Anglo Saxons

Originally posted by pebbles Otherwise how do you explain Old English ( used by Anglo-Saxons ) diverged to a language unintelligible to modern German speakers except for a few words like " father " & " land " that sound close to Germanic pronunuciation.

Old English is no more intelligible to a modern German speaker.

Edited by edgewaters - 17-Feb-2009 at 04:55

Originally posted by beorna Old High German and Middle High German are unintelligible for the most modern Germans too.

Same goes for Scandinavians and Old Norse as well.

Rather ironic that the Normans, who wrested England from the Anglo-Saxons in 1066. were also of fairly recent Scandinavian origin!

Oh goodness no! The Normans merely wrested the kingship away from the Saxon Harold Godwinson, they would never have dreamed of exterminating the Saxons! And there's no way they could have done so even if they had wanted to (which they didn't). No, the Normans simply took their place as England's ruling aristocracy after William of Normandy's defeat of Harold at Hastings, in 1066.

Yes, the transition from Anglo-Saxon England to Norman England, and eventually to an England in which rulers were seen by the populace as truly "English" and not transplanted Frenchmen, is fascinating. 19th-century novelists like Sir Walter Scott make a great deal about conflicts between disenfranchised Saxons and their Norman rulers, and as romanticized as those stories are, there was no doubt a great deal of ill feeling on the part of the dispossessed Anglo-Saxon nobility in the late 11th and early 12th centuries.

Originally posted by Alkibiades2 Yes, the transition from Anglo-Saxon England to Norman England, and eventually to an England in which rulers were seen by the populace as truly "English" and not transplanted Frenchmen, is fascinating. 19th-century novelists like Sir Walter Scott make a great deal about conflicts between disenfranchised Saxons and their Norman rulers, and as romanticized as those stories are, there was no doubt a great deal of ill feeling on the part of the dispossessed Anglo-Saxon nobility in the late 11th and early 12th centuries.

One has to pity the Anglo-Saxons. I always admired capable organizers and Anglo-Saxon England was one of the most unified, well-organized kingdoms in Western Europe during the dark ages, while continually plagued by predatory invasions. Granted, England wouldn't have been unified under Wessex in the first place had it not been for the Viking conquest in the 860s and it could be argued that foreign pressure provided an incentive for organization which otherwise wouldn't have been conceived of, but even so it's sad to see such a determined, long-term effort at building a state cut short with one battle.

Originally posted by Constantine XI It should be pointed out that the Normans completed their Sicilian campaigns and their service in Byzantium before the Battle of Hastings. That they went on Crusade is only typical for a West European member of Christendom, even tiny Scotland managed to send bands of nobles on Crusade. Once established in their kingdoms of England and the southern half of Italy, they finally had wars and homes of their own which absorbed their wandering folk.

One thing has always puzzled me about the Normans. Following Rollo's establishment of Normandy in 911 the Normans seem to have gathered a lot of momentum, continually expanding their influence and defeating all comers. In the 11th century the Normans seem near invincible, whether fighting in France, England, Italy or on the First Crusade. Then we reach the 12th century and the Normans seem to taper off somehow. Norman England, Norman Italy and the Principality of Antioch were all influential states, no doubt, but they lacked that seeming Norman invincibility of the previous century and enjoyed only varying success against their adversaries.

Just look at how the Normans won every battle against the Turks during the First Crusade, even against overwhelming odds, but then following the turn of the century they start losing; the battle of Melitene in 1100, where Bohemund was captured, and the decisive defeat at the battle of Harran in 1103. Likewise in Italy, where the Normans previously had enjoyed continuous success, Roger II of Sicily suffered two great defeats at Nocera and Rignano in 1134 and 1137 respectively. The same in Britain; at the battle of Crug Mawr in 1136 the Welsh decisively defeat the Normans. Also gone is that drive to seek their fortune in far away lands.

The 11th century was the Norman century, but by the 13th they were irrelevant.


Edited by Reginmund - 01-Apr-2009 at 10:04

Originally posted by Constantine XI It should be pointed out that the Normans completed their Sicilian campaigns and their service in Byzantium before the Battle of Hastings. That they went on Crusade is only typical for a West European member of Christendom, even tiny Scotland managed to send bands of nobles on Crusade. Once established in their kingdoms of England and the southern half of Italy, they finally had wars and homes of their own which absorbed their wandering folk.

the meaning of the term "fris" is unknown. The meaning of "free" is probably not correct. It is even a question whether the Frisii of the Roman Empire are the same with those of the frankish era.

sorry but this isn't correct. There is no source that gives the term Frisians as free. The Franks are called the "Wild ones" or the "Brave", but it is not completely sure. Free is not a translation for Frank. It is as I said, if a man was a Frankish man, he was free instead of many Romans in Gaul or elsewhere, so to be frank meant free. BTW the early Franks where often foederati or dedicatii, and so not especially free

As you read here: Avestan Dictionary, the Avestan word for "free" is "fra", of course it is mostly used as a prefix, according to Shahnameh of Ferdosi, Iraj, the founder of the Iranian kingdom, was the youngest son of Fridun and Fridun himself was a son of Franak and Abtin, there are several historical Iranian figures with the names which begin with "Fra", like the great Median king Fravartish (Phraortes) or some Parthian kings with the name Frahata (Phraates).