the Baltic sea (including Poland and the Baltic states in the 12th-13th centuries following the northern crusades) seems to me to have largely stopped then due to the black plague. Would you agree with that? It doesn't seem like there was significant Germanization for another 50 years after

Gucumatz,

If I understand correctly, you are asking if the influx of German settlers was stopped for ca. 50 years by the black dearh? Yes it is very much understandable that the black death reduced numbers of immigrants from German territories, but on the other hand it also killed a large percent of native Slavic population. The black death did not affect most of the Kingdom of Poland (perhaps due to closing the borders by King Casimir III - which is one of reasons why he is called Great), but it did affect entire Pomerania and the Teutonic Order's State. So Slavic groups such as Pomeranians, Obodrites, Veleti, Sorbs, etc. did suffer from the black death. And there were not enough Slavic immigrants from other regions to replace those losses - instead, they were replaced by mostly German settlers.

The black death also killed many native Baltic-speaking Prussians in the Teutonic State. There were not enough ethnic Prussians to quickly replace those losses - instead the Teutonic Knights started bringing in more of German settlers and Polish settlers from Mazovia (Mazurs). So proportions of ethnic groups undoubtedly changed (percent of native Baltic Old Prussians in overall population decreased). That said, Prussian language survived until the 1700s.

To summ up:

While the black plague temporarily slowed down the speed of Germanization, in the end it created more of "empty space" for new German settlers.

Germany "proper" was simply demographically superior to eastern territories which became destination of German settlers - there was a higher excess of people who could be used. The black death decimated German populations in Europe but it also decimated West Slavic populations - so it did not change the proportion and did not make the latter more numerous than the former. I hope this helps, but I can also check my sources for more details if you want.

Some data concerning the number of Germans in Eastern Prussia (not in the entire Teutonic State):

Polish historian Gerard Labuda estimates the number of Germans in Eastern Prussia in 1300 as up to 15,000.

German historian Hartmut Boockmann estimates the number of Germans in Eastern Prussia in 1400 as 103,000.

This indicates an increase of 88,000 Germans during 100 years, despite the Black Death.

Labuda estimated Old Prussians in 1300 as 120,000 and Boockmann estimated Old Prussians in 1400 as 140,000.

This increase of 20,000 in Old Prussians must by attributed entirely to natural growth - of course.

I meant to say 500 years, not 50 - Spell checking is not enough, number checking is the new thing

At posts #47 to #54 I wasn't fully sober, and I was joking. No farms for free!

If you want a very easy house for free, move to Britain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4z238OM8Bs

I meant to say 500 years, not 50 - Spell checking is not enough, number checking is the new thing

Click to expand...

In such case I'm not sure what is the origin of your assumption but it is totally wrong.

It is enough to look at ethnic maps showing 1340 and ethnic maps showing 1850 to check this.

By 1340 even most of lands between the Elbe and the Odra Rivers still had Slavic majority.

When it comes to lands located at the Baltic coast, the very first one to be Germanized was Wagria (Wagrien), which - as it is believed - lost most of its population already during the conquest by crusaders (either due to people getting killed or escaping to other lands & taking refuge there). However, parson Helmold von Bosau (1125 - 1177), by the end of his life lived in Wagria where he was busy Christianizing local Slavs. So Wagria was not fully depopulated.

Domen said:

At posts #47 to #54 I wasn't fully sober, and I was joking. No farms for free!

If you want a very easy house for free, move to Britain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4z238OM8Bs



In such case I'm not sure what is the origin of your assumption but it is totally wrong.

It is enough to look at ethnic maps showing 1340 and ethnic maps showing 1850 to check this.

By 1340 even most of lands between the Elbe and the Odra Rivers still had Slavic majority.

When it comes to lands located at the Baltic coast, the very first one to be Germanized was Wagria (Wagrien), which - as it is believed - lost most of its population already during the conquest by crusaders (either due to people getting killed or escaping to other lands & taking refuge there). However, parson Helmold von Bosau (1125 - 1177), by the end of his life lived in Wagria where he was busy Christianizing local Slavs. So Wagria was not fully depopulated.

