Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by wiffey (U3611473) on Saturday, 3rd February 2007
Having read Bryan Sykes' "Blood of the Isles" it seems that the gene pool of Britain wasn't greatly swamped by post Roman Germanic invaders. How,then, did English place names come to almost entirely supplant pre-existing Welsh/Celtic ones? Who names settlements - the indigenous majority or their new ruling elite?
WiffeyLink to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 4th February 2007
This issue had arisen before on these boards. My own point of view is that social and economic upheaval greatly eases the re-identification of landscape according to demographic trends, with a tendency to favour that imposed by those with (or in) power at the time. The same happened in Ireland, where an 'invasive' English presence never managed to account for more than an eighth of the population in the 'pure blooded' sense, but effectively anglicised the entire landscape nevertheless in an indelible way.
There seems to be a point of critical mass with regard to power being wielded, the creation of an economic dependency of a majority on a minority, and the political will to redefine the domain on the part of that minority, after which the process of name-changing takes place. When it does it is both inexorable and (historically speaking) rather swift.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 3
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 4th February 2007
A related question is, why did the people in England adopt the language of the Germanic invaders; while in those parts of Europe conquered by Franks, Goths, Vandals, Lombards etc Latin continued as the lingua franca.
The Franks are especially interesting as they were the only another Germanic people to make a permanent settlement and they ended up speaking a Latin-based language, ie French.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 4
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Sunday, 4th February 2007
Gaiseric - This thread is a bit of a remake. The same reason that the Russian aristocracy and the English aristocracy gave up French - a long war against others who spoke that language. The war for control of Britain lasted a good two hundred years. On the Continent the takeover was immensely faster. Britannia was independent before the Germans were hired too, and hadn't lost its own language, as had most of the West - which must have made a major difference: Latin had prestige amongst the barbarians, while British didn't.
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 4th February 2007
Hi Gaiseric,
Somehow I don't think we are going to arrive at a simple answer to your question however often we discuss it. North of the border we have a similar problem; why did Pictish disappear? In the Northern Isles it is possible (possible not definite) that there was a population change in the Viking-Norse era. But surely the Gaels and the Picts were both represented equally in nascent Scotland?
Or course there are many essential facts about the 'British' to English language transition that we don't know. Were there English speakers (perhaps derived from the Roman army) in Eastern England before the arrival of those peaceful Saxon farmers? How long did the language transition actually take? There were still independent British kingdoms 200 years after the Saxons arrived, so allowing 400 years for the language change is possible.
Perhaps it's a matter of status. The Franks wanted to become the inheritors of the Romans and were therefore proud to adopt their religion and speak what passed for their language. Perhaps the native British either enthusiastically embraced English culture and language, or ignored both and were proud to evolve into Welsh and Cornishmen. Perhaps the really important question is why did the two languages remain so distinct for so long?
The situation wasn't inevitable. In the 9-10th centuries Old English borrowed widely from Old Norse but perhaps the speakers of these two languages were culturally more alike.
TPLink to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 5th February 2007
It's almost certainly the language. In much the same way as nordmann has described the 'anglicisation' of much of Ireland, similarly, around 89% of the Americans who speak English are not of English descent.
It would not surprise me if a large proportion of the people living in England today are descended from the ancient Britons. Despite all the fanfare of recent DNA findings this theory is nothing new. 200 years ago the Welsh poet and thinker Iolo Morganwg suspected as much. He said that he had no problem with London 'Llundain' being the capital of Britain as this was a logical place (at the lowest bridging point on the Thames) for a capital of the island. That was assuming that the Britain was ecomonically orientated towards the continent (which it has been for virtually all its history).Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 7
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 5th February 2007
Attempting to answer my own question, I think part of the difference between England & the Continent is that in the latter case a class of Roman bureaucrats survived to serve the Germanic conquerors. They played a vital role in writing law codes, collecting taxes, diplomacy etc and this all helped to keep Latin alive. This Latin then evolved into French, Spanish Italian etc...
