Трудни за превод неща на английски

[glishev]

Large landowners were now expected to bring a retinue of thegns with them, based on the hideage of heir land, and the very definition of a thegn was someone who could afford to arm himself as a warrior with the proceeds of his land.

Тук сякаш има малко противоречие: земевладелецът води дружина воини, а воин е този, който се въоръжава с доходите от земите си. Последно, обикновеният воин има ли земи? В периода, за който се отнася текстът, би трябвало да сме далеч от класическия феодализъм.

Съвсем отделно, чудил съм се дали "thegn" и "thain" се доближават не само етимологически, но и смислово. Защото в познатата ми специализирана литература "thegn" се употребява само като "воин".

[ISTORIK]

Тук сякаш има малко противоречие: земевладелецът води дружина воини, а воин е този, който се въоръжава с доходите от земите си. Последно, обикновеният воин има ли земи? В периода, за който се отнася текстът, би трябвало да сме далеч от класическия феодализъм.

Съвсем отделно, чудил съм се дали "thegn" и "thain" се доближават не само етимологически, но и смислово. Защото в познатата ми специализирана литература "thegn" се употребява само като "воин".

1. thegn = thane (водач на клан, феодал)

2. hidage (hid'age) - a tax, formerly paid to the kings of England for every hide of land.

1. мярка за повърхност (около 40 хектара).

2. земя, достатъчна за издържане на едно семейство (в средновековна Англия)

3. Burghal Hidage

The Burghal Hidage is an Anglo-Saxon document providing a list of thirty three fortified places (burhs) in the ancient Kingdom of Wessex and the taxes (recorded as numbers of hides) assigned for their maintenance. The document, so named by Frederic William Maitland in 1897, survives in two versions of medieval and early modern date.

The Burghal Hideage offers an unusually detailed picture of the network of burhs, that Alfred the Great designed to defend his kingdom from the predations of Viking invaders. Burhs were fortified towns or forts in Anglo-Saxon England, built as a defence against the Vikings, as well as being strategically offensive against positions held by the Vikings. The burhs of Wessex, listed in the Burghal Hidage, formed part of a system built by King Alfred, arguably in the years 878-9. Other burhs were built by Alfred's son Edward the Elder in his campaigns against the Vikings who were in control of much of Mercia as well as East Anglia. Alfred's daughter Æthelflæd, and her husband Æthelred, also built burhs in western Mercia. These became administrative centres which were related to the shiring of Mercia in the early 10th century. Burhs had official status recognised by grants such as the right to mint coinage. In Wessex, these fortified communities were geographically distributed so that, in the period when the Burghal Hidage was compiled, everyone in Wessex lived within a day's march of a place of refuge.

Burhs were supported by the labour of the inhabitants of the burghal district, which was assessed by hides. In regions of medieval England outside the Danelaw, the hide was a unit of land defined according to its agricultural yield and taxable potential rather than its area. The areas of hides ranged from 15 to 30 modern acres (6 to 12 hectares). One hide was assumed to support one household. In wartime, five hides were expected to provide one fully armed soldier, and one man from every hide was to provide garrison duty for the burhs and to help in their initial construction and upkeep. The continued maintenance of the burhs, as well as ongoing garrison duty, was also probably supplied by those inhabitants of the new burhs which were planned by the king as new towns. In this way the economic and military functions of the larger burhs were closely interlinked.

It has long been recognised that the system of burhs recorded in the Burghal Hidage was the creation of King Alfred, the received view being that they were in place by the time of the second Viking invasions in the 890s (based on the evidence in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of the existence of garrisons in many of them by this time), and that most of them were constructed in the 880s. However, the fact that nearly half the number of hides in the system were allocated to burhs on the northern border of Wessex with Mercia suggests a context for the creation of this system in the period when Mercia was occupied and controlled by the Vikings. This was the situation in the period from 874, when the Vikings at Repton installed Ceolwulf (II) as king of Mercia to replace Burgred. The most probable context on strategic grounds is in the short period between 877 and 879, when Mercia was partitioned between Ceolwulf and Guthrum. The creation of this system by King Alfred can therefore best be seen as both an in-depth defence of Wessex against possible invasion of Viking forces (such as indeed happened in the period 875-early 878), and as a strategic offensive against the Vikings who controlled Mercia and London at that time.