Click to expand...

Thats what I am saying (I think) that germanization pretty much stopped/slowed down for 500 years between the 1300s and 1800. And I was wondering if the black plague was the reason german settlement didn't continue at the same earlier rates to displace slavic populations

It didn't slow down after 1300. In many places it only started after 1300, while in some other places it started already in the 1200s.

What you say is, for example, like saying that European settlement in Latin America slowed down for 400 years after year 1550.

Until mid-1100s German settlement in border territories (Marches) east of the Elbe was limited mostly just to knights and their retinues.

Historian J. M. Piskorski in: "Kolonizacja wiejska Pomorza Zachodniego" ("Rural colonization of Western Pomerania"), Poznan 2005, estimates that from all German lands in period roughly 1100 - 1300 (some 200 years) in total up to 400,000 - 500,000 people of all estates of the society migrated eastward. But this includes immigration to all areas where Germans migrated during that time, such as the GDR - entire East Germany, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Pomerania, Teutonic Order's territories in Prussia and Latvia-Livonia, Kingdom of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Transylvania, Slovenia, Brandenburg, Estonia, etc.

Remember that while 400,000 seems to be a very significant number, the native population of those lands was still many times bigger, numbering millions.

That 400,000 was relatively insignificant given the huge size of that territory (of course some areas received much more immigrants than some other areas). By comparison according to Heinrich Härke, a much smaller England received 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants during just over 100 years.

Among things which triggered mass immigration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain, were its fertile meadows, perfect for cattle farming:

http://www.nihk.de/downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

Domen said:

It did not slow down after 1300. It pretty much started after 1300, except for some places where it started already in the 1200s.

What you say is, for example, like saying that European settlement in Latin America slowed down for 400 years after year 1550.

Until mid-1100s German settlement in border territories (Marches) east of the Elbe was limited mostly just to knights and their retinues.

Historian J. M. Piskorski in: "Kolonizacja wiejska Pomorza Zachodniego" ("Rural colonization of Western Pomerania"), Poznan 2005, estimates that from all German lands in period roughly 1100 - 1300 (some 200 years) in total around 400,000 up to 500,000 people of all estates of the society migrated eastward. This includes immigration to all areas where Germans migrated at that time, such as the GDR - entire East Germany, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Pomerania, Teutonic Order's territories in Prussia and Latvia-Livonia, Kingdom of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Transylvania, Slovenia, Brandenburg, Estonia, etc.

Remember that while 400,000 seems to be a very significant number, the native population of those lands was still many times bigger, numbering millions.

That 400,000 was relatively insignificant given the huge size of that territory (of course some areas received much more immigrants than some other areas). By comparison according to Heinrich Härke, a much smaller Britain received 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants during just over 100 years.

Click to expand...

On which basis did Piskorski estimate the number of the German settlers and the Slavic and Baltic population in these areas?

I got estimates for native population - which in listed areas numbered millions - from other sources, not from Piskorski. For example a commonly accepted estimate for the population of Estonia (one of areas listed above) in year 1200 is 200,000 people (4.5 people per 1 km2). As for Piskorski's methodology I will have to check it again because I only noted this number and now I quoted it from my notes, but I don't remember how exactly did he calculate or estimate that.

Slavic population of East Germany alone can be estimated - safely - at from 500,000 upwards, with density of around 5 people per 1 km2.

Of course these numbers both for Estonia and for East Germany refer to population before the conquest and forced Christianization.

Do you find Piskorski's estimate to be surprisingly low or surprisingly high or OK ???

Remember that this estimation refers only to the first stage, the first 200 years.

Gerard Labuda estimates the number of Germans in East Prussia ("Prussia Proper") in 1300 AD as 12,000 - 15,000.

Most of those 15,000 were certainly immigrants, but some of them were already locally born people.

This refers to East Prussia and thus doesn't include e.g. Land of Chelmno (which was granted to the TO by Poland).

