4
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:12:41 PM »
The Frisians were a different, though related, tribe from the Angles, so I'm not sure if they're the best source for English names. I don't have the lists in front of me, so I can't recall if there are separate lists for English and Saxon, but I think English properly refers to the later national identity that began to form with Alfred the Great and is a fusion of Angle, Saxon, and Jutish cultures and language. I would recommend having either separate Angle and Saxon lists, or a single English list. The Jutes were fairly small in number compared to the other two, so they could probably be subsumed by them.
To be honest though, a lot of this is splitting hairs that historically were very tangled together. Every Germanic language has cognates of names that appear in other Germanic languages, or equivalent vocabulary that just didn't become or remain as a given name in a particular language. Also, there was a significant amount of sharing and mingling of culture, linguists, and genetics across Europe, even in the "Dark Ages", which I think the Peoples rules do a great job of capturing. It might be easier to have broader name list categories, instead of delineating down to individual tribes. I would go with Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Romance (or Romanic), Semitic, Greek, Finnish, and something to capture the Xiongnu/Hun/Magyar steppe peoples. Many peoples were the result of mixtures of peoples from within and between these broader ethnicities. For example, the Franks might be approximated by taking from the Germanic, Celtic, and Romance lists. If you try to list actual peoples, you have to decide which peoples to include, what counts as a name used by that people, etc., which quickly turns into a nightmare.