Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Arthur was popular with the Norman elite. Was this an idea to provide the nation with a unified ruler of the whole island (what the Normans felt they had the right to do).
Or indeed to provide the common people with a mythical hero who was not part of Anglo Saxon learning?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Owain:
Arthur was popular with the Norman elite. Was this an idea to provide the nation with a unified ruler of the whole island (what the Normans felt they had the right to do).
Or indeed to provide the common people with a mythical hero who was not part of Anglo Saxon learning?
It would suit the Normans to bypass the Anglo-Saxons and connect with the Britons, especially as many of them were Bretons, and so might claim to be returning home. |
| |
|
|
I guess the Normans and their successors needed to connect with the lands and peoples they had conquered, especially following the loss of Normandy in John's reign. And the Arthurian legends are a product of this.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk in terms of by-passing the Anglo-Saxons, in a late 12th century context, when the people of England were English - below the French-speaking aristocratic elite. It is not in any case convincing to say that they were by-passed, one of the leading historical writers of the time - William of Malmesbury - make a really big deal of king Athelstan, a ruler of great power and stature.
Henry III had a real fixation with Edward the Confessor, hence Edward I. As I said above browsing through MW's book accompanying his recent TV series he writes that when the Arthurian legends were being spun contemporary English opinion was definitely unimpressed. They apparently considered that the real heroes were English kings such as Alfred, Athelstan, Edgar and Harold Godwinson as tragi-hero.
In a literal sense this is understandable.
"so might claim to be returning home."
Not a view I have seen expressed before - and a lot of water had passed under the bridge considering it was around 5-600 years later.
|
| |
|
|
Interesting that C4 describes King Harold as a British hero;
"Harold II of England – who is best known for having lost the Battle of Hastings, and the crown, to William of Normandy in 1066 – is one of Britain's unsung heroes. Only 19 days before his untimely death at Hastings, Harold had defeated a massive Viking army – a victory that ended for all time incursions into England by Norsemen. And he fought extremely bravely and almost won against William."
|
| |
|
|
I read a lot of this post with interest though had to stop after an hour.
I did notice a lot of mention over the loss of the idigenous language after the Anglo-saxon dominance of what is now England. I did not manage to read all the post (though I intend to come back and finish later) but a language that is easier to write and speak, that is written and read in greater numbers via scripts and books would I suggest would not take long to gain a foothold in any society.
The society if confronted with this also has its laws and governance also only accepted and written in the new language rapid conversion would follow. Other than Latin is there much evidence of any writings prior to the Saxon "invasion". Daily chronicles and newspapers posted for all to read and a sudden influx of history and fiction available to the masses could have been the death nail for any previous language.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by WhoWhyME:
I read a lot of this post with interest though had to stop after an hour.
I did notice a lot of mention over the loss of the idigenous language after the Anglo-saxon dominance of what is now England. I did not manage to read all the post (though I intend to come back and finish later) but a language that is easier to write and speak, that is written and read in greater numbers via scripts and books would I suggest would not take long to gain a foothold in any society.
The society if confronted with this also has its laws and governance also only accepted and written in the new language rapid conversion would follow. Other than Latin is there much evidence of any writings prior to the Saxon "invasion". Daily chronicles and newspapers posted for all to read and a sudden influx of history and fiction available to the masses could have been the death nail for any previous language.
You are talking about a society that was basically illiterate - it was probably education from Irish monks that led to written early English. |
| |
|
|
Briton language was not used much in scripture for some strange reason. The druids who were nearly the only literate people on this island, used to write in Latin.
------------------------------------------------
Oh, you caught me. I like to bake a gentle pet, too.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Other than Latin is there much evidence of any writings prior to the Saxon "invasion".
It seems not. Gildas the "Historian of the Britons" wrote in Latin circa 540AD, some 40 or so after the supposed Arthurian period |
| |
|
|
Hopefully this will be interesting. John Morris author of the "Age of Arthur" says that the "oldest living European literature" is in the following extract of a poem by Talesin. It is a eulogy for king Urien of Reged who, as Morris puts it "is celebrated as the one British king who...beat the English soundly". It is late 6th century;
"Sovereign supreme ruler of all highest
The strangers' refuge strong champion in battle
This the English know when they tell tales.
Death was theirs rage and grief are theirs
Burnt are their homes bare are their bodies.
Apparently Talesin ends his poems to Urien with a signature
Till I am old
In the grim doom of death
I shall have no delight
If my lips praise not Urien".
|
| |
|
|
Of course we are endebted to Roman historians such as Tactitus writing in Latin , describing here the ethics of the Germanic warrior code;
"On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed in valou by his companions, a disgrace to the companions not to come up to the valour of their chief. As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen, that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, to put down one's acts of heroism to his credit - that is really what is meant by allegience. The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for their chief".
