German mentality
Germany united itself very late, in 1870. Before
then, the country was very much divided. There are Germans and Germans.
Even today, the mentality in the north is different from the one in the
south. This internal division must be a natural condition, as in 1946
Germany was federalized and split again in Länder
(states). During the Roman Empire the situation was not dissimilar. An
estimated 4 million Germans lived west of the Rhine and south of the
Donau, within the Empire. The recruitment potential
was enough to fill 6 legions assuming about 1% professional soldiers.
No wonder that many legions consisted mainly out of 'Germans'. Most of
them were simply Roman citizens.
The reason why there were more legionnaires from the German part of the
Empire than for example Gauls lay in the local social structures. At
the end of the Empire there was almost no middle class left. The rich
and powerful landowners in Gaul discouraged their subjects, landless
farmers (tenants) and servants, from joining the legions in order to
keep the workforce at their service [1]. The (lower) middle class
survived better in the German part of the Empire, as it was less
Romanised. The gap in language and traditions with the rest of the
Western Empire was greater. The ancient German heritage laws (division
of land) were applied more. Consequently, there were more candidates
for the army.
During the late Empire, Roman emperors had a tradition of having a
personal guard that consisted exclusively out of Germano-Romans. When
such a high ranking person sets an example, then it is natural for
lower ranking persons to follow. I believe that many local 'governors'
had Germans at their service too. So, having Germano-Romans in your
personal guard was nothing special in the 4th and 5th century. Except
that having a personal guard itself was not normal, even illegal
in most cases.
Finnesburgh fragment
Gildas mentions one tribal origin: Saxons. Later writers add Angles,
Jutes and Friesians. The Finnesburgh fragment, a part
of Beowulf, tell us more. It's the tale of Hengest-the-Jute
(south-Dane), almost certainly the same Hengest who became the military
governor of Kent. He is presented as a captain (or similar) of the
guard of Hnaef-the-Dane (60 men). Hnaef seemed to be
a difficult person with a lot of enemies. Typically, his second in
command, Hengest, was probably the opposite: a conscientious and
respected man. He had sworn an oath of loyalty to his lord. This
included that he had to defend his lord up to the bitter end and avenge
him if he was killed. His lord had the duty to pay. Ordinary
mercenaries are only loyal to money. The relationship here is very
different.
One day, Hnaef is invited by Finn-the-Fries, his
brother in law, probably to settle a dispute [2] . Finn had a guard
too, noblesse oblige. One must take in account the very
strict rules of hospitality in those days. The host had to behave
accordingly and so did the guest. During the talks a row broke out and
Hnaef and the two sons of Finn were killed, before both guards could
intervene, or because of a feud between those guards (according to
Tolkien). Anyhow, the laws of hospitality were clearly broken.
Duty now obliged Hengest to avenge his lord, but he hesitated. He
probably had good reasons.
So, negotiations started and Finn convinced Hengest that he was the
victim, as his 2 sons were killed, and proposed Hengest and his men to
join his (Finn's) personal guard. Hengest accepted and swore a new oath
to Finn. But his former lord, Hnaef, remained unavenged. It must have
been clear for the audience of the tale that Hengest had conflicting
duties, a moral dilemma. Eventually, Hengest decided
to kill Finn. At least he had fulfilled his first oath, but at the same
time, he had broken his second. This meant shame and dishonour. Hengest
knew that his career in the region was over. All that was left was
to emigrate to Britain (well, that's the assumption).
There are more interpretations of this story [3].
The trouble is that we only have some fragments. Most researchers do
however agree upon the following: (a) the tale is important, not
because of the size of the scuffle (there were maybe 120 men involved),
but because of the circumstances. Those circumstances were felt by the
locals as exceptional. (b) the focus point is the moral dilemma.
It is striking that the plot of the story evolves
around a moral choice. The habit to wrap myths and legends in morality
is not West European. It is eastern, from the Middle
East. The Bible was written in that way. Some bi biblical stories, such
as Noach and the ark, also occur in other civilizations, as in
Mesopotamia, but without the typical Jewish moral background.
The story of Finn, Hnaef and Hengest must therefore been considered to
be some sort of textbook example of the mentality of the north German
upper class and the warrior class at its service, their houscarls.
Corruption
There can be no doubt that the Roman Empire was
riddled with corruption during the 4th century. The rich upper class
set the example. When high-ranking people are openly corrupt, then
everybody follows. Being corrupt is lucrative when overall corruption
is limited, but it is a different story when everyone is corrupt.
Suppose that a corrupt landowner sends his police force to collect rent
from his tenants. If his police is corrupt too, then chances are that a
part of that money would never reach him. So, the corrupt British lords
needed people who were NOT corrupt. Therefore, they had to come from
outside the Empire.
Who better than such serious people as the Anglo-Saxons? The British
landowners needed people they could completely trust and who would
function as a security buffer between themselves and the guardsmen of
local origin. Those local guardsmen were needy trained, less
disciplined, and therefore potentially dangerous for the lord and his
family. The Anglo-Saxons were expected to train, discipline, command
and control the local British. All that at the service of the local
lord.
