Talk:Comitatus

The disambiguation page references this page in regard to a political term used in various meanings in Europe's classical period and in the Middle Ages. But the definition on this page is a Roman definition which may be the first line of the disambiguation page: a Latin word meaning company or retinue or an armed group of men attached to a leader, or comes; in particular, the Roman late Imperial mobile army (see comitatenses units).

Which is correct?

James084 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term is accurate as it refers to the Germanic comitatus. The Roman writer cites this definition in "Germania" after all. I presume a Roman source is used due to a lack of written accounts in the classical period.

In medieval Europe, the most well-known example of a comitatus is that depicted in Beowulf, though I do not believe it is mentioned as such. I was given this term to describe Hrothgar's warriors in a medieval literature class, and you can find it frequently in footnotes in various online editions of the text.

According to Lords of Battle: Image and Reality of the Comitatus in Dark Age Britain (in the introduction, page 2), "Most studies have tended to equate the comitatus with a lord's personal retainers or bodyguard; that is, with a lord's personal warband. This view equates the Latin term comitatus with the Anglo-Saxon heir&eth;geneatas (hearth-companions)and with the Welsh teulu (family). Instead, this book prefers a wider, more inclusive view of the comitatus, seeing it as including the warriors who typically resided at the hall of the king or chieftan, as well as those lesser lords (along with their own warriors) who were expected to be in frequent attendance.  Thus, the comitatus can be equated with that body of armed men which a lord, whether king or chieftan, could muster from his own (often tribal) local resources.  The comitatus does not include the mustering of distinct warbands from subject peoples for the purpose of creating large-scale armies." This obviously focuses on the comitatus in Britain, but I don't have any sort of timeline on its development in Europe as a whole. Were it easier to come by confirmation, I would attempt to fix this entry myself.

--Aesire 04:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Greek term...?
Isn't comitatus a Greek term for the mutual loyalty between a commander and his troops? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 04:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things:
The Section on women ends with the following text, which appears to be out of place (it looks as if it is notes/outline from an earlier version):
 * Comitatus-Warrior Culture -Lord/Thane relationship: They had mutual obligations to each other. -Blood-feud: They went by the rules of blood feud. It was always endless retaliation: a life for a life. -Compensation/Werguild (man price) -Kinship ties were important -Participated in gift/insult exchange: it was an economy of honor, it showed the importance of "stuff."

Secondly, I'm currently reading Christopher I. Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road, in which he claims that the Comitatus was a major (possibly defining) cultural feature of the whole "Central Eurasian Culture Complex" that (in his view) encompassed at one time or other lands and peoples all the way from the non-Romanised parts of Europe in Antiquity/Early Middle ages to Manchuria. Is there more that can be said about the similarities (if meaningful similarities exist) between the "chieftains' picked warbands" of such diverse nations? Iapetus (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm deleting that ridiculous last paragraph. Mrrhum (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The section on women
The entire section on women is entirely one sided. There is a considerable source of evidence that women were highly respected and seen as equals in Anglo Saxon society. Peace-Weavers and Shield-Maidens Women in Early English Society by Kathleen Herbert. The very first reference of an English woman in recorded history is of her leading several ships worth of warriors, herself, to right a wrong against her, if what you are saying is true that simply could not have happened; and since it is recorded in history I would venture that what you are saying is not true. This entire section needs re writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.229.211 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and actioned Jacobisq (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Article move?
I don't think article about the term being used about Germanic tribes should be the main article?? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)