# Differences between Norse/ Nordic/ Scandinavian and Germanic/ German/ Teutonic myths



## Roman

Are there any differences between Norse/Nordic/Scandinavian and Germanic/German/Teutonic myths and legends? The terms tend to be used interchangeably in most sources I have looked at, but Germany is not Scandinavian or Norse/Nordic, so it seems a bit suspicious to me.


----------



## ares71

Paraphrased from "Sagas of the Northmen Viking and German Myth" by Time-Life 1997:

The Anglo-Saxons and Scandavians were both branches of Germanic peoples.   Germanic was the term the Romans used to refer to the barbarian tribes of central and northern Europe that were not Celts.   The tribes shared Germanic language that was distinct from Slavic, Celtic, or Latin.    Germanic dialects later split into Dutch, Flemish, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic.    The latter four being the North Germanic Sub-Group which split off earlier.    

I presume that since they shared language in ancient times, their mythology would be similiar.   

Hope that helps.


----------



## tarchon

Without getting into too much detail, there were some differences, though obviously many of the basic ideas were the same.  What we know as "Norse" mythology is probably more elaborate and systematized than the earlier pre-literate beliefs, thanks to the efforts of Snorri Sturluson, who wrote a manual on it called _Skaldskaparmal_, "Language of Poetry".   The messianic overtones of the Baldur myth for instance are not strongly evidenced in Britain or in Germany.  The Aesir/Vanir division is also not clear from other sources, but giants, dwarves, elves, runes (though these never penetrated much into Germany), the major Aesir (Odin, Thor, Tyr, Loki, Frey, Frigga) appear to have been common.  Also, the major elements of the Volsung saga (the dwarf's treasure, the dragon, the ring of fire) seem to have been common currency.  Some of the familiar myths were also widely circulated, though differing in details and characters.   Religious rituals had certain clear similarites like the irminsul and cult wagons.


----------



## Algolei

tarchon said:
			
		

> ...thanks to the efforts of Snorri Sturluson, who wrote a manual on it called _Skaldskaparmal_, "Language of Poetry".



On the other hand, Viktor Rydberg's _Teutonic Mythology_ (available for reading on the internet) proposes that Sturluson warped Norse mythology, trying to conform it to a more Christian view.

There are differences between Norse/Nordic/Scandinavian and Germanic/German/Teutonic myths and legends, but many of them are due to the time differences involved.  Whereas the Norse tradition became in a sense "trapped" by such works as Sturlusson's _Skaldskaparmal_ at the same time as it was replaced by Christianity, a "Germanic" tradition continued to evolve alongside the Christian one, entwining with it.

But then, I'm no expert.


----------



## tarchon

Algolei said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Viktor Rydberg's _Teutonic Mythology_ (available for reading on the internet) proposes that Sturluson warped Norse mythology, trying to conform it to a more Christian view.
> 
> There are differences between Norse/Nordic/Scandinavian and Germanic/German/Teutonic myths and legends, but many of them are due to the time differences involved.  Whereas the Norse tradition became in a sense "trapped" by such works as Sturlusson's _Skaldskaparmal_ at the same time as it was replaced by Christianity, a "Germanic" tradition continued to evolve alongside the Christian one, entwining with it.



It's not just a proposition (or another hand) - Sturluson wrote at the very end of the Skaldic tradition, and his vision of Norse mythology is deeply influenced by Christian and Classical traditions.   Almost everyone accepts that.  Sturluslon however didn't really have very much influence on Skaldic works, coming at the end of the period as he did.  His influence was more on later perceptions and derivations of the Norse mythological tradition (after it had ceased to be a living religious tradition), and his clear intention was to provide an interpretive and stylistic guide to a tradition that was rapidly transforming with the spread of Christian/Romance culture.  There are much earlier sagas though that lack the deep Christian influences found in Sturluson (12thC-13th), and so provide a less altered, if patchy, picture of pre-Christian Norse beliefs.
Norse mythology also continued to evolve into the types of romances that were popular in Germany and the rest of Europe, in much the same way as it did in various localities.  The Volsungasaga (13thC) is fairly typical of this, and it obviously has many parallels to the Nibelungenlied (12-13thC), both in content and the blending of the Medieval Romance aesthetic with "Germanic" mythology.  One interesting question is whether the parallels in the two are from direct influence or if they used independent local traditions, though it's most likely that both factors are responsible.


