ethnic groups granted a homeland pre 1500

There are numerous cases of ethnic homelands being given in the later Roman Empire. This policy evolved over time - originally (mid 4th century):

"receptio constituted a legal act in which the immigrant made a binding commitment or compact (also called a foedus) with the state, agreeing to serve in return for admission and employment".

and

"Federates were any barbarian group or individual serving in barbarian auxiliary units recruited through receptio at the end of the fourth century and early fifth."

As Roman strength declined, and barbarian strength increased, actual homelands were awarded:

"After 418 and particularly after the settlements of the Burgundians in 443, federates in the West became typically those barbarians settled with permanent claims upon the land in the interior provinces and legally governed by their own kings."

The quotes (my apologies to Spendius) are from pages 14 and 277 of "Barbarians within the Gates of Rome" by Thomas S. Burns.

0 Replies

much thanks
thank you! I found the perfect example-- you were very helpful.
have a great one!

0 Replies

Re: ethnic groups granted a homeland pre 1500

chadben wrote:

Is anyone aware of an ethnic group that was granted a homeland by another opposing ethnic group before 1500 ce? I am trying to relate this to the peace talks between Israel and Palestine about a Palestinian homeland for a paper and am drawing a blank on a solid example of this in history.

Is there any other example of where a people with a common religion and ethnicity were driven out of their ancestral homeland (where they had been living for about a thousand years), scattered to the 4 corners of the earth and managed to maintain their common religion and ethnicity despite millennia of persecution?

The Hebrews/Israelites/Jews settled as a nation in the Holy Land in about 1000 BC (there ancestors were likely living in the region 4,000 years ago as evidenced by the ancient city of Ebla). They were there for longer than the Normans have been in Britain and almost for as long as the English have been living in England.

I doubt that you will find one single people in all of history that are comparable to the Jews.

Quote:

find an article appearing in a highly respected newspaper, preferably the New York Times, appearing since August 20, 2007, which can be related to something that happened, started, or was founded anywhere in the world but before 1500.

Why 1500?

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

There are numerous cases of ethnic homelands being given in the later Roman Empire. This policy evolved over time - originally (mid 4th century):

"receptio constituted a legal act in which the immigrant made a binding commitment or compact (also called a foedus) with the state, agreeing to serve in return for admission and employment".

and

"Federates were any barbarian group or individual serving in barbarian auxiliary units recruited through receptio at the end of the fourth century and early fifth."

As Roman strength declined, and barbarian strength increased, actual homelands were awarded:

"After 418 and particularly after the settlements of the Burgundians in 443, federates in the West became typically those barbarians settled with permanent claims upon the land in the interior provinces and legally governed by their own kings."

The quotes (my apologies to Spendius) are from pages 14 and 277 of "Barbarians within the Gates of Rome" by Thomas S. Burns.

Given or merely paid in tribute? The homelands that the Romans gave the Barbarians were not really the Romans' to give since these homelands had originally been conquered by the Romans and taken from someone else. Furthermore, the Romans granted these homelands because they no longer had the military capacity or the political will to fight them.

Even something like the Roman province of Judea was still totally subject to the whim of Rome despite the fact that such regions had their own "king".

Also consider the fact that no one is giving the Jews anything in the Middle East. The Jews are merely regaining what had been taken from them 2,000 years ago.

0 Replies

Re: much thanks

chadben wrote:

thank you! I found the perfect example-- you were very helpful.
have a great one!

You might possibly use Normandy. But, technically Normandy was merely a feudal possession of the King of France. Legally Normandy was not an independent entity the way the modern state of Israel is.

0 Replies

Re: much thanks

flaja wrote:

You might possibly use Normandy. But, technically Normandy was merely a feudal possession of the King of France. Legally Normandy was not an independent entity the way the modern state of Israel is.

Depends on what preiod you are talking about.

Philip II took Normandy from England - it didn't become 'legally' a part of France until the Treaty of Paris.

On the other hand, La Charte aux Normands doesn't really prove your claim that Normandy was a "feudal possession".

0 Replies

Re: much thanks

Walter Hinteler wrote:

flaja wrote:
You might possibly use Normandy. But, technically Normandy was merely a feudal possession of the King of France. Legally Normandy was not an independent entity the way the modern state of Israel is.

Depends on what preiod you are talking about.

Philip II took Normandy from England - it didn't become 'legally' a part of France until the Treaty of Paris.

On the other hand, La Charte aux Normands doesn't really prove your claim that Normandy was a "feudal possession".

The first "Norman" was Rollo, aka Robert of Normandy. Several semi-legendary accounts say that Rollo was either a Dane or a Norwegian. But at any rate Rollo was part of a Viking force that invaded France and besieged Paris in 805. The siege was lifted and the Vikings retreated in exchange for tribute from the French. Rollo played the mercenary for a while before invading the region that became Normandy. Rather they pay tribute so Rollo would leave the French king, Charles the Simple, granted him the region that became Normandy in exchange for Rollo's pledge to defend France against further Viking invasions. In 911 Rollo and Charles signed the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte which made Rollo a feudal vassal of the French crown.