In fact this area in question roughly corresponds to boundaries of the province of East Prussia ca. 1923.

===========================================

In Hungary German settlers were invited after the Mongol Invasion, which severely depopulated the realm. Population of Hungary in 1242 is estimated at ca. 1 million and before the invasion - in 1240 - at between ca. 1,4 (low estimate) and ca. 2 (high estimate) million. Some Germans lived in Hungary already before 1240, but only in the Transylvanian region of Burzenland - which had belonged to the Teutonic Knights before they were expelled and then invited to Poland.

Effects of the Mongol Invasion on population of Hungary can be illustrated by percent of villages destroyed by the Mongols:

1) Between the rivers Danube and Tisza, in south: counties Bács and Bodrog - 45% of villages existing before 1240 destroyed
2) Between the rivers Danube and Tisza, in the middle of country - 80% of villages erased by the Mongols
3) The central region of Transtisia: county Békés - 50%
4) The northern region of Transtisia: county Bihar - 20%
5) The southern region of Transtisia: counties Csanád, Csongrád - 75%
6) Transdanubia: plain or hilly area - 15%
7) Transdanubia: mountaneous region with forests - under 10%
8) Upper Hungary (mountains) - under 10%

Historian Jenő Szűcs estimated the population loss at 20% (because - according to him - the most Mongol-devastated regions were also the ones least densely populated already before 1240). But historian György Györffy estimated the population loss at 50% and the population in 1240 at 2 million. Historian Márta Font indicates that after the end of the invasion the influx of foreign, mostly German, settlers helped to increase the number of inhabitants.

No exact data exists when it comes to the scale of Mongol-inflicted devastation in Poland. But some historians believe that it was much smaller than in Hungary. However, as we know, Mongols destroyed Cracow - Polish capital city. It had to be rebuilt. They also destroyed several other urban centers. Perhaps they also destroyed many villages. On the other hand, the Mongol army which invaded Poland was smaller than that which invaded Hungary.

Mongol presence in Poland was also much shorter than in Hungary (in Hungary they campaigned for over 2 years, in Poland just few months) and not entire country was affected (while in Hungary vast majority of the country's territory was "visited" by Mongol invaders during those 2 years).

Domen said:

I got estimates for native population - which in listed areas numbered millions - from other sources, not from Piskorski. For example a commonly accepted estimate for the population of Estonia (one of areas listed above) in year 1200 is 200,000 people (4.5 people per 1 km2). As for Piskorski's methodology I will have to check it again because I only noted this number and now I quoted it from my notes, but I don't remember how exactly did he calculate or estimate that.

Slavic population of East Germany alone can be estimated - safely - at from 500,000 upwards, with density of around 5 people per 1 km2.

Of course these numbers both for Estonia and for East Germany refer to population before the conquest and forced Christianization.

Click to expand...

East Germany refers to the area roughly between Elbe and Oder, I guess?

There is a certain similarity between the Ostsiedlung with the Romanization. When the Romans shifted their borderline to the Rhine in the last decades BC, the local Germanic and Celtic tribes (it is often unclear who was Celtic or Germanic) were "pacified", the areas were controlled by the legions and later on Roman settlers, merchants and clerks moved in. New Roman towns were "planted" and already existing settlements were enlarged in a Roman style.

Over the time there was a linguistical change from the native Celtic and Germanic languages to Latin. The local elites often changed their names to Roman names. IIRC there are studies based on Roman tombstones which indicates the name of the defunct person, name of the father, profession etc from the first century AD. Therefore we know that about 10 - 15 % of the population were not natives. This refers surely only the wealthier part of the population that could afford tombstones. So the percentage of immigrants among the population was certainly lower. These immigrants came from all parts of the Roman empire, but mainly from Gaule which was Romanized several decades before. Even some "real" Romans from Roma came to Germania, but also Egyptians and Greeks. The centers of Romanization were the cities, the so-called coloniae. Similar processes took place all over the Roman Empire.