Work on the minting patterns of the coinage of the period has shown that King Alfred was in control of London and the surrounding area until about 877, exactly the time when the Vikings are recorded as partitioning Mercia and taking control of its eastern extent. Thereafter the coins minted in London are only in the name of the Mercian king Ceolwulf. After his decisive defeat of the Vikings at the Battle of Ethandun in early 878, Alfred was once again able to take the offensive. His victory must have earned him wide acclaim. It is this juncture which seems the most appropriate time for the start of the planning and construction of the system of burhs recorded in the Burghal Hidage. Throughout 878 Guthrum's Vikings were in control of Mercia and, arguably, London, with his base in Cirencester. The creation of burhs at Oxford and Buckingham at this time fits in with the likelihood that Alfred was able to regain control of this area which he had exercised before being deprived of it as a result of the Viking partition of 877, and their siting demonstrates that he was able to initiate a strategic offensive against the Vikings in Eastern Mercia and London. Alfred's standing enabled him to impose a level of conscription on the population of his kingdom to construct the burhs, to act as garrisons behind their defences, and to serve in his new army, at a level which was probably not attained again until the Second World War.

The retreat of Guthrum and his band to East Anglia in late 879 and the similar retreat of the Viking army stationed at Fulham, west of London, back to the Continent at the same time (both events recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), can be seen as a tactical response to the effectiveness of the strategic offensive posed by the construction of the Burghal system. The ratification of a mutually agreed boundary to the east of London, in Alfred and Guthrum's Treaty, between Guthrum's new Viking kingdom of East Anglia and Alfred's newly won territory, can best be ascribed to this time. These developments gave Alfred control of London and its surrounding territory, which included a good length of the strategically important Watling Street as it approached London. This interpretation is supported by the issue at this time of the special celebratory London Monogram coinage from the London mint, now under the control of Alfred, and by the issue at the same time of coins from Oxford and Gloucester in southern Mercia.

In Wessex a number of the burhs which were part of the system recorded in the Burghal Hidage, and which were merely fortresses rather than fortified towns, were in many cases replaced at a later date by larger fortresses which were fortified towns. The received view of the date of this process is that this took place in the 920s or 930s during the reign of King Athelstan. More recently, arguments have been given which places these changes in the reign of Alfred, possibly in the 890s in response to the new Viking invasions. Examples of this process can be seen in the replacement of Pilton by Barnstaple, and Halwell by Totnes and Kingsbridge in Devon.

This list shows the 33 burhs (with hidages) included in either or both of the 'A' and the 'B' groups of manuscripts.

Eorpeburnan - 324

Hastings - 500

Lewes - 1300

Burpham - 720

Chichester - 1500

Portchester - 500

Southampton - 150

Winchester - 2400

Wilton - 1400

Chisbury - 700

Shaftesbury - 700

Twynam (now called Christchurch, Dorset) - 470

Wareham - 1600

Bridport - 760

Exeter - 734

Halwell - 300

Lydford - 140

Pilton - 360

Watchet - 513

Axbridge - 400

Lyng - 100

Langport- 600

Bath - 1000

Malmesbury - 1200

Cricklade - 1500

Oxford - 1400

Wallingford - 2400

Buckingham - 1600

Sashes - 1000

Eashing - 600

Southwark - 1800

Worcester - 1200

Warwick - 2400

4. Tribal hidage

The Tribal Hidage is a list of thirty-five tribes that was compiled in Anglo-Saxon England some time between the 7th and 9th centuries. It includes a number of independent kingdoms and other smaller territories and assigns a number of hides to each one. The list of tribes is headed by Mercia and consists almost exclusively of peoples who lived south of the Humber estuary and that surrounded the Mercian kingdom, some of which have never been satisfactorily identified by scholars.