Rollo is a direct ancestor William the Conqueror. William's descendants collectively held both the throne of England and Normandy until the time of King John. During that time the Duke of Normandy was still a feudal vassal of the King of France even when that Duke was also King of Egland. Even after Phillip II of France captured Normandy the Channel Islands that had been an integral part of Normandy were retained by England. These Islands are, to this day, feudal possessions of the monarch of England (and I would assume feudal possessions of whomever the current heir to the French throne is). England did not recognize France's legal control of mainland Normandy until Henry VIII signed the Treaty of Paris in 1529, and even then both Henry and his heirs still fought trying to regain Normandy.

Bear in mind that the Normans did not retain their distinct ethnicity. They freely intermarried with the native French population of Normandy. Then William took a polyglot army with him to England and this group and their descendants freely intermarried with the native English.

0 Replies

Thanks for your explanations. I know a bit about Norman history, too, since I focused on that during my history study at university. (One of my major exams was about the Tapisserie de Bayeux.)

0 Replies

Do land claims by Australian aboriginals have any significance in this subject.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Do land claims by Australian aboriginals have any significance in this subject.

That situation is likely something akin to American Indians. But my understanding is that as far as the Indians were concerned they didn't own the land that Americans took from them because the Indians didn't think land could be owned. Americans took something that the Indians didn't claim as their own to begin with. Even today I think most Indian reservations hold land in common- individual Indians do not usually own individual pieces of land on Indian reservations.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thanks for your explanations. I know a bit about Norman history, too, since I focused on that during my history study at university. (One of my major exams was about the Tapisserie de Bayeux.)

I don't remember who made it, but I have an old edition of National Geographic magazine that has an article about a 2nd Bayeux Tapestry- one depicting the D-Day invasion of 1944.

I've seen it claimed that William the Conqueror and his wife Matilda of Flanders were buried in separate cathedrals because they each had to build a cathedral to make up for the fact that they were cousins and couldn't get married without the Pope's permission. I've researched both of their immediate ancestries and cannot find how they were cousins. Can you shed any light on this?

Also, can you document if William had a blood-claim to the throne of England? I know that Matilda was a descendant of Alfred the Great and so William's sons all had a blood-tie to the throne, but I cannot find where William did. I know that William and Edward the Confessor were cousins, but this was through Emma who, as near as I can find, was not a blood heir to the throne of England.

0 Replies

The name 'Bayeux tapestry' is strongly connected to that of the 14th/15th century piece of art - and the history (and stories) behind it.

William the Conqueror is (said to be) buried at St. Stephen's in Abbaye-aux-Hommes, Caen.
Mathilda is buried there as well.

If I remember correctly, in those days marriages up the seventh degree were thought to be consanguinity.
Pope Nicholas II gave William and Matilda finally his blessing.

I'm not aware (and can't remember) that William claimned to have a blood-claim tot he throne of England.
Nor does the tapestry which actually was made to educate people and help William('s reputation).

There are some quite good sources online.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

William the Conqueror is (said to be) buried at St. Stephen's in Abbaye-aux-Hommes, Caen.

I've always heard that at some point William was dug up and his bones were scattered and no one today knows for sure where any of them are. What we think may be William may not really be him. Considering what the English let some of their kings get away with in life, it is disgusting how they let William be treated in death.

BTW: Do you know right off who was the 1st Norman king of England to be buried in England?

Quote:

If I remember correctly, in those days marriages up the seventh degree were thought to be consanguinity.

You've got to be kidding. With the marriage pools so drastically reduced, how on earth did big kings ever manage to produce little kings?

Quote:

I'm not aware (and can't remember) that William claimned to have a blood-claim tot he throne of England.

My understanding is that William's only claim was an alleged promise that the childless Edward the Confessor promised him the throne. But, I don't see where the throne was Edward's to give away.

Of course I don't know that Harold had a blood claim to the throne either, but at least he had the backing of the Witan.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

dadpad wrote:
Do land claims by Australian aboriginals have any significance in this subject.

That situation is likely something akin to American Indians. But my understanding is that as far as the Indians were concerned they didn't own the land that Americans took from them because the Indians didn't think land could be owned. Americans took something that the Indians didn't claim as their own to begin with. Even today I think most Indian reservations hold land in common- individual Indians do not usually own individual pieces of land on Indian reservations.

You're peddling convenient propaganda, whether or not that were your intent. For example, the English took the land of the Lepane tribe of Amerindians (those whom we used to refer to as the Delaware Indians) because representatives of the Iroquois Confederation told them (the English) that they (the Iroquois) had defeated them (the Lepane) in battle, and that therefore, the lands they occupied were theirs (the Iroquois) by right of conquest, and they were free to sell the lands to the English.

