Saxons and Normans
Erland Gadde
A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
as an _ethnical_ conflict.
Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
I think that the author of "Ivanhoe", Sir Walter Scott, who lived
in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
However, I find it a little odd that Scott, who was a Scotsman, wrote
a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
(This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
with "French"? It seems that even the ruling dynasty, Plantagenet,
was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
understand it, means "from Anjou".). They ruled over more than half
of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
incorrect to call them "Normans". And I would also guess that not
only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
--
Erland Gadde
Department of Mathemetics
Luleå University of Technology
Sweden
Andrew J. Donnelly
now known as Normandy was given to a Viking named Rolf (William the
conqueror's great-great-great grandfather) by Charles the Simple, king of
West Francia.
Henry II was count of Anjou, inherited from his father, Geoffrey
Plantaganet, count of Anjou. However, his great-grandfather on his mother's
side was William the Conqueror -- a Norman. I believe he recieved the
Aquitaine by marrying Eleanor. However, by the death of Philip Augustus
France had taken back many English possessions, including Normandy.
sch...@my-dejanews.com
ga...@sm.luth.se (Erland Gadde) wrote:
> The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
> A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
> in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
According to what I've read, no it didn't. And the Saxon(Anglo-Saxon)
lords only were a problem for about a generation, by 1100, they had
merged with the general nobility or were wiped out. And the Angle-Saxon
nobles themselves had intermarried with Danish & Norwegian Vikings.
> I think that the author of "Ivanhoe", Sir Walter Scott, who lived
> in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
> sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
> historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
> if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
Off hand no. He wrote it in 1819-1820, so the Napoleonic Wars was the
most recent thing in his day.
> However, I find it a little odd that Scott, who was a Scotsman, wrote
> a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
Ivanhoe was Scott's first novel set outside of Scotland, with non-Scottish
heroes. He wrote it supposedly to gain a larger audience.
> I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
> then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
> or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
> (This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
I believe on the Saxland vs. Angleland part, the reason was that during
the time of Charlemange, the main kingdom on the island of Britain was
Merica which was Angle. So the the continetal Europeans took to called
the island Angle-land.
> Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
> origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
> with "French"?
Anyone who came over the Channel with William of Normandy was called
Norman. Even though many other Frenchmen, and some Flemish some from
Brittany(then still Celtic in culture) came along as well.
It seems that even the ruling dynasty, Plantagenet,
> was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
> understand it, means "from Anjou".). They ruled over more than half
> of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
> incorrect to call them "Normans".
The original dynasty was Norman. The Anjou-Plantagenet(Angevin) came
about when Henry I(1100-1135) daughter Matilda married Count Godfrey of
Anjou. And when Matilda's son Henry II became king of England he inherited
Anjou, Maine, and Touraine from his father Count Godfrey, and he already
controled Normandy & Brittany. And later when Henry II married
Elenore of Aquitaine, he inherited that Duchy.
And I would also guess that not
> only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
> had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
Yes, mostly from Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine besides Normandy. But William
and his most powerful Barons in England, all originally came from
Normandy.
---Oscar Schlaf---
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Eddie Lewis
<ga...@sm.luth.se> writes
>The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
>A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
>in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
>and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
>as an _ethnical_ conflict.
>Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
>to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
>if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
>sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
>historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
>if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
>a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
>
>then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
>or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
>(This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
>
>origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
>was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
>understand it, means "from Anjou".). They ruled over more than half
>of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
>only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
>had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
>
Normandy from Scandinavia barely 100 years before William. So, really,
they were no more French than they were English! The version of French
spoken by the Normans (often called 'Anglo-Norman' when used in England)
was practically a different language, and was regarded as 'impure' by
French people.
--
Eddie Lewis
Benjamin P. Carter
>The version of French
>spoken by the Normans (often called 'Anglo-Norman' when used in England)
>was practically a different language, and was regarded as 'impure' by
>French people.
They still speak French with a peculiar accent in Normandy. And some of
them don't much care for Yanks and Brits. Watch out for the "Resistance
Nouvelle" if you go there.
--
Ben Carter
Chen-song Qin
> in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
I'm not too sure about the Saxon-Norman business in particular, but it's not
hard to believe *ethnic* conflicts in ancient times. *Nationalism* (i.e.
loyalty to the nation-state) is a fairly recent concept, but *ethnic* loyalty
had been around for a long time. Whereas the concept of the nation can be
fairly ambiguous at times, the concept of culture, language, and physical
appearance, etc. can be judged easily. For example, in ancient northern
China, the nomad peoples have always hated the Han, and vice versa, leading to
many cases of nasty blood-letting. I can think of many other (and more
prominent) cases around the world that stretch back to, well, antiquity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abkai juse, fucihifusa, ejen sefu, coohai janggin, guwan i besise!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gans
>The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
>A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
>in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
>and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
>as an _ethnical_ conflict.
>Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
>to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
>if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>I think that the author of "Ivanhoe", Sir Walter Scott, who lived
>in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
>sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
>historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
>if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
>However, I find it a little odd that Scott, who was a Scotsman, wrote
>a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
I think that you are mostly right. But the conquest was
not an easy one. It took some years for William to put
down English unrest. If the English had had a recognized
leader (if, for example, Harold had not died at Hastings)
they might even have repelled the Normans.
But beyond that, there *was* tension. If nothing else,
language was a constant reminder. The new Norman overlords
and the natives just did not speak the same language. That,
of course, led to disdain and continual distrust. Scott
does, I think, mirror that to a degree when he points out
the Norman attitude that, if a person was a person of
quality he would *naturally* speak Norman French and not
that awful other language.
>I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
>then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
>or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
>(This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
>Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
>origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
>with "French"? It seems that even the ruling dynasty, Plantagenet,
>was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
>understand it, means "from Anjou".). They ruled over more than half
>of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
>incorrect to call them "Normans". And I would also guess that not
>only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
>had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
Most of them were Normans from Normandy. There were some
exceptions as William had many non-Normans with him.
Stephen Morillo, in _Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings_
takes the term "Norman King" only down to Henry I. Stephen
(who came next) is not included. And Henry II is considered
an Angevin, not a Norman.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Gareth
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
> Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
A bit contraversial that one. Whilst it may be true that it's only in the
last couple of hundred years that a distinct political ideology of
Nationalism was concieved, the concept of identifying more strongly with
your own country/ethnic group than with any other can be seen to have much
earlier origins.
A second problem is that a sense of a national identity developed at
different times in different places - in Germany for example, it seems to
have developed later than in England - mainly because England became one
single state a lot earlier than Germany did. (That's not to say that a
medieval German wouldn't have a sense of identity as a Saxon, for example,
or a Hamburger, but there's less evidence of a sense as a German.).
All this, of course is just my opinion, feel free to agree/disagree/laugh
me out of court as you see fit.
> Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
> origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
> with "French"?
William I was Duke of Normandy, so himself, and those followers he brought
with him from Normandy, were Normans. Also in his army, William had
numbers of troops from other areas of what is today called France - there
were some, for example from Brittany, and one or two, as I recall, from
the area of Northern France which was stilled referred to as Franc in
1066. The bulk of William's troops could therefore be called French, if
you are using the modern use of the term, but back in 1066 a Norman
wouldn't necessarily think of themselves as French. It might not make
much sense, but there you are...
>It seems that even the ruling dynasty, Plantagenet,
> was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
> understand it, means "from Anjou".).
Technically, the Plantaganet dynasty started with the accession Henry II,
in 1154, and just about ended with the death of Richard III in 1485. The
kings from 1066 until 1154 (William I, William II, Henry I, Stephen, add
Matilda if you're feeling contraversial...) are usually referred to as
Norman, more I rather suspect for the lack of anything else to call them,
than for any other reason.
>They ruled over more than half
> of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
> incorrect to call them "Normans". And I would also guess that not
> only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
> had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
It was really only Henry II and Richard I who could claim to have ruled
over all of those estates - much of the English territory in France was
lost in the reign of King John, and despite sporadic attempts to gain
territory in France, most notably by Edward III and Henry V (whose son
Henry VI was actually crowned King of France in Paris), the English after
John only, usually, tended to possess relatively small parts of France.
Originally yes, a lot of the noble families of the early middle ages in
England were descended from people who had come over to England with, or
after William I. There was, however, a fair degree of inter-marrying
between the English noblity and the Norman and French sets - William I's
son, Henry I, marred Matilda, also known as Edith, a member of the old
royal houses of England and Scotland.
Gareth
Charles Norrie
writes
>
> I believe on the Saxland vs. Angleland part, the reason was that during
>the time of Charlemange, the main kingdom on the island of Britain was
>Merica which was Angle. So the the continetal Europeans took to called
>the island Angle-land.
