"Anglo-Saxon genocide" contested again

[Peter Graham]

I suspect the answer as to why England developed different from Ireland may have to do with the specific way in which the Normans consolidated power after 1066, replacing the Saxon nobility with loyalists from France, etc.

Loyalty wasn't really a virtue one could associate with the rag tag collection of chancers, mercenaries and jug-eared psychopaths who accompanied William on his little cross-Channel jaunt!

It would also be wrong to think of the Saxon nobility pre-1066 as being in any way a unified force. Sacrilege though it might be for an Englishman to say it, William had a better claim to the throne than Harold Godwinsson. The whole idea of there being one King of England was little more than 100 years old and there were still large chunks of the country only too ready to take up arms at the drop of a hat. We'd been ruled by a bewildering succession of English, Danes and Norwegians and the primacy of the royal line of Wessex was not exactly a done deal in places like Northumbria or the Five Boroughs.

As with many aspects of Scottish nationalism, the notion of an English nobility united against the wicked Norman is more myth than history. I'd argue that William replaced the English nobility less because he feared them and more because he was expected to share the spoils of confict with his powerful vassals. They came with him for land, prestige and money and he'd not have lasted long had he not obliged them.

I'd agree that feudalism doesn't automatically mean a strong state. But in England and lowland Scotland at least, it stood a greater chance of creating a stronger state than what went before.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Nerds_feather]

Agree on the pre-conquest Saxon nobility...it was anything but unified, though of course we might be talking differently right now (or not at all) had Harald Hardradi not decided to invade England just before William the ******* did.

My point was that William had to consolidate power in a specific way--he had to reward those who had fought for him, and he had to eliminate the possibility of rebellion. Though that didn't really work out in his lifetime, he set the seeds for a strong state by replacing the Saxons, building simple castles (as I understand it, castles were not so common prior to 1066) and so on. Things were bad under William Rufus (full of rebellions and strife), leaving it up to Henry I to finish the job. He initiated comprehensive taxation and finances and, I think, was probably the king we can most duly credit for England's (relatively) strong medieval state. At least, that's the argument I would make.

Can't really speak to Scotland, as I don't know enough about its historical development.

 

[svalbard]

VB,

Why did Ireland not develop into a strong nation state? You could write a thesis on that It might have something to do with our contrary natures here, a strong sense of tribalism(which still exists today) and an ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Even the victory at Clontarf over the Vikings failed to unite the Irish. With the death of Brian Boru, power shifted to another king, Malachi Mor, away from Brian's family. Years of strife followed. It is interesting to note that the Norman's were invited into Ireland by the exiled king of Leinster.

The Brehon laws of Ireland were also cultural thing and not a centrally enforced set of laws. It was very much a clan based system which held sway right up to the time of the Flight of the Earls in the early 1600s.

The Norman conquest of Ireland did not lead to the feudalism that came into existence in England. The leading Norman families such as the Butlers and FitzGeralds became "more Irish than the Irish themselves". Although they changed the face of Ireland in certain ways the Norman's continued to rule as the native Irish chieftains marrying into many of the those families. A small part of Ireland, around Dublin and south Leinster became more centralised as the years wore on. This area became known as 'The Pale'. I am not too sure if the saying 'Beyond the Pale' has crossed the water, but it essentially means going into unknown territory.

If you can find it try Francis John Boyle's High Kings of Ireland.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Even the victory at Clontarf over the Vikings failed to unite the Irish. With the death of Brian Boru, power shifted to another king, Malachi Mor, away from Brian's family. Years of strife followed. It is interesting to note that the Norman's were invited into Ireland by the exiled king of Leinster.

well there's an interesting potential explanation: it has to do with having or not having a stable mode of succession.

have you ever read amin malouf's "the crusades through arab eyes?" it's basically a historiography of contemporary arab writings on the crusades, as they were happening. pretty interesting book, but to me the MOST interesting bit is when malouf gives a theory as to why the islamic states of the middle east--which were at that time more advanced than the christian states of europe--declined after the crusades, while europe rose. (of course it's only true if you look long-term, given that the height of ottoman power came in the 16th century). he argues that it's because the crusaders learned from the arabs, and incorporated things they found that were useful, whereas the arabs did not. he argues that the most useful political institution the europeans had was the hereditary succession, and that whereas this ensured a great deal of stability, in the middle east every time a sultan died there was a civil war.

so yeah, this might be applicable to the question at hand!