In Britain's case this sub-Roman class was much weaker, in fact maybe it was never that strong in the first place as Britain was such a backwater of the Empire. This meant there was no 'official' language and so it was natural that the Germanic invaders would impose their own language by default.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Good point Gaiseric. I remember reading a tongue in cheek summary of the 'waves' of barbarians who succeeded eventually in eroding the empire's structure and influence, at least as a purely Roman entity. The difference was pointed out between those who 'bought in' to the empire idea as it stood (Visigoths etc) and those who couldn't give a flying fernickity over how 'civilised' the Romanophiles saw themselves, be they born on the banks of the Tiber or in Carlisle. The Saxons, Angles and Jutes all fitted into the latter category. Roman Britons in other words suddenly found themselves living in a land where knowing one's fourth declension interrogative backwards meant diddleysquat to the guy who decided if you survived to make a living or not. Since the same overrunners hadn't bought into the idea either that the church was the greatest thing since unleavened bread - at least yet - that avenue for keeping Latin vulgate was rather slammed closed also.
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 9
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
"The same happened in Ireland, where an 'invasive' English presence never managed to account for more than an eighth of the population in the 'pure blooded' sense, but effectively anglicised the entire landscape nevertheless in an indelible way.
"
What a terrible example, and so so wrong. If the same thing happened in Ireland then why is Ireland not England?
The key is that the variance is highly regional. The eastern seaboard of britian was likely was to have been populated by these people, who arguably spoke old english too. This is bourne out in the analysis which shows a trend from east to west.
The size of England now is due to a rapid spread out to the west absorbing the native population from the eastern seaboard.
The analysis broadly fits this picture.
What is unbelievably wrong is to cite examples, such as America only being 11% English, why do they speak English etc, is an abysmal example. You are comparing events of 100-200 years ago with those of 1500 years ago.
It was the dark ages! There was no railroad, centralised government, and rapid means whatsoever of crossing the country with your "message".Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 10
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
For the record, you might find these threads useful, from previous discussions around this subject.
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
What a terrible example, and so so wrong. If the same thing happened in Ireland then why is Ireland not England?
Ìý
Well I hate to tell you mykingdomforanus but there are many people from outside the British Isles and Ireland (in fact I believe by any standard of counting that represents rather a majority view numerically) who fail to spot a difference at all. I live in Norway and the people here, who are by no means geographically or culturally illiterate in any sense, constantly peg me as an Englishman. Other Irish I have met abroad say they experience the same thing (and respond in the manner they see fit, be it letting it go, politely pointing out the error, or knocking the other guy's block off), and not just here. The confusion is displayed by people from many different cultures, some of whom even speak English as a first language. Whether we Irish like it or not, our cultural differentiation from England hinges very much on criteria that only we two groups recognise or care about to a large degree. Put simply, we have become two facets of the same culture who must labour to point out our differences to a third party more often than that party can see them, or will see their relevance after they have been pointed out. So while Ireland is not England politically (and god knows that took a lot of persuading to achieve given the propensity of people who thought maybe it should be), the political fact has absolutely nothing to do with what you have tried to take me to task over, or indeed with the discussion in question - which is cultural assimilation, blending and indeed annihilation.
So instead of pointing out where everyone who states obviously correct views might be wrong, perhaps you might care to examine the criteria that YOU are using to define 'Irish' and 'English', since they appear to be even more subjective than the narrow political one you cite in your argument!
The size of England now is due to a rapid spread out to the west absorbing the native population from the eastern seaboard
Ìý
This obviously makes perfect sense to you but since the subject is not specified could mean anything from cultural infiltration to the country having been flattened by a giant rolling pin. You later go on to say that there was no method whereby "it" could have been achieved rapidly in any case. What on earth are you talking about?Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
What is unbelievably wrong is to cite examples, such as America only being 11% English, why do they speak English etc, is an abysmal example. You are comparing events of 100-200 years ago with those of 1500 years ago.
It was the dark ages! There was no railroad, centralised government, and rapid means whatsoever of crossing the country with your "message".Ìý
An experiment was done in the 1980s using a 'pony express' type system to deliver a letter (unstamped) from central London to Penzance. Volunteers brought their horses and ponies along the route to carry the letter relay style. By and large they sought to use bridleways and open country as much as possible as opposed to roads.
Another (stamped) letter was simultaneously sent to the same address in Penzance by the Post Office from a letter box near the starting point in London.
