The History Thread

[Tight Maggot]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you're going that way then the English lost in 1066 and the name of the country 'England' is simply a nostalgic reminder for a lost and destroyed culture.

That's an interesting way to look at it, I guess we can call China - Mongolia, Germany - RussiaAmericaBritain,  France - Prussia, and so on.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The Normans came to assert a claim over "England", not change the place all that much.

They rather failed then.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tight Maggot said:

That's an interesting way to look at it, I guess we can call China - Mongolia, Germany - RussiaAmericaBritain,  France - Prussia, and so on.

The names that countries (and regions) call themselves - and are called by others - is quite an interesting discussion point.

But the English who gave England its name are not the same as the English who are in England now.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

They rather failed then.

A lot of the Norman stuff was superficial. Yep lots of churches and castles were built, but generally only where Burghs and Churches already were. The divisions of the land didn't change all that much, and London remained the administrative centre. 

Much of the Frenchification came with their descendents from the house of Blois and Anjou, who had far more holdings in France itself.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The names that countries (and regions) call themselves - and are called by others - is quite an interesting discussion point.

But the English who gave England its name are not the same as the English who are in England now.

Same for the Scots - an Irish tribe who took on an English style name for their country in Scotland.

[The Masked Poster]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you're going that way then the English lost in 1066 and the name of the country 'England' is simply a nostalgic reminder for a lost and destroyed culture.

How do you come to that conclusion then? Given that up until fairly recently before the Norman Conquest, there was Danelaw and there wasn't really one blob of land called 'England'. It was very much a developing story, not as if people had been living in harmony in 'England' for years before that. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Same for the Scots - an Irish tribe who took on an English style name for their country in Scotland.

It's been a while since I looked it up, but I thought Scotland was one of those where no one is really sure since it wasn't actually used (or, rather, there's no evidence of it being used) by the people themselves until well after the 'country' was established. It tended to be projected on.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

How do you come to that conclusion then? 

It would be the way that all English culture and leadership prior to 1066 was ransacked, murdered and overrun - left behind only in the minds of nostalgics who like to fondly pretend that pockets of the north, and elsewhere, held out heroically and defiantly, and that, somehow, that line survives intact today.

[The Masked Poster]

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

"England" had already been ruled by Vikings over the previous century or two, in whole or in part. The Normans came to assert a claim over "England", not change the place all that much. Indeed England being "England", a Kingdom in its own right, and later the descent from Aethelstan giving legitimacy to the English crown's claim to suzreignity over the rest of Britain and Ireland was their important thing.

The Normans came to England to be English. They did similar in Scotland. They were 50/50 in their attitude in Ireland. They thought the Welsh were just odd.

Not working from Google but memory here.......England up to that point had consisted recently of Danelaw (most of the place?) and Mercia (to the West, Wessex etc) and Northumbria. 

There wasn't and hadn't really been a place called England in reality, although there was definitely an Anglo Saxon culture. 

[The Masked Poster]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It would be the way that all English culture and leadership prior to 1066 was ransacked, murdered and overrun - left behind only in the minds of nostalgics who like to fondly pretend that pockets of the north, and elsewhere, held out heroically and defiantly, and that, somehow, that line survives intact today.

So, yeah, there was no particular England developed at that point, so how could it have been "long forgotten"? 

And there most definitely was resistance to invaders, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this chat now in this language. Pockets (more accurately bands of rebels) of the north and elsewhere did hold out, resistance did occur and ultimately 'normal' life developed in a unified country called England. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this chat now in this language

If you need to believe that then I'm not going to interfere with your proud fantasy.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It's been a while since I looked it up, but I thought Scotland was one of those where no one is really sure since it wasn't actually used (or, rather, there's no evidence of it being used) by the people themselves until well after the 'country' was established. It tended to be projected on.

For a good number of centuries in the middle ages, if you referred to a Scot it was assumed you were referring to an Irish person. The title was also "King of Scots", which reflects that certain ambiguity.

The Scotii Kingdom of Dal Riata encompassed Ulster and the North West of Scotland. Strathclyde, or Stratclud, stretching down to Cumbria, was a Brythonic Welsh kingdom. Lothian and the eastern fringes, including Edinburgh, were part of Anglo(Saxon) Northumbria.

In the meantime, native Scottish Picts seem to completely disappear from record.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you need to believe that then I'm not going to interfere with your proud fantasy.