 

[svalbard]

Things were bad under William Rufus (full of rebellions and strife), leaving it up to Henry I to finish the job. He initiated comprehensive taxation and finances and, I think, was probably the king we can most duly credit for England's (relatively) strong medieval state. At least, that's the argument I would make.

...there was just the small problem of a 17 year civil war after the death of Henry I

Henry II would be one of my bets on the King who did most to create a strong and powerful state, but I would even look further down the line at Edward I.

To your point on the Crusades. That sounds like an interesting read and I am always on the look out for different perspectives. You could be right on a strong succession plan. The laws of inheritance in pre-Norman Ireland were quite complicated. The eldest did not always succeed his father and at times lands would be parceled out to some or all siblings. This could and did lead to difficulties.

Oh dear, this thread is well and truly high-jacked. My apologies.

 

[Nerds_feather]

yep, i see that it is...but i don't see why a clearly-stated topic should get in the way of an interesting, free-flowing conversation!

the malouf book is quite good, and among other things reinforces the notion that western historians have emphasized recently that all these medieval religious wars were marked by a negotiability and navigability that we today often realize. or, to put it another way, there was a lot more communication, sharing going on than the caricatures and political rhetoric from west and east say there was.

not saying the crusades and other religious wars, such as the muslim invasions of the mediterranean weren't violent or, at times, brutal...but rather that they were more complex and complicated than we sometimes assume. malouf's book does a good job of capturing that.

it's a quick read as well.

 

[svalbard]

Phoned a friend, who contacted another, who also seems to have contacted someone else and I should have a copy of Malouf's book when I come back off holidays in 2 weeks time. Talk to you then.

 

[Venusian Broon]

VB,

If you can find it try Francis John Boyle's High Kings of Ireland.

Cheers svalbard, will take a note and will keep an eye out.

 

[silvermoon]

Bryan Sykes reckons the mitochondrial DNA (ie female lines of descent) in Britain show that most have Celtic ancestry--implying that even if the Romans, Saxons, Vikings or Normans killed off bucket-loads of men in the preceding population, they bred with the women, and thus there are few female lines which are specifically of those aforementioned groups.

 

[Peter Graham]

I agree that this is what the evidence tends to show, but "Celtic" might be a bit of a misnomer in this context. The Celts were also originally a wave of warrior invaders who assumed control over the native population as was. The Celts were no more the original inhabitants of our islands than the Normans were.

It isn't necessary to assume the massacre of the "Celtic" menfolk. The evidence - such as it is - shows development of what one might call an Anglo-celtic decorative style in many parts of the country. Archaeology and place name evidence indicates survival and co-existence and there are even a handful of references in the texts which make it clear that many places had two names - an older, "Celtic" one and a newer, "English" one. In most cases, the English name eventually won out, but that is likely to be as a result of the spread of the English language - which is not dependent on slaughter.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even so, there has been a persistent lack of any archaeological evidence to support the slaughter and displacement argument.

The slaughter argument rests principally on the texts, which, with the exception of Gildas, were written hundreds - often many hundreds - of years after the earlier events they describe. By the time the Chronicle, Bede, the Annales and the Historia were been written, the situation had changed massively and neophyte nation states were beginning to emerge. Gildas is demonstrably...erm...shaky on his history and was principally engaged in writing religious polemic rather than impartial history as we understand it today. Which isn't to entirely disregard what he says (whether we trust him or not, he was at least there*), although it is to seek to see it in the proper context.

The written records for the Viking and Norman periods are much better, and whilst they contain a fair amount of evidence for violence, they do not suggest anything along the lines of ethnic cleansing.

Regards,

Peter

* Which is increasingly looking like bad news for those who seek to link the probably historical battle of Badon with the possibly not quite as historical as we think figure of Arthur.