The amateur 'pony express' letter beat the Post Office letter to Penzance with hours to spare.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 13
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Apologies my post was poor and I didn't make myself entirely clear.
The trouble is that the whole ethnic cleansing argument is rather a straw man as noone believes that anymore. The idea that language differences are totally bound up with ethnic difference is obviously not true, but to compare the spread of the English language in Britain to that of the US is ludicrous. You are dealing with totally different eras, with totally different levels of communication.
"Well I hate to tell you mykingdomforanus but there are many people from outside the British Isles and Ireland (in fact I believe by any standard of counting that represents rather a majority view numerically) who fail to spot a difference at all. I live in Norway and the people here, who are by no means geographically or culturally illiterate in any sense, constantly peg me as an Englishman."
That must irritate considerably it has to be said. I understand your point in relation to Ireland and England as opposite sides of the same culture, but in relating this to the creation of England I didn't think was a particularly good analogy.
The reason why is that it isn't a particular good analogy is that most aspects of indigenous british culture, including language, disappeared after the roman withdrawal and replaced by a new continental culture. Look at linguistics, place name evidence as well as the dna evidence which all largely agree with each other.
The only difference is the level of dna incursion which suggests that the most of the british remained where they were, i.e.they weren't all "driven into the mountains", but they integrated with the saxons, adopted their culture and over a few generations became indisguishable from them.
The same sort of thing did not happen in ireland, that is all I am saying.
The English are not totally saxon, but a mixture of celtic, saxon and everything else. If this is the point you were making in the firat place, then we are agreeing with each other.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
The same sort of thing did not happen in ireland, that is all I am saying.
Ìý
Well you're wrong there as well, at least if the Trinity College-run DNA research from two or three years ago is anything to go by. It turns out that the Irish and the English, with almost exactly the same proportion of extremely small pockets of aberration, are genetically the same.
Mind you, the surname distribution alone in Ireland would have given a clue that this would be the case. And a study of Irish history, especially with a view to enforced movement of population, plantation and intermarriage would have more or less made the DNA evidence irrelevant as proof.
With regard to your final statement - that the English are not genetically Saxon but yet speak English as opposed to an older British tongue, simply demonstrates the point that I have been making all along. If like me you agree that cultural assimilation is not contingent on wholesale slaughter, then I cannot for the life of me see why you should find fault in using Ireland as an example of where this has also proven to be true.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Oh - and I should add that being mistaken for an Englishman does not irritate me since it is rarely if ever ill meant. In fact in correcting the misperception one can often break the conversational ice with strangers, so it's quite a socially useful bit of culture-blindness on their part, I find.
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 16
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
While I, Nordmann, an absolutely stereoypical Cymro ('Welshman') am, in both Britanny and Italy, invariably taken for a German (except once, when they thought I was a Finn - which has also hapened to me in Derby!). I think it has to do not with language but with attitude and, possibly, dress sense. Or something!
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Hi Rhys,
As far as being mistaken for a Finn, have you considered that it may have something to do with your fondness for Lapp-dancing?
I'll get me coat...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Coincidentally, I think that Thomas_B has asked on another thread if you're Irish.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 18
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
RF - Dammo - caught out! I can't do anything with the Irish bit, but I've often been told I'm far too free with my flippers!
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 19
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
nordmann:
The difference was pointed out between those who 'bought in' to the empire idea as it stood (Visigoths etc) and those who couldn't give a flying fernickity over how 'civilised' the Romanophiles saw themselves, be they born on the banks of the Tiber or in Carlisle. The Saxons, Angles and Jutes all fitted into the latter category.Ìý
In his classic study of Anglo-Saxon England, Frank Stenton says that the evidence from their burials shows the Saxons to be a "true barbaric culture" unaffected by Roman influences - unlike the Goths for example, who had Romanised their culture to the point where a Gothic scholar, Ulfila, had produced a Gothic translation of the Bible.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 20
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Well yes, but nowhere does it state in brian sykes book that the "english are not geneticlly saxon",. if you intended it to mean that the english are genetically only partially saxon then this is what sykes is saying and what people are agreeing on on this thread.
