English ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past??


ironaxe
#1
Recently this summer I visited Scarborough(E.Yorkshire) with my girlfriend on the way home we decided to detour slightly and visit the scene of arguably one of the most violent battles in British history...Stamford Bridge (25th Sept, 1066).

When we arrived there, we struggled even to locate anything to commemorate the climactic and hugely-important battle and, when we finally did(near the S-bend over the bridge- the newer one downstream, not the 'original') we were peed off to find just one small and briefly-written placque bolted into a huge pillar near a car park...like an afterthought!

Though Harold's other gruelling all-day and evenly-fought bloody battle (Hastings) deservedly gets huge attention, this bruiser deserves much more high-profile attention?

It's like we supposedly patriotic English/British are ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past? Barely more mention than Scarborough council's tourist board's clueless ignorance regarding their own town's utter sacking in Sept 1066 by Hardrada's southward-bound invasion fleet of 300 shipfuls of hardened viking warriors, which then sailed up the Humber and fought two major pitched battles(Fulford Gate 20th Sept & Stamford Bridge five days after)?

Had it not been for this brutal, day-long struggle on 'battle flats' at Stamford near York(which saw the deaths of over 80-90% of the fearsome Norwegian King Harald hardrada's invasion army, including he himself plus Tostig, 'turncoat' brother of the English King) - the second of three huge battles during 1066 - King Harold would have been ready for William(not exhausted and depleted), on the south coast(over 230miles away), with a fresh, full and prepared Saxon army & navy- with archers(and not still straggling along the 'great north road' hastening to follow and join Harold in the south).

Had this been so, and bearing in mind that the English fought a ferocious and even battle at Hastings all day anyway, it is likely that the Normans would probably have been battered back into the sea before disembarkation, assuming the Saxon fleet hadn't scattered them first, which clearly would have drastically altered English/British history?

And what mention in our history books of the hugely important achievements of Kings Edward the Elder and Athelstan- Alfred the Great's son and grandson respectively?

Poor and shameful neglect, me thinketh?
 
Jersay
#2
Yes there should be a monument to the brave Viking warriors who tried to defeat the Anglo-Saxon force there. Just think that was the end of the Viking as an extremely powerful force. What a shame.
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Yes there should be a monument to the brave Viking warriors who tried to defeat the Anglo-Saxon force there. Just think that was the end of the Viking as an extremely powerful force. What a shame.

Why should there be a monument to soldiers who invaded our country and pillaged and raped their way through the countryside?

What next? The French putting up monuments to the Germans who invaded them in World War II?
 
Blackleaf
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by ironaxe

=a==

It's like we supposedly patriotic English/British are ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past?

I wouldn't think we're ashamed of our Anglo-Saxon past. Why should we be? I don't think most English people think about their roots so far back, unlike the Scots who keep on harking on about their "Celtic" roots even though most Lowland Scots are of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic origin.

And remember that a lot of English people are of Celtic origin, too. There musn't be ONE Englishman who has NOT got Celtic ancestry.

Quote:

And what mention in our history books of the hugely important achievements of Kings Edward the Elder and Athelstan- Alfred the Great's son and grandson respectively?

Poor and shameful neglect, me thinketh?

I'm not sure about Edward the Elder, but I know that there is a lot of mention in books about Athelstan. I've read a lot about him on the internet, too. He was the guy who invaded Cornwall, which was, I think, the last place in England that had not been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons.
 
Blackleaf
#5
Athelstan is mentioned in Wikipedia -



Athelstan or Æþelstān (c. 895 – October 27, 939) was the King of England from 924 to 939. He was the son of King Edward the Elder, and nephew of Ethelfleda (Æthelflæd) of Mercia. His reign is frequently overlooked, with much focus going to Alfred the Great before him, and Edgar after. However, his reign was of fundamental importance to political developments in the 10th century

Sources
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is so vocal during the reign of Alfred and Edward the Elder, falls into relative silence during Athelstan's reign, and what entries survive are retrospective. A few references tell us of his military campaigns, the longest entry being a poem about the Battle of Brunanburh, likely composed in his successor Edmund's reign. Other narrative sources from across Europe, though, provide us with more information. The Annals of Flodoard contain several references to Athelstan's dealing with the rulers of west and east Francia, as does the Chronicle of Nantes. William of Malmesbury, however, writing in the early 12th century, provides us with the greatest detail. His work might even draw on a (now lost) Vita Æthelstani, as Michael Wood argues, but caution is called for as this case has yet to be proven and William's account can rarely be verified.

Documentary sources come in the form of charters and laws. Numerous charters exist that tell us about where Athelstan was, who was with him, and to whom he was granting land. Through these it is possible to trace his peregrinations, particularly between 927 and 932 when all diplomas were drafted by the extraordinary scribe known as 'Athelstan A'. We have several law codes attributed to Athelstan; a couple are law codes after the tradition of Alfred and Edward; the others are less 'official', but nonetheless reveal aspects of Athelstan's administration.

