Normans and Anglo-Saxons - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Invictus_88
#13368934
Political Interest wrote:"The Scots cannot be distinguished except by DNA test, and even then it's merely 'indicative'."

But they are still different, are they not? Were Celts not the original inhabitants of the British Isles? Then came the Anglo-Saxons, followed by the Normans, who then intermarried with a great number of Celts and Anglo-Saxons? Still, the Scottish Clans are different from the Anglo-Saxons, as were the Normans from the latter, yes?


Nope, not really.

The archaeological and etymological evidence is that what we now designate as Scotland, England and Wales were all raided and settled by nordic and germanic ethnic groups, mixing up the 'native' ethnicity/ies with those of the invading and settling ethnicities.

The differences would originally have been more obvious, I imagine, but the differences wound have become indiscernible within a few generations of intermarriage.
By Kynaston+1
#13369060
No, 'Celts' never lived in Britain, ever. The different nationalities of the Archipelago are based on the liguistic effects of small-group dominance of basically-similar populations in different areas. Raiding from Ireland and the North after the Imperial authorities were kicked out led the two eastern provinces to hire German-speaking barbarian mercenaries who were happy to accept the vast numbers of British people (doubtless) who were sick of being dominated by the Romanised landowners, whereas in the West the mercenaries came from the British-speaking North. In Scotland, on the other hand, the Irish-speaking barbarians took over. It's important not to be racist about this process, I think.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13400677
'Celt' is an umbrella term refering to the hundreds of unknown ethnic groups that expanded all over europe after the last ice age. Celts were certainly not a homogenous group or culture.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#13455115
Oxymoron wrote:Yes they are very different.
Please elaborate on the differences between Celts and Anglo-Saxons.
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13474366
Would it help to use the term Gael instead of Celt? A professor of history at Edinburgh University once lectured me that "Scot" is a shortened up version of a word meaning Gael from Ireland. I'm paraphrasing. I wonder if Gael is more specific than Celt.
By pugsville
#13475897
Celt is a general term for a widespread culture, which is prehistory in the sense they didnt write stuff down, so there plenty of vagueness. Angles were from denmark, Saxons from upper german plain. Celtic society is a more losely (you might say primative but it is prejuriotive) settled village culture without extentisive farming and clearing of land. You could interupt the conflict in England post roman as conflict over space s the more extentisive farming practices in continietal society leading to greter population, a land shortage, and expanists colonization of England. Anglo-Saxon is only really used in the context of England (which is a corruption of Angland, land of the Angles.) It's not really accurate as the Angles and Saxons ddint really co-operate or get along, settled differenet parts of Englnd (Angles in north along the east coast, saxons in the south ) and had different settlement cultural patterns, the Angles less numbers more interested in dominating locals, the saxons with greater numbers more pushing the locals out.

Normans are late comers who cleaned up. They are Viking settlers mixed with franks? William the conquorers grand father was referred to as a sea raider (though where I got that from I'm not sure.) The Normans were a vigorous hybrid breed who used horses rather than long ships but were pherhaps more virulent than there Viking ancestors, always cropping building their castle/forts and becoming brigand/nobles where ever the locals werent well protected, from England to the Holyland. William's invasion pherhaps only got up because the Saxon army had only recently beaten of a large Viking Army in the North (under the Harald Haralda, Viking King and one time Varangian Guardsmen, Varangian is a name for Vikings settling on the Russian Baltic coast, who provided first mercaries to the East Roman "Byzantine" Empire, then the famous Varangian Guard, though after 1066 it was increasingly Saxons) which meant William didnt face anything like the full saxon force, as Harold raced down to Hastings without waiting for more forces after the victory agianst the Vikings at stamford bridge. The Norman principalities of southern Italy would have a long running wars with the Byzantines.

Eventually the Byzantine Empire was defeated and Constinople was conquored by the 4th Crusade and there was the Crazed Latin Empire (and short lived) and various crusder states like the Frankish Duchy of Athens, Which ws conquored by another famous Merconary band, the Grand Catalan Company (which is just another crazy episode in history, they should make a film, the company were some sort of fore runner of later catalonian anarchists, as they had collective leadership. Mind you for most of there most important history they were led by disgraced templar Roger du Flor who reputedly made his fortune at the fall of acre by commedring a ship and charging big fees to get out of acre, the arch bishop reputetedly took too many refugees and the boat capsized But how did Roger become leader when the catalans didnt have leaders? No one has explained that one,) anyway the Catalans took over Athens and ruled there for 70 odd years.

OK I am rambling now.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13475907
England (which is a corruption of Angland, land of the Angles.)

Actually, 'England' is a contraction of Englaland, which was the name of the country in all documents and records until the 9th or 10th century. True story. :)
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13476480
From when until the 9th or 10th century? Asser's documents? St. Bede's? Both? I was under the impression that "England" was Alfred the Great's concept: the unification of Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia.