----------



## Turjan

Roman said:
			
		

> Are there any differences between Norse/Nordic/Scandinavian and Germanic/German/Teutonic myths and legends? The terms tend to be used interchangeably in most sources I have looked at, but Germany is not Scandinavian or Norse/Nordic, so it seems a bit suspicious to me.




Just look at the English language, and you see the similarities. _Wednesday_, from Saxon _Woden_, resembles more the old Franconian _Wodan_ than the Norse _Odin_. On the other hand, _Thursday_, from Saxon _Thor_, is basically the same as the Norse word, and not like the German form _Donar_. The transition is more or less seamless, and the stories behind the gods are more or less the same .


----------



## Roman

Thanks everybody! So it seems that the common origin of these myths and legends ensures that although they are not exactly the same, they are similar enough to be grouped together as one mythology/legend system.


----------



## shilsen

Pretty much. In my personal usage of the terms, I use Germanic as a larger group term which includes Norse/Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon and a couple of others, which fits the definition ares71 used above.


----------



## Desdichado

Roman said:
			
		

> Thanks everybody! So it seems that the common origin of these myths and legends ensures that although they are not exactly the same, they are similar enough to be grouped together as one mythology/legend system.



As much as any common cultural system can be after generations and generations of spread over a large distance, evolving influences from neighbors, and gradually diverging languages.  For what it's worth, we can easily create root words for proto-Germanic forms of many of the common gods of Germanic mythology -- _*Thun-raz_ for Thorr/Thor/Donar, etc.  I don't know how useful that is, though.

I mean, it wouldn't be hard to go even further with it, and try to reconstruct a common Indo-European mythology, noting the very obvious similarities between various Indo-European thunder gods like Vedic Indra, Slavic Perkunas, Baltic Perun, Germanic Thor, etc.  In fact, there are researchers, generally following in the Georges Dumezil school of thought, who publish material doing exactly that.

So, there's no cut and dried answer, and at what point you decide, "this is too different; this is a new tradition" is pretty arbitrary.  Personally, my position on it is that "Germanic" mythology is common across the entire pagan Germanic tradition, with obvious regional differences.  Not only do we have the problem noted above, in which we don't know how much of the recorded Norse mythology is actually what any Norse believed vs. Sturleson's own interpretation and propoganda spin on the mythology, there are other vagaries that are interesting.

For instance, and I really wish I could remember where I read this, Odin didn't really used to be that important of a god, and he certainly wasn't the "All-father" until his cult, which spread from Germany, actually, pushed him forward.  Before that, Thor was the king of the gods in the Germanic tradition.  Another intriguing proposition I've heard is that the Vanir are not a native Germanic tradition, and represent increasing contact with Celtic mythology; in other words, the Vanir are the Celtic pantheon, and the Vanir/Aesir war represent relations between Germanic and Celtic peoples!  I'm not sure how much I buy that idea, but it is intriguing.

The thing about oral tradition religion that has been "dead" for centuries is that finding the "definitive" version of it is impossible, and not even desirable, in my opinion ayway.


----------



## Desdichado

shilsen said:
			
		

> Pretty much. In my personal usage of the terms, I use Germanic as a larger group term which includes Norse/Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon and a couple of others, which fits the definition ares71 used above.



Good, because that would be the correct usage of the term Germanic.


----------



## AFGNCAAP

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For instance, and I really wish I could remember where I read this, Odin didn't really used to be that important of a god, and he certainly wasn't the "All-father" until his cult, which spread from Germany, actually, pushed him forward.  Before that, Thor was the king of the gods in the Germanic tradition.  Another intriguing proposition I've heard is that the Vanir are not a native Germanic tradition, and represent increasing contact with Celtic mythology; in other words, the Vanir are the Celtic pantheon, and the Vanir/Aesir war represent relations between Germanic and Celtic peoples!  I'm not sure how much I buy that idea, but it is intriguing.




To add a bit on this, IIRC:

Supposedly, Tyr (or Tiw, or Tiwas) was the original sky-father deity of the Germanic myths (Tyr/Tiw/Tiwas, IIRC, is the Germanic version of the Indo-European Dyeus-Pitar, or "Sky Father" figure; the Greek Zeus ultimately derives his name from the same linguistic root).  Thor apparently grew in prominence/absorbed the "sky father" attributes, with Tyr being relegated to the role of a war deity.


