Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

English- ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: English- ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past?
    Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 18:11
Originally posted by Zagros

Weren't the Picts Celts? And the Scots who came from Ireland?

 
Celtic (La Tene) culture passed from Switzerland to the south of France by groups of migrants who settled there. The Swiss culture mixed with the local. So southern Gallic culture was far from pure Celtic.
 
Southern Gauls would then have migrated to Spain and central France taking their mixed culture with them and mixing it with the local further watering down Celtic traces. Central gauls would have moved to northern Gaul and so on.
 
What little Gallic culture that arrived in England and mixed with the local culture bares little resemblence to pure Swiss La Tene, probably had greater chunks of pre-Celtic Gakllic culture but still only was a minor influence compared to the indiginous culture.
 
 
 
The Scots from pre Roman times would have pretty much continued almost entirely in native culture, this can be seen in the abundance of surviving Pictish relics and the lack of any Celtic ones, until effected by Romanisation and post-Roman dark age culture set in.
 
The Irish that migrated over after Roman rule were not remotely celtic. Prehistoric Irish culture (and it's minor Celtic influence) were long since dead. By that tiome the Irish were a post-Roman dark-age culture.


Edited by Paul - 28-Jun-2006 at 18:18
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711 		  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 21:51
According to Bartlett in his Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change, the Norman model of military and social organisation was so much more effective than that previously employed in the British Isles that the Scots actually imported the system, inviting continental knights to establish fiefdoms in their kingdom. Bartlett gave an example of one battle in which the Scots and English clashed, the Scottish army being divided along the lines of the old order local footsoldiery and the retinues of the newly established feudal lords. One of the clansmen leaders openly scorned the knights and their retinues, claiming to his King that the clansmen could win this battle on their own and to let them charge out first to meet the English. The King relented and the clansmen impetuously charged the English, who then inflicted a severe defeat on them. The Norman model of military organisation, with its use of heavy cavalry, encastellation, oaths of fealty and feudal military contract and social hierarchy, offered distinct advantages over the older system. I personally think that it was awful in a humanitarian sense for the British people, making life for the majority more miserable in most aspects, but as a military model it was the next big step to be made for most European states.
 
Interesting to note is that Scotland survived the Norman/English attempts of conquest with only short periods under the control of their southern neighbour. The Welsh and Irish, who did not make efforts to import the feudal system of continental Europe like the Scots did, did end up under English rule.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 22:09
Originally posted by Constantine XI

According to Bartlett in his Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change, the Norman model of military and social organisation was so much more effective than that previously employed in the British Isles that the Scots actually imported the system, inviting continental knights to establish fiefdoms in their kingdom. Bartlett gave an example of one battle in which the Scots and English clashed, the Scottish army being divided along the lines of the old order local footsoldiery and the retinues of the newly established feudal lords. One of the clansmen leaders openly scorned the knights and their retinues, claiming to his King that the clansmen could win this battle on their own and to let them charge out first to meet the English. The King relented and the clansmen impetuously charged the English, who then inflicted a severe defeat on them. The Norman model of military organisation, with its use of heavy cavalry, encastellation, oaths of fealty and feudal military contract and social hierarchy, offered distinct advantages over the older system. I personally think that it was awful in a humanitarian sense for the British people, making life for the majority more miserable in most aspects, but as a military model it was the next big step to be made for most European states.
 
Interesting to note is that Scotland survived the Norman/English attempts of conquest with only short periods under the control of their southern neighbour. The Welsh and Irish, who did not make efforts to import the feudal system of continental Europe like the Scots did, did end up under English rule.

Yes, there was a huge Norman influence in Scotland. All of the leaders of the Scottish war of independence, Andrew de Moray, William Wallace, and Robert the Bruce were all of Norman ancestry. Also, the Scots language was largely influenced by the Normans.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 07:35
Originally posted by Constantine XI

According to Bartlett in his Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change, the Norman model of military and social organisation was so much more effective than that previously employed in the British Isles that the Scots actually imported the system, inviting continental knights to establish fiefdoms in their kingdom. Bartlett gave an example of one battle in which the Scots and English clashed, the Scottish army being divided along the lines of the old order local footsoldiery and the retinues of the newly established feudal lords. One of the clansmen leaders openly scorned the knights and their retinues, claiming to his King that the clansmen could win this battle on their own and to let them charge out first to meet the English. The King relented and the clansmen impetuously charged the English, who then inflicted a severe defeat on them. The Norman model of military organisation, with its use of heavy cavalry, encastellation, oaths of fealty and feudal military contract and social hierarchy, offered distinct advantages over the older system. I personally think that it was awful in a humanitarian sense for the British people, making life for the majority more miserable in most aspects, but as a military model it was the next big step to be made for most European states.
 