Non-written sources are also available. Perhaps most useful are coins, which give Athelstan a title which reveals how widespread he (or rather the minters) felt his reign extended, throughout all Britain. Also of interest are the manuscripts and relics Athelstan collected and donated - many of the former contain notices giving the details of these donations. These particularly shed light on Athelstan's patronage of the cult of St Cuthbert's in Northumbria, to whom he gave two lavish manuscripts containing our earliest surviving English ruler portraits, Corpus Christi Manusript


Reign
Athelstan was the son of Edward the Elder, and grandson of Alfred the Great. His father succeeded, after some difficulty, to the Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons formed by Alfred. His aunt, Edward's sister, Æthelflæd, ruled western Mercia on his behalf following the death of her husband, Ealdorman Æthelred. On Æthelflæd's death, Edward was quick to assume control of Mercia, and by his death he directly ruled all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms south of the Humber. Athelstan was fostered by the familly of Athelstan 'Half-King' in Mercia, perhaps as a method of encouraging Mercian loyalty to the West Saxon dynasty. On Edward's death, Athelstan immediately became King of Mercia, though it seems to have taken a little longer for him to be recognised in Wessex.

Political alliances seem to have been high on Athelstan's agenda. Only a year after his crowning he married one of his sisters to Sihtric, the viking King of York. However, Sihtric died only a year later, and Athelstan seized the opportunity to take Northumbria. This bold move made him king of more territory than any Anglo-Saxon king before him, roughly equivalent to modern England. The other rulers in Great Britain seem to have submitted to Athelstan at Bamburgh: "first Hywel, King of the West Welsh {Cornish}, and Constantine II, King of Scots, and Owain, King of the people of Gwent, and Ealdred...of Bamburgh" records the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. William of Malmesbury adds that Owain of Strathclyde was also present.

Similar events are recorded along the western marches of Athelstan's domain. According to William of Malmesbury, Athelstan had the kings of the North British (meaning the Welsh) submit to him at Hereford, where he exacted a heavy tribute from them. The reality of his influence in Wales is underlined by the Welsh poem Armes Prydein Fawr, and by the appearance of the Welsh kings as subreguli in the charters of 'Αthelstan A'. Similarly, he drove the West Welsh (meaning the Cornish) out of Exeter, and established the border between England and Cornwall along the River Tamar.

Athelstan is generally regarded as the first king of England. He achieved considerable military successes over his rivals, including the vikings, and extended his rule to parts of Wales and Cornwall. His greatest victory, over an enemy alliance that included Constantine II of Scotland, was the Battle of Brunanburh in 937.


Administration and law
As Athelstan's kingdom grew it posed new challenges in administration. Towards the end of his reign we hear of another Athelstan, termed 'half-king', who was Ealdorman for much of eastern Mercia and East Anglia. Ian Walker has argued that, as the extent of Athelstan's power grew, the extent of rule of the next level of the aristocracy had to grow too. This points towards an increasing stratification of Anglo-Saxon society, a development that can (possibly) be traced from earliest Anglo-Saxon times right up to the Norman Conquest and beyond.

A relatively large number of law codes have come down to us from Athelstan's reign. To examine each in detail would take too much space here, but two viewpoints summarise the arguments around them. Patrick Wormald, who has argued that written law had little practical use in Anglo-Saxon England, states that there is little homogeneity to the laws, and that the sporadic nature of them indicate little sign of a coherent system based on written law. Simon Keynes has instead argued that there is a pattern to the laws of Athelstan's reign, and that the laws are evidence 'not of any casual attitude towards the publication or recording of the law, but quite the reverse'.


Athelstan and the Welsh
Athelstan's reign marks a hiatus in sporadic unrest between the Anglo-Saxon and Welsh kingdoms. According to Asser, a monk from St David's, Dyfed, several kingdoms of Wales submitted (including eventually those ruled by the sons of Rhodri Mawr) to Alfred. No battles between the English and the Welsh is recorded during Athelstan's reign, bu charters show Welsh kings' attendance at his court, possibly coming with him on campaign. D.P. Kirby argued that Athelstan was repressing the Welsh kings, keeping them close in order to maintain their loyalty. Yet it is also possible that some Welsh kings, in particular Hywel Dda, were benefiting from this relationship. Hywel may have been influence by English ideas of kingship - che is the first Welsh king associated with a major Welsh law code, and a coin, minted at Chester, carries his name.