 

[svalbard]

Look who's back...the thread that refuses to die

I understand new DNA studies from Oxford University are showing that East England and Central England showed large influxes of peoples we collectively term Anglo-Saxons. This is a story that will continue with more twists and turns as the science grows. It seems that Opennheimer's early work now needs to be treated with some scepticism. Looks like invasion is back on the menu. I will find some links and stick them up.

 

[BAYLOR]

Look who's back...the thread that refuses to die

I understand new DNA studies from Oxford University are showing that East England and Central England showed large influxes of peoples we collectively term Anglo-Saxons. This is a story that will continue with more twists and turns as the science grows. It seems that Opennheimer's early work now needs to be treated with some scepticism. Looks like invasion is back on the menu. I will find some links and stick them up.

Prior to the Anglo Saxons? wasn't England inhabitats mostly Celts?

 

[Aquilonian]

It isn't necessary to assume the massacre of the "Celtic" menfolk. The evidence - such as it is - shows development of what one might call an Anglo-celtic decorative style in many parts of the country. Archaeology and place name evidence indicates survival and co-existence and there are even a handful of references in the texts which make it clear that many places had two names - an older, "Celtic" one and a newer, "English" one. In most cases, the English name eventually won out, but that is likely to be as a result of the spread of the English language - which is not dependent on slaughter.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even so, there has been a persistent lack of any archaeological evidence to support the slaughter and displacement argument.

The slaughter argument rests principally on the texts, which, with the exception of Gildas, were written hundreds - often many hundreds - of years after the earlier events they describe. By the time the Chronicle, Bede, the Annales and the Historia were been written, the situation had changed massively and neophyte nation states were beginning to emerge. Gildas is demonstrably...erm...shaky on his history and was principally engaged in writing religious polemic rather than impartial history as we understand it today.

.

I actually tried reading Gildas once- endless cut-and-pasting from the Bible, and slagging off of contemporary Celtic kings, but little or no hard facts. His thesis was that God punished evil rulers by letting barbarians exterminate their subjects- same idea as in the Bible. Rulers were evil (in his view) therefore their subjects were being exterminated. For that matter, the Biblical accounts of extermination and wholesale deportation were also grossly exagerated.

But the Victorians took Gildas seriously for several reasons.

1) They made sense of history in racial terms rather than cultural. "Virile" barbarians swept down from the hills, exterminating "effete" civilised races. But they didn't exterminate them totally, keeping some as slaves, sinking into luxurious lifestyles, and interbreeding with their slaves causing long term "degeneration". Eventually they were as "effete" as the guys they'd conquered, and thus ready to be conquered in turn. This is the Robert E Howard (Conan) view of history. Again this fitted with the Bible, in which Jehovah warns the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites rather than just killing the men and enslaving the women.

2) The Victorians saw the "Celts" (especially the Irish) as racially inferior to the English. Victorian era cartoons of Irish immigrants to England portray them like Frank Frazetta's images of the kind of ape men and reptile men whom his virile heroes are always fighting.

3) Archaeology was in its infancy and DNA studies did not exist.

4) They probably didn't think that clergymen would actually lie- unless they were Jesuits!

Stephen Oppenheimer's research pretty much demolishes the idea of mass exterminations and expulsions in Britain. 60% of our genetic heritage goes back to the first Palaeolithic settlers, and most of the rest is from the Neolithic henge-builders. Celts, Anglosaxons, Danes, are no more than 5-10% each, comparable with the recent non-white and East European immigrant waves.

 

[svalbard]

I actually tried reading Gildas once- endless cut-and-pasting from the Bible, and slagging off of contemporary Celtic kings, but little or no hard facts. His thesis was that God punished evil rulers by letting barbarians exterminate their subjects- same idea as in the Bible. Rulers were evil (in his view) therefore their subjects were being exterminated. For that matter, the Biblical accounts of extermination and wholesale deportation were also grossly exagerated.

But the Victorians took Gildas seriously for several reasons.