Domen said:

It didn't slow down after 1300. In many places it only started after 1300, while in some other places it started already in the 1200s.

What you say is, for example, like saying that European settlement in Latin America slowed down for 400 years after year 1550.

Until mid-1100s German settlement in border territories (Marches) east of the Elbe was limited mostly just to knights and their retinues.

Historian J. M. Piskorski in: "Kolonizacja wiejska Pomorza Zachodniego" ("Rural colonization of Western Pomerania"), Poznan 2005, estimates that from all German lands in period roughly 1100 - 1300 (some 200 years) in total up to 400,000 - 500,000 people of all estates of the society migrated eastward. But this includes immigration to all areas where Germans migrated during that time, such as the GDR - entire East Germany, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Pomerania, Teutonic Order's territories in Prussia and Latvia-Livonia, Kingdom of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Transylvania, Slovenia, Brandenburg, Estonia, etc.

Remember that while 400,000 seems to be a very significant number, the native population of those lands was still many times bigger, numbering millions.

That 400,000 was relatively insignificant given the huge size of that territory (of course some areas received much more immigrants than some other areas). By comparison according to Heinrich Härke, a much smaller England received 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants during just over 100 years.

Among things which triggered mass immigration of Anglo-Saxons to Britain, were its fertile meadows, perfect for cattle farming:

http://www.nihk.de/downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

Click to expand...

Really? I had been under the impression that when the black death hit in the mid 1300s that Hanseatic records showed a decline in emmigration out. Cities like Reval, Riga, Danzig, etc. had limited immigration during the immediate centuries in the merchant and artisanal quarters (which were the parts most likely to be German).

What about the Northern Crusades? Some areas had largely their slavic populations destroyed prior to the black death which makes sense then why the german indigenous (within the area) population growth grew in the area at higher comparative total population rates than where slavic peoples still remained at greater numbers.

I read a book that discussed that immigration had been declining in Scandinavia as well, which is why a royal ordinance in the early 1500s was able to be passed which prohibited more than 50% of town councils being represented by German peoples (the actual German population was much lower supposedly, but the decline in immigration weakened influence enough to the point where the merchants could no longer stave off that particular ordinance ie)

Domen said:

Do you find Piskorski's estimate to be surprisingly low or surprisingly high or OK ???

Click to expand...

Honestly I don't have any idea bout it. Somewhere I read an estimate of 50:50 (natives to immigrants. But we don't not have precise data. In the case of the Anglo-Saxon invasion (or immigration? ) there is a similar debate whether it was a large scale immigration from the continent (Netherlands, Northern Germany and Danmark) or only a "drop in the bucket". It is the same debate about the reconquista in Spain (so-called repoblación - repopulation of Southern Spain).

Domen said:

Remember that this estimation refers only to the first stage, the first 200 years.

Gerard Labuda estimates the number of Germans in East Prussia ("Prussia Proper") in 1300 AD as 12,000 - 15,000.

Most of those 15,000 were certainly immigrants, but some of them were already locally born people.

This refers to East Prussia and thus doesn't include e.g. Land of Chelmno (which was granted to the TO by Poland).

In fact this area in question roughly corresponds to boundaries of the province of East Prussia ca. 1923.

Click to expand...

So in the case of East Prussia Labuda favors the model of mass immigration. But how does he come to this conclusion?

I had been under the impression that when the black death hit in the mid 1300s that Hanseatic records showed a decline in emmigration out.

Click to expand...

And hence I agreed with you that during 50 years following the Black Death immigration could indeed decline.

But then you started arguing that you meant 500 years not 50, which makes a gigantic difference.

Cities like Reval, Riga, Danzig, etc. had limited immigration during the immediate centuries

Click to expand...

Not really. Between 1364 and 1430 some 11,000 people from 1129 settlements were granted citizenship in Main City Danzig. 163 per annum.

Apart from Main City Danzig, there was Old City Danzig and New City Danzig (at that time Danzig were 3 cities located next to each other).

Does not seem like a "crisis of immigration", really. Maybe a decline, but not a total collapse as you indicate.

