Comment by jimmyhachahacha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmyhachahacha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jimmyhachahacha

I don't think these two events, the Danes raid and the rebellion crush are linked outside of one making the author remind itself about the second.

The French translation from Latin http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/anonyme/annales.htm [859] says:

> Les Danois dévastent les pays au-delà de l'Escaut. Le commun peuple des pays entre Seine et Loire, conjuré entre soi, résiste courageusement aux Danois établis sur la Seine ; mais sa conjuration étant conduite sans prudence, il est facilement défait par nos grands.

Which I would translate (using some true-to-heart adaptation given author period) by:

Danes (norsemen) raid country further the Escaut (probably that river in the north). Commoners from between Seine et Loire (in the center so), which were seceding at the time (secede is way too modern but best bears the sense IMO), bravely resist to Danes camping by the Seine; this secession however being lead without much thought, is easily defeated by our rulers (kings or dukes I'd say, and probably over months).

These annals are telegraph styled, written by multiple authors, etc. They are kind of notes. Yet they are one of the best material over this period of French history :)

Thanks for your citation. I was able to get through to the original Latin text [1]. It is ambiguous.

Dani loca ultra Scaldem populantur. Vulgus promiscuum inter Sequanam et Ligerum inter se coniurans adversus Danos in Sequana consistentes, fortiter resistit; sed quia incaute suscepta est eorum coniuratio, a potentioribus nostris facile interficiuntur.

Which translates roughly as follows. (I'm not a medieval Latin scholar so some meanings may be off.)

The Danes plunder the areas beyond the Scheldt River. The common people between the Seine and Loire, allying themselves [or: conspiring] against the Danes residing on the Seine, fight strongly; but because their alliance [or: conspiracy] was undertaken without care, they are easily killed by our more powerful [troops].

It does not say explicitly whom the commoners were fighting. The word used for their alliance also means conspiracy and can be quite negative. It's the same word used in the phrase "Conspiracy of Cataline."

p.s. It's mind-blowing what you can find on the Internet.

[1] https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_1/index.htm#page/452/mode/1up

Thanks for providing the direct citation, which is more specific than just "Annals of St Bertin."

> I don't think these two events, the Danes raid and the rebellion crush are linked outside of one making the author remind itself about the second.

Sound's like the parent comment's description oversimplified things. I knew it sounded off.

No, the text is ambiguous, but the main point about forbidden peasant autonomy and the "easily defeated" peasantry still stands. Look at the translation from the Latin in the other comment.

I have no relevant information for that era so this is purely a translation note. I'd love to learn more though, would you mind sharing additional reading you find pertinent?

I question your use of "seceding" for "conjuré". As far as I understand, the connotation of ~seperation from a whole~ is absent in the original french which I'd argue speaks more of the spontaneous and unsanctioned nature of this militia's constitution.

As in "le peuple ..., conjuré entre soi" could be adapted to "the people, having organised to take arms"

Fair enough, I'm no medieval scholar, I am/was merely commenting with the interpretation that Chris Wickham (who is) had in his book "The Inheritance Of Rome", where he begins his chapter "The caging of the peasantry" with a brief discussion of this event (and a translation that looks a bit more like the one done from the Latin by the other commenter).

He does point out that the meaning of "incaute" is ambiguous here, but the salient point still stands: that military service was forbidden from the common people and that an organized common people was not allowed, and dangerous. It is speculative but he comments that these peasants may have felt they were following in the footsteps of their grandfathers who would have rightfully assembled for defense in time of need, and in fact that had formerly been the prerogative of free peasants.

So the point still pretty much stands regardless, the language speaks of free peasants self-organizing as a threat and an easily defeated one.

I'm not so sure that both events are not linked, given that the peasants were 'seceding' they probably prepared themselves against an army which would explain why they were able to fight against the Vikings..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com