Were there Anglo-Saxon invasions after the Romans left?
- Thread starter Donna Ferentes
- Start date
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
phildwyer said:
Why do we call the Dutch, Dutch, when they think they're Netherlanders and the Deutch as the aggresive chaps who live next door. I don't suppose the Britons were that interested in distinguishing between the gangs of smelly continentals who'd pinched their land.
Karac
Mae Hen Wlad Fy Mamau
What about this
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006
The genetic evidence seems to refute the "mass Saxon invasion" theory-which isnt entirely surprising.
Its not unthinkable that a relatively small invasion force could have defeated the unprepared Welsh in Eastern Britain-the resulting panic and refugees fleeing west creating havoc amongst further resistance.
Though many fled,some fought-probably most stayed and conformed,mingled,intermarried etc
Theres well documented cases of Welsh communities existing alongside Saxons in early England.
The big question of course is linguistic -why do the majority of "British" people speak English now if it was only a "minor" invasion-of only an upper layer of Saxon conquerors.
Ive got one theory -that the English Lanuage is far more influenced by Welsh than is commonly thought-not in vocabulary but in syntax.
Another theory -entirely my own-ive done no research
I reckon that the educated upper class Welsh and educated upper class Saxons would have spoken to eachother in Latin-there was no need to learn eachothers language.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006
The genetic evidence seems to refute the "mass Saxon invasion" theory-which isnt entirely surprising.
Its not unthinkable that a relatively small invasion force could have defeated the unprepared Welsh in Eastern Britain-the resulting panic and refugees fleeing west creating havoc amongst further resistance.
Though many fled,some fought-probably most stayed and conformed,mingled,intermarried etc
Theres well documented cases of Welsh communities existing alongside Saxons in early England.
The big question of course is linguistic -why do the majority of "British" people speak English now if it was only a "minor" invasion-of only an upper layer of Saxon conquerors.
Ive got one theory -that the English Lanuage is far more influenced by Welsh than is commonly thought-not in vocabulary but in syntax.
Another theory -entirely my own-ive done no research
I reckon that the educated upper class Welsh and educated upper class Saxons would have spoken to eachother in Latin-there was no need to learn eachothers language.
Stigmata
sexual tyrannosaurus
Karac said:Another theory -entirely my own-ive done no research
I reckon that the educated upper class Welsh and educated upper class Saxons would have spoken to eachother in Latin-there was no need to learn eachothers language.
It's possible, but it doesn't fit well (to my mind) with the unusually strong written vernacular culture that arose in England 200 years later.
Edit: I suppose it's possible the Anglo-Saxons filled the gap in British society left by the Romans. The Roman presence revolved almost entirely around the military and institutions that supported the military, and when they left that whole element of society disappeared along with them. Maybe the Anglo-Saxons took on the role of the military as a sort of large-scale protection racket/police state.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
phildwyer said:
Iirc, the term was first used by a Roman emporer who, on seeing some English prisoners paraded before him, thought they looked like Angels.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I remember that story as being about slaves. Curiously enough the Pope didn't say "slavery is unchristian, release them at once".
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Karac said:
"They" = English or "They" = prisoners?
For sure, the concept of nationalism didn't really exist in latter Roman times, everybody from Newcastle via the Rhine & Danube to the Euphrates was "Roman"
Substitute prisoners for slaves then.
rhys gethin
New Member
A few points I've read recently. The first is that the Anglo-Saxons didn't have SAILS, so they couldn't have carried many passengers (all aboard had to be rowing or paddling - therefore no mass-migration). Second is that there was a disastrous climate-change shortly after we kicked out the Romans in 410 - which would, for instance, have made it difficult to pay the German mercenary troops and slowly reduced the population. Third idea - for which I keep seeking detail - is that the basic grammar of English differs from other Germanic languages in essentially British ('Celtic') ways.
I've always been struck by the fact that Germans talk about Vater and Mutter whereas English people say Mum (modern Cymraeg 'Mam') and Dad (modern Cymraeg 'dy Dad' thy Father) and very much wonder whether those who hold forth so confidently about the tiny number of British words in English know the Celtic languages and the other possible derivations and so on - a lot of this law, after all, was laid down in the deeply racist Nineteenth Century.