We speak a germanic language with add ons from Latin and French (significant add ons, but just add ons), ultimately he is right and it isn't a controversial point.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We speak a germanic language with add ons from Latin and French (significant add ons, but just add ons), ultimately he is right and it isn't a controversial point.

But the fact of speaking it isn’t proof of any resistance whatsoever. 

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

For a good number of centuries in the middle ages, if you referred to a Scot it was assumed you were referring to an Irish person. The title was also "King of Scots", which reflects that certain ambiguity.

The Scotii Kingdom of Dal Riata encompassed Ulster and the North West of Scotland. Strathclyde, or Stratclud, stretching down to Cumbria, was a Brythonic Welsh kingdom. Lothian and the eastern fringes, including Edinburgh, were part of Anglo(Saxon) Northumbria.

In the meantime, native Scottish Picts seem to completely disappear from record.

Yes. Am aware - mainly because one of my tutors at college was obsessed with the Brythonic kingdoms of what is now Scotland, England and Ireland.

[The Masked Poster]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you need to believe that then I'm not going to interfere with your proud fantasy.

What are you talking about "proud fantasy"? I don't even know what you mean. 

Looks like you are the one dealing in fantasy and want to avoid the actual history. Because if the Vikings hadn't been overcome, we certainly wouldn't be speaking the modern English language. Not sure which bit of that is fantasy. Still, enjoy your rewriting of things, you're not alone. 

 

[tim2]

On 23/12/2022 at 22:59, The Hallucinating Goose said:

The Nuremburg rally grounds are an emotional place. I remember standing on that podium and just getting shivers right through my body at the thought that I was standing on the exact spot, the exact little tiny bit of concrete that Adolf Hitler also stood on. I'm getting shivers just thinking about it now. One of the most amazing places I've ever been. 

I just found it sad - they were holding some kind of car event there at the time I went. The authorities don't quite know what to do with it. If they maintain it, it could become a potential shrine for neo-Nazis but they don't seem to want to flatten it either. So it's just crumbling on its own.

I thought the unfinished Coliseum was more fascinating. Set up (when completed) so that AH's podium would, on a certain day, be illuminated (a somewhat weird link to the Stonehenge thread).

I also didn't realise that the court where the Nazis were tried is still in use.

The concentration camps, on the other hand, are truly cold places.

[The Masked Poster]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We speak a germanic language with add ons from Latin and French (significant add ons, but just add ons), ultimately he is right and it isn't a controversial point.

I totally don't understand where he's coming from. The Vikings were ruling most of England, had they not been overcome somehow it's pretty obvious that the language we are speaking to each other in would not be the same. Not sure what is fantasy about that.

[The Masked Poster]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But the fact of speaking it isn’t proof of any resistance whatsoever. 

So what language do you think would have developed in the British Isles had the Vikings gone on to completely conquer the place? Queens English? Broad Yorkshire? 

[tim2]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I totally don't understand where he's coming from. The Vikings were ruling most of England, had they not been overcome somehow it's pretty obvious that the language we are speaking to each other in would not be the same. Not sure what is fantasy about that.

We'd probably be speaking something closer to Danish/Dutch/German. These three all look very similar on the page but sound really different. Ours would probably be another variant. However, anything could have happened over the 1000 years that have followed. We'd certainly have been fighting the French multiple times and may have lost one of those battles, or had some kind of "merger by marriage" that may have Latinized the language.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

7 minutes ago, tim2 said:

I just found it sad - they were holding some kind of car event there at the time I went. The authorities don't quite know what to do with it. If they maintain it, it could become a potential shrine for neo-Nazis but they don't seem to want to flatten it either. So it's just crumbling on its own.

I thought the unfinished Coliseum was more fascinating. Set up (when completed) so that AH's podium would, on a certain day, be illuminated (a somewhat weird link to the Stonehenge thread).

I also didn't realise that the court where the Nazis were tried is still in use.

The concentration camps, on the other hand, are truly cold places.

I remember seeing the lines on the road that runs in front of the podium where a racetrack had been marked out. I presume it is used For DTM. 

When I was talking about emotional I was meaning the whole complex of ruins and the museum there is there. Standing on that podium really did give me shivers though, as I say to think I was standing in the exact spot Hitler had stood in. In that museum there was a photographic exhibition which I bought the accompanying book for as well; it was photographs of survivors of concentration camps that the photographer had tracked down. The emotional bit of my visit was to see old people, say in their 90s, who still had numbers tattooed on their arms and other marks of their time in the camps. Imagine living your whole life with, firstly the memories of the camps but also actual visual reminders etched onto your body. 

