Anglo Saxon migration to Britain

[Northern Neil]

Sometimes Christians act with remarkble arrogance towards each other - even today, some catholics call non - catholic christians 'heathens' (pretty odd, as they all seem to believe the same thing, from my standpoint..). So, could it be that, in typical arrogant and righteous fashion, Augustines 'pagans' who he came to baptise were anyone in Britain who didn't tow the line from the Church of Rome, which would include Celtic Christians, Pagans, and whatever else was in Britain at the time?

 

Also, getting back to the question of the invasions and their impact on the population, if I remember correctly, didn't Augustine come across some Angles who were slaves - hence his highly intellectual play on words when he said 'No - they are angels'? Why are the Angles a subject people when a century before this they are alleged to be overunning vast areas of lowland britain, with the native population fleeing before them?

[caldrail]

The idea of germanic invasion is a general one, and as I've pointed out, it makes no allowance for events taking place during the period and we do know the native brits resisted these incursions where they could. Some Angles were slaves were they? So were a lot of other people back then, slavery was far from unusual. Germanic tradition in the dark ages held that if a free man lived in one place for a year and a day then he was automatically made a serf. hardly respectful of freedom, and I don't suppose there's any word on who the Angles masters were? Fuedal loyalty was emerging in the late roman empire and I really don't see why we should be suprised that some germanic peoples (at least in one place) were down the social ladder.

 

Your point about Augustine is well made, but then he wasn't entirely honest about his beliefs either.

[Kosmo]

Germanic tradition in the dark ages held that if a free man lived in one place for a year and a day then he was automatically made a serf. hardly respectful of freedom

I think it was the other way around. A serf became free after living as a freeman for a year and a day.

The germanic invaders were not a united group and fought each other and other groups so no wonder there anglii slaves on the continent. Also, all societies had mechanism that produced slaves like debtness or justice penalties.

[caldrail]

The tradition of freeing was common to medieval Europe. In Germany the tradition of serfdom after a year and a day was recorded.

 

However to return to the original point, NN and myself are somewhat at opposite poles regarding saxon settlement. We both refer to evidence and reach different conclusions. This time I'm going to suggest something else for consideration, the Caldrail Theory of Arthurian COnflict.

 

Now some might be already rolling their eyes - I don't care. What I'm suggesting is that once you strip away the medieval fantasy and celtic legend, there is a story of romano-celtic resistance not to the saxons, jutes, angles et al, but to picts, scots, and irish scots during the same period. Now whereas we know the saxons weren't popular (being aggressive and greedy heathens) and that they resorted to violence to claim british land on occaision, we also know they were invited over at least once (by Vortigern).

 

What if the pressure in early dark age britain wasn't so much saxons, who may have been valuable if distrusted allies, but the invaders from north and west who may have been taking advantage of the roman withdrawal? The arthurian mythos suggests these conflicts took place in northern england or scotland, yet arthurs origin is firmly in the west country, one of the last regions to have been settled by saxons.

 

Opinions everyone?

[Faustus]

Now some might be already rolling their eyes - I don't care. What I'm suggesting is that once you strip away the medieval fantasy and celtic legend, there is a story of romano-celtic resistance not to the saxons, jutes, angles et al, but to picts, scots, and irish scots during the same period. Now whereas we know the saxons weren't popular (being aggressive and greedy heathens) and that they resorted to violence to claim british land on occaision, we also know they were invited over at least once (by Vortigern).

 

What if the pressure in early dark age britain wasn't so much saxons, who may have been valuable if distrusted allies, but the invaders from north and west who may have been taking advantage of the roman withdrawal? The arthurian mythos suggests these conflicts took place in northern england or scotland, yet arthurs origin is firmly in the west country, one of the last regions to have been settled by saxons.

 

Opinions everyone?

 

Not an opinion really; just more questions. I've long thought of the Arthurian legends as so much romantic nonsense, never even considering any substance. But as I've read more of the history of Britain, while extending my interest in Roman civilization, I've been more persuaded of the authenticity of an Arthurian figure. Is the area you are referring to Caerwent/Venta Silurium?

 

I'm very interested in your full accounting of how this may have all been confused or been misinterpreted by historians

 

Faustus

[P.Clodius]

Can genetic traits denote a time line, or is it use in conjunction with say C14 dating or some other method?

[spittle]

The tradition of freeing was common to medieval Europe. In Germany the tradition of serfdom after a year and a day was recorded.

 

However to return to the original point, NN and myself are somewhat at opposite poles regarding saxon settlement. We both refer to evidence and reach different conclusions. This time I'm going to suggest something else for consideration, the Caldrail Theory of Arthurian COnflict.