1) They made sense of history in racial terms rather than cultural. "Virile" barbarians swept down from the hills, exterminating "effete" civilised races. But they didn't exterminate them totally, keeping some as slaves, sinking into luxurious lifestyles, and interbreeding with their slaves causing long term "degeneration". Eventually they were as "effete" as the guys they'd conquered, and thus ready to be conquered in turn. This is the Robert E Howard (Conan) view of history. Again this fitted with the Bible, in which Jehovah warns the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites rather than just killing the men and enslaving the women.

2) The Victorians saw the "Celts" (especially the Irish) as racially inferior to the English. Victorian era cartoons of Irish immigrants to England portray them like Frank Frazetta's images of the kind of ape men and reptile men whom his virile heroes are always fighting.

3) Archaeology was in its infancy and DNA studies did not exist.

4) They probably didn't think that clergymen would actually lie- unless they were Jesuits!

Stephen Oppenheimer's research pretty much demolishes the idea of mass exterminations and expulsions in Britain. 60% of our genetic heritage goes back to the first Palaeolithic settlers, and most of the rest is from the Neolithic henge-builders. Celts, Anglosaxons, Danes, are no more than 5-10% each, comparable with the recent non-white and East European immigrant waves.

1. Try reading Gildas in detail before you dismiss him. It is quite amazing that people dismiss the only primary source we have for that time in the history of England. Instead some tend to look at the self-serving archeology of the likes of Francis Pryor and his ilk as the way forward in studies of 'Dark Age 'Britiain.

2. New studies are overturning Oppenheimer's research as we speak. DNA studies are still in their infancy with a lot more to be revealed. I would hesitate to use Oppenheimer's work as evidence of a lack of mass extermination and expulsions.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And more on the Anglo-Saxon invasion, with the hypothesis that the Saxons committed mass-genocide again disproved - this time through genetics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764

A DNA study of Britons has shown that genetically there is not a unique Celtic group of people in the UK.

According to the data, those of Celtic ancestry in Scotland and Cornwall are more similar to the English than they are to other Celtic groups.

The study also describes distinct genetic differences across the UK, which reflect regional identities.

And it shows that the invading Anglo Saxons did not wipe out the Britons of 1,500 years ago, but mixed with them.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Yes, increasingly it seems that newcomers may bring new culture and language, but not be overwhelming in numbers. e.g. Normans in England.
I've been trying to match up Celtic tradition / Book of Invasions etc with the real archaeological record of 4000BC to 500AD in Ireland.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think the way these things usually worked in ancient/medieval times is something like this:

1. Invading force comes, supplants local elites from territory.
2. There are some massacres, but they are sporadic, localized and ad hoc.
   
3. Settlements are established in the area.
4. Trade relations with locals (i.e. those already living there) flourish.
5. If there are enough of the invaders, and their position strong enough, locals begin learning their language, as it's advantageous; if not, the newcomers adapt to the local language.
   
6. Assimilation ensues, and can be unidirectional or multidirectional.
   
7. Gradually the assimilated come to think of themselves in terms of who/what they assimilated into.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Gradually the assimilated come to think of themselves in terms of who/what they assimilated into.

The Normans in Ireland became too Irish for for the English

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The Cornwall/Devon border thing is a fascinating insight.

 

[svalbard]

The above study is still rather tenous. The sample is not wide enough. Historically it goes against The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Bede's view of the Britons,who next to Gildas is our nearest contempory view of the time. There is no doubt that there was an invasion of Anglo-Saxons into Britain in the 5th century, stalled in the early 6th century and accellerated the mid to late 6th century.

Looking at what happened in Gaul at the end of the Roman Empire we can guess that Saxon fought against Briton in Britain, Briton fought with Saxon against Briton and Saxon fought against Saxon.

A number of interesting points come to mind. Oswald and Oswiu of Northumbria had support from Dalriada when they reclaimed their kingdom in Northumbria. Oswiu's first wife was a British princess from the kingdom of Rheged. Cerdic the first King of Wessex bares a very Celtic name as does his successor.

The last attested great King of the British North, Urien of Rheged is killed, whilst fighting the Saxons, by one his own. The tales of the British tell of equal slaughter between themselves as it does of between Briton and Saxon.