By comparison between years 1601 and 1800 at least 84,400 immigrants settled in Danzig - on average 422 per annum.

But the difference is caused not only by the Black Death, also by different size of the city and of the European population as a whole.

What about the Northern Crusades? Some areas had largely their slavic populations destroyed prior to the black death

Click to expand...

This is kind of a myth. Even in Wagria - which was indeed totally devastated - some part of Slavic population survived.

There would have been no point in sending priests with a task to convert to Christianity a non-existing population, after all.

Polish historian Adam Sengebusch thoroughly researched Slavic demography in East Germany after the Northern Crusades. He found out that huge portions of East German (pre-1990 GDR) territory were inhabited by mostly Slavic-speaking people even as late as the 1500s. Actually, west (!) of the River Elbe, last group of Slavs were Germanized not before year 1800 (the Drevani people of Drawehn, near Lüneburg). Lusatian Sorbs exist until today, even though their numbers and their ethnic territory are many times smaller than in the Early Middle Ages. But even in the 16th century Sorbian ethnic territory was much larger than today.

Many Sorbs were killed in the Thirty Years' War. Same with Pomeranians. Pomerania suffered the highest % of population loss in that war.

East Germany refers to the area roughly between Elbe and Oder, I guess?

Click to expand...

Yes. However, there were also Slavs west of the Elbe. Even though they were conquered by Germany earlier than those east of the Elbe.

And - quite ironically - language of the Obodrites survived west of the Elbe longer than east of the Elbe (see above, the Drevani of Drawehn). This despite the fact that majority of the Obodrites lived of course east of the Elbe. Drevani were one of westernmost groups and lived in a very remote area.

Anglo-Saxon invasion (or immigration?) there is a similar debate whether it was a large scale immigration from the continent (Netherlands, Northern Germany and Danmark) or only a "drop in the bucket".

Click to expand...

Authun from Historum convinced me that it was a large-scale immigration. And this is logical - the language changed, with very little loanwords from Celtic. That entire "drop in the bucket" theory is impossible to sustain and illogical. There was a family-based and large-scale Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain.

IMO conquerors / immigrants need to have at least 20:80 or 25:75 proportions to natives in order to be able to change the language in such a thorough way as it happened in Britain (very little Celtic loanwords in Old English - and loanwords from Latin did not infiltrate into English at that time but much later).

Situation with Germanization of Lower Silesia, for example, was much different. Local German dialects spoken there had a lot of Polish/Slavic loans.

At first glance, there is actually little evidence that assimilation of British population by Anglo-Saxons happened. It looks more like a genocide at first glance.

But in fact a lot of Celtic or Romano-Briton population was indeed assimilated, however the terms were very unequal - they were disadvantaged by Anglo-Saxon laws and it was an "apartheid-like" society (which is actually what many historians are telling - for example Heinrich Härke mentioned above).

Therefore we know that about 10 - 15 % of the population were not natives.

Click to expand...

My estimate that an influx of foreigners 20-25% the size of native population is needed to change the language is reasonably close to this 10-15%.

In any case there had to be many dozens of thousands of Anglo-Saxon immigrants to Britain. Perhaps ca. 200,000 as Heinrich Härke estimated.

The local elites often changed their names to Roman names.

Click to expand...

Elites are usually most willing to become loyal to new authorities. Or if they are not, then they cease to be elites, and "collaborators" become new elites.

This is why for example among the last groups of Non-Germanized Slavic-speakers in East Germany peasants predominated. Peasants are most conservative, especially if they live in remote areas. That's why they preserved their old language longer than others. Slavic princes (and native Slavic dynasties continued to be in charge in the Duchies of Mecklenburg, Ruegen, Pomerania, etc.) became German-speaking often after several generations, sometimes later.

The centers of Romanization were the cities, the so-called coloniae

Click to expand...