I am saying that the Ireland example isn't a good one as irish culture did not change absolutely into something else as it did in the areas that came to be known as England. If your using Ireland as an example of language change without total ethnic change then fine, but the cases are different as the level of incursion did not totally the culture as it did for england.
Its shafdes of grey we are arguing about after all.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
I am saying that the Ireland example isn't a good one as irish culture did not change absolutely into something else
Ìý
Wanna bet? It seems to me you're discounting the Irish example without really having a notion of the reality of the Irish transmutation under English political domination. Prior to the intensification of Anglification from the 16th century onwards the Irish culture had managed to retain for the most part its Gaelic heritage. In other words, prior to this the island had been subjected to an ever increasing frequency and strength of external cultural influence visited on its society. The manner of these intrusions, invasive and often accompanied by extreme political compulsion (as with the Vikings and the Normans) had altered the political landscape - indeed the landscape - cosiderably. Yet Ireland prior to the policies of the later Tudors was (to the dismay of the English) extraordinarily resilient to these processes, and in fact several measures of legislation introduced at the behest of the English parliament over these centuries sought to address what it correctly identified as a constant 'slide back into Irishness' on the part of those English who had relocated. Put simply, the English influence, despite the huge political resources that lay behind it, was losing out repeatedly to the dominant influence of the culture already in place.
After Henry VIII re-prioritised the Irish campaign a number of political measures were taken to finally arrest this trend. Of these, one would imagine that the plantation of large numbers of English and Scottish settlers would have indeed reversed the trend - but amazingly, even as late as the reign of Charles I, the English political leadership was dismayed to find that the settlers were in many instances adopting 'Irish' language and customs, and often in areas where one would least expect it, such as in Ulster, where their arrival had been contested and villified by the sitting population. Even where enmity translated into political friction from the word go, in other words, the tendency for the dominant culture to prevail was still evident.
What changed everything were the events instigated by Cromwell's intervention (motivated ironically not so much by a desire to 'eradicate' Irish culture but to remove all possibility of political opposition to his policies emanating from the island in the future). Again there were mass clearings of land and replacement by English settlers, and again - almost unbelievably - a 'seeping back' of Irish cultural influence in many of these parts once the instigators had been removed from the political stage. But this time the crucial difference was that the culture seeping back in had no expression in the echelons of society where power resides. The English had finally reached that point of critical mass, not by exceeding the native Irish in terms of population, but in having finally succeeded in populating and dominating the strata of society that define society itself and make it possible for the lower strata to function.
The political desolation of the Jacobites after Aughrim closed the last potential avenue for a resurrection of that influence. Irish language and customs, from that point on, would never be anything but a vestige of what society had once been, and not the basis for a society itself anymore. Interestingly, the next 150 years saw the population of the country climb to over a double of its 1700 figure. Yet the proportion of 'English speakers' (still small, but now increasingly including native born Irish) rose by only 45 percent in that time. The rest however were so marginalised socially that their numbers counted for nothing. They were an integral part of the economic function of the country, they represented a huge majority in terms of common background and language, but they were in no position to stop the island becoming 'English'.
In fact, I would contend now that - apart from what might be described as artificial attempts to promote Gaelic and perceived notions of 'Irishness' in the last century - Ireland retains as little of its once predominant culture now as England did of its once 'British' culture a few hundred years after the Saxon usurpation of those social strata that are critical to effecting the change. The two are very closely related events in terms of procedure, I would contest, and the Irish process - having the advantage of having taken place during recorded history - could well shed some light on the true dynamics that played a role in 'England's' own formation as such!Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 22
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Thank for you for that fascianting account of irish history and relations with England.
A lot of assumptions of irish history are dervied from the struggle against english rule, Cromwell, the famine, 1916 etc and the assumption that irish culture, despite intrusion remained relatively untouched, whereas, as you have revealed, it didn't. Very very interesting. Thank you.
I guess the difference could be that the "seeping back" of Irish culture, such as in the settlers subsuming themselves into irish culture over time, happened in Ireland but not in england, where it happened the other round.
How forcible this process was is in England is a moot point, but the actual presence of Wales and Cornwall suggests that conflict did happen.
For the settlers in England to exert so much influence for this to happen there must have been a sizeable & highly militerised minority.