>
been that way. For your interest the Dutch spoke in the Frrisian islands
and to a lesser extent the low German of the wetter bits of Germany
around Bremen sound very English.
I speak as a Middlesaxon, whose county has been lost, and it still
hurts.
--
Charles Norrie
Brian M. Scott
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
> > Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
> > origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
> > with "French"?
> William I was Duke of Normandy, so himself, and those followers he brought
> with him from Normandy, were Normans. Also in his army, William had
> numbers of troops from other areas of what is today called France - there
> were some, for example from Brittany, and one or two, as I recall, from
> the area of Northern France which was stilled referred to as Franc in
> 1066.
I believe that he also had a fair number of Picards. If not, a number
must have come over in his wake.
Brian M. Scott
CG Luxford
itself there doesn't seem to be such an option on this software, I
therefore ask people reading this elsewhere to follow up to
soc.history.early-modern]
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
> The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
> A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
> in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
V for evidence of this.
More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
period.
The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
Please direct any follow-ups to soc.history.early-modern
Chris,
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> [I would have set follow-ups to she-m, but for reasons best known to
> itself there doesn't seem to be such an option on this software, I
> therefore ask people reading this elsewhere to follow up to
> soc.history.early-modern]
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
>
> > The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
> > A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
> > in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> > and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> > as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> > Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> > to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> > if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>
> While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> V for evidence of this.
I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
define what one means by nationalism.
> More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
> which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
> period.
>
> The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
identity, that is quite debatable. One needs to look at the sense of the
words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other identities
around at the time.
> Please direct any follow-ups to soc.history.early-modern
>
> Chris,
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Barry Aitchison
Eddie Lewis writes
>The Normans were actually Vikings (ie'Northmen') and had come to
>Normandy from Scandinavia barely 100 years before William. So, really,
>they were no more French than they were English! The version of French
>spoken by the Normans (often called 'Anglo-Norman' when used in England)
>was practically a different language, and was regarded as 'impure' by
>French people.
Which French people? North or south? Wasn't there two separate forms of
French at that time, apart from the Normansied French?
Barry Aitchison
Randy Lover
fictional TV dramas. Read the book. Better still read some history books.
The Saxons and Normans did not fight for ethnic reasons. The Normans by dint
of their victory were the rich land-owners and the saxons the poor. They
fought because the saxons were starving and needed to poach the game from
the estates of the rich Normans, who considered this unacceptable and tended
to kill the saxons for their trouble.
Why do you find it strange that Sir Walter Scott would write fiction with
English heroes? His knighthood (the title 'Sir') was given by the monarch of
England, so in accepting it he must have proved not to be anti-English.
Perhaps you think he should have introduced some bogus Scottish heroes into
an English story? Surely this is further proof that he was not motivated by
Nationalism.
As for your comments on whether 'Norman' was synonomous with French, I am
surprised that someone from Sweden does not know that the term Norman comes
from Norse-man. The ruling Normans in France were descendants of invading
Vikings centuries earlier and as such their origins were not from any other
part of France.
I suppose you think England in the 1960's was just like The Avengers. . .
Erland Gadde wrote in message ...
>The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
>A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
>in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
>and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
>as an _ethnical_ conflict.
>Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
>to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
>if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>I think that the author of "Ivanhoe", Sir Walter Scott, who lived
>in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
>sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
>historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
>if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
>However, I find it a little odd that Scott, who was a Scotsman, wrote
>a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
>
>I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
>then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
>or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
>(This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
>
>Another question: Did all the people called "Normans" really have their
>origin in Normandy, or was the word "Norman" more or less synonymous
>with "French"? It seems that even the ruling dynasty, Plantagenet,
>was called "Norman", though they were Angevin (a word which, as I
>understand it, means "from Anjou".). They ruled over more than half
>of France (Anjou, Normandy, Aquitane, and Brittany), so it seems
>incorrect to call them "Normans". And I would also guess that not
>only the royal family, but a substantial part of the aristocracy,
>had their origins in other parts of France than Normandy. Was it so?
>
James Tuttle
> A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and
> Normans in medieval England.
>
> I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country
> already then was called "England", why weren't the people called
> "English" or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called
> "Saxland"?
These two questions deal with times (eras?) that are hundreds of years
apart. I haven't read "Ivanhoe" in quite a few years (but I have read
"Robin Hood" and "King Arthur" more recently). The "Saxon-Norman
conflict" must have occurred between 1050-1200 or thereabouts, and of
course Robin Hood must have occurred around 1200, since Magna Carta was
1215 when John was king, so Richard must have departed.
The Saxon and Angle part of it must have been considerably earlier.
Now, of course, we hear of the "Anglo-Saxons." A long time ago, it sems
to me that there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Gaels, Celts, and some
other tribes that were (I think) Germanic or Gallic. I have a hunch
that these were left over from the Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths,
Vandals, Franks and what have you that overthrew the Roman Empire.
There were tribes from Scandinavia in here too, although I don't know
which is which. (I know about the Vikings though.) And the Picts,
Scots, and Danes.
Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England, and the
Celts and Gaels got to Ireland. The Scots must have gone to Scotland.
But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
Paul J. Gans
While I do not necessarily disagree with the facts in your
posting below, I would note that this is both on charter and
being read in soc.history.medieval where we have the
quaint habit of *not* attacking folks over what they write.
A post pointing out what you think are the errors of the
previous poster would have been much more in order. We
strange folks not only try to be civil, we actually try
to educate each other.
In simple language, be nice.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
In soc.history.medieval Randy Lover <ba...@removeenterprise.net> wrote:
>You will get wrong impressions if you base your knowledge of history on
>fictional TV dramas. Read the book. Better still read some history books.
>The Saxons and Normans did not fight for ethnic reasons. The Normans by dint
>of their victory were the rich land-owners and the saxons the poor. They
>fought because the saxons were starving and needed to poach the game from
>the estates of the rich Normans, who considered this unacceptable and tended
>to kill the saxons for their trouble.
>Why do you find it strange that Sir Walter Scott would write fiction with
>English heroes? His knighthood (the title 'Sir') was given by the monarch of
>England, so in accepting it he must have proved not to be anti-English.
>Perhaps you think he should have introduced some bogus Scottish heroes into
>an English story? Surely this is further proof that he was not motivated by
>Nationalism.
>As for your comments on whether 'Norman' was synonomous with French, I am
>surprised that someone from Sweden does not know that the term Norman comes
>from Norse-man. The ruling Normans in France were descendants of invading
>Vikings centuries earlier and as such their origins were not from any other
>part of France.
>I suppose you think England in the 1960's was just like The Avengers. . .
>Erland Gadde wrote in message ...
>>The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
>>A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
>>in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
>>and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
>>as an _ethnical_ conflict.
>>Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
>>to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
>>if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>>I think that the author of "Ivanhoe", Sir Walter Scott, who lived
>>in an era of growing nationalism in the early 19th century, projected
>>sentiments of his own time backwards. I can also imagine that he used
>>historical novels to talk about events in his own time. Does anyone know
>>if the events in "Ivanhoe" has any counterparts in Scott's own time?
>>However, I find it a little odd that Scott, who was a Scotsman, wrote
>>a novel where the heroes were English (Saxons).
>>
>>I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
>>then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
>>or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
Brian M. Scott
<Cha...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I speak as a Middlesaxon, whose county has been lost, and it still
>hurts.
Another reorganization? When? (But there's still a Middlesex CCC,
and it still plays at Lord's!)
Brian M. Scott
Charles Norrie
<sc...@math.csuohio.edu> writes
Middlesex had the south-eastern part of torn out by the formation of the
LCC in 1888 and disappeared, functions split between its constituent
'London boroughs' and the newly formed GLC (now defunct), on April 1,
1965, one of the most shameful days in history. Small bits went to
Surrey, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.
Yes, Middlesex still plays at Lords, and is still a decent cricketing
county, despite the appalling standing of England in world cricket (7th
or 8th out of 9).
--
Charles Norrie
Charles Norrie
writes
>E
>Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
>to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England, and the
>Celts and Gaels got to Ireland. The Scots must have gone to Scotland.
>But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
>
--
Charles Norrie
CG Luxford
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:54:50 +0000, Charles Norrie
> <Cha...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I speak as a Middlesaxon, whose county has been lost, and it still
> >hurts.
>
> Another reorganization? When? (But there's still a Middlesex CCC,
> and it still plays at Lord's!)
>
it went into the London County Council when that was created in 1889,
the rest of it went when the LCC was expanded into the late lamented GLC
in (IIRC) 1965. Those parts of Middlesex which didn't become London
Boroughs were parcelled out amongst neighbouring counties.
Many people however refused to acknowledge this fact, and all postal
adresses in those areas affected by the 1965 change still use the old
county name.