Migrating Medieval Germans often settled in villages, not only in cities. Thinking otherwise is one of common misconceptions. Most of Germans were peasants - like in any other nation. Thus most of German immigrants were also peasants. Actually only those areas where Germans settled in villages were likely to become Germanized. In areas where Germans settled only in cities, almost always those Germans became assimilated by the locals. This happened also in some areas where Germans settled in villages. For example in Lesser Poland, Upper Silesia, etc. there was German rural settlement but they all became Polonized.

So in the case of East Prussia Labuda favors the model of mass immigration. But how does he come to this conclusion?

Click to expand...

He often knows places of origin of immigrants and even their numbers. Plus, names of taxpayers are listed in Teutonic Order's tax records. But native Old Prussian population was still much much bigger than the number of immigrants. At least in 1300. In 1400 proportions were less in favour of Prussians.

Domen said:

Authun from Historum convinced me that it was a large-scale immigration. And this is logical - the language changed, with very little loanwords from Celtic. That entire "drop in the bucket" theory is impossible to sustain and illogical. There was a family-based and large-scale Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain.

IMO conquerors / immigrants need to have at least 20:80 or 25:75 proportions to natives in order to be able to change the language in such a thorough way as it happened in Britain (very little Celtic loanwords in Old English - and loanwords from Latin did not infiltrate into English at that time but much later).

Situation with Germanization of Lower Silesia, for example, was much different. Local German dialects spoken there had a lot of Polish/Slavic loans.

In Britain there is very little evidence that assimilation of local Celtic populations by Anglo-Saxons happened. It looks more like a genocide.

But in fact a lot of Celtic or Romano-Briton population was indeed assimilated, however the terms were very unequal - they were disadvantaged by Anglo-Saxon laws and it was an "apartheid-like" society (which is actually what many historians are telling - for example Heinrich Härke mentioned above).

Click to expand...

There were surely different laws for different ethnical groups until a homogenous ethnical group emerging from the immigrants and the "old" population. Were the Romano-Briton disadvantaged? The problem is that we do not have many sources of these times. And the sources we have are written in later times and often biased. When the Anglo and Saxons came to Britannia they were stil pagans and therefore the later Christian chroniclers might regard them as brutal oppressors. I am sceptical but of course I do not have an explanation of my own.

There are several examples of linguistical changes in history: I mentioned above the process of Romanization in Germany or rather Germania. The same happened in Spain (Hispania) or Gaule (Gallia) and in the Balkan states. There were certainly transitory periodes where there was a coexistence of both languages. Several centuries before the Eastern Half of the Mediterranean area became Greek after the conquest of Alexander the Great. Later with the Islamic expansion most of the Roman-Greek East became Arabic as well as the former Roman Africa.

I do not know who is right. Maybe mass immigration, maybe genocide during the conquest, maybe two or three drop in the bucket... Probably a mixture of it all.

There were surely different laws for different ethnical groups (...) Were the Romano-Briton disadvantaged?

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at laws in the Kingdom of Wessex:

If an Anglo-Saxon killed a Romano-Briton noble, he had to pay 600 schillings.
If a Romano-Briton killed an Anglo-Saxon noble, he had to pay 1200 schillings.

If an Anglo-Saxon killed a Romano-Briton free commoner, he had to pay 120 schillings.
If a Romano-Briton killed an Anglo-Saxon free commoner, he had to pay 200 schillings.

I don't have data what was the price for killing a half-free serf or a slave (perhaps very low or non-existent).

In other words - even a poor Anglo-Saxon clan could afford exterminating a richer Romano-Briton clan.

In case of a quarrel for land (or for anything else) between two neighburing clans, for example.

And now take into account the fact that proporions of nobility / free commoners / unfree people were different among Anglo-Saxons (who - as conquerors - were more likely to be nobles or free commoners) than among Romano-Britons (who - as subjugated population - were more likely to be serfs or slaves).

So the distribution of wealth and social status was unequal to begin with, and also Romano-Britons were further discriminated by law.

Those payments applied not only for murders, but also for all other kinds of grievances.