 

Now some might be already rolling their eyes - I don't care. What I'm suggesting is that once you strip away the medieval fantasy and celtic legend, there is a story of romano-celtic resistance not to the saxons, jutes, angles et al, but to picts, scots, and irish scots during the same period. Now whereas we know the saxons weren't popular (being aggressive and greedy heathens) and that they resorted to violence to claim british land on occaision, we also know they were invited over at least once (by Vortigern).

 

What if the pressure in early dark age britain wasn't so much saxons, who may have been valuable if distrusted allies, but the invaders from north and west who may have been taking advantage of the roman withdrawal? The arthurian mythos suggests these conflicts took place in northern england or scotland, yet arthurs origin is firmly in the west country, one of the last regions to have been settled by saxons.

 

Opinions everyone?

 

Arthur's legend may be a mix of influences.

The events of further north (when fighting incursions from the scots/picts) being simplified for public consumption by the personification of the whole era in the person of Arthur. And, as history is written by the victors, Arthur's origins were chosen to show how a certain area produced men of legendary quality.

 

One need only watch American films to see the same process.

Anglo-Polish WW2 exploits in Colditz being portrayed as pure American ingenuity.

Characters in movies that are an amalgam of several individuals.

[caldrail]

Opinions everyone?

Not an opinion really; just more questions. I've long thought of the Arthurian legends as so much romantic nonsense, never even considering any substance. But as I've read more of the history of Britain, while extending my interest in Roman civilization, I've been more persuaded of the authenticity of an Arthurian figure. Is the area you are referring to Caerwent/Venta Silurium?

 

Not quite. According to legend Arthur originates from the west country (and welsh princes were ruling southwest england as far as somerset until conquered by Ecbert in the 9th century, a wessex king and later the first king of England). His uncle was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a man who apparently strove to recover dark age britain and return it to roman rule somewhat unsuccessfully. Thats all very well, but the battles that Arthur fought all seem to be in the north of England or Scotland, except possibly Mount Badon, his tremendous victory over the Saxons. Its not known which saxon group were defeated, nor where Mount Badon was, and some people have decided it was a victory against Wessex since they were militarily active in that period. This after all is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests.

 

I'm very interested in your full accounting of how this may have all been confused or been misinterpreted by historians

 

Faustus

 

I did a piece on Arthur a while back.... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0

 

Part of the problem is the human need for stories. Do-gooders may be people with higher purposes but ye gods are they dull to write about. The medieval period was a bit different, in that the do-gooders were military men striving for purity in a world of temptation, examples of what christian fighting men should be, and escapism from the gritty reality of life in manorial europe.

 

This brings us neatly to Geoffery of Monmouth, who wrote an influential history of britain, and the first case of Arthur being credited with being a King. Geoffery was not the most enlightened of historians, and whilst he probably tried to do a good job, there are instances of him making some very odd conclusions. As an example, in relating the tale of West Saxon military expansion in the 6th century, he refers to african allies from Ireland. This obviously wasn

[caldrail]

Regarding Geoffery of Monmouth, I discovered this criticism of his work...

 

It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons

 

Woah! Strong stuff. Now get this - that paragraph was written by one William of Newburgh in AD1190!

 

Having had a chance to browse through a translation of Geoffery's book, its quite a piece of work. He starts the story with Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas (yes, the same Aeneas who started the romans off), and the arrival of this man in Albion, a land empty of people bar a few giants, something like 1200BC. Within a chapter or two Brutus names the island after himself, and his three sons divide the island between themselves. Not without problems. Giants need to be wrestled, and Humber, King of the Huns, arrives to conquer Scotland. The new capital city of Britain is named Troia Nova (New Troy) and then.... Well.... I think you guess where this is all heading.

 

Geoffery used information from Gildas, Nennius, the Venerable Bede, and some unknown work handed to him by his friend Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man described as an authority in history. So its not as if he was getting it wrong at all. His history is the ancestor of the modern arthurian legend, and creates a whole mythology concerning the early history of Britain. Geoffery, you're a fraud.

[spittle]

tsk, tsk!

Geoffery. How could you!

[caldrail]

Because he wanted to please the people he dedicated his work too and basically wanted to exercise his literary ambitions. Well he suceeded. There's 148 surviving complete latin manuscripts of his history and three fragments dating from the twelfth century. Geoffery was a best selling author of his day and indirectly inspired a whole genre which included notable writers such as Chretien Des Troyes and Thomas Mallory during the medieval period.