Chris,
CG Luxford
PLEASE SET FOLLOW UPS TO SOC.HISTORY.EARLY-MODERN
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > V for evidence of this.
>
> I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
> opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
> define what one means by nationalism.
>
Re-reading my post quoted above I can see that my wording was rather
ambiguous.
What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
middle ages.
[snip]
> >
> > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> > under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> > identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
>
> Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> identity, that is quite debatable.
While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it
was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
_History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
Of the three mentioned above only Speed gives any real justification for
any kind of 'Norman Yoke' type concept, and this only tenuously.
That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
> One needs to look at the sense of the
> words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other identities
> around at the time.
>
Part of this can be found in the Commonwealth's political identity as a
government for and on behalf of the English People. If you read
government declarations between the establishment of the Commonwealth
and the Instrument of Government you will see that they are signed by
the Speaker of the House "on behalf of the People and Parliament of the
Commonwealth of England."
I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
the state by its population, and not just by its government.
Chris,
CG Luxford
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, James Tuttle wrote: [snip]
> Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
> to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England,
As did the Jutes (from Jutland). Angles, Saxons and Jutes are
collectively known as Anglo-Saxons, or English.
> and the Celts and Gaels got to Ireland. The Scots must have gone to
> Scotland.
The Scots came to Scotland from Ireland.
Celts were found in many parts of Europe, the Britons were Celtic, as
were the Gauls.
Gaels are people who speak gaelic, which these days means the Scots and
the Irish.
The Britons are (more or less) the Welsh.
> But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
The Druids were, as far as we can tell, the priests of the Celtic
religions, though most frequently associated with Anglesea they would
have been found all over those areas were the Celts (including
Britons and Gaels) lived.
Chris,
Chris Williams
> More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
> which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
> period.
It stuck around for longer than that, too. Chartism had a lot to say about
it, as did some post-Chartist movements. Christopher Hill's essay on it is
still OK, but it's 'proletarianist' in a slightly ahistorical way.
Chris
Paul J. Gans
>In article <366EEA...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>
>writes
>>E
>>Celts and Gaels got to Ireland. The Scots must have gone to Scotland.
>>
I get this mental picture of immigration officers at tables
trying to get the particulars down right... "You say you
are from where?", "Hmm. What's your relationship to that
lot of buggers who went through here yesterday?", and so
on.
Doubtless someone relieved them of their writing implements,
confiscated their records for use as moss-substitutes, and
generally dispatched them in one or another gruesome way.
So it is no wonder we have so few records of the period.
Tilmann Chladek
> Anyone who came over the Channel with William of Normandy was called
> Norman. Even though many other Frenchmen, and some Flemish some from
> Brittany(then still Celtic in culture) came along as well.
What? Flemish from Brittany?
Me thinks they were either Bretons from Britanny or Flemish from Vlaamse
Land (nowadays part of Belgium).
Just my 0,2 cents.
(and new f'up-to)
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter gefaelscht? Infos unter:
http://home.ivm.de/~Tilmann.Chladek/
Eric Berge
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > V for evidence of this.
>
> I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
> opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
> define what one means by nationalism.
Seems to me that having an assortment of various brand-names of Germans, Celts,
North Africans, Slavs, and whatnot marching around behind a standard bearing
an acronym for "The Senate and People of Rome" is pretty good evidence for
the emegence of non-ethnically based nationalism at an appreciably earlier date
than "early modern".
Eric Berge
(remove _ for address)
Inger E Johansson
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> skrev i inlägg
<Pine.SOL.3.95q.9812...@eis.bris.ac.uk>...
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, James Tuttle wrote: [snip]
>
> > Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
> > to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England,
>
> As did the Jutes (from Jutland). Angles, Saxons and Jutes are
> collectively known as Anglo-Saxons, or English.
Along with the Jutes there also was people from southeastern parts of
Norway. You can read about archaeological findings that establish a
non-known fact if You read Binns, A L Anglo-Saxon and Viking Scarborough to
966 in "Scarborough 966-1966, edited 1966.
Than You have to remember this: before the Saxon came to old Saxon they
came from parts of the Baltic region.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Not in a thousand years. Come on, we haven't a clue to the living identity,
ethnically or in terms of "nation" of Gauls or North Africans. We have some
elite writings, yeah, but that to me is not a key to taging Roman citizens
with something we could call Nationalism. Again, you really have to define
what one means by the word. Too broad and you just have a synonym for
Ethnicity and absolutely no analytical value.
I think it is quite clear that mass education in the 19th century, along with
new theories of biological relatedness created something different from
previous forms of identity, which were much more locally based (outside of a
national elite). I would call that Nationalism and argue that it is an
essnetially modern phenomena --because this form of idenity is so different
from what came before.
In terms of Rome, you have to convience me that there is some reason that it
differed say from early 19th c. France or Spain --to take two examples-- where
one finds quite clearly that "National" identity did not exist outside of the
center, although mechanisms like general education, regular military
conscription and other national institutions were starting to efface local
identification.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> PLEASE SET FOLLOW UPS TO SOC.HISTORY.EARLY-MODERN
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > > V for evidence of this.
> >
> > I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> > concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto,
as
> > opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to
first
> > define what one means by nationalism.
> >
> ambiguous.
>
> What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
> concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> middle ages.
Okay, I think that's more workable, although I have --as I outline in another
reply-- severe reservations about extending nationalism as a phenomena beyond
the 19th century. I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept (something like Athenian identity
vis-a-vis the metics -- well that's not a great analogy so don't get hung up
on that one.) which had a situational impact on the common people who
continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
> [snip]
> > >
> > > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> > > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> > > under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> > > identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
> >
> > Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> > identity, that is quite debatable.
>
> While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it
> was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
>
> From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
> various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
> _History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
Yeah, but was this a *mass* concept or an elite one? Did a Yorkshire (or
whereever, my English geography is escaping me) commoners really feel English?
If they did, was it their foremost identification or did they not continue to
identify themselves on a regional basis?
> Of the three mentioned above only Speed gives any real justification for
> any kind of 'Norman Yoke' type concept, and this only tenuously.
>
> That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
> certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
> idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
Hmm, I think it makes sense for an English identity to emerge early if only
bec. its an Island with a somewhat unique cultural position in relationship
with its neighbors, but I'd be interested to know about (and I know this is
hard) the grass roots. Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
> > One needs to look at the sense of the
> > words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other
identities
> > around at the time.
> >
> Part of this can be found in the Commonwealth's political identity as a
> government for and on behalf of the English People. If you read
> government declarations between the establishment of the Commonwealth
> and the Instrument of Government you will see that they are signed by
> the Speaker of the House "on behalf of the People and Parliament of the
> Commonwealth of England."
> I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> the state by its population, and not just by its government.
I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
people. Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
Larry Caldwell
100...@vega.dur.ac.uk>, G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk writes:
> Originally yes, a lot of the noble families of the early middle ages in
> England were descended from people who had come over to England with, or
> after William I. There was, however, a fair degree of inter-marrying
> between the English noblity and the Norman and French sets - William I's
> son, Henry I, marred Matilda, also known as Edith, a member of the old
> royal houses of England and Scotland.
IIRC, this was Billy Bastard's public policy. There was a lot of
intermarrying by royal decree. It did a lot to unify the Normans and
Saxons into one people.
-- Larry
Charles Norrie
Johansson <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> writes
>
>
>CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> skrev i inlägg
><Pine.SOL.3.95q.9812...@eis.bris.ac.uk>...
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, James Tuttle wrote: [snip]
>>
>> > Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
>> > to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England,
>>
>> As did the Jutes (from Jutland). Angles, Saxons and Jutes are
>> collectively known as Anglo-Saxons, or English.
>
>Along with the Jutes there also was people from southeastern parts of
>Norway.
So the Jutes got about a bit. Potted history says the Jutes went to Kent
and the Isle of Wight, so that makes me a quarter Jutish.
>
--
Charles Norrie
Paul J. Gans
Was it forced? By royal decree makes it sound as if it was.
Or was it an official recognition of the marriage?
My reading of the mindset of the time (which is most likely
wrong, but I like to think of it as informed ignorance.. ;-)
is that nobility was recognized as nobility. Hence it would
be desireable to marry into it. Most of the Norman barons were
jumped up in comparison, i.e. rather minor and not at all at
the same social level. So it would be a plus for a lesser
Norman lordlet to marry a major Saxon heiress rather than
the daughter of another lesser Norman lordlet, which would
have been his fate otherwise.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
PS: Could we restrict this to one newsgroup? I'd just as
soon see it in soc.history.medieval and leave the other
groups alone. If that isn't satisfactory, readers will
have to rejigger the followups-to line.
Eric Fein
AFTER I finish reading ALL of Orderic Vitalis? The irony kills me... :)
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> > to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> > if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>
> According to what I've read, no it didn't.