Foreign contacts
Like those of his predecessors, Athelstan's court was in contact with the rest of Europe. His half sisters married into European noble families. One was married to future Holy Roman Emperor Otto, son of Henry I of Saxony, and another to Egill Skallagrímsson, the subject of the Icelandic Egils Saga. Alan II, Duke of Brittany and Haakon, son of Harald of Norway, were both fostered in Æthelstan’s court, and he provided a home for Louis, the exiled son of Charles the Bald.

Athelstan might have considered his rule in some way imperial: the style basileus is found in his charters, whilst he is the first king to bear the title r[ex] tot[ius] B[ritanniae]. According to William of Malmesbury, relics such as the Sword of Constantine (first Christian Emperor of Rome) and the Lance of Charlemagne (first Holy Roman Emperor) came to Athelstan, suggesting that he was in some way being associated with past great rulers.

Although he established many alliances through his family, he had no children of his own.


The tomb of King Athelstan in Malmesbury Abbey, Malmesbury, England. There is nothing in the tomb beneath the statue, the relics of the king having been lost in the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1539. The remains may have been destroyed by the King's Commissioners or hidden before the Commissioners arrived to close down the Abbey.


Athelstan was religious and gave generously to the church in Wessex, when he died in 939 at Gloucester he was buried at his favourite abbey (Malmesbury) rather than with his family at Winchester. Though his tomb is still there, his body was lost decades later. He was succeeded by his younger half-brother, King Edmund I of England.

wikipedia.org

---------------------------------------
So there are mentions of Athelstan, but not much. But that's because little was written about him during his reaign and nothing to do with being ashamed by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors.
 
Jersay
#6
Considering most of your beautiful England was under the control of Vikings, how could they truly be invaders?
 
Jersay
#7
The Battle of Hastings was the most decisive Norman victory in the Norman conquest of England. On 14 October 1066, the Normans of Duke William of Normandy(or William the conquerer) defeated the Anglo-Saxon army led by King Harold II.

Contents [hide]
1 Prelude
2 The Battle
3 Aftermath
4 References
5 External links



[edit]
Prelude
On 28 September 1066, William of Normandy, asserting by arms his claim to the English crown, landed unopposed at Pevensey after being delayed by a storm in the English Channel[1]. On hearing the news of the landing of the Duke's forces, the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II, who had just destroyed an invading Norwegian army under King Harald Hardråda and Tostig Godwinson (Harold's brother), at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, hurried southward, gathering what forces he could on the way. He arrived at the battlefield at night on 13 October 1066.

Harold deployed his force, astride the road from Hastings to London, on Senlac Hill some six miles inland from Hastings. To his back was the great forest of Anderida (the Weald) and in front the ground fell away in a long glacis-like slope, which at the bottom rose again as the opposing slope of Telham Hill. The later town called Battle in the modern county of East Sussex was named to commemorate this event.

The English force is usually estimated at seven to eight thousand strong, and consisted entirely of infantry (the English rode to their battles but did not fight from horseback). It comprised the English men-at-arms of the fyrd, mainly thegns (the English equivalent of a land-holding aristocracy); along with a substantial amount of local peasant levies, lesser thegns and a core of professional warriors, the King's royal troops and bodyguards, the Housecarls. The thegns and housecarls, probably veterans of the recent Stamford Bridge battle, were armed principally with swords, spears, and in some cases the formidable Danish axes, and were protected by coats of chainmail and their circular shields. They took the front ranks, forming a 'shield wall' with interlocking shields side by side. Behind the thegns and housecarls, the lesser thegns and peasant levies were armed with whatever weapons they had at hand: the entire army took up position along the ridgeline. (As casualities fell in the front lines the lesser thegns and peasants would move forward and fill the gaps.) The English, however, had just come from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where they had successfully fended off the Vikings and were in no shape to fight again.

On the morning of Saturday, 14 October 1066, Duke William gathered his army below the English position. The Norman army was of comparable size to the English force, and composed of William's Norman, Breton and Flemish vassals along with their retainers, and freebooters from as far away as Norman Italy. The nobles had been promised English lands and titles in return for their material support: the common troopers were paid with the spoils and "cash", and hoped for land when English fiefs were handed out. The army was deployed in the classic medieval fashion of three divisions or "battles" - the Normans taking the centre, the Bretons on the left wing and the Franco-Flemish on right wing. Each battle comprised infantry, cavalry and archers along with crossbowmen. The archers and crossbowmen stood to the front for the start of the battle.

Legend has it that William's minstrel and knight, Ivo Taillefer, begged his master for permission to strike the first blows of the battle. Permission was granted, and Taillefer rode before the English alone, tossing his sword and lance in the air and catching them while he sang an early version of The Song of Roland. The earliest account of this tale (in The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio) says that an English champion came from the ranks, and Taillefer quickly slew him, taking his head as a trophy to show that God favored the invaders: later 12th century sources say that Taillefer charged into the English ranks and killed one to three Englishmen before suffering death himself.

