Do not for one second assume that I am "stuck in my ways" and not open to your view-I can be persuaded, yet you have offered nothing but the same repeated argument, with no empirical evidence to back it. Scholarly work is no game-any real historian would never make that statement.
I have indeed conceded that we owe much your so called "rootstalk," but a simple browse through the writings of say, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, many of the other founders, show their reverence for the ways of republican Rome, and even that they thought much of the fallicies of democracy in Greece-see Samuel Adams. No where do they mention a non-functioning parliment in long forgotten Iceland. Yes, they inherited the traditions of Europe-and you are right, the ideas of Rome and Greece DID "die" (but strangely not in Italy and the Byzantine empire [to a much less extent than Italy]-where the ideas of representative government continued to exist and flourish, where many a North European learned to govern), only to be "reborn" with the Enlightenment, and to take a dominant role in the creation of new governments, (ours).
To assume that I ignore the contributions of North Europe is again a fallacy of your argument. I do not in any way consider the medieval past in any way inferior to Roman thought. But I suggest you delve deeper into your studies of the area you presume to know anything about. You will find that what you consider an unbroken chain of events dating from Viking incursions is instead a tornado of events that caused the death and rebirth of both feudal and representative government. I greatly encourage you further study the parliment of Iceland-you will again find that it ceased to be a functioning paliment before Edward I model parliment.
Finally- You have moved from specifically Viking forms of governance to "North European"-a bold move that assumes uniformity of thought throughout the area-any good teacher of medieval studies would laugh you out of the classroom. Unless you hold a PHD in medieval studies with a emphasis on government I would never take what you say with more than a grain of salt. You should likewise demand the same from me. Yet it is only I that has given source material. Your argument is a FANTASTIC one indeed, this is one of the first times I have actually heard anyone argue of the importance of Germanic thought on our government, but you fail to cap it with good evidence. And that is a shame.
Do not take the following as an insult, if I choose that route, I would not hesitate to do so: It is indeed unfortunate that you choose the route of intellectual laziness-I'm going to assume your university or college or wherever you received your education in things medieval allowed such things. I was hoping for further study. You have proved by empirical evidence, NOTHING.
It's not a matter of uniformity of thought. What Warthog, Hanson and I are arguing (or maybe it's just me) is that the concept of individual rights and liberty will grow when the land and climate favours farming by small independent landholders, (Greece, Italy, Northern Europe) rather than collectivist agriculture.
I don't place all that much reverence on what Jefferson et.al said abour Greek and Roman ideals as the source.
1. The 18/19th centuries were very pro-Classical world times
2. While they may have had respect for Classical world ideals (I think Aristotle's Politics is one of the great works on government), such respect would not have found acceptance if there wasn't an instinctive understanding in the society.
As a previous poster said other cultures just don't understand what "liberty" means.
Or as P J O'Rouke said in the Forward to the British edition of Parliament of Whores "Foreigners may believe in individualism in some theoretical way, the way you and I believe in the Big Bang. But we are *individuals*".
3. And while there is evidence of revolting English commoners frequently maintaining their rights from 1066 on, there is not so much from the Classical world.
Indeed, while the Roman world succummed to an increasing tax burden without complaint, the two biggest incidents in England (1640s) and America (1770s) occurred when the populace decided that the Government was introducing illegitimate *new* taxation, which it had no right to so do.
4. What I am arguing is that the centuries of Empire in the Greek and Roman world had destroyed the concept of liberty there.
the ideas of Rome and Greece DID "die" (but strangely not in Italy and the Byzantine empire [to a much less extent than Italy]-where the ideas of representative government continued to exist and flourish,
I find the idea that the Eastern Roman Empire was in any way "representative government", well, the word Byzantine comes to mind. It was an Oriental Despotism as alien to the Western liberal democractic tradition as the Court of King Solomon.
Y'know, you really DO need reading lessons. I haven't "moved" anywhere. My original use of "Viking" was imprecise, not fully expressing exactly what I meant, and quickly corrected in later postings. Nor does my position require "uniformity of thought throughout the area". I fully realize that there was wide variability over the geographical area of "PLINES" Europe. Nonethelss, throughout the enire period, there is a strain of thought that "free men have rights", from the earliest days of the cultural milieu. To specifically use Vikings--they were "freemen and thanes", not "kings, lords, nobles, and serfs". Even during the period of monarchy, the monarchy in the "PLINES" area was not as "absolute" as, for instance, in southern and central Europe. Some will say that was because the monarchs were enlightened--I say that was because those monarchs knew that their "subjects" believed that they had rights not flowing from the monarchy, and if they had tried Louis IV style governance, they too would have "lost their heads".
"It is indeed unfortunate that you choose the route of intellectual laziness-I'm going to assume your university or college or wherever you received your education in things medieval allowed such things."
Now you are being stupid. The problem isn't "intellectual laziness"--it's one of TIME. I'm part owner of a small, high-tech venture, currently working on research in detection of bio-warfare agents (and some other similar projects). I'm doing good to spend twenty minutes or so a day on FR. I simply don't have the extra time to go back into my library into various references on an area of "hobby" interest and post footnotes here.