I'm positive as well that the continental unfluence was strong before the romans even left, & have a hunch the "saxon shore" indicates the presence of communities on the south east coast, during and possibly even before the roman period.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 23
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Probably only of local significance, but the derivation of my home town, Walsall is thought to be the Saxon name "Walh Halh", roughly translated as "Place of the Britons".
If this were the case, then it suggests that a settlement of native Britons in the Midlands was, at some stage, unusual enough to be remarked upon.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
I guess the difference could be that the "seeping back" of Irish culture, such as in the settlers subsuming themselves into irish culture over time, happened in Ireland but not in england, where it happened the other round.
Ìý
Maybe not in the beginning - we can only conjecture. There are reasonable grounds to assume that the first Saxons to reach England's shores had done so long before the ultimate fall of Roman Britain (probably even as mercenaries employed for the Roman cause). If they settled in Britain it is unlikely that they would have survived long without adaptation to some extent to the prevailing ethics and ethos of the day, including language and custom. The Irish model would suggest that they might even have continued entering Britain in concerted numbers for several generations before and after the collapse of Roman influence, and even have adopted completely the ways and speech of their host society, before the true metamorphosis from Romano-British to English clicked into effect. What the Irish model indicates is that the 'culture shift' effect is predicated by a revolution in the decision-making strata in society much more than by any more traumatic redesigning of society, such as wholesale massacre, plague, warfare or enforced migration. That is why I feel it could be relevant to understanding Dark Age Britain, and with particular respect to the obvious and fundamental culture shift that took place then.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 25
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
the settlers were in many instances adopting 'Irish' language and customs, and often in areas where one would least expect it, such as in Ulster, where their arrival had been contested and villified by the sitting population ...
the crucial difference was that the culture seeping back in had no expression in the echelons of society where power resides ...
and dominating the strata of society that define society itself and make it possible for the lower strata to function.Ìý
Worth noting is the relatively recent phenomenon over the last 15 years or so in Northern Ireland for middle class Protestant parents to give Gaelic names to their children - hence the current preponderance of Eoins, Padraigs, Eibhlins, Caoimhes, Aoifes, Cians and Seamases etc among the young people and in the schools serving Belfast's Malone Road and also Hollywood and Bangor etc. These names would have been either extremely rare or even unthinkable in those communities say 30 years ago.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 26
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Your idea of the cultural shift occuring through a critical mass being reached on the decison making and organisational level in society is an interesting one, and understanding what the Irish model as you explained can teach us, it is indeed a useful way of looking at the paradigm shift that occured.
Certainly the period following the collapse of Roman rule is one of great change all across Europe. The pressure from tribes moving across from the steppes of central asia created a domino effect on those to the west, and the movement of people from the continent into britain is just one aspect of this migratory period.
Of course how this minority, coupled with those who were already probably in Britain, managed to create the changes that took place is very explained by your Irish model, along with other factors .
What also needs to be remembered are the number of factions within britain at the time. The divisive nature of the british tribes at the time is well known, and according to the traditional accounts, i.e. gildas, it is this reason that the british lost ground to the settlers.
Of course this leads onto the point of an Arthur character who managed to unite the British groups for a period and halt the saxon incursion, but that is a different topic of course.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Quite different, and has more to do with wishful thinking on the part of those who lose power, in my view, than historical evidence for any occasion in which they nearly might have regained it. That is why the myth has endured, and is one of many that support the idea of lost glory and 'wow, we nearly did it, didn't we?' kind of stuff - Irish mythology, especially political myth-making of the last thousand years, is a case in point there as well.