[edit]
The Battle

Hastings battleplan.The battle commenced with an archery barrage from the Norman archers and crossbowmen. However, the Norman archers drew their bowstrings only to the chest and their crossbows were loaded by hand without assistance from a windlass, so most shots either failed to penetrate the housecarls' shields or sailed over their heads to fall harmlessly beyond. The Normans therefore had no other choice than to charge the English time and time again, only to be repulsed. Another tactic used was to pretend to retreat and then when the English chased after them off the hill they were fighting on, without warning the Normans would turn round and attack with the English away from cover. In any event, the archery failed to make any impression on the English lines. Norman archery tactics in general relied on picking up enemy arrows shot back at them, and as the Saxons had left their bowmen in York during the rush to meet William, the Norman arrowfire soon decreased.

The Norman infantry and cavalry then advanced, led by the Duke and his half-brothers: Bishop Odo and Count Robert of Mortain. All along the front, the men-at-arms and cavalry came to close quarters with the defenders, but the long and powerful Danish axes were formidable and after a prolonged melee the front of the English line was littered with cut down horses and the dead and dying. The shield wall remained erect, the English shouting their defiance with "Olicrosse!" (holy cross) and "Ut, ut!" (out, out).


View from Battle Abbey to the field where Battle of Hastings took place.However, the Bretons on the left wing (where the slope is gentlest), came into contact with the shield wall first. Seemingly unable to cope with the defence, the Bretons broke and fled. The Bretons, due to their Alannic influence, were experienced in cavalry tactics and may have set up a feigned retreat. Possibly led by one of Harold's brothers, elements of the English right wing broke ranks and pursued the Bretons down the hill in a wild unformed charge. On the flat, without a defensive shield wall formation, the English were charged by the Norman cavalry and slaughtered.

This eagerness of the English to switch to a premature offensive was noted by Norman lords and the tactic of the 'feigned' flight was used with success by the Norman horsemen throughout the day. With each subsequent assault later in the day, the Norman cavalry began a series of attacks each time, only to wheel away after a short time in contact with the English line. A group of English would rush out to pursue the apparently defeated enemy, only to be ridden-over and destroyed when the cavalry wheeled about again to force them away from the shield wall.

The Normans retired to rally and re-group, and to begin the assault again on the shield wall. The battle dragged on throughout the remainder of the day, each repeated Norman attack weakening the shield wall and leaving the ground in front littered with English and Norman dead.

Toward the end of the day, the English defensive line was depleted. The repeated Norman infantry assaults and cavalry charges had thinned out the armoured housecarls, the lines now filled by the lower-quality peasant levies. William was also worried, as nightfall would soon force his own depleted army to retire, perhaps even to the ships where they would be prey to the English fleet in the Channel. Preparing for the final assault, William ordered the archers and crossbowmen forward again. This time the archers fired high, the arrows raining upon the English rear ranks and causing heavy casualties. As the Norman infantry and cavalry closed yet again, Harold received a mortal wound. Traditionally he is believed to have been pierced through the right eye by an arrow (through interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry). But The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio describes how Harold was cut to pieces by Norman knights led by William himself: and the Bayeux Tapestry shows him being cut down by a Norman knight, thus agreeing with The Carmen. It is possible that both versions of Harold's end are true: he was first wounded in the face by an arrow, then killed by hand weapons in the final Norman assault. Wace, in the Roman de Rou, notes that Harold was wounded in the eye, then tore out the shaft and continued to fight until cut down by a knight. Another theory was that Harold was struck in the right eye and tried to pull it out. He was later cut through the heart by a Norman knight, his head cut off, his guts strewn out, and his left leg cut off at the thigh. This was definitely the most gruesome of the stories. At any rate, Harold was dead and England was ushered out of the Early Middle Ages and into feudalism and the High Middle Ages.

The renewed Norman attack reached the top of the hill on the English extreme left and right wings. The Normans then began to roll up the English flanks along the ridgeline. The English line began to waver, and the Norman men-at-arms forced their way in, breaking the shield wall at several points. Fyrdmen and housecarls, learning that their king was dead, began streaming away from the battle; the Normans overran the hilltop in pursuit. Harold's personal guard died fighting to the last as a circle of housecarls around the king's body and his battle standards (the Dragon standard of Wessex and the Fighting man, his personal standard). Harold's corpse (through an interpretation of The Carmen) was probably emasculated by one of his attackers.