Interesting to note is that Scotland survived the Norman/English attempts of conquest with only short periods under the control of their southern neighbour. The Welsh and Irish, who did not make efforts to import the feudal system of continental Europe like the Scots did, did end up under English rule.
 
Macbeth certainly invited the Normans in and some of his military success seems to be attribued to this.
 
The feudal system, the Normans brought in can be seen as a way of organising society to fuel the military. I think in Anglo-Saxon society the military operated more in a give and take relationship with society. The Fyrd had rights when it could be called up and used.
 
The Normans system also quickly developed into the fully professional soldier system England used in the Hundred Years War. A society geared up to producing a surplus of wealth that it could support and pay a large number of people not actively involved in agricultural production. Compare this to Harold who had to disband the Fyrd so they could tend their crops.
 
As you say, if one had the choice of being a peasant living in the Anglo-Saxon period or the Norman, the choice wouldn't be a hard one to make.


Edited by Paul - 29-Jun-2006 at 07:36
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 10:34
Originally posted by Paul

[.
 
The feudal system, the Normans brought in can be seen as a way of organising society to fuel the military. I think in Anglo-Saxon society the military operated more in a give and take relationship with society. The Fyrd had rights when it could be called up and used.
 
The Normans system also quickly developed into the fully professional soldier system England used in the Hundred Years War. A society geared up to producing a surplus of wealth that it could support and pay a large number of people not actively involved in agricultural production. Compare this to Harold who had to disband the Fyrd so they could tend their crops.
 
As you say, if one had the choice of being a peasant living in the Anglo-Saxon period or the Norman, the choice wouldn't be a hard one to make.
 
Actually, Alfred partially solved this problem with his Burghal System, didn't he? He divides his army in halve, one to be on duty and the other to tend the crops at home and changing every half year or so. Unfortunately it had a flaw: in 893, an English army besieging the Danes on Thorney Island left their post after their time was up to go home and take in the harvest... Not what you'd want as a king..Tongue
(Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, London 1982, page 150)

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:19
Originally posted by Zagros

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
Incidentally, if you want an idea of what a non-Norman, mostly Anglo-Saxon, part Celtic, culture would have been like, take a look at Scotland.
 
I'm with Paul and Dampier, not surprisingly.
 
 
Scotland was mostly Celtic and part Anglo-Saxon.
 
I don't know about 'mostly', but the dominant part was Anglo-Saxon. Which is why the majority language was and still is English, though of course a different dialect to current 'standard' English.
 
Edinburgh residents still claim to speak the 'purest' English, don't they?.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:23
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

[
 
Actually, Alfred partially solved this problem with his Burghal System, didn't he? He divides his army in halve, one to be on duty and the other to tend the crops at home and changing every half year or so. Unfortunately it had a flaw: in 893, an English army besieging the Danes on Thorney Island left their post after their time was up to go home and take in the harvest... Not what you'd want as a king..Tongue
(Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, London 1982, page 150)
 
Maybe not, but it essentially points the way forward to the volunteer armies of later centuries. And consider the record of the American troops in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. At the end of the period they signed up for, they expected to go home, and in many cases did just that.
 
A notable Anglo-Saxon tradition.
 
(Actually it's broader than Anglo-Saxon, but they certainly shared it.)
 
It may have disadvantaged them against more militaristic societies, but, hey, the good guys don't always win.
 
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:25
Originally posted by Zagros

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
Incidentally, if you want an idea of what a non-Norman, mostly Anglo-Saxon, part Celtic, culture would have been like, take a look at Scotland.
 
I'm with Paul and Dampier, not surprisingly.
 
 
Scotland was mostly Celtic and part Anglo-Saxon.
 
"I don't know about 'mostly', but the dominant part was Anglo-Saxon. Which is why the majority language was and still is English, though of course a different dialect to current 'standard' English.
 