Anyway, to me, the interesting question is whether there were much displacement of population. Clearly the West couldn't have supported the four million odd people estimated to live in Britannia, nor is there much evidence of mass starvation - and remember that British had low prestige in the late Empire. Gaullish, in a similar position, was wholly replaced (unless in part of Britanny) by Latin, after all.
I think the German ex-soldiers had high prestige and didn't demand heavy taxes, that it was extremely easy for British land-workers and other near-slaves to shift into German-controlled areas and 'pass' amongst a tiny German minority eager for numbers, but that it was only the Romanised ruling class who moved far ('not 'everybody' but 'anybody who was anybody'), giving - being literate - rise to the stories of displacement. All I've read of later Rome suggests that it would been worth the loss of the language to get free of it - and all studies of - say - the Hundred Years or the Napoleonic Wars that I've read suggest that 'the enemy''s language is soon dropped - which would explain the survival of English (though I'd guess that British was spoken by ordinary people MUCH later than is generally believed).
I've always been struck by the fact that Germans talk about Vater and Mutter whereas English people say Mum (modern Cymraeg 'Mam') and Dad (modern Cymraeg 'dy Dad' thy Father) and very much wonder whether those who hold forth so confidently about the tiny number of British words in English know the Celtic languages and the other possible derivations and so on - a lot of this law, after all, was laid down in the deeply racist Nineteenth Century.
Anyway, to me, the interesting question is whether there were much displacement of population. Clearly the West couldn't have supported the four million odd people estimated to live in Britannia, nor is there much evidence of mass starvation - and remember that British had low prestige in the late Empire. Gaullish, in a similar position, was wholly replaced (unless in part of Britanny) by Latin, after all.
I think the German ex-soldiers had high prestige and didn't demand heavy taxes, that it was extremely easy for British land-workers and other near-slaves to shift into German-controlled areas and 'pass' amongst a tiny German minority eager for numbers, but that it was only the Romanised ruling class who moved far ('not 'everybody' but 'anybody who was anybody'), giving - being literate - rise to the stories of displacement. All I've read of later Rome suggests that it would been worth the loss of the language to get free of it - and all studies of - say - the Hundred Years or the Napoleonic Wars that I've read suggest that 'the enemy''s language is soon dropped - which would explain the survival of English (though I'd guess that British was spoken by ordinary people MUCH later than is generally believed).
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
"Roman"?phildwyer said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Eh?rhys gethin said:
rhys gethin
New Member
Donna Ferentes said:
Little boats with no sails across the stormy North Sea - everyone had to work - no room for women and children or animals - these are really not much more than landing craft for soldiers. Therefore they'd need Island wives and girlfriends, so that even in the most German areas at least half the population would have been British.
On the business about the Pope and his angelboys, Britain was a largely Christian but very conservative country in Church matters, I'd gather. Gregory, who was the great 'modernizing' reformer, made the existence of a pagan ruling class an excuse for pretending the British Christians weren't there, so as to get the Church well under his thumb. He needed all the spin-doctoring he could get, thus the touching story.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
To be honest it's not that far. You don't think they waited for good weather?rhys gethin said:
rhys gethin
New Member
Donna Ferentes said:
Perhaps the Pope would guarantee it! Seems to me it is quite a long way: I once had a canoe, and I certainly wouldn't have tried the North Sea in it, even if it was sunny when I started.
rhys gethin
New Member
phildwyer said:
I doubt there was a great deal of that old English fantasy to be had in actuality - but if you didn't take the missus and did settle, you'd need to find a local lady if you wanted to spread your genes in a less random manner, I suppose, which is the point I keep trying to make. The Nineteenth Century historians tended to see the British as native Australians or native Americans, which they weren't. Farming societies seem to me pretty stable: a few thousand German toughies would have had their work cut out to take over the farms of millions, and make it work.
Karac
Mae Hen Wlad Fy Mamau
Dont if you if youve seen this-http://www.joensuu.fi/fld/ecc/publications/celtic_roots.htmlrhys gethin said:
Goes into very exhaustive detail about this very topic.
rhys gethin
New Member
Diolch yn fawr, Karac - I'll get me a copy. Hwyl!
Similar threads