This is actually, i would think, rather debatable.
Throughout Orderic, there are strong hints of nationalism. Of course,
it's nothing like the nationalism we all know and love today, but it's
present in an infant-like form. For instance, he *clearly* denotes who
is who in his narrative, namely who is English and who is Norman. Most
striking, I think, is his comment on language (which has been eluded to
in this thread already).
Orderic was English by birth -- he was born near Shrewsbury and grew up
there until the age of 10, when he was shipped off to the Norman
monastery of St. Evroul. There, he says, the Norman monks found his
*name* somewhat offensive to the ears, and promptly affixed the surname
Vitalis to alleviate the problem. Also, he speaks every now and then
about how difficult it was for him to be in a strange place, surrounded
by strange people who didn't speak his language.
All in all, though, it's actually a rather patriotic work of history --
Orderic positively ADORED the Conqueror and Henry I, and likewise
DERIDED Harold. [Although I suppose I should note here that his
treatment of the Conqueror stems primarily from the works of William of
Jumieges and, more importantly, William of Poitiers, whose book was
essentially written in praise of William; not exactly a politically
neutral text] Orderic is very clear in the way he 'marks' certain
people for their nationality, be they Norman, Breton, English, French,
etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure that I'd call it nationalism per se, but
it's not unlike it, either.
> And the Saxon(Anglo-Saxon)
> lords only were a problem for about a generation, by 1100, they had
> merged with the general nobility or were wiped out. And the Angle-Saxon
> nobles themselves had intermarried with Danish & Norwegian Vikings.
Yes. In fact, the English nobility were more or less entirely subdued
by the time the Conqueror had passed. At the very least, Orderic makes
virtually no mention of them past that point, meaning that either a)
they were, in fact, subdued, or b) he was more concerned with events in
Normandy itself, and therefore felt it unnecessary to write about the
English, or c) he simply didn't have much contact with the English,
precluding the possiblity of any writing.
Of course, I *am* speaking from only one source, so I'm limited in my
scope.
> Anyone who came over the Channel with William of Normandy was called
> Norman. Even though many other Frenchmen, and some Flemish some from
> Brittany(then still Celtic in culture) came along as well.
Well, they were called Norman by the British, anyway. :)
eric
--
+ Eric P. Fein +
+ waka-...@worldnet.att.net +
+ http://home.att.net/~waka-jawaka/ +
Eric Fein
> I think that you are mostly right. But the conquest was
> not an easy one. It took some years for William to put
> down English unrest. If the English had had a recognized
> leader (if, for example, Harold had not died at Hastings)
> they might even have repelled the Normans.
Indeed!! It makes one wonder what might have happened.
> But beyond that, there *was* tension. If nothing else,
> language was a constant reminder. The new Norman overlords
> and the natives just did not speak the same language. That,
:) See my earlier post about Orderic.
> of course, led to disdain and continual distrust. Scott
> does, I think, mirror that to a degree when he points out
> the Norman attitude that, if a person was a person of
> quality he would *naturally* speak Norman French and not
> that awful other language.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this a sentiment which carried on
well after the 'Norman period'? I was under the impression that the
Norman-Angevin-English aristocracy spoke either Norman or 'regular'
French up until about the beginning of the 14th century?
> Stephen Morillo, in _Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings_
> takes the term "Norman King" only down to Henry I. Stephen
> (who came next) is not included.
Interesting...this does make more sense, but I'd never heard of anyone
refering to Stephen as something other than Norman...
Orderic, incidentally, does indeed refer to Stephen as being Norman,
though with a small disclaimer:
"When Stephen, coun of Boulogne, heard of his uncle's death he crossed
at once to England, and after being accepted by William, archbishop of
Canterbury, and the other bishops and magnates he ascended the royal
throne. After he had been crowned king on 15 December he reigned as the
fourth king of Norman stock."
[OV, XIII ch.20]
So he's at least of Norman "stock". Interestingly, though, when Orderic
writes about Henry I's coronation, he makes no mention whatsoever of
nationality -- I suppose it's implied?
E W Beattie
Eric Fein <waka-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<3670C787...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > And the Saxon(Anglo-Saxon)
> > lords only were a problem for about a generation, by 1100, they had
> > merged with the general nobility or were wiped out. And the Angle-Saxon
> > nobles themselves had intermarried with Danish & Norwegian Vikings.
>
> Yes. In fact, the English nobility were more or less entirely subdued
> by the time the Conqueror had passed.
You can get it out of Domesday. Within 20 years of the conquest there were
only two Saxons holding land of the king. There were more at a lower level,
but not a huge number.
regards
EWB
Paul J. Gans
>sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
I suspect that there is some definitional confusion here.
There clearly was regional nationalism in the Middle Ages.
People did identify themselves as Bretons or Gascons or
Yorkshiremen or whatever.
On the other hand, there seems to have been no wider allegiance
*except* to the King. Folks thought of themselves as Englishmen
under the English king. That is, the wider identity was
social, not geographic. Geographic nationalism where one
identifies with a chunk of geography no matter where one was
born is, I think, post medieval.
But, I must say, that by the 15th century if not sooner one
can see stirrings of this. Perhaps first in England. Much
later in France where the north-south split (among other)
lasted long. Germany and Italy of course reached geographic
nationalism later even than France.
[deletions]
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Gareth
On 11 Dec 1998, E W Beattie wrote:
>
>
> Eric Fein <waka-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <3670C787...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >
> > Yes. In fact, the English nobility were more or less entirely subdued
> > by the time the Conqueror had passed.
>
> You can get it out of Domesday. Within 20 years of the conquest there were
> only two Saxons holding land of the king. There were more at a lower level,
> but not a huge number.
>
There is of course, always an exception, and the main one in this case is
the north of England. Even after William I's harrying of the North, it
wasn't until well into the reign of William II, and through into the reign
of Henry I, that the Norman kings of England exerted any real control over
areas north of the Trent, let alone those parts of the country north of
the Humber.
Gareth
Erland Gadde
<ba...@REMOVEenterprise.net> wrote:
> Why do you find it strange that Sir Walter Scott would write fiction with
> English heroes? His knighthood (the title 'Sir') was given by the monarch of
> England, so in accepting it he must have proved not to be anti-English.
> Perhaps you think he should have introduced some bogus Scottish heroes into
> an English story? Surely this is further proof that he was not motivated by
> Nationalism.
Here, I owe you and other posters an explanation. I didn't know a thing
about Sir Walter Scott, until just before I wrote my post, when I looked
him up in an encyclopedia. I then learned that he was a Scotsman who
wrote mostly about Scottish heroes and, I suppose, English villains.
Intutively, I then found it a little odd, psychologically, that he
then wrote a great novel about English heroes. Hence, my remark.
It shouldn't be taken too seriolusly.
> As for your comments on whether 'Norman' was synonomous with French, I am
> surprised that someone from Sweden does not know that the term Norman comes
> from Norse-man. The ruling Normans in France were descendants of invading
> Vikings centuries earlier and as such their origins were not from any other
> part of France.
To avoid misunderstanding, I certainly know that. What I meant was that
the word "Norman" was perhaps _used_ as synonymous with "French", in
_medieval England_. From other posts, I conclude that at least a minority
of the aristocracy _did_ originate from other parts of France than Normandy.
For what I have read, the Viking rulers in Normandy soon became
"frenchified", although, according to some posts, the people in Normandy
still speak a peculiar dialect.
> I suppose you think England in the 1960's was just like The Avengers. . .
Here, I must confess my lack of knowledge. What is "The Avengers?"
CG Luxford
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
> > concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> > existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> > middle ages.
>
> Okay, I think that's more workable, although I have --as I outline in another
> reply-- severe reservations about extending nationalism as a phenomena beyond
> the 19th century.
I wasn't extending national_ism_ so much as the nation state, and
national identity.
Admittedly these are both concepts whithout which nationalism cannot
exist, but it it is not necessary for nationalism to exist in order to
have a concept of the nation.
> I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
Fair point.
> which had a situational impact on the common people who
> continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
> themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
> the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
>
This does, of course raise the question of what we actually mean by a
nation. Today we tend to think of a nation as more or less synonymous
with a state, the legacy of C19 nationalism. But a nation does not have
to be a political entity.
In the above examples of course Scotland is generally thought
of as a nation or a country, even while it has been politically part of
a united British state.
Well the Norman Yoke idea was current among people from outside the
ruling elite, at Putney for example it was used by the representatives
of the ordinary sodiers, rather than the generals and political leaders.
As for other ideas in other times and places...
Though returning to the example of Shakespeare, his audience was
certainly not an elite one, but we are still in a very narrow
geographical area, in a relatively small time period.
> Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
> that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
> vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
>
> <snip>
>
> > I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> > ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> > the state by its population, and not just by its government.
>
> I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
> political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
> people.
The English rhetoric at the time of the Commonwealth was that they were
"the people". The practice on the other hand remained oligarchical.
The Dutch might be considered the best continental comparison as they
had succesfully shaken off Spanish rule and established a federal
republic.
> Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
> of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
Well I don't think anyone will have had any notion of Nationalism in
any of the senses that we might mean it today, but I do think that
concepts of nationhood were clearly discernable in a variety of forms,
some of which might no longer be thought of as "national"
Chris,
TEMarts
Erland Gadde wrote in message ...
MMMMMMmmmmmmm....French Fried Vikings My favorite.
>> I suppose you think England in the 1960's was just like The Avengers. . .
>
>Here, I must confess my lack of knowledge. What is "The Avengers?"
Weren't they Marvel Superhero's? Kinda like the fantastic four but with
better looking women?
Ya, that's it Ironman's original group.
: - p
erilar
<TEM...@cbiinternet.com> wrote:
How vulgar! Mrs. Peel and Mr.Steed make ALL the comic book superhero
characters lokk vulgar and unmannerly!
Mary
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Friedrich II: stupor mundi
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.win.bright.net/~erilarlo
Eric Berge
Charles Norrie wrote:
> In article <01be2472$588167e0$da4a...@win95.swipnet.se>, Inger E
> Johansson <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> writes
> >
>
> >Along with the Jutes there also was people from southeastern parts of
> >Norway.
>
> So the Jutes got about a bit. Potted history says the Jutes went to Kent
> and the Isle of Wight, so that makes me a quarter Jutish.
Do you look Jutish?
Eric Berge
(remove _ for address)
-----------------------------------------
Clay lies still, but blood's a rover
Breath's a ware that will not keep
Up, lad! When the journey's over
There'll be time enough to sleep.
- A.E.Housman, "Reveille"
-----------------------------------------
Charles Norrie
writes
>> >Along with the Jutes there also was people from southeastern parts of
>> >Norway.
>>
>> So the Jutes got about a bit. Potted history says the Jutes went to Kent
>> and the Isle of Wight, so that makes me a quarter Jutish.
>
>Do you look Jutish?
>
--
Charles Norrie
Chris Williams
Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
>
> Fair point.
Which IMO is why the EM period really did end in the late C18th: along
came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
en masse.
Ta da! Nationalism was born.
We need to forget about Hogarth for a bit, I suppose: or else acknowledge
that in this respect, em kicked in in GB around the 1730s. Or something.
The above is just about close enough to things I'm supposed to know about
for it to be necessary for me to add a disclaimer: I'm mjsing aloud, OK,
and I might be wrong.
Chris W
CG Luxford
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Chris Williams wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> >
> > Fair point.
>
> came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> en masse.
>
> Ta da! Nationalism was born.
>
inspiration from the English Civil War, it would appear that they
succeeded where the English failed because the ideas had had time to
develop. The French may not have had a fully formed ideology when they
stormed the Bastille, but it was a lot further down the line than
anything anyone had had earlier.
The Americans of course started off by demanding their rights as
Englishmen.
> We need to forget about Hogarth for a bit, I suppose: or else acknowledge
> that in this respect, em kicked in in GB around the 1730s. Or something.
>
But to what extent was Hogarth responsible for nationalism etc? Was he
not simply reflecting the national identities etc of his time.
Mind you much of what I know about C18 British national identity is
from Linda Colley's _Britons_ (1992?).
Chris,
CG Luxford
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, erilar wrote:
> <TEM...@cbiinternet.com> wrote:
> > Erland Gadde wrote in message ...
> > >> I suppose you think England in the 1960's was just like The Avengers. . .
> > >
> > >Here, I must confess my lack of knowledge. What is "The Avengers?"
> >
> > Weren't they Marvel Superhero's? Kinda like the fantastic four but with
> > better looking women?
>
> How vulgar! Mrs. Peel and Mr.Steed make ALL the comic book superhero
> characters lokk vulgar and unmannerly!
Though there was Gareth Hunt's character in the New Avengers, he was
rather vulgar and unmannerly, especially when compared with Steed and
Purdey (Joanna Lumley's character in the New Avengers.)
Chris,
sch...@my-dejanews.com
CA...@le.ac.uk (Chris Williams) wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.98121...@eis.bris.ac.uk>, CG
> Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> >
> > Fair point.
>
> came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> en masse.
>
> Ta da! Nationalism was born.
I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
Also to a lesser extent Sweden, France, and Britain(during the rule of
Cromwell anyway and again after 1688) also had a rise in nationalism from
1600 on. Alot of this was due to a great deal, by the efforts of the
monarches to centralize power. When the local lord doesn't have his own army
anymore & is at the mercy of the King/Queen, the locals tend to look towards
the King/Queen more. The introduction of the Reformation, also played a
large part in the rise of nationalism.
---Oscar Schlaf---
Phil Dunn
>> But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
>
>religions, though most frequently associated with Anglesea they would
>have been found all over those areas were the Celts (including
>Britons and Gaels) lived.
>
>Chris,
>
The Druids were just one element of the Celtic Priesthood. There were also
Bards and Vates. Each had their own responsibilities in the cultural and
spiritual life of the Celts.
As far as I can tell the Druids dealt with the well being of the soul. The
Bards were responsible for preserving the folklore by the Oral tradition and
the Vates seem to have taken responsibility for the messy stuff like
sacrifices as so on.
Of the three branches of the priesthood only the Vates appear to have used
formal temples or shrines.
Don't know if his is any help at all but I thought it might be useful to
cloud the issue even more!
Phil
John M Chapman
writes
>
> I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
>Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
>the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
>were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
>of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
>
Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
common foe (France)
>
--
John M Chapman
Giles Todd
> I also wonder about the denomination "Saxon". Since the country already
> then was called "England", why weren't the people called "English"
> or "Angles"? Alternatively, why wasn't the country called "Saxland"?
> (This latter question was discussed in these groups a few years ago.)
One Lowlands Scots word for an Englishman is "sassenach". I also
recall the word "Sais" with reference to Englishmen in mediaeval
times. My guess is that they did call them "Saxons" but they didn't
necessarily use Modern English as a language with which to call them
that.
Giles.
--
Quis est qui inquit?
Giles Todd
> I believe on the Saxland vs. Angleland part, the reason was that during
> the time of Charlemange, the main kingdom on the island of Britain was
> Merica which was Angle. So the the continetal Europeans took to called
> the island Angle-land.
Mercia. Merica had to wait until 1776.
Curt Emanuel
>
> Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
> Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
> There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> common foe (France)
> >
Harold Hutchison, in _Edward II_ also says that by the early 14th
century the beginnings of nationalism could be seen in England. I'd have
to dig for the quote - it's not listed in the index.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
CG Luxford
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Phil Dunn wrote:
>
> >> But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
> >
> >The Druids were, as far as we can tell, the priests of the Celtic
> >religions, though most frequently associated with Anglesea they would
> >have been found all over those areas were the Celts (including
> >Britons and Gaels) lived.
>
> Bards and Vates. Each had their own responsibilities in the cultural and
> spiritual life of the Celts.
Bards I'd heard of, Vates I hadn't.
> As far as I can tell the Druids dealt with the well being of the soul.
To a modern way of thinking that is more or less a definition of a
priest.
> The
> Bards were responsible for preserving the folklore by the Oral tradition and
Like at an Eisstedfod(sp?) :-)
> the Vates seem to have taken responsibility for the messy stuff like
> sacrifices as so on.
Ah, so this is why there don't seem to be any Vates amongst the Druidic
revivalists.
> Of the three branches of the priesthood only the Vates appear to have used
> formal temples or shrines.
>
> Don't know if his is any help at all but I thought it might be useful to
> cloud the issue even more!
>
I'm not sure about it being any help, but it's interesting, which is at
least as important, if not more so.
A good source for information about pre-Christian religions in Britain
is Ronald Hutton's _The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles_
Chris,
John M Chapman
<joa...@lotos-land.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
>>Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>>stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>>There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>>occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>>fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>>common foe (France)
>>>
>
>government perceives nationhood and the common people?
That is undoubtedly true but in early 14th century England there was a
clear sense of identity which made 'us' different from 'them'
>
>From what I've read, it was usual for people to use the word 'country'
>meaning 'county', thier primary allegiance, and to speak of belonging
>to Christendom (a bit like the EU :-))
It was far more parochial than that - if you lived in a village three
miles from a town then you were regarded as a foreigner in the town.