----------



## Desdichado

Which actually happened to greater or lesser degree in many other Indo-European religions too.  I mean, _*dyeus piter_ and Ju-piter, and Zeus -(pitar dropped) are all fairly transparently linguistically all the same, but from an actual religious standpoint, Jupiter/Zeus is clearly a combination of the Sky-father figure and the Thunder-god figure from proto-Indo-european mythology.  In Germanic folklore, rather than combining Tyr and Thor overtly, Thor merely took on a few of Tyr's features, and Tyr faded from importance.  And then Odin later came and re-usurped Tyr's position, putting Thor more firmly back into the Thunder-god/wargod role.

Quite interesting, actually.


----------



## Wombat

H.R. Ellis Davidson has several useful books on the Norse and Germanic myths, gods, and religions -- they are probably the most accessible resources commonly available and I highly recommend them.  In the last week I have seen her books at both Borders and Barnes & Noble, as well as at Amazon.com.


----------



## Umbran

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For instance, and I really wish I could remember where I read this, Odin didn't really used to be that important of a god, and he certainly wasn't the "All-father" until his cult, which spread from Germany, actually, pushed him forward.  Before that, Thor was the king of the gods in the Germanic tradition.




Hm.  What I have read in various sources is that Tyr (aka Tiw or Tiwaz, from whom Tuesday gets it's name) was the "king".  I've not read anyone claiming that Thor was king of the Norse gods.  

I have read that it is commonly thought that Thor was the Norse god most commonly revered by people, which is not the same thing.  He's got connotations of protecting the weak, being a friend to mortals, and all that.  His position in the pantheon is not necessarily connected with how much real-world folks like him.

Prior to his switch to being All-Father, Odin seems to have had a more mystic and messenger aspect.  Gandalf the Grey from Tolkien may have borrowed much of his image from very early Odin.


----------



## Desdichado

And since it's been a really long time since I read that, and I can't seem to find the source that I read that in, you're probably right and I'm probably wrong, Umbran.

As to the original question of the thread, Roman, I think you're a bit confused by the terminologies, which is understandable.  Germanic doesn't equate to German, which is the confusing thing.  Norse/Scandinavian, and German and Anglo-Saxon and Gothic and others are _subsets_ of Germanic in the same way that Cockney, or Southern Drawl, or West Coast Australian are subsets of English.  It's also important to remember that they are primarily _linguistic_ designations, though, and although culture and actual genetic makeup and such usually correspond fairly closely to linguistic entities, they don't necessarily.  It's fairly easy to come up with counter examples.  Shaquille O'Neal isn't Irish, for instance, despite his last name, nor is he of Germanic descent despite the fact that he speaks English, a Germanic language.

The other thing to keep in mind, and I'm not sure how clearly it's been spelled out, is that there is no "absolute" correct interpretation of Germanic, or any other, mythos really.  It depends on location both geographically and temporally, and there are big changes as you move around in space and time.  In many ways Sturleson's work is the most definitive interpretation, but that's really only because it's the best documented.  It's debatable if anyone actually ever believed in the mythos as Sturleson wrote it.


----------



## Meadred

Wombat said:
			
		

> H.R. Ellis Davidson has several useful books on the Norse and Germanic myths, gods, and religions -- they are probably the most accessible resources commonly available and I highly recommend them.  In the last week I have seen her books at both Borders and Barnes & Noble, as well as at Amazon.com.




Just a little note: While H.R. Ellis Davidson has interesting ideas regarding Norse mythology, some of them are subject to debate in the academic community, at least here in Sweden. She has drawn certain conclusions regarding the relationship between Norse and Germanic mythology that isn't, how should I put it, wholeheartedly accepted by her peers among the scholars.  

However, her books are an interesting read (I have a Swedish translation of Gods & Myths of Northern Europe), and could provide you a lot of neat ideas for your own fantasy version of the Norse Mythology.

BTW, I'm surprised that none of my Scandinavian fellows on these forums haven't jump into the fray yet?! Most roleplayers I have meet here in Sweden know quite a lot regarding Norse mythology; it comes with the territory I guess. 

Cheers,
Meadred


----------



## Desdichado

I'm not really familiar with Davidson; what has she written that's controversial?