Edinburgh residents still claim to speak the 'purest' English, don't they?. "
 
I don't think this is true. Ive been studying the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for some time now, and it is very clear that the Anglo Saxons, although divided into several kingdons, saw the Scots (and the Welsh) as a different people, one who had not come with them from over the sea. The Anglo-Saxon world stopped north of Northumbria.


Edited by Aelfgifu - 01-Jul-2006 at 10:29

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:27
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Actually the idea that parlimentarism was rooted in the Anglo-Saxon age is a bit of romantic-nationalistic nineteenth century dreaming. The Anglo-Saxons were no more parlimantary than any other early medieval society.
 
 
Not of course parliamentary in the modern sense. But certainly given to taking decisions based on common assent, using juries in court cases, and electing kings, and the like.
 
It was not a feudal society, but a different system which was a lot like those amonst the Old-Saxons and Scandinavians of the time. These were all fragmented little kingdoms in constant war with each other. Unsurprisingly, the change from these little kingdoms to larger political units took place almost simultaniously in these ereas, partly because of the strong contacts between them, and this cahnge was set in motion long before the Norman invasion.
I think an England without the Normans would be a lot like continental northern countries.
 
Probably true. As I said, look at Scotland.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:31
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Zagros

Weren't the Picts Celts? And the Scots who came from Ireland?



The Picts ... probably not.

The Scoti ... maybe, maybe not.

Rather depends on how you define the term "Celt". According to the Romans, even the Britons of England and Wales weren't Celts, although they resembled them in many ways.
    
 
And in any case the Scots who came from Ireland didn't rule Scotland (not at the time we're talkingabout). As the old saying goes, when the Angles invaded, the obtuse Angles turned left to the Thames and southward, and the acute Angles turned north to Scotland.
 
While Scottish law still differs in detail from English, they have always shared a common overall tradition.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 08:37
The fact that there was a heavy Norman influence on Scotland, especially militarily, as various people have pointed out,doesn't invalidate my 'look at Scotland' post: it explains it.
 
It seems obvious that even if England had not been conquered by the Normans in 1066, the English would still have been heavily influenced both by Norman military methods and by feudalism in general. Just as Scotland was.
 
 
 
So I still hold that, if you want an idea of what England would have been like if it had not been conquered by the Normans, then look at Scotland.
 
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262 		  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 09:35
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
While Scottish law still differs in detail from English, they have always shared a common overall tradition. 
 
- and if I humbly may add my 2 cents worth here.
 
Those laws are based on, and further developed from the Danish Laws which were in effect under the Danish Kings in the area of The Danelaw.
 
Actually, the very word "law" is a norse word.
 
PS...
I have often thought about if Denmark, should be considered an English colony instead. Canute the Great spent much more time in England than Denmark, and ruled his kingdom from there.
Thus, it could be claimed that the Kingdom was England, with Denmark, Norway and Sweden as colonies.

Any comfort to you Brits? Wink
 
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 10:35
Originally posted by Northman

 
Those laws are based on, and further developed from the Danish Laws which were in effect under the Danish Kings in the area of The Danelaw.
  
 
True, but the Danes and English both took care not to insult each other in their delicate balance of power. They tended to respect ach others laws and apply the Norse law to the Danes and the English law to the Anglo-Saxons. There was of course a lot of crossover... The problem is that the first laws to be written down in Scandinavia date from much later (13th century). They probably were a lot older than that, but how old? Makes comparison difficult unfortunatly.

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
John the Kern View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 08-Mar-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 137 		  Quote John the Kern Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 14:10
my girlfriend is proud of her Anglo Saxon heritage, as much as i am of my irish,piratical heritage, but we have to remember that we are not what we once where, England and Britian as a whole has become a mixing pot of races and peoples my sociology teacher is as proud of being british as she is of her Punjabi heritage
My peoples tale is written in blood
Back to Top
Suevari View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Spammer

Joined: 04-Mar-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84 		  Quote Suevari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 08:55
I don't think we're ashamed, just that there is a general lack in interest in history in general.
I for one am rather impressed with the old English warrioer, pre-Anglo-Saxon though, the woad warriors etc.  The Druidic society kind of hark back to those days but without the sacrifices and nudity Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.