[edit]
Aftermath
Only a remnant of the defenders made their way back to the forest. Some of the Norman forces pursued the English, but were ambushed and destroyed in the semi-darkness when they ran afoul of steep ground, called, in later (12th century) sources, "the Malfosse", or "bad ditch". William, after resting for a night on the hardly-won ground, began the work of the Norman Conquest. He recruited his army for two weeks near Hastings, waiting for the English lords to come and submit to him. Then, after he realized his hopes of submission at that point were in vain, he began his advance on London. His army was seriously reduced for several weeks in November by dysentery, and William himself was gravely ill. Nevertheless, he directed his forces to continue their approach on the capital: in three columns they made their way to Wallingford on the Thames. After crossing over, William threatened London with a siege.

After a few failed attempts at aggression near London, the fight had gone out of the remaining English nobility. The northern earls, Edwin and Morcar, Esegar the sheriff of London, and Edgar the Atheling (who had even been elected - but not crowned - "king" in a feeble attempt to continue the resistance) all came out and submitted to the Norman Duke. William was crowned as England's third king that year, on Christmas day at Westminster.

Battle Abbey was built at the site of the battle of Hastings, and a plaque marks the place where Harold fell, and where the high altar of the church once stood. The settlement of Battle, East Sussex grew up around the abbey and is now a small market town.

The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the events before and at the Battle of Hastings.

The Battle of Hastings is also an excellent example of the application of the theory of combined arms. The Norman archers, cavalry and infantry co-operated together to deny the English the initiative, and gave the homogeneous English infantry force few tactical options except defence.

However, it is quite likely that this tactical sophistication was mostly in the minds of the Norman Chroniclers. The account of the battle given in the earliest source, The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, is one where the Norman advance surprises the English, who manage to gain the top of Senlac Hill before the Normans. The Norman Light Infantry is sent in while the English are forming their Shield Wall (to no avail) and then the main force was sent in (no distinction being made between infantry and cavalry). Interestingly, it records the first retreat of William's forces as the result of a French (not Norman) feigned retreat that went wrong, the English counter-attack, William counter-counter-attacks, and it all develops into a huge melee during which Harold is slain by a group of four knights and therefore the bulk of the English army flee.

Each succeeding source (in chronological order: is William of Poitiers’ Gesta Guillelmi (written between 1071 and 1077), The Bayeux Tapestry (created between 1070 and 1077), and the much later Chronicle of Battle Abbey, the Chronicals written by William of Malmesbury, Florence of Worcester, and Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia embellishes the story further, with the final result being a William whose tactical genius was at a high level - a level that he failed to display in any other battle. Most likely are the two simpliest explanations: first, that the English were exhausted and undermanned, having lost or left behind their bowmen and many of their best housecarls on the road from Samford Bridge. Secondly, Harold, unlike Charles Martel at Tours, who also faced a mounted army with only infantry, simply was not able to keep his men under control. Whereas Martel had a veteran army trained specifically to fight in formation, and stayed there, Harold had depended on peasant levies who simply could not, or would not, fight in formation. These weaknesses, rather than any great military genius on the part of William, led to the defeat of the English at Hastings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
 
ironaxe
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Considering most of your beautiful England was under the control of Vikings, how could they truly be invaders?

I understand your loyalties, jersey, and we could go on for hours disgareeing about how the vikings treated the English and Harold defeating Hardrada etc, but my irritation lay in the very understated learning in the education system(schools and tourism) about the kings and events I named.

Hastings was hugely important, yes- but not far below that battle in importance, historically for this country, were the events I listed.

Like I said, it's almost like we're ashamed of them, certainly ignorant- until we get some chav to broadcast the 'forgotten' kings and events on Big Brother or Eastenders? ;-(

ps. (That was a tongue-in-cheek comment)
 
Jersay
#9
Because to people now, history like that isn't important even if it could have changed the history of England for the better or the worst
 
Jersay
#10
It should be taught. However, you have to tell your local or your national education ministry that the stuff taught now is important but the history of 1000 years ago and before is as well extremely important because it started the creation of England as a country instead of having those little kingdoms it started to form it as the nation it is today and it might get the interest of the kids because who wouldn't like to dream about wars in the countryfield in some far of past and stuff.

Then you should say to the local or national education minister about a plaque or a historical site for such an important battle to maintain English culture.
 
Jersay
#11
Just as a sidepoint, weren't the Anglo-Saxons invaders as well to Britain? The indigenous people are gone then the Celts and then the Anglo-Saxons and then the Vikings??
 
ironaxe
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Just as a sidepoint, weren't the Anglo-Saxons invaders as well to Britain? The indigenous people are gone then the Celts and then the Anglo-Saxons and then the Vikings??

Yes, before the 'Celts' (no-one before the 17thC in Britain & Ireland called themselves thus) there were maybe the mysterious 'indigenous' Britons, maybe of Phoenician/Gallic descent?

If farmer/warrior/settlers came from the 'middle east' then it may explain the traditionally darker complexions of some regions of Britain(Cornwall, Wales) and Ireland?