Christendom was very much a scholars concept, not one which the common
people thought much about - it was an assumption that they were part of
Christendom whatever that meant. What had been established in England
pre-Conquest was a hierarchy of land tenure and obligations. No one was
in any doubt that all land belonged to the King who embodied the state,
one had rights of tenure which could and often were terminated. These
had to be renewed every time a tenure holder died. This hierarchy
extended down through earldoms down to serfs tending land under their
lords protection. The point is that this ended abruptly at the waters
edge making England a clearly self contained realm which you either
belonged to or didnt.
>
>Someone else mentioned the Reformation being an early turning point
>and I would have thought there was a lot of truth in that as it broke
>down the concept of Christendom with the Pope and H.R.Emperor at its
>head. From then on, the development of Protestant and Catholic nations
>differs somewhat until the late 18th C. The cites above seem too tied
>up with religion to qualify as truly nationalist (Catalonia excepted).
>
This had clearly broken down when there were two Popes. The HR Emporer
never had any jurisdiction within England although several tried to
meddle. The hierarchies within the HR Empire were quite different from
those in England and explain to a large extent the revulsion that most
English people share towards continentalism as being pushed by the EU.
>
>I do think there is a difference between nationalism and
>ethnic/cultural allegiances which we seem to have returned to right
>across Europe suggesting, perhaps, that they come to us more
>naturally.
>
There is - this was brought out in the 1930s by the Anschluss and the
annexation of Czechoslovakia etc to unify those who saw themselves as
German. England has never cared much for ethnic/cultural allegiances -
just assumed that foreigners who live long enough in England will become
assimilated - this is generally the view taken of Scots and Welsh -
hence the quite different cultural nationalism is Wales and Scotland.
>Joanna
--
John M Chapman
sch...@my-dejanews.com
John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >
> > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> >the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
> >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
> >
>
> Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
England was the exception rather then the rule. Being an island & having
a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
states until much later.
And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
England in it's war against Royal France.
> There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> common foe (France)
England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
Inger E Johansson
erilar <erila...@SPAMwin.bright.net> skrev i inlägg
<erilarloNO-13...@dal-usr3-1-cs-5.win.bright.net>...
> In article <3673e...@tnt1.tntie.com>, "TEMarts"
> <TEM...@cbiinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Erland Gadde wrote in message ...
> > >In article <XMDb2.18$Vw....@news.enterprise.net>, "Randy Lover"
> > ><ba...@REMOVEenterprise.net> wrote:
> > >>For what I have read, the Viking rulers in Normandy soon became
> > >"frenchified", although, according to some posts, the people in
Normandy
> > >still speak a peculiar dialect.
>
Do You "erilar" know that Your name in old days was the same as "Jarl=Earl"
and was inscribed with runscripts as early as during the early days of the
Migration Age in a place called Romsdal close to Grytten the words
"eirilar wiwila"(=Jarl=Earl Wivila).
Norsk Historie, bind 1, edit. prof. Knut Mykland, Oslo 1976 page 346
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger.e..johansson@swipnet.se>
Chris Williams
> I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> the Hapsburg Empire idea.
Hmm... I disagree there. Obviously it's about lots of things, and it's
hard to eliminate anything - especially something as protean as
'nationalism' - from influencing events.
But before nationalism, I'd blame it on (a) Protestantism; (b) localism
and the jealousy of estates and institutions, and (c) old-fashioned noble
ambition, before I'd cite 'nationalism' as a cause.
Chris
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
>
> Fair point.
>
> > which had a situational impact on the common people who
> > continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
> > themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
> > the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
> >
> This does, of course raise the question of what we actually mean by a
> nation. Today we tend to think of a nation as more or less synonymous
> with a state, the legacy of C19 nationalism. But a nation does not have
> to be a political entity.
Right, but then we're talking about Nation in its older sense of a "People" or
"Race" (itself in the older meaning of a people, like the Scottish race or
whatnot)
Hmm, that's interesting. It might be a move in the right direction for a
sense of nationhood over local identity, assuming that it is not working
alongside.
> As for other ideas in other times and places...
>
> Though returning to the example of Shakespeare, his audience was
> certainly not an elite one, but we are still in a very narrow
> geographical area, in a relatively small time period.
Right.
> > Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
> > that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
> > vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> > > ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> > > the state by its population, and not just by its government.
> >
> > I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
> > political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
> > people.
>
> The English rhetoric at the time of the Commonwealth was that they were
> "the people". The practice on the other hand remained oligarchical.
Probably the ideas and self-conception were in the process of evolving.
> The Dutch might be considered the best continental comparison as they
> had succesfully shaken off Spanish rule and established a federal
> republic.
Yeah, and they had a nice compact space, which makes it easier to start down
the path to a larger abstraction.
> > Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
> > of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
>
> Well I don't think anyone will have had any notion of Nationalism in
> any of the senses that we might mean it today, but I do think that
> concepts of nationhood were clearly discernable in a variety of forms,
> some of which might no longer be thought of as "national"
Righto.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> > >
> > > Fair point.
> >
> > came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> > citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> > because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> > en masse.
> >
> > Ta da! Nationalism was born.
>
> Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
I dunno, how do you distinguish between local particularism and dislike for
outsider's rule and an active sense of a corporate identity replacing local
ones? The Dutch case at least seems to evolve in the proper direction
afterwards, but Catalonia, Bohemia and Ireland?
> Also to a lesser extent Sweden, France, and Britain(during the rule of
> Cromwell anyway and again after 1688) also had a rise in nationalism from
> 1600 on. Alot of this was due to a great deal, by the efforts of the
> monarches to centralize power. When the local lord doesn't have his own army
> anymore & is at the mercy of the King/Queen, the locals tend to look towards
> the King/Queen more. The introduction of the Reformation, also played a
> large part in the rise of nationalism.
Okay, I can go with the 1600s as a start for elites to begin to identify with
a modern idea of a nation-state as their source of self-identification as the
government centralizes but I find it hard to buy that for the normal joe
outside of the "center" -- I think a provencal peasant is still a man of
place X or at least of Provence before being French in his own mind.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <kiJyrFAb...@purley.demon.co.uk>,
> John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> > >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> > >the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
> > >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> > >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
> > >
> >
> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
of declarations of self-identity etc.
> England was the exception rather then the rule. Being an island & having
> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
> states until much later.
Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
> And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
> Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
> England in it's war against Royal France.
I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
comes for a long time.
> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> > common foe (France)
>
> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
Right, and recall some factions allied themselves with French interests. It
is a gross simplification which overlooks a whole lot of horse-trading. And
as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
line in the North? The West?
Inger E Johansson
haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a nationhood:
Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to understand
that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as close as
we today think our sister or brother to be.
The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the same
tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
likevise that we today calls nationhood.
I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
Inger E Johansson BA History
jr...@yahoo.com
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In art[big snip]
> Okay, I can go with the 1600s as a start for elites to begin to identify with
> a modern idea of a nation-state as their source of self-identification as the
> government centralizes but I find it hard to buy that for the normal joe
> outside of the "center" -- I think a provencal peasant is still a man of
> place X or at least of Provence before being French in his own mind.
>
>
Christopher Allmand, in _The Hundred Years War_, has this to say about
nationalism and France:
It is arguable that it was the long war with England that was the most
influential single factor to contribute to the growing awareness of French
nationhood in this age...To meet the threat [of the English]...the French
crown had, in the face of strongly-held feelings of local loyalty, to create
a national effort which would both depend upon and reflect a developing sense
of nationhood. Yet, over a period of a century or more, this was
achieved...[I]n the thirteenth century...the idea of the *communis patria*,
the motherland with the king at its head, came to be increasingly employed.
From the same inspiration, that of Roman law, there emerged the idea of the
common good (*res publica*) embracing, in this case, all French people...
[p147]
Allman continues:
The threat of external attack played a crucial role in obliging France to
take stock of her defensive needs, in forcing her to face them in a communal
way, and in creating an awareness that all French people belonged to the same
nation, or patria, owing allegiance and obedience to the same king. [p147]
Allman recognized that this feeling of nationalism grew slowly over the period
of the Hundred Years War, yet he concludes that by the end, both England and
France had national identities.
Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop a
national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil War,
turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development of
nationalism.
--
Joe Rooney
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade in Sh
John M Chapman
dejanews.com writes
>> >
>> > Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
>> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>
>No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
>national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
>of declarations of self-identity etc.
Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
College speak.
>
>
>I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
>came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
>mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
>of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
>comes for a long time.
The taxes being generally referred to were being paid to the Pope (one
or other of them)
>
>> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>> > common foe (France)
>>
>> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
>> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
The Wat Tyler rebellion was a political march against the poll tax which
got out of hand on occasions. In no way could it be compared with the
Frnch/English conflict of the Hundred years war. The wars of the Roses
were mainly dynastic struggles for power and again no comparison is
sensible. In neither case could you describe them as England fighting
against itself in the sense of both the English and Americam Civil Wars.