That was an enduring ideal, and we can see it 900 years later in one of the most famous of Old English poems, "The Battle of Maldon".
|
| |
|
|
In a similar vein to the point raised by WhoWhyMe, Pictish Scotland did not have a tradition of writing anything down either. It is from Anglo-Saxon chroniclers that we get much of the history of Dark Age Scotland. The Angles did occupy the area of Lothian, so you can see why the language was adopted in the lowlands because there simply wasn't anything there before.
I just makes it all the more difficult to work out what exactly happened to the Britons, and to the Picts.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by cottar:
I guess the Normans and their successors needed to connect with the lands and peoples they had conquered, especially following the loss of Normandy in John's reign. And the Arthurian legends are a product of this.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk in terms of by-passing the Anglo-Saxons, in a late 12th century context, when the people of England were English - below the French-speaking aristocratic elite. It is not in any case convincing to say that they were by-passed, one of the leading historical writers of the time - William of Malmesbury - make a really big deal of king Athelstan, a ruler of great power and stature.
Henry III had a real fixation with Edward the Confessor, hence Edward I. As I said above browsing through MW's book accompanying his recent TV series he writes that when the Arthurian legends were being spun contemporary English opinion was definitely unimpressed. They apparently considered that the real heroes were English kings such as Alfred, Athelstan, Edgar and Harold Godwinson as tragi-hero.
In a literal sense this is understandable.
"so might claim to be returning home."
Not a view I have seen expressed before - and a lot of water had passed under the bridge considering it was around 5-600 years later.
But surely the Arthurian legends refer to the time of the Britons - that was the whole point of them! - wasn't it a Welshman who wrote them? In the Arthurian legends you are connecting with the Britons, remembering their "glorious" past and their heroic resistence to the the English. That the Normans might be enthused by that - and the English less so - is understanable. As for the Bretons, the fact that you have not seen it mentioned, does not mean it is not a sensible suggestion: why, the people of Brittany still remember their origins today, nearly a thousand years later! |
| |
|
|
quote: But surely the Arthurian legends refer to the time of the Britons - that was the whole point of them! - wasn't it a Welshman who wrote them?
Geoffrey of Monmouth spun and fabricated them on the basis of a "secret book" that he said had come into his possession. Michael Wood notes in his new companion book that the English thought these tales were hokum, snake-oil - whatever. Indeed in a historical sense, they are. The Arthurian scholar John Morris thought Geoffrey was completely unreliable. I would have thought that a better candidate for real British heroes would have been Urien of Reged I mentioned above, or Ambrosius Aurelinus who Gildas tells us won at Mount Badon. Sure "Arthur" is a powerful symbol but he remains mythology not history. "That the Normans might be enthused by that - and the English less so - is understanable." I don't see why the Normans should identify with the Britons in these terms. The Welsh at the time were giving them quite a bit of trouble. There is a suggestion that one of the reasons behind the "discovery" of Arthur and Guinevere's tomb at Glastonbury in 1191, aside from a fund raising monastic scam, was to tell the Welsh - "look, it's hopeless - Arthur's dead, he's not going to come again". The pychology behind the adoption of the Arthurian legends is clearly complex. "As for the Bretons, the fact that you have not seen it mentioned, does not mean it is not a sensible suggestion:" It isn't credible if no contemporary source makes the point or historians have not made it. It's a sort of Arthurian suggestion really. The Norman Conquest was a free-booting operation. William was a practical man. He had no time for airy notions. He commanded a mixed bag of widely drawn aventurers...."Second sons. *******s. Lots and lots of *******s, almost all Fitz this and Fitz that" - as Julian Rathbone puts it. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by donandjod:
In a similar vein to the point raised by WhoWhyMe, Pictish Scotland did not have a tradition of writing anything down either. It is from Anglo-Saxon chroniclers that we get much of the history of Dark Age Scotland. The Angles did occupy the area of Lothian, so you can see why the language was adopted in the lowlands because there simply wasn't anything there before.
I just makes it all the more difficult to work out what exactly happened to the Britons, and to the Picts.
As far as the Britons go I don't think it is difficult to say what happened in general terms as a result of the invasion/mass migration by the Germanic newcomers. The Britons suffered a massive status down-shift in the lands conquered by the Anglo-Saxons. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by cottar: quote: But surely the Arthurian legends refer to the time of the Britons - that was the whole point of them! - wasn't it a Welshman who wrote them?