----------



## Jolly Giant

Regarding the Christian influence in the works of Snorre Sturlason: This was very likely a necessary evil for Snorre. His ambition was to collect the traditional poems and epics of the Norse myths, get them written down for posterity since they only existed as a dying oral tradition.

For this he was dragged to court in Iceland, accused of being an heretic. He was treathened with the death penalty unless he swore he was Christian before the court. After this incident he moved to Norway, were things were a bit more relaxed, and continued his work there.


----------



## Algolei

*I love this thread*

More!  More!


----------



## Roman

Hmm, if much of our current knowledge of Norse/Germanic myths is based on the works of one author it appears that we do not really know all that much about them - there is no way one author could compile all the important myths - sounds like we are only scratching the surface of Norse mythology. I suspect this may also be the case with other old mythological systems.


----------



## shilsen

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Good, because that would be the correct usage of the term Germanic.



 Damn, I hate when that happens


----------



## Wombat

Roman said:
			
		

> Hmm, if much of our current knowledge of Norse/Germanic myths is based on the works of one author it appears that we do not really know all that much about them - there is no way one author could compile all the important myths - sounds like we are only scratching the surface of Norse mythology. I suspect this may also be the case with other old mythological systems.




Actually we have the works of several authors, despite what this thread has mentioned to date.  While Snorre is important, far more important for the understanding of Norse mythology is the Poetic, or _Elder Edda_, one of those anonymous collections.  This was collected sometime before Snorre Sturlson started writing and (potentially late 11th through mid-12th century, but exact date uncertain), while still incomplete, has great material in it, including the Havamal and the Volsupa.  Overall the Elder Edda gives us much more information about the gods and in a somewhat less tainted form.  

For the Germanic we have scraps and bits, ranging from several Roman authors to the _Niebelungenlied_, but all of these sources have to be taken with at least a heavy, heavy dash of salt as they were written either well after the fact or by non-practioners.  

While there is a fair amount of information, some of it is repetative, much of it is incomplete, and there are huge, obvious holes in our understanding.  For example, none of the goddesses take active roles in any version of the legends that we have.  Also Thor, by archaeological and linguistic evidence the most popular of the gods, appears to us almost entirely in comic tales; additionally he was the patron of marriages, but there are no tales to explain his connection this way, except about his wife Sif's potentially wandering ways.  On top of this we have many more tales of the Aesir gods than of the Vanir gods, yet there are almost as many shrines to the latter as to the former.

No, our vision of Germano-Norse beliefs is woefully inadequate.  Anyone basing their theology on the scraps we have left would have, at best, an incredibly incomplete view of what these religions were all about in their own day.  Indeed, it would be about as "accurate" as the post-Gardner vision of "witchcraft", which is held together more by wishful thinking than by any accurate information.


----------



## tarchon

It's "Snorri Sturluson" BTW - I think I've seen it spelled 10 different ways so far.
http://www.fva.is/~harpa/forn/snorri/aevi/aeviagr.html


----------



## LeifVignirsson

First off, I want to say this... As an Odinist/Norseman myself, I fully endorse this discussion... Not that it mattered, but I am glad that there is a discussion like this going on.

There are a few books that I have invested in (besides the Eddas and Sagas) that take a critical look at the different Norse Sagas as well as the Germanic sagas, doing a nice contrast and compare... They even went as far as breaking down Frigga's hand maidens and the like.  Sadly, I am at work and cannot get a title at the moment *sniff* sucks getting older, memory slips away.

As far as the cult of Odin goes... eh... It was considered suicidal to follow him anyway, seeing that the almighty paranoia of Odin was so overwhelming he would take any of his followers in their prime to stave off Ragnarok.  Usually the cults were associated with the Fins and the Fins migrated from the Slov regions.  Then again, if you know Finland, you would have to be crazy to be there in the first place... At least in that time frame... *thanks Odin I am part Finnish*

In the end though, it is all moot.  Not only were the people fractured with multiple Jarls who would put their own spin on the deities, but the only thing that kept them interested was because that was the only thing they knew.  We, sadly, were fickle people in those days and if the crops weren't doing well with Odin... Hey, lets give this guy Jesus a try... Maybe he will take care of the crops.  If that didn't work, then it was onto another deity.  Heck, I can't find a Fellowship that has anything the same way...

Then again, that is the beauty of it all.  No organization means that there is no corruption due to religious power.  You don't have the local priest pointing a finger in your face and demanding you do something because Odin/Thor/Tyr/Loki said it and it is in the book of Earthquakes 13:17...