An old learned bloke once said to me in the local library that the word 'Britain' was based upon an old eastern word for this land, via the Romans who later used a variant word.
 
Finder
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Just as a sidepoint, weren't the Anglo-Saxons invaders as well to Britain? The indigenous people are gone then the Celts and then the Anglo-Saxons and then the Vikings??


The Saxons came and raped pillaged and plundered Celtic Breton, as the Anglo-Saxons would later, rape pillage and plunder, Celtic Scotland, and then Celtic Ireland. Of coure BlackLeaf may say the Anglo-Saxons and perhaps the Saxons came to liberate the Celtic tribes from... ummmm.... their lives?
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote:

as the Anglo-Saxons would later, rape pillage and plunder, Celtic Scotland, and then Celtic Ireland.

Anglo-Saxons in Ireland?

That's a good one. What drugs have you been taking today?
 
ironaxe
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Just as a sidepoint, weren't the Anglo-Saxons invaders as well to Britain? The indigenous people are gone then the Celts and then the Anglo-Saxons and then the Vikings??


The Saxons came and raped pillaged and plundered Celtic Breton, as the Anglo-Saxons would later, rape pillage and plunder, Celtic Scotland, and then Celtic Ireland. Of coure BlackLeaf may say the Anglo-Saxons and perhaps the Saxons came to liberate the Celtic tribes from... ummmm.... their lives?

I doubt very much if the 'Celts' were particularly 'nice' and hospitable to Anglo-Saxon women and children on their frequent, vicious raids?

Or even each other during their regular internecine battles & wars before the Romans even arrived?

The Galwegians were a notoriously fierce section of any 'invading' or ravaging "Scottish" army.
 
Blackleaf
#16
England was the only modern day nation that was fulyl conquered by the Anglo-Saxons. The Celts were driven to the westernmost and northernmost extremities of the island, and is why today there are three nations on the island of Britain. But they didn't conquer Scotland and Wales.

England was divided into several Anglo-Saxons kingdoms, each with its own king, and then all those kingdoms were unified, probably under King Alfred, to form present day England.

Why they came is a cause for some debate. Some historians say they came over as mercenaries and where paid to come over by the Britons for whatever reason. And some say that it may have been because their land often flooded and it was difficult to grow crops, so they were looking for new places to settle down and farm.

The Formation of Anglo-Saxon England
During the period of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes eventually came to be collectively called the English, which is derived from "Angles." The Jutes and Angles, both being of Danish origin, appear to have intermixed with the result that the Jutes lost their identity. The Anglo-Saxons formed seven major kingdoms, referred to as the heptarchy by historians. These were the Angle kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, and Kent; and the Saxon kingdoms of Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. Other, smaller kingdoms emerged from time to time but were swallowed up by the heptarchial kingdoms. By the year 600, the three largest kingdoms; Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex, dominated the others. The kings were continuously at war with one another to attain supremacy over their neighbors.


http://members.tripod.com/~Battle_of...troduction.htm
 
Blackleaf
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Considering most of your beautiful England was under the control of Vikings, how could they truly be invaders?

I would say only Northern England was controlled by Vikings. Southern England was in control of the Anglo-Saxons. The area controlled by the Vikings was known as the Danelaw.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

England was the only modern day nation that was fully British conquered by the Anglo-Saxons. The Celts were driven to the westernmost and northernmost extremities of the island, and is why today there are three nations on the island of Britain. But they didn't conquer Scotland and Wales.
What became England was divided into several Anglo-Saxons kingdoms, each with its own king, and then all those kingdoms were unified, probably under King Alfred, to form present day England.
Why they came is a cause for some debate. Some historians say they came over as mercenaries and where paid to come over by the Britons for whatever reason. And some say that it may have been because their land often flooded and it was difficult to grow crops, so they were looking for new places to settle down and farm.
The Formation of Anglo-Saxon England
During the period of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes eventually came to be collectively called the English, which is derived from "Angles." The Jutes and Angles, both being of Danish origin, appear to have intermixed with the result that the Jutes lost their identity. The Anglo-Saxons formed seven major kingdoms, referred to as the heptarchy by historians. These were the Angle kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, and Kent; and the Saxon kingdoms of Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. Other, smaller kingdoms emerged from time to time but were swallowed up by the...

Quote has been trimmed
 
Blackleaf
#19
Oops. I think I've got a bit confused over the "quote" and "edit" button.
 
Finder
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

Quote:

as the Anglo-Saxons would later, rape pillage and plunder, Celtic Scotland, and then Celtic Ireland.

Anglo-Saxons in Ireland?

That's a good one. What drugs have you been taking today?


400 years of Anglo-Saxon British invasions, occupations and conquests of Ireland BlackLeaf, what have you been smoking!
 