Battles against Scotland were relatively common and would be seen by
both sides as nation versus nation.
>
> And
>as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
>line in the North? The West?
Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one. There were no
borders then in the west, both Wales and Cornwall were well and truly
incorporated - think how well the Welsh did at Crecy.
>
--
John M Chapman
Gareth
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, John M Chapman wrote:
>
> Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
> the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one.
>
If you're talking about the early bit of the early modern period that's
not entirely correct. By the sixteenth century the Anglo-Scottish borders
were fairly well fixed - even Berwick had been in English hands since
1482. True, there was one area on the borders know as the "Debatable
Land", the ownership of which was never fully sorted (although that in
part ws due to the fact that neither the English nor the Scots actually
wanted to be the ones who got the fun of enforcing the law in it...), but
most of the borders were fairly well defined.
As to the Rievers, whilst some of them were barons, most of them
were your normal every day farming types who might own a house and
some land. And, with the exception of the notable outlaws in the Debatable
Land, they alled owed allegience to one or other of England and Scotland.
It ws just that they didn't always like to remember the fact...
Gareth
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> dejanews.com writes
>
> >> >
> >> > Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
> >> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> >> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
> >
> >No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
> >national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
> >particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in
terms
> >of declarations of self-identity etc.
>
> Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
> College speak.
Which words don't you get? The issue is self-perception.
> >I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
> >came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
> >mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
> >of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
> >comes for a long time.
>
> The taxes being generally referred to were being paid to the Pope (one
> or other of them)
So?
> >> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> >> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> >> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> >> > common foe (France)
> >>
> >> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
> >> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
>
> The Wat Tyler rebellion was a political march against the poll tax which
> got out of hand on occasions. In no way could it be compared with the
> Frnch/English conflict of the Hundred years war. The wars of the Roses
> were mainly dynastic struggles for power and again no comparison is
> sensible. In neither case could you describe them as England fighting
> against itself in the sense of both the English and Americam Civil Wars.
Uh, those were not me, but in any event the issue is national identity,
nationalism. If one is saying that there is an English national identity at
the time then it certainly would be an English civil war of sorts.
> Battles against Scotland were relatively common and would be seen by
> both sides as nation versus nation.
> >
>
> > And
> >as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
> >line in the North? The West?
>
> Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
> the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one. There were no
> borders then in the west, both Wales and Cornwall were well and truly
> incorporated - think how well the Welsh did at Crecy.
"Welsh" or Welshmen in service of a king? Again, the issue is whether people
are identifying themselves as English in a modern way.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Absolute rubbish. I'll have to rummage to find something from "Peasants into
Frenchmen" but it is absolutely clear that "all French people" is an
overstretch. Right through to the 19th century much of Provence did not even
speak French and showed strong local particularism, treating Paris rule as
virtually foreign. Allman is clearly forgetting declarations by the center do
not speak for popular consciousness.
> Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
> institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop a
> national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
> first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
> themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
> second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil War,
> turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
> could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
> that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
> so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
> authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development of
> nationalism.
And here we have an inappropriate comparision. The US is firstly serveral
hundred years along the path towards nationalism and a greater central
identity. And I believe there are in fact historians of the colonial period
and pre-Civil War period who would argue from such as the linguistic pointers
as the shift from the plural for the United States to the singular that a US
national identity was only just forming, coalescing. You can look at how
colonial settlers in the Texas territory felt free to form a new state for a
while (in truth divided between US and independant sentiments). From our
point of view, Texas long absorbed, this is a mere detial. But let us not
commit the common historical error of analysis assuming the result. When
Texas was formed it might very well have formed a new state. The same with
the Confederacy. That was a signicant statement on the perceptions of at
least some of the US elite of where their real "national" loyalties lay.
Thus, I restate your statement, unless there is reason to believe there are
national loyalties, there is no reason to believe particular ones are
dominant.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CA...@le.ac.uk (Chris Williams) wrote:
> In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> > Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> > the Hapsburg Empire idea.
>
> hard to eliminate anything - especially something as protean as
> 'nationalism' - from influencing events.
>
> But before nationalism, I'd blame it on (a) Protestantism; (b) localism
> and the jealousy of estates and institutions, and (c) old-fashioned noble
> ambition, before I'd cite 'nationalism' as a cause.
I agree. I think it is important for posters to recall that they should not
assume the existance of an idea, but rather look for the proof that it had
germinated against points such as Chris cites above.
jr...@yahoo.com
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>[snip]
Why don't you define "local particularism." Are you stating that one can not,
on one level, identify with king and country and not, on another level, feel
loyalty to local customs and traditions? Does one preclude the other?
>
> > Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
> > institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop
a
> > national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
> > first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
> > themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
> > second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil
War,
> > turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
> > could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
> > that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
> > so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
> > authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development
of
> > nationalism.
>
> And here we have an inappropriate comparision. The US is firstly
serveral
> hundred years along the path towards nationalism
Are you saying that the US did not achieve nationalism by the time of the
Civil War? Just what is your definition of nationalism?
and a greater central
> identity. And I believe there are in fact historians of the colonial period
> and pre-Civil War period who would argue from such as the linguistic pointers
> as the shift from the plural for the United States to the singular that a US
> national identity was only just forming, coalescing.
Who?
You can look at how
> colonial settlers in the Texas territory felt free to form a new state for a
> while (in truth divided between US and independant sentiments). From our
> point of view, Texas long absorbed, this is a mere detial. But let us not
> commit the common historical error of analysis assuming the result. When
> Texas was formed it might very well have formed a new state. The same with
> the Confederacy. That was a signicant statement on the perceptions of at
> least some of the US elite of where their real "national" loyalties lay.
>
> Thus, I restate your statement, unless there is reason to believe there are
> national loyalties, there is no reason to believe particular ones are
> dominant.
Could you clarify this? I don't understand the point you were tryuing to make.
My point, in giving the example about Lee, was to illustrate that sectional or
local loyalties could co-exist along with larger, "national," loyalties.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Joe Rooney
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade in Sh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
CG Luxford
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> Many people have participated in this debate. But till this moment I
> haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
> been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a nationhood:
>
> Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
> older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to understand
> that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as close as
> we today think our sister or brother to be.
>
While kinship ties and the language of family were much stronger in
pre-industrial society, I think it might be stretching a point to link
them to national identity in the periods under discussion.
Of course the 12 tribes of Israel are all descended Abraham, via Jacob.
> The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
> Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
> that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
> mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the same
> tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
> united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
> likevise that we today calls nationhood.
>
> I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
> believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
>
Anthropologists do identify kinship ties as the most important part of
social identity in "primitive" cultures today. So you probably are right
about this as an early form of proto national identity, though I don't
think it was quite as binding by the time we get states developing.
Chris,
Inger E Johansson
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> skrev i inlägg
<Pine.SOL.3.95q.98121...@eis.bris.ac.uk>...
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
> > Many people have participated in this debate. But till this moment I
> > haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
> > been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a
nationhood:
> >
> > Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
> > older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to
understand
> > that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as
close as
> > we today think our sister or brother to be.
> >
> While kinship ties and the language of family were much stronger in
> pre-industrial society, I think it might be stretching a point to link
> them to national identity in the periods under discussion.
>
Well my point is two: first of all there will be a Diss. up in Odense in
January the writer is Ingemar Nordgren. In this Diss I. Nordgren manage to
prove the things I states above......
My second point is that if You read old source written prior to 550 AC You
will find that Julius Caesar wasn't the first nor the last one to make this
connection in older times. Read for ex. Caesar's book about the War in
Gaul.......
> Of course the 12 tribes of Israel are all descended Abraham, via Jacob.
>
> > The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
> > Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
> > that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
> > mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the
same
> > tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
> > united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
> > likevise that we today calls nationhood.
> >
> > I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
> > believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
> >
> Anthropologists do identify kinship ties as the most important part of
> social identity in "primitive" cultures today. So you probably are right
> about this as an early form of proto national identity, though I don't
> think it was quite as binding by the time we get states developing.
Read above. I stand by my statement.
d...@telalink.net
skin, averages over six feet in height, straight hair usually worn
long in the bangs.
Jutes joints are frequently gangly and knobby.
Jutes often have skin complexions that look like they just waded out
of the North Sea.
Jutes are often comfused with Norwegian tourists.
Jutes sometimes beat their dogs, and perhaps their husbands.
dan
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:53:09 +0000, Charles Norrie
<Cha...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3674445B...@ibm.net>, Eric Berge <e_db...@ibm.net>
>writes
>>> >Along with the Jutes there also was people from southeastern parts of
>>> >Norway.
>>>
>>> So the Jutes got about a bit. Potted history says the Jutes went to Kent
>>> and the Isle of Wight, so that makes me a quarter Jutish.
>>
>>Do you look Jutish?