A little tangent, I know... Just my own views and opinions since I live the lifestyle. *grins*


----------



## tarchon

Roman said:
			
		

> Hmm, if much of our current knowledge of Norse/Germanic myths is based on the works of one author it appears that we do not really know all that much about them - there is no way one author could compile all the important myths - sounds like we are only scratching the surface of Norse mythology.




The major myths and characters are known extensively from other sources, but Snorri gives many details and spells out a highly organized overarching cosmology that are less than clear in other sources.  On the other hand, he certainly would have had access to a lot of sources and oral traditions that we don't, so it would be woefully misguided to dismiss him as an accurate source.  Usually, whenever you see modern collections of "Norse Mythology," they're based largely on Snorri's expert storytelling, but there are numerous other sources, sometimes conflicting with him at various points.
For example, Baldur appears for certain in at least two other sources and is probably alluded to in others, but Snorri's is by far the best-composed and most compelling (also the most Christianized) version of it, so that's usually what gets recounted.


----------



## Algolei

As for what to call 'em:  How about "Teutonic?"  The root meaning of the word Teutonic is "the people who worship Tiu."


----------



## Desdichado

tarchon said:
			
		

> On the other hand, he certainly would have had access to a lot of sources and oral traditions that we don't, so it would be woefully misguided to dismiss him as an accurate source.



From where?  He didn't write until 200 years after the Christianization of Iceland.

Which was the _last_ of the Norse countries to be Christianized, for that matter.  And since he was trying to record an oral tradition that was no longer current, and hadn't been for many, many generations, what are these sources of which you speak?


----------



## Desdichado

Algolei said:
			
		

> As for what to call 'em:  How about "Teutonic?"  The root meaning of the word Teutonic is "the people who worship Tiu."



Actually, that's only one proposed etymology of Teutonic.  The word is contentious to linguists; although usually assumed to be equivalent with Germanic, the original Teutones who attacked the Romans might as likely have been Celtic, or mixed Celtic and Germanic.  I'm not sure I believe that, because I think deutsch and Dutch are clearly cognates with Teutones, but regardless, that's not universally accepted.


----------



## tarchon

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> From where?  He didn't write until 200 years after the Christianization of Iceland.
> 
> Which was the _last_ of the Norse countries to be Christianized, for that matter.  And since he was trying to record an oral tradition that was no longer current, and hadn't been for many, many generations, what are these sources of which you speak?




It's pretty widely known that many relevant folk beliefs survived, as they do to this day _í Íslands_ (there, as here, trolls still abound), and it's not so unlikely that there were still some at least semi-serious believers around at that point.  I mean, "Thor" and its dozen derivatives are even now rather common names, and every third esker is named after some mythological figure.  There's also the fact that this literary tradition is one of the world's most continuous - many Icelanders in Snorri's day absolutely knew these stories just as they do now, even if they no longer marched down to the family idols a couple times a year with a sheep in tow. 
Obviously, poor Snorri wouldn't have been rousted as he was unless the Christian mainstream was still feeling a little insecure about the whole issue, though to be sure it was probably more political than anything.  Have you read the sagas pertaining to the Christianization, Njal's particularly?  They do not give one the impression that the issue was settled then and there in the minds of everyone (a rather curious tale in all).  It's also virtually certain that manuscript sources existed then which do not exist now, though I don't suppose I have expend much effort to explain the idea that many Medieval manuscripts have been lost over the years.  Given that Snorri thought of himself as the _arbiter elegantiae_ and chief chronicler of the genre and additionally was wealthy and powerful, a hereditary chieftain no less, it would be insane to suggest that his library wasn't an unparalleled treasure trove of Icelandic literature.
Finally, do I have to also point out that the _Volsungasaga_ was written 50 years after Snorri died?  _Somebody_ there must have had other sources besides Snorri, because much of that appears nowhere in his works.


----------



## Algolei

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, that's only one proposed etymology of Teutonic....



Ehh, I get my info from John Ciardi, what can I say.


----------



## ChildOfAsh420

Roman said:


> Thanks everybody! So it seems that the common origin of these myths and legends ensures that although they are not exactly the same, they are similar enough to be grouped together as one mythology/legend system.