Finder
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Considering most of your beautiful England was under the control of Vikings, how could they truly be invaders?

I would say only Northern England was controlled by Vikings. Southern England was in control of the Anglo-Saxons. The area controlled by the Vikings was known as the Danelaw.

Well really the vikings controled anywhere were there long ships landed, raided and took whatever they wanted and usually left. Yeah they did settle parts of Scotland and Ireland, but they settled in other parts of Europe and north America too, (Ice Land, Greenland, Nova Scotia, PEI and New Foundland and they say perhaps other places as well)
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

Quote:

as the Anglo-Saxons would later, rape pillage and plunder, Celtic Scotland, and then Celtic Ireland.

Anglo-Saxons in Ireland?

That's a good one. What drugs have you been taking today?


400 years of Anglo-Saxon British invasions, occupations and conquests of Ireland BlackLeaf, what have you been smoking!

But the Welsh and Scots invaded Ireland, too, but they aren't Anglo-Saxon.

Nearly every country in the world, with the possible exception of Canada, has invaded and conquered other countries, especially in Europe.
 
Blackleaf
#23

Anglo-Saxon mask found at Sutton Hoo, Southern England.

Anyway, I love the Anglo-Saxons. I don't think the English are ashamed of their Anglo-Saxons past. I mean, are the Swedes and Norwegians ashamed of their Viking past, or the Italians ahamed of their Roman and Etruscan past?

I like there language, too, the mother language of Modern English.

Here is a passage from the epic poem Beowulf, an English poem written by the Anglo-Saxons and the first great masterpiece ever written in the English language -


Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon of hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð ter
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!


You wouldn't think it's English, but it is. Some of the words still resemble their modern counterparts, such as "god cyning" - "good king." Here it is translated -


Lo! We of Spear-Danes in days of yore
of the fame of the kings, have heard
How those nobles did great deeds
Often Scyld Scefing, from the army of his enemies.
from many warriors, took the mead-benches
terrified the nobles. After he was first
discovered, a foundling, he gained a consolation
waxed under the heavens, prospered in glory,
until eventually everyone in surrounding tribes,
over the whale-road, had to obey
and yield to him. He was a good king!



http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/asintro2.html


And there's the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, another early English masterpiece. It's so long that it'll probably take years to read.

As Britannia.com says -

"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is one of the most important documents that has come down to us from the middle ages. It was originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great in approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th Century. The original language was Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but later entries were probably made in an early form of Middle English."

It's just like a diary, where the early English peoples wrote down the events in a particular day in a month of a particular year.


Here is the very beginning in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translated into modern English -


The island Britain (1) is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad.
And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or
British) (2), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first
inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia (3), and
first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the
Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and,
landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the
Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them
leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell
there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give
you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you
may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will
assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and
entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it,
as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on
condition that they chose their kings always on the female side
(4); which they have continued to do, so long since. And it
happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from
Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land.
Their leader was called Reoda (5), from whom they are named
Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).


Sixty winters ere that Christ was born, Caius Julius, emperor of
the Romans, with eighty ships sought Britain. There he was first
beaten in a dreadful fight, and lost a great part of his army.
Then he let his army abide with the Scots (6), and went south
into Gaul. There he gathered six hundred ships, with which he
went back into Britain. When they first rushed together,
Caesar's tribune, whose name was Labienus (7), was slain. Then
took the Welsh sharp piles, and drove them with great clubs into
the water, at a certain ford of the river called Thames. When
the Romans found that, they would not go over the ford. Then
fled the Britons to the fastnesses of the woods; and Caesar,
having after much fighting gained many of the chief towns, went
back into Gaul
------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the entries for 449AD to 485AD -

A.D. 449 . This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire,
and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa [[[probably the very first Anglo-Saxons to arrive]]],
invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons to his assistance,
landed in Britain in a place that is called Ipwinesfleet; first
of all to support the Britons, but they afterwards fought against
them. The king directed them to fight against the Picts; and
they did so; and obtained the victory wheresoever they came.
They then sent to the Angles, and desired them to send more
assistance. They described the worthlessness of the Britons, and
the richness of the land. They then sent them greater support.
Then came the men from three powers of Germany; the Old Saxons,
the Angles, and the Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the men
of Kent, the Wightwarians (that is, the tribe that now dwelleth
in the Isle of Wight), and that kindred in Wessex that men yet
call the kindred of the Jutes. From the Old Saxons came the
people of Essex and Sussex and Wessex. From Anglia, which has
ever since remained waste between the Jutes and the Saxons, came
the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, and all of
those north of the Humber. Their leaders were two brothers,
Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was
the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden [[[Anglo-Saxon god, from where "Wednesday" takes its name]]]. From this
Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that of the Southumbrians
also.