Geoffrey of Monmouth spun and fabricated them on the basis of a "secret book" that he said had come into his possession. Michael Wood notes in his new companion book that the English thought these tales were hokum, snake-oil - whatever. Indeed in a historical sense, they are. The Arthurian scholar John Morris thought Geoffrey was completely unreliable. I would have thought that a better candidate for real British heroes would have been Urien of Reged I mentioned above, or Ambrosius Aurelinus who Gildas tells us won at Mount Badon. Sure "Arthur" is a powerful symbol but he remains mythology not history. "That the Normans might be enthused by that - and the English less so - is understanable." I don't see why the Normans should identify with the Britons in these terms. The Welsh at the time were giving them quite a bit of trouble. There is a suggestion that one of the reasons behind the "discovery" of Arthur and Guinevere's tomb at Glastonbury in 1191, aside from a fund raising monastic scam, was to tell the Welsh - "look, it's hopeless - Arthur's dead, he's not going to come again". The pychology behind the adoption of the Arthurian legends is clearly complex. "As for the Bretons, the fact that you have not seen it mentioned, does not mean it is not a sensible suggestion:" It isn't credible if no contemporary source makes the point or historians have not made it. It's a sort of Arthurian suggestion really. The Norman Conquest was a free-booting operation. William was a practical man. He had no time for airy notions. He commanded a mixed bag of widely drawn aventurers...."Second sons. *******s. Lots and lots of *******s, almost all Fitz this and Fitz that" - as Julian Rathbone puts it.
Woods seemed to imply that Geoffrey of Monmouth's "secret book" consisted largely of the Irish tales of Finn McCool and the Fianna (which themselves reflect the society in Ireland at about the time of Christ). The Arthurian tales might have been myth, but they are a myth many people wanted to believe - note how many places claimed to be associated with Arthur. |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I've just joined this list and have been trawling through some of the posts.
Regarding the two UCL yDNA studies by Mike Weale and Francis Capelli, it is important to understand that there is a fundamental difference between them.
The Weale et al (2002) study is treated for 'background migration', the Capelli et al (2003) is not. In other words, Capelli's study includes all the Irish, Scottish and Welsh immigration into, for example, the London area during the past few hundred years, if this is infact represented in the Faversham population. The Weale study attempts to strip these later population movements out of the equation.
The sample centres too are different, Weale using small market towns where donor could show that three generations of his family lived, Capelli using modern urban commuter centres where only one generation needs to have lived.
The question, is the modern day genetic makeup of Faversham representative of the south east of england during anglo saxon times is well worth asking.
Having said that, for the area where the two studies do overlap, there is a high degree of correlation, despite the different methods.
To an even more remarkable degree, the Capelli study shows a distribution of yDNA which correlates with Jackson's map of the distribution of celtic river names within the english borders.
|
| |
|
|
quote: The Riccall remains have been positively identified as being casualties from Harald Hardrada’s Norwegian invasion force. This was achieved by carbon dating and tooth enamel isotope analysis.
Can anyone let me know where this study is published or who undertook the study? Even a statement as to whether it was Oxygen or Strontium analysis would be a help. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Harry Amphlett: quote: The Riccall remains have been positively identified as being casualties from Harald Hardrada’s Norwegian invasion force. This was achieved by carbon dating and tooth enamel isotope analysis.
Can anyone let me know where this study is published or who undertook the study? Even a statement as to whether it was Oxygen or Strontium analysis would be a help.
plymguy posted this originally - I think he got this from Francis Prior's Britain AD. The dramatic events of Hardrada's campaign are described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and also King Harald's Saga. |
| |
|
|
Hi Cottar,
If it is from Pryor's book, I hope the book is more balanced than the TV programme and it would certainly necessitate looking at the cited study. My experience is that all these studies are inaccurately reported in the media.
It may of course not be a published study, many pilots are too small, but knowledge of the team would help. Janet Montgomery & Jane Evans usually do the Strontium tests, Paul Budd the Oxygen. At least I've got a lead from you so thanks for that.
|
| |
|
|
quote: "the term ‘Welsh’ is derived from the Anglo-Saxon term ‘wealas’ (meaning ‘foreigner’), which they applied to any native Britons, (a bit of a cheek really, when the Anglo-Saxons themselves were the real foreigners)."
This is a bit of a misnomer. Germanics did not refer to all non germanics as Walhisk. Slavs were referred to as Wends for example and term still persists in regions such as Das Wendland in Lower Saxony with its many 'itz' and 'ow' place name endings. The Wahl names are used for many former celtic speaking areas, Wallonia, the french but formerly celtic speaking part of Belgium, Wallis, the canton of Valais in Switzerland and the Walchersee and Grosse and Kleine Walsertal in the bavarian/austrian region. Several parts of Germany were still referred to as Welshland in the middle ages. |
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