Possibly to outsiders, it's a major stereotype kind of like saying, all Christian, and Jewish denominations can be lumped together because of common origin.
Technically they ALL originated circa 3,000 bce and were spread far and wide by the Indo- European group commonly referred to as the Aryans. Not the Hitler Aryans idea of 6' tall with blonde haired and Blue eyes. 
The Aryans that were Half Indian half European and mostly Nomadic. After the Era Known as the Aryan invasions circa 2,000 bce the Aryan Tribes became a majority of the Eurasian Continent, their ways and religion were spread from France to Northern China, the Vedic texts and the Eddas spawned from their teachings and ways. About a millennia and a half later the Teutonic tribes began making permanent homes around northern Germany, in the dark ages 536ad the Germanic poems, and stories had spread north into Norway, Denmark, Switzerland etc. 
The Authority of the Roman empire attempted to purge Paganism for nearly a thousand years throughout that time. Making it legal to kill or convert ALL Pagans. This made it hard to spread the Ideas of the Teutons and is the reason that for over a thousand years of written language passing by them, no texts were found of their beliefs. Until just recently Snorri's Edda was THE only source. Which was written at a date about 4,500 years after the first archeological finds we have found showing this set of Gods (Woden, Thunar, Freya) . So .. long answer short .. no they are not the same. But yes they came from the same origins. The differences came over time.


----------



## ChildOfAsh420

Roman said:


> Thanks everybody! So it seems that the common origin of these myths and legends ensures that although they are not exactly the same, they are similar enough to be grouped together as one mythology/legend system.



Possibly to outsiders, it's a major stereotype kind of like saying, all Christian, and Jewish denominations can be lumped together because of common origin.
Technically they ALL originated circa 3,000 bce and were spread far and wide by the Indo- European group commonly referred to as the Aryans. Not the Hitler Aryans idea of 6' tall with blonde haired and Blue eyes. 
The Aryans that were Half Indian half European and mostly Nomadic. After the Era Known as the Aryan invasions circa 2,000 bce the Aryan Tribes became a majority of the Eurasian Continent, their ways and religion were spread from France to Northern China, the Vedic texts and the Eddas spawned from their teachings and ways. About a millennia and a half later the Teutonic tribes began making permanent homes around northern Germany, in the dark ages 536ad the Germanic poems, and stories had spread north into Norway, Denmark, Switzerland etc. 
The Authority of the Roman empire attempted to purge Paganism for nearly a thousand years throughout that time. Making it legal to kill or convert ALL Pagans. This made it hard to spread the Ideas of the Teutons and is the reason that for over a thousand years of written language passing by them, no texts were found of their beliefs. Until just recently Snorri's Edda was THE only source. Which was written at a date about 4,500 years after the first archeological finds we have found showing this set of Gods (Woden, Thunar, Freya) . So .. long answer short .. no they are not the same. But yes they came from the same origins. The differences came over time.


----------



## Umbran

Desdichado said:


> For instance, and I really wish I could remember where I read this, Odin didn't really used to be that important of a god, and he certainly wasn't the "All-father" until his cult, which spread from Germany, actually, pushed him forward.  Before that, Thor was the king of the gods in the Germanic tradition.




I find there's very little agreement upon the idea that Thor was leader in earlier Germanic tradition.

Thor may stem from the same root Indo-European root as Indra, who in some traditions is king of the gods, but in Germanic and Norse sources, Thor is almost never in a leader's position.  By the time we call it "Germanic" Thor seems to have kept Indra's tendency to muck in, but lost the aspect of presiding over other gods.

Meanwhile, we ought to talk about Tuesday - Tiw's Day, or Tyr's Day.  Etymologically, Tyr comes from _*Tiwaz,_ which translates to "_the_ god".  And in Norse poetic kennings, Tyr's name is often used as indicator of being a deity - so Odin is "Victory-Tyr" and Thor is "Chariot-Tyr".  Tyr is used in kennings indicating Odin frequently, which makes little sense if Tyr's a nobody, but a lot of sense if Tyr used to be top dog - the name becomes a title, then the title is attached to the new person in the position.  Also, there's some evidence that Tyr was god of _things_.  Not meaning objects, but in the Germanic and Norse meaning of councils in which stuff gets decided, which is pretty fitting for a king of gods.


----------



## Dioltach

Heh, you replied twice to the same post, almost 18 years after your first reply. 

But it's a fascinating thread, so thanks for necroing it.


----------