((A.D. 449 . And in their days Vortigern invited the Angles
thither, and they came to Britain in three ceols, at the place
called Wippidsfleet.))

A.D. 455 . This year Hengest and Horsa fought with Wurtgern the
king on the spot that is called Aylesford. His brother Horsa
being there slain, Hengest afterwards took to the kingdom with
his son Esc.

A.D. 457 . This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Britons on
the spot that is called Crayford, and there slew four thousand
men. The Britons then forsook the land of Kent, and in great
consternation fled to London.

A.D. 465 . This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Welsh, nigh
Wippedfleet; and there slew twelve leaders, all Welsh. On their
side a thane was there slain, whose name was Wipped.

A.D. 473 . This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Welsh, and
took immense Booty. And the Welsh fled from the English like
fire.

A.D. 477 . This year came Ella to Britain, with his three sons,
Cymen, and Wlenking, and Cissa, in three ships; landing at a
place that is called Cymenshore. There they slew many of the
Welsh; and some in flight they drove into the wood that is called
Andred'sley.

A.D. 482 . This year the blessed Abbot Benedict shone in this
world, by the splendour of those virtues which the blessed
Gregory records in the book of Dialogues.

A.D. 485 . This year Ella fought with the Welsh nigh Mecred's-
Burnsted.



To look at the whole thing, go here:
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/asintro2.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Chronicles say that the Anglo-Saxons were invited over by the Britons.

Quote:

((A.D. 449 . And in their days Vortigern invited the Angles
thither, and they came to Britain in three ceols, at the place
called Wippidsfleet.))

So the first Anglo-Saxons came over on three ceols - ships - on the invite of Vortigern, a native Briton. I suppose it's a bit like the pilgrims arriving in North America aboard the Mayflower, only much earlier. It's different from the Vikings who came here because they were bloodthirsty warmongerers.

This is history and culture that Canadians and Americans can only dream of.
 
Finder
#24
BlackLeaf, give me a break you just can't ignore 400 years of oppression, war, and so on by the British! Of course if there is anybody who could it would be you. Hey I'm not saying the British wern't the only ones, there are the vikings and the Norman invasions of Ireland and I'm syure I'm forggoting to mention others. But the English invasion, has been one of the worst and longest lasting.
 
Finder
#25
BTW nice pic. Evben though I think you are an British Ultra nationalist , you seem to get nice historical tid bits of information and pics which almost makes up for your extremism. lol
 
Hotshot
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Yes there should be a monument to the brave Viking warriors who tried to defeat the Anglo-Saxon force there. Just think that was the end of the Viking as an extremely powerful force. What a shame.

What nonscense. A monument to the invaders?? Maybe they should have a monument to Hitler in the middle of London!
 
Jersay
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Yes there should be a monument to the brave Viking warriors who tried to defeat the Anglo-Saxon force there. Just think that was the end of the Viking as an extremely powerful force. What a shame.

What nonscense. A monument to the invaders?? Maybe they should have a monument to Hitler in the middle of London!

Considering the Vikings controlled England itself, and since the Anglo-Saxons are invaders themselves who invaded the 'indigenous' and the celtic communities. Why not? Besides the Vikings as in other topics were more humane than the Anglo-Saxons anyway. So have a monument of a little Viking it would attract so many school children to learn history.
 
Finder
#28
I'm sure there is some kind of Nordic statue proclaiming a communities ties to there Nordic past somewhere in all of the UK. I know in Ireland (mostly Dublin, they had a whole bunch of viking/nordic stuff)
 
Jersay
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

I'm sure there is some kind of Nordic statue proclaiming a communities ties to there Nordic past somewhere in all of the UK. I know in Ireland (mostly Dublin, they had a whole bunch of viking/nordic stuff)

Alright. Good for Dublin. (Sorry Finder and Celtics culture)

However, its kind of stupid to say because they were an invasion force that why should we build a statue or commermorate them. The Vikings colonize much of Britain and the Isles for several hundred years. Shouldn't my ancestors deserve some respect as well for the colonizing and the humane practices (just looting and pillaging every once and a while.)
 
Finder
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

I'm sure there is some kind of Nordic statue proclaiming a communities ties to there Nordic past somewhere in all of the UK. I know in Ireland (mostly Dublin, they had a whole bunch of viking/nordic stuff)

Alright. Good for Dublin. (Sorry Finder and Celtics culture)

However, its kind of stupid to say because they were an invasion force that why should we build a statue or commermorate them. The Vikings colonize much of Britain and the Isles for several hundred years. Shouldn't my ancestors deserve some respect as well for the colonizing and the humane practices (just looting and pillaging every once and a while.)

I think they are respected in some regards, I know I've read about Viking kings in what is now the UK in my history books and it didn't paint them as monsters.
 
no new posts