I've not been to an actual concentration camp yet though on my next visit to Berlin I will go to Oranienberg which is just north of the city. It is a smaller camp and after being liberated was taken over by the Soviets and used as a military camp.  

[The Masked Poster]

14 minutes ago, tim2 said:

We'd probably be speaking something closer to Danish/Dutch/German. These three all look very similar on the page but sound really different. Ours would probably be another variant. However, anything could have happened over the 1000 years that have followed. We'd certainly have been fighting the French multiple times and may have lost one of those battles, or had some kind of "merger by marriage" that may have Latinized the language.

Either way we would not be speaking as we do. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about it.

I presume he thinks I mean it in the way that people used to say that we'd be speaking German if we'd have lost the war. Except I don't, I'm talking a thousand years or more of development. 

And as someone has alluded to, the Normans weren't actually 'French' but recent descendants of Vikings. William the Conqueror never learned to speak 'English' (as it was at the time) and IIRC only set foot in the country a handful of times. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by The Masked Poster

[gingerjon]

45 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

What are you talking about "proud fantasy"? I don't even know what you mean. 

Looks like you are the one dealing in fantasy and want to avoid the actual history. Because if the Vikings hadn't been overcome, we certainly wouldn't be speaking the modern English language. Not sure which bit of that is fantasy. Still, enjoy your rewriting of things, you're not alone. 

 

Viking?

By the 11th century, the Normans were speaking French.

The introduction of Norman French into the native Germanic language utterly broke the connection between the latter and its parent and related languages - to the extent that later scholars imposed (and still do to an extent) an entirely artificial Latin/Romance grammar and spelling structure on it.

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Not working from Google but memory here.......England up to that point had consisted recently of Danelaw (most of the place?) and Mercia (to the West, Wessex etc) and Northumbria. 

There wasn't and hadn't really been a place called England in reality, although there was definitely an Anglo Saxon culture. 

The early medieval period, from the Romans leaving in 410 to lets say 1099, sees a whole lot of change. 

The geographic descriptors we have from the start of that period are Hibernia, Britannia and Caledonia to cover Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. The Saxons, led by Hengst and Horsa, turn up pretty quickly after the Romans leave and start founding Kingdoms mainly in the south. Saxons tended to go South and West, and their Angle cousins went East and North. The Jutes also come and found Kent but that isn't really too important. The Heptarchy (or 7 kingdoms) were established, Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria (which went from the Mersey Humber line up to the firth of forth), East Anglia, Sussex, Essex, and Kent. Native Britons still controlled Wales (whose name comes from the Anglo-Saxon for foreigners), Cumbria (whose name comes from the same route as Cymru and Cambria, the Roman name for Wales), Cornwall and Strathclyde. The Picts were floating around North Eastern Scotland as they always had. Scottii from Ulster moved into Western Scotland. The rest of Ireland was ruled by petty kings. 

Whilst there wasn't an idea of "England" there was an idea of the English as opposed to the Welsh or the Britons. Northumbria, then Mercia, then Wessex take turns at being the dominant Kingdom on the Island of Britain.

When the Vikings roll up, it doesn't happen over night. Originally it is just as summer raids, then they over winter. The Great Heathen Army as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle sweeps down from Northumbria and conquers most of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms bar Wessex, who under Alfred the Great make a stand and agree to divide the island. The split would be roughly along Watling Street (the A5) from London in the South East to Chester in the North West. South and West will be Wessex and Wessex controlled Mercia, the rest north and east is "Danelaw", but was more of an amalgamation of smaller fiefdoms, chief among which was Jorvik. "Independent" Northumbria existed beyond Bamburgh to Edinburgh, but didn't do all that much. The Danes also took over the Western Isles, and founded most towns in Ireland as petty Kingdoms during this period too.

Aethelstan continued his Father and Grandfather's legacy to unite the Anglo Saxon kingdoms under Wessex rule, destroying Danelaw. In the battle royale of the UK and Ireland, Aethelstan beat the Vikings (of English, Scottish and Irish bases), Irish, Welsh and Scots to claim overlordship of all the islands. Brunaburh.

Aethelstan was the first to call himself "King of the English". And this was only a 100 years or so before William and his Normans turn up.

[Tommygilf]

55 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But the fact of speaking it isn’t proof of any resistance whatsoever. 

Resistance enough to force amalgamation. I'm pretty sure the Irish, Scots Gaelic and Welsh speakers consider the continuation of the use of their languages a sign of resistance.