If for example a Romano-Briton stole a cat belonging to an Anglo-Saxon, he also had to pay more than if an Anglo-Saxon stole a Romano-Briton cat.

Remember that at that time you were sold into slavery if you became an insolvent debtor. And Romano-Britons were more likely to get bankrupt. Hence - every Romano-Briton wanted to become an Anglo-Saxon, and to be treated as one. It helped in assimilation of the locals. But also in persecuting them.

Those payments applied not only for murders, but also for all other kinds of grievances.

Click to expand...

So if you were a smart yet immoral Anglo-Saxon, you could quickly realize that you could steal property of your Romano-Briton neighbour, and even if he stole it back with use of force, then you were still going to get richer (because he was obliged to pay you approximately twice of what you had to pay him).

It is also possible that payments for Anglo-Saxons if they stole things from Britons were actually lower than real market value of those stolen things.

For example if an Anglo-Saxon stole a Romano-Briton sword worth 300, he had to pay - as punishment - only 280 to family of its former owners.

This is just an example, but I imagine that it could be like that. I have no hard proofs that Anglo-Saxon fines for stealing things from Romano-Britons were lower than market value of those stolen things, though. But Anglo-Saxons were "worth more" and crimes against them were more severely punished.

It should be noted that all fines for all other crimes were counted as some fraction of payment for murder.

So for example stealing a Roman-Briton horse was 1/5 of killing its owner. Stealing an Anglo-Saxon horse was 1/5 of killing its owner. Etc., etc. In other words - in all situations Romano-Britons had to pay more than Anglo-Saxons for the same violation of law. In case of inter-ethnic crimes, of course.

later Christian chroniclers might regard them [Anglo-Saxons] as brutal oppressors.

Click to expand...

Well - legal system of the Kingdom of Wessex was ethnocentric and blatantly oppressive against ethnic Britons. There is no doubt about this.

And we know this not from Christian chronicles but from surviving texts containing laws which were used in the Kingdom of Wessex.

==============================================

Some moderator please move Posts #43, #45 - 46, #57, #59, #62 - 67, #69 - 75 to "World History" subforum, to a new thread.

And maybe let's call this new thread "Ways of ethno-linguistic assimilation throughout history". Or something like this (ideas?).

in the merchant and artisanal quarters (which were the parts most likely to be German).

Click to expand...

In cities located in the Teutonic Order's State in Prussia during the 1300s largest group of rich merchants were from Westphalia. And most of them were from the region of Westphalia known as Hellweg, usually from Dortmund or Soest. In Thorn (Torun) Westphalians were even absolute majority among local patricians in the 14th century. Over 20 local families from Soest included: von Allen, Bycoln, Kywe, von Linden, von Loo, Rebber, Toddinchusen, etc. Families from Dortmund included for example: von Datteln, von Hengstenberg, Kammenata, von Ponte, von Putten and others. Second and third most numerous (after Westphalians) groups among Prussian patricians were immigrants from Luebeck and from Rheinland.

In the 15th century mostly due to political developments (TO's lost wars against Poland), mass immigration of ethnic Poles to Thorn started and many of them gained important status there. Among early ones was Szymon Belka(w) who came in 1434, married a local patrician woman and quickly advanced, getting elected to city jury and then to city council. Another example was Mikołaj Kopernik, who came from Southern Poland to Torun in 1456 and married a local woman from influential Waczenrode family to facilitate his career and to get citizenship faster.

At the same time (15th century) new families also gained importance in Danzig - but in this case those were mostly German families, just from different regions (for example families Niederhof, Giese, Ferber and Suchten from Rheinland).

Carolus I said:

Somewhere I read an estimate of 50:50 (natives to immigrants. But we don't not have precise data.

Click to expand...

This 50:50 is for Slavic:German proportion after the Ostsiedlung in East Germany (territory of pre-1990 GDR)?

For England 50% is the highest estimate for Anglo-Saxons (other estimates argue that native Britons contributed majority):



Anglo-Saxon burial sites of 5th to 7th centuries (after Alcock 1971, redrawn by N. Griffiths):