The original purpose of the Tribal Hidage remains unknown: many scholars believe that it was a tribute list created by a king, but other possibilities have been suggested. The hidage figures may be purely symbolic and merely reflect the prestige of each territory, or they may represent an early example of book-keeping. Many historians are convinced that the Tribal Hidage originated from Mercia, which dominated southern Anglo-Saxon England until the start of the 9th century, but others have argued that the text was Northumbrian in origin.

The Tribal Hidage has been of great importance to historians since the middle of the 19th century, partly because it mentions territories unrecorded in other documents. Attempts to link all the names in the list with modern places are highly speculative and all resulting maps are treated with caution. Three different versions (or recensions) of the Tribal Hidage have survived, two of which resemble each other: one dates from the 11th century and is part of a miscellany of works, another is contained in a 17th century Latin treatise, and the third (which has survived in six mediaeval manuscripts) contains many omissions and spelling variations.

All three versions are based on a lost manuscript: historians have been unable to establish a date for the original compilation. The Tribal Hidage has been used to construct theories about the political organisation of the Anglo-Saxons, and to give an insight into the Mercian state and its neighbours at a time when Mercia held hegemony over a number of other peoples. It has been used to support theories regarding the origin and location of the tribes in the list and the way by which the tribes were systematically assessed and ruled by others. Some historians have proposed that the Tribal Hidage is not a list of peoples but of administrative areas.

The purpose of the Tribal Hidage remains unknown.[15] Over the years different theories have been suggested for its purpose, linked with a range of dates for its creation.

According to many experts, the Tribal Hidage was a tribute list created upon the instructions of an Anglo-Saxon king such as Offa of Mercia, Wulfhere of Mercia or Edwin of Northumbria, but it may have been used for different purposes at various times during its history.

Cyril Hart has described it as a tribute list that involved all of Anglo-Saxon England south of the Humber and that was created for Offa, but acknowledges that no proof exists that it was compiled during his rule.

Higham notes that the syntax of the text requires that a word implying 'tribute' was omitted from each line and argues that it was "almost certainly a tribute list".

James Campbell has argued that if the list served any practical purpose, it implies that tributes were assessed and obtained in an organised way

По материали от:

http://en.wikipedia..../Burghal_Hidage

http://en.wikipedia....i/Tribal_Hidage

Tribal_Hidage_pie_chart.pdf

Редактирано Юни 3, 2012 от ISTORIK

[glishev]

Не съм съгласен, че thegn, thane и thain имат напълно еднакъв смисъл. Да, имат общ произход, но thain и thane по-често означават "вожд" ("феодал" не е коректно), а thegn - воин. Като thegn се употребява главно в специализирана литература за воините в ранните англосаксонски владетелски дружини, а thane - за вожд на шотландски клан в една по-късна епоха.

Нямах нужда от Уикипедия, но все пак благодаря

Редактирано Юни 3, 2012 от glishev

[Last roman]

Ако искате трудни за превод думи и извратени изречения, прочетете Шерлок Холмс в оригинал. Сър Артър Конан Дойл се е постарал добре да покаже всички прелести на английския език.

[ISTORIK]

Не съм съгласен, че thegn, thane и thain имат напълно еднакъв смисъл. Да, имат общ произход, но thain и thane по-често означават "вожд" ("феодал" не е коректно), а thegn - воин. Като thegn се употребява главно в специализирана литература за воините в ранните англосаксонски владетелски дружини, а thane - за вожд на шотландски клан в една по-късна епоха.

Нямах нужда от Уикипедия, но все пак благодаря!

Аз това от уикипедията го копнах повече за мен, отколкото - за теб. Щото тия думички за пръв път ги срещам, та ми стана интересно.

Любопитно ми е и дали тази тематика е достойна за тема във форума? Примерно - английският текст да се преведе на български и да се допълни, ако е възможно.

Редактирано Юни 4, 2012 от ISTORIK

[kravolok]

Ако искате трудни за превод думи и извратени изречения, прочетете Шерлок Холмс в оригинал. Сър Артър Конан Дойл се е постарал добре да покаже всички прелести на английския език.

Или пък това...

[glishev]

Любопитно ми е и дали тази тематика дали е достойна за тема във форума? Примерно - английският текст да се преведе на български и да се допълни, ако е възможно.

Разбира се