Britain and genocide of native britons
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Description: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
Moderators: Leonidas, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27412
Printed Date: 20-Sep-2021 at 16:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Britain and genocide of native britons
Posted By: SerHumano
Subject: Britain and genocide of native britons
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 01:23
|
There are no mass grave sites as you might expect--and yes, you WOULD find them after 1500 years, that's NOTHING age-wise on the scale of things. I can name you mass battle grave sites from the first incursions of the Romans and even back to the neolithic when inhabitants of a causewayed camp were cut down in the hail of arrows. The best 'evidence' of open warfare comes from the writings of cloistered monks, not exactly in the thick of things themselves. Apparently london was evacuated in anticipation of the Saxon advances, but was trading again in 3 months. I believe there certainly was a large incursion of northern peoples, but it looks as if parts of England were actually quite empty at the time, possibly because of plague or famine.They just took the land and continued to do so, pushing the natives to the edges of the best land. I always though it pretty unlikely a max of 200,000 Saxons,angles and Jutes (and the figure was likely much lower) could annihilate a whole population of 3 MILLION. Certainly they were the ruling minority,however--just as the Normans were after 1066. As for the spread of English, well, i have a few theories. We don't really know what language the natives of England were speaking at the time. Many were very Romanised--did they mostly speak Latin at this stage and not a celtic tongue? That could be a good explanation why english quickly became the language of communication as Latin is closer to english than Brythonic.Certainly it would be much more difficult for the Saxons to learn the celtic languages than the reverse. also there's the matter of the belgae tribe who lived in england-they are considered celtc but may have spoken a Germanic language--hence there may have been people speaking a form of early English in England before the Saxons came! You will note there are no celtic language inscriptions found anywhere in England outside of Cornwall. Dna testing has also shown that the majority of the English are actually descended from prehistoric peoples. And yes, they came mainly from Iberia. when they first arrived over 9000 years ago they were literally able to walk up the western seaboard and across to Cornwall! Major dna studies have shown this link clearly.distance is NOT a factor,as one previous poster seemed to think, and actually northern Spain is relatively close to Britain. Many migrations originated much further away than that--after all, ALL Europeans came out of the near and middle east at one time and gradually dispersed around the continent. The neolithic migrations that changed how we lived forever originated from Mesopotamia. English people also have more blood type O than Germans and Scandinavians (O is older than A),and many also have longer heads,of a type known,appropriately, as Mediterranean. The lower western half of England also has a high proportion of darker phenotypes-both brown hair and brown eyes run at at least 50%. So all in all, the Saxons were here, they imprinted their culture on the natives but they eventually ended up blending into the older stratum of the population,not destroying it. |
Replies:
Posted By: Terri Ann
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 12:08
|
Where I live in Southern England, it was very Saxon. Virtually all the local place names come from the Saxon language, and just a couple of miles up the road a large Saxon cemetery was unearthed.
There is a town near here called Wallington - Saxon for "Welsh town" - Welsh being the Saxon word for Celt, and obviously implying that Celts (in quantity!) lived there. If this is the case, it would seem that in this area at least, Celt and Saxon lived (reasonably peacefully) side by side.
I believe the Saxon language is the forerunner of English. Much Latin and French vocabulary has become moulded into English also and a few Brythonic words still remain.
I did Latin at school, found it incredibly difficult, and I am still trying (and largely failing!) to teach myself the language. French was ok, but I found that German was by far the easiest language to learn.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 14:30
There wasn't just one quick Saxon invasion, like the Norman conquest. If London was evacuated before the Saxons started arriving, and traded again three months after they finished arriving, the town would have been shut down for centuries.
To modern English yes, but not to Anglo-Saxon. Latin isn't of either the Germanic or the Celtic families.
I don't see why. Historically the Celts had adopted English rather than the other way around.
Which isn't to say there isn't more Celtic influence on modern English than is normally assumed, particularly in syntax and grammar.
PS: My local experience is much the same as TerriAnn's but then we apparently come from much the same neck of the woods (Southampton in my case). ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
SerHumano wrote:Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 20:07
|
We need to be careful with place names such as Wallington and Walton. The use of the prefix walh in Old English means "serf" and consequently such towns and villages so named could simply mean a farm or hamlet of serfs, not necessarily town or village of Welsh (British) people. Moreover, the many places called Walton may derive from the Old English word wald (Forest or wood) meaning a farm near a forest. ------------- From Woden sprang all our royal kin. |