I like that link (but I can't read it, can you?). It reminds me to ask the question: Is it the consensus that York was named by Romans or was it the product of the Danish pronunciation of Eoferwick?
By pugsville
#13476497
Not roman from wikipedia

"The city was founded by the Romans in 71 AD. They called it Eboracum, a name perhaps derived from one used by the British tribes who inhabited the area. The Romans made it the capital of their Province of Britannia Inferior.[4] At the end of Roman rule in 415 AD the settlement was taken over by the Angles and the city became known as Eoforwic. The city came to be the episcopal, and later, royal centre of the Kingdom of Northumbria.[5] The Vikings captured the city in 866 AD, and for the period between 866 and the final incorporation of Northumbria into the Kingdom of England in 954, York is sometimes referred to by modern writers by its Scandinavianised form, Jórvík. The name modern form "York" was first used in the 13th century.[5] In the Middle Ages York grew as a major wool trading centre and the ecclesiastical capital of the northern province of England. The Province of York has remained one of the two Church of England ecclesiastical provinces, along with that of Canterbury."
User avatar
By Murph
#13777464
Can someone explain why, for the most part, Celts and Anglo-Saxons all speak the English language?

Like, I always found it odd that Lowland-Scots were speaking a dialect of English way before any union with the Kingdom of England.
User avatar
By AVT
#13800448
slimharpo wrote:Can someone explain why, for the most part, Celts and Anglo-Saxons all speak the English language?

Like, I always found it odd that Lowland-Scots were speaking a dialect of English way before any union with the Kingdom of England.


I think it is because the lowland Scots probably had inter-marriage and greater influence thrust upon them by the Angles\Saxon\Jute colonises, the highland Scots remained untamed due to their remoteness and so maintained a celtic tradition.
#13800473
AVT wrote:I think it is because the lowland Scots probably had inter-marriage and greater influence thrust upon them by the Angles\Saxon\Jute colonises, the highland Scots remained untamed due to their remoteness and so maintained a celtic tradition.

As has been said earlier in the thread, there have never been any "Celts" in Britain. It should also be noted that the "Scots" are not and were not one people, Lowland "Scots" are descended from the Picts (who were not a seperate people from the Britons) while Highland "Scots" are descended from invading Gaels from Ireland, Gaelic was never historically spoken in Southern Scotland. The English language is largely the result of intertwining between Old English and Welsh, it's spoken in Southern Scotland because it replaced Welsh as the main language of Great Britain.
User avatar
By U184
#14270962
Normans, Angles, Saxons and Jutes all share a Proto-Germanic/Proto-Indo-European lexicon that can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European/Indo-Iranian. Their belief structure, religious ideals and migration can also be traced back to Scythian tribes that migrated north past the Black Sea, along the Carpathian Mountains and up through Germany.

A straight line can be drawn from Odessa on the coast of the Black Sea right into the Angle origin point. The largest factor separating these people is time and geographic locality, they all share basic origins though.
User avatar
By U184
#14270967
Oxi wrote:What about the Druids?
The Druids were a quasi political/religious/historian sect, important in their day but somewhat unique for their general locality.

Sithsaber, the migrations happened over 1000's of years but they did follow over in large groups. Assimilation is normal and goes both ways.
#14392985
Murph wrote:Can someone explain why, for the most part, Celts and Anglo-Saxons all speak the English language?




They don't.

The surviving Celtic languages are Welsh, Scots, Manx, Cornish & Irish Gaelic

Whereas Anglo/Saxon is a mixture of very old Germanic languages.
By Rich
#14393030
If a foreign aristocracy takes control of a land and if the royalty and top aristocracy bring their wives with them or import them form their original homeland it is possible for a relatively small number of invaders with even fewer women to dominate the nucleic DNA of a much larger population within a few hundred years. In pre modern times there were huge differentials n the rates of reproduction between conquerors and conquered. Christianity actually mitigated this with its opposition to sex outside of marriage and its de-legitmisation of children born outside of marriage.

Osama Bin Laden's father had 54 children. Osama Bin laden had between twenty and twenty six. What a pathetic spectacle it was to see America claiming victory when they killed Osama Bin Laden. It was way too late. He already had more Grand Children than people can keep track of.
#14902812
Some strange history here. Did 'English' as a distinct language even exist before Chaucer came along and the hundred years after him until Shakespearean era writers refined it?

Is it now established archeological fact that the Picts were 'Celtic' tribes?

Supporting Zionist Israel means you support endle[…]

The Evolution Fraud

The proof is all around us and being tested every[…]

Aromatherapy

I vape nicotine with different aroma the best is c[…]

EU agricultural subsidies

1.6 million farmers receive almost 85 percent of […]