The domino theory regarding tribal migrations is an effective model, but it begs the question regarding directions chosen on the part of those 'shunted' in the process. Those who were attracted into the old Roman empirical domain did so for obvious reasons. If they successfully managed to establish new roots in what were well-established agroconomies dotted with potentially powerful city-states the immigrants would have a good chance of not only surviving the migration, but thrive fom it. The others to the north of Europe, while possibly regarding Britain and Gaul in that context, are still simply assumed to have moved 'west' because the pressure came from the 'east'. In fact, I would suggest that not only did Britain represent such a territory, chunks of which suggested a potentially lucrative asset to a newly established 'owner', but that what made the decision logical was years of preparatory work. History does not give us a figure for how many Angles, Jutes and Saxons had made the trip previously, or how they were absorbed into a polyglot Britain in which the administration functioned through an alien 'lingua franca'. If, like the Britons themselves, they had simply knuckled down and got on with their roles under Roman rules as the situation demanded, scant historical references such as we have could not be expected to tell us either. But when it comes to the 'paradigm shift' you refer to, it would help enormously if we could ever find out.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 28
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
As you say "wishful thinking on the part of those who lose power" is an intersting way of looking at how Irish culture developed a broad national mythos of struggle and loss of an idealised period. This could also apply very well to Scotland too, in which case the schism between lowland Scotland and highland gael Scotland has been a constant factor throughout history, but papered over with notions of loss and tourist symbolism, bagpipes et al.
Good point well made in your second paragraph. Certainly the collapse of Rome did create a power vacuum into which the most ambitious indivual, Alaric and so on, made the most of.
Certainly with any migrational flow there are push and pull factors, and Rome was a very strong one for the Visigoths. Britain was at the time, quite a well off, fertile land and a largely better option than the low lying littoral regions around Friesland and the Rhine at the end of the migratory domino line.
The point you make "what made the decision logical was years of preparatory work" is very true. I am convinced there were communities already established in Britain at the time, and whom were part of the complex ethnic and cultural fabric of Britain, yet whome were "getting on with it" under the relative security and stability of Roman rule.
The later Roman years saw Britain mostly garrisoned by auxiliary troops, many of whom were recruited from the germanic regions over the Rhine and elsewhere, such as the Croatian cohort that built and garrisoned the fort at Hardknott Pass in Cumbria.
Of course when Roman authority left Britain, the ambitions and self determination of these factions came to the fore. Perhaps a useful example to use in this regard could be the collapse of communist influence in eastern europe, and the resultant effect on Yugoslavia.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 29
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Walsall is thought to be the Saxon name "Walh Halh", roughly translated as "Place of the Britons".Ìý
that's funny I'd have assumed it had something to do with Walhalla, home of the gods in Germanic mythology...Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 30
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Yes, the term "Wall" is generally thought to denote the presence of Britons, i.e a british/celtic settlement. Hence we have Wallingford, Wallington, Cornwall and so on.
This is derived from Waelas, which evolved into Wales, of course.
The term Walloonia, as it the French speaking part of Belgium, is thougth to have the same root origin.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Yes, the term "Wall" is generally thought to denote the presence of Britons
Ìý
Geez - the Britons must have been very big in China one time!Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 32
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Friday, 9th February 2007
"that's funny I'd have assumed it had something to do with Walhalla, home of the gods in Germanic mythology..."
I think I prefer the idea of being descended from the Gods, rather than being descended from the Welsh!
No offence intended...
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 33
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Friday, 9th February 2007
Well the Welsh are the gods don't you know
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 34
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 16th November 2007
Just an observation but your Walsall> Walhal> home of the Britons sounds quite a lot like Valhalla Nordic Viking heaven!
Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
-
Message 35
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 19th November 2007
The English are not totally saxon, but a mixture of celtic, saxon and everything elseÌý hmm, yes you do have a point about the Saxon bit, especially if you consider that for a large part of the period after the Romans and before the Normans, the Saxons were not the main 'tribe' of England with the Mercians and Northumbrians (who were predominantly Angle)sharing the bragging rights between them. Additionally you then have to factor in the Danish invaders who settled on a huge swathe of midland and eastern england, so the use of the word 'Saxon' to describe the 'English' is a bit lazy.
am saying that the Ireland example isn't a good one as irish culture did not change absolutely into something else as it did in the areas that came to be known as EnglandÌý
You must have some sort of benchmark level of what is 'English culture' and what is 'Irish culture' before and after.
So if I travelled across to the Emerald Isle I would come across a totally different people than those I would see in England?
I'm only asking in that I have actually done that and the folk seemed to be on the whole, similair people to those I left at home. Spoke the same language, ate the same food, shared similair views. So some sort of cultural change has went on somewhere along the line unless of course their cultures were very similair to start of with.Link to this forum: What invaded? "English" blood or "English" language?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.