Most of the Amerindians had no concept of personal, private rights in property as regarded real estate (they did recognize personal possession, including chattels such as horses and slaves). Nevertheless, they recognized tribal rights in property as regards real estate, and would go to war to prevent neighboring tribes from poaching on their hunting grounds, or setting up encampments on their ground. The appearance of a family or clan group from one tribe setting up a settlement on land claimed by another tribe was considered prima facia an act of war.

Amerindians routinely "sold" land to white people, but often those who made the "sale" were not recognized by the larger tribal organization as having the authority to make the sale. So, for example, a Wyandott village cheiftan named Leather Lips (he liked the sound of his own voice) "sold" southern Ohio, Indian and Illinois to William Henry Harrison. He was judged by the Huron (the Wyandott were a "cadet" tribe of the Huron) elders, found guilty of alienating lands to which he had no claim, and was judicially murdered in the center of the village over which he claimed the cheiftanship. How the residents of the village felt about that, we can't say, but they made no move to interfere in the execution.

It has long been a convenient claim of the white man that Amerindians did not recognize property ownership--very convenient if you are bent on stealing land from the aboriginal inhabitants.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

You've got to be kidding. With the marriage pools so drastically reduced, how on earth did big kings ever manage to produce little kings?

No.

See e.g. Constance B. Bouchard: Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (online at JSTOR)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

flaja wrote:
dadpad wrote:

Most of the Amerindians had no concept of personal, private rights in property as regarded real estate (they did recognize personal possession, including chattels such as horses and slaves). Nevertheless, they recognized tribal rights in property as regards real estate, and would go to war to prevent neighboring tribes from poaching on their hunting grounds, or setting up encampments on their ground. The appearance of a family or clan group from one tribe setting up a settlement on land claimed by another tribe was considered prima facia an act of war.

It has long been a convenient claim of the white man that Amerindians did not recognize property ownership--very convenient if you are bent on stealing land from the aboriginal inhabitants.

Largely this is similar to Aboriginal Australia. The difference is that because of our young history (oxymoron?) many aboriginal people still have a continuing association with their tribal lands. Where possible "ownership" of tribal lands is being transfered back to those persons who can demonstrate a continuing association with their lands.

(it's a lot more complicated than that simple explanation)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

flaja wrote:
dadpad wrote:
Do land claims by Australian aboriginals have any significance in this subject.

That situation is likely something akin to American Indians. But my understanding is that as far as the Indians were concerned they didn't own the land that Americans took from them because the Indians didn't think land could be owned. Americans took something that the Indians didn't claim as their own to begin with. Even today I think most Indian reservations hold land in common- individual Indians do not usually own individual pieces of land on Indian reservations.

You're peddling convenient propaganda, whether or not that were your intent. For example, the English took the land of the Lepane tribe of Amerindians (those whom we used to refer to as the Delaware Indians) because representatives of the Iroquois Confederation told them (the English) that they (the Iroquois) had defeated them (the Lepane) in battle, and that therefore, the lands they occupied were theirs (the Iroquois) by right of conquest, and they were free to sell the lands to the English.

Did the Iroquois claim actual ownership of these lands or merely the right to use them? In legal terms there is a difference. Someone can own the right to harvest timber from a piece of property but not have a right to sell that property. You can own a right to use the water on a piece of property and not have a right to farm or plant that property. You can own the oil that lies beneath a piece of property, but not have a right to graze cattle on the surface of that property.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Setanta wrote:
flaja wrote:
dadpad wrote:

Most of the Amerindians had no concept of personal, private rights in property as regarded real estate (they did recognize personal possession, including chattels such as horses and slaves). Nevertheless, they recognized tribal rights in property as regards real estate, and would go to war to prevent neighboring tribes from poaching on their hunting grounds, or setting up encampments on their ground. The appearance of a family or clan group from one tribe setting up a settlement on land claimed by another tribe was considered prima facia an act of war.

It has long been a convenient claim of the white man that Amerindians did not recognize property ownership--very convenient if you are bent on stealing land from the aboriginal inhabitants.

Largely this is similar to Aboriginal Australia. The difference is that because of our young history (oxymoron?) many aboriginal people still have a continuing association with their tribal lands. Where possible "ownership" of tribal lands is being transfered back to those persons who can demonstrate a continuing association with their lands.

(it's a lot more complicated than that simple explanation)

In the U.S. you generally cannot live on an Indian reservation without proving your Indian ancestry and there are some groups that claim that they are Indian tribes but which are not recognized as such by the federal government.

0 Replies

Quote:

Did the Iroquois claim actual ownership of these lands or merely the right to use them? In legal terms there is a difference.

Only in the eyes of a non indigenouse person.

Just because an indigenouse native does not have a piece of paper with his name on it does not make him less of an owner. Here we use the term custodian in relation to an indigenous undocumented ownership.

In Australia if I assume the role of owner of a piece of land and demonstrate my claim by paying any outstanding local government taxes and or caring for this land for 15 years without another claim being lodged I will be recognized as the owner.

0 Replies

ethnic groups granted a homeland pre 1500

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know