Further study has revealed to me that the first Model Parliment of Edward the First-1297, and subsequent creations of Parliment to it's present form today probably has no connections with the Icelandic All-thing. It developed independently, with influence from AS England, the Latin Church, and continental influence. A reading of the English bill of rights of 1689 shows it as the definite father to our own Bill of Rights.
We may have to concede that we agree to disagree. However, without a solid scholarly source, subjected to peer review (that means no internet drivel from the likes of us), I remain steadfast in my claim that the US government and legal systems are more influenced by Roman and Greek methods than by purely Viking methods of governance. I agree that the Germanic influence is large (as it must be, seeing that the English are of Germanic stock), but not dominant as you say.
I have enjoyed this, as it as made me do some further research into an enjoyable field. thanks, TL
I'll use an analogy as I don't have time to play your "scholarly reference" games. The representative government/"rights of free men" concept in Greece and Rome DIED--fini, kaput.
Although preseved in written form (by the Arabs for the Greeks, by the Church for the Romans), they were no longer practiced anywhere in Europe. The representative government concept independently arising from similar socio-economic roots in peninsular and islandic Northern Europe did NOT die out (for whatever reason)--witness the continuous existence of the Icelandic parliament from 920AD. With the increase in literacy, the Greek and Roman ideals were re-discovered and grafted onto the pre-existing North European policital "rootstock".
Folks like you only see the pretty apples on the tree, not realizing that those apples are nurtured (and indeed owe their entire existence) to a not-so-pretty wild crabapple rootstock. It is in this sense I mean when I say that American representative government owes more to nothern European "roots" than to Greece and Rome.
Charter of Liberties of King Henry I A.D. 1100
Note that Henry is acknowledging and promising "restoration" of the laws of King Edward (Saxon laws).
Which he had to do in order to receive legitimacy by election from the "rump Witan". Under Norman rules of primogenture the rightful ruler would have been Duke Robert of Normandy. (William Rufus had been king because William I, who held England by right of conquest, was able to make it as a personal gift)
Indeed for a couple of centuries the grievences of the English against the Normans were for a return of those Rights held under the pre-conquest "Laws of the Good King Edward"