>>
>How would I know?
>--
>Charles Norrie
John M Chapman
dejanews.com writes
>> >No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
>> >national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>> >particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in
>terms
>> >of declarations of self-identity etc.
>>
>> Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
>> College speak.
>
>Which words don't you get? The issue is self-perception.
as 'an expression of modern national consciousness' then by definition
you are referring to a concept which you and only you can date by your
own definition of modern. Personally I see modern as post roman.
--
John M Chapman
Inger E Johansson
d...@telalink.net skrev i inlägg <3679a35d...@news.telalink.net>...
> A Jute has blond hair, high cheekbones, icy blue eyes, big ears, rough
> skin, averages over six feet in height, straight hair usually worn
> long in the bangs.
>
> Jutes joints are frequently gangly and knobby.
>
> Jutes often have skin complexions that look like they just waded out
> of the North Sea.
Of dear You are giving a describtion that also fit the Goths, the Vandals
and many other Northerners in older times.......
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
By the way if You read about the Jutes participating in War close before
the Anglo-Saxon left for England You would have "Danish" name that's ok but
You would have a describtion about red or redish hair instead of blond.....
Inger E
Liz Broadwell
"The Angles (with the Saxons) descended upon the Land Debatable -- that
is, the North of England and the South of Scotland. The acute Angles went
north and the obtuse ones south." -- Anonymous (presumably a Scot)
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "Well, I've never been to Greenland & I've
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | never been to Denver, & I've never buried
English Department | treasure in St. Louis or St. Paul, & I've
University of Pennsylvania | never been to Moscow & I've never been to
34th and Walnut Sts. | Tampa, & I've never been to Boston in the
Philadelphia, PA | fall."--"The Pirates Who Never Do Anything"
Pilar Quezzaire
: Uh, those were not me, but in any event the issue is national identity,
: nationalism.
Are we? I thought we were keeping these two issues (national identity and
nationalism) separate.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"Social historian? Is that some kinda disease? A new virus, perhaps..."
"No. I'm one of those people who gets paid to discuss how stupid the rest
of humanity is. I'm Howard Stern with a respectable rep."
--Conversation online
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gans
>I am reminded of the old joke:
>"The Angles (with the Saxons) descended upon the Land Debatable -- that
>is, the North of England and the South of Scotland. The acute Angles went
>north and the obtuse ones south." -- Anonymous (presumably a Scot)
>Peace,
>Liz
And the right Angles?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In soc.history.medieval Liz Broadwell <ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>I am reminded of the old joke:
>>"The Angles (with the Saxons) descended upon the Land Debatable -- that
>>is, the North of England and the South of Scotland. The acute Angles went
>>north and the obtuse ones south." -- Anonymous (presumably a Scot)
>And the right Angles?
They ended up in the corner, in Anglesey.
Brian
M.Serve
In article <758no8$m92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com (collou...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
>In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
>> > >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
>> > >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
>> > >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>
>national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
>of declarations of self-identity etc.
>
>> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
>> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
>> states until much later.
>
>Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
>still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
>but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
>
>> And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
>> Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
>> England in it's war against Royal France.
Wars at this time were concerned with claims to crowns and/or other
inherited wealth and status by individuals. Henry V probably spoke
French most of the time and had a legitimate claim to the French
crown as well as legally possessing the crown of England. Was it not
Offa, who first proclaimed himself King of England and was the
first to put his head on coinage? This concept embraced the
kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia (after the murder of
Aethelberht). I don't think it included Northumberland.
So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority. As the struggle
between catholic universalism and secular protestantism intensified
during the latter period of Tudor rule, plays of the era, such as
Shakespeare's Henry V, indoctrinated people further. The play was
used in exactly the same way during WWII when the nation's sinews
required tightening.
>
>I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
>came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
>mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
>of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
>comes for a long time.
>
>> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>> > common foe (France)
>>
>> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
>> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
>
>Right, and recall some factions allied themselves with French interests. It
>is a gross simplification which overlooks a whole lot of horse-trading. And
>as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
>line in the North? The West?
>
CG Luxford
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> d...@telalink.net skrev i inlägg <3679a35d...@news.telalink.net>...
> > A Jute has blond hair, high cheekbones, icy blue eyes, big ears, rough
> > skin, averages over six feet in height, straight hair usually worn
> > long in the bangs.
> >
> > Jutes joints are frequently gangly and knobby.
> >
> > Jutes often have skin complexions that look like they just waded out
> > of the North Sea.
>
> Of dear You are giving a describtion that also fit the Goths, the Vandals
> and many other Northerners in older times.......
>
I thought goths were the ones who dressed in black, wore lots of silver
jewellery and listen to the Sisters of Mercy.
Vandals on the other hand just damage public property.
Chris,
CG Luxford
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, M.Serve wrote:
> In article <758no8$m92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com (collou...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
> >In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> > >
> >> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
> >> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
> >> states until much later.
> >
> >Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
> >still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
> >but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
> >
> So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
> It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
> Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
> This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
> the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>
It was also under Henry VIII that Wales was formally brought into the
English state. It had been a de facto part of the English realm for
generations (IIRC it was Henry IV who finally "conquered" it, though it
was much earlier that English rule first entered the principality)
The consolidation of England is perhaps earlier than Henry VIII, though
not that much. Centralisation is usually credited to Thomas Cromwell
acting under Henry VII's instructions, though some historians are
putting in a claim for the Yorkists as the originators of this process.
> England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
> the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
The associated translation of the Bible into English also helped to
standardise the language as the same Bibles were read in churches in
every part of the realm.
> As the struggle
> between catholic universalism and secular protestantism intensified
> during the latter period of Tudor rule, plays of the era, such as
> Shakespeare's Henry V, indoctrinated people further. The play was
> used in exactly the same way during WWII when the nation's sinews
> required tightening.
>
Chris,
Inger E Johansson
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> skrev i inlägg
<Pine.SOL.3.95q.98121...@eis.bris.ac.uk>...
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> d...@telalink.net skrev i inlägg <3679a35d...@news.telalink.net>...
> > A Jute has blond hair, high cheekbones, icy blue eyes, big ears, rough
> > skin, averages over six feet in height, straight hair usually worn
> > long in the bangs.
> >
I don't know who wrote next lines but I(Inger E Joha...@swipnet.se>
certainly didn't write that line.
"> > Jutes joints are frequently gangly and knobby.
> >
They obviously hadn't perfected their rolling technique at this time.
> > Jutes often have skin complexions that look like they just waded out
> > of the North Sea.
>
> Of dear You are giving a describtion that also fit the Goths, the Vandals
> and many other Northerners in older times......."
>
I thought goths were the ones who dressed in black, wore lots of silver
jewellery and listen to the Sisters of Mercy.
Vandals on the other hand just damage public property.
Chris,
So Chris,
Before attacking be careful to make proper citat not faked on. I do have a
copy of what I sent - and the things below my remark above isn't mine.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
----------
ba...@my-dejanews.com
j...@daedal.net wrote:
> Erland Gadde wrote:
<snip>
> These two questions deal with times (eras?) that are hundreds of years
> apart. I haven't read "Ivanhoe" in quite a few years (but I have read
> "Robin Hood" and "King Arthur" more recently). The "Saxon-Norman
> conflict" must have occurred between 1050-1200 or thereabouts, and of
> course Robin Hood must have occurred around 1200, since Magna Carta was
> 1215 when John was king, so Richard must have departed.
>
> The Saxon and Angle part of it must have been considerably earlier.
> Now, of course, we hear of the "Anglo-Saxons." A long time ago, it sems
> to me that there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Gaels, Celts, and some
> other tribes that were (I think) Germanic or Gallic. I have a hunch
> that these were left over from the Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths,
> Vandals, Franks and what have you that overthrew the Roman Empire.
>
> There were tribes from Scandinavia in here too, although I don't know
> which is which. (I know about the Vikings though.) And the Picts,
> Scots, and Danes.
>
> Maybe somebody can straighten me out on all this, since it's confusing
> to me. Somehow, I think the Angles and Saxons got to England, and the
> Celts and Gaels got to Ireland. The Scots must have gone to Scotland.
> But what about the Druids? Where do they fit in this morass?
>
The Continental Celts who lived in most of what is now France, Belgium,
Rhineland, etc. were known as Gauls (Gallic). The Druids were Celtic priests
or wise men of some sort. Julius Caesar conquered them. He invaded Britain
as well, where other Celtic speakers lived. The Romans built walls in the
north of Britain to keep out raiding tribes from the unoccupied area
(Hadrian's wall a little south of the present Scottish border and another one
for a short period in Scotland itself) (Scotland was known as Caledonia).
After the Roman withdrawal about 406 (?) to send needed troops to fight
German invaders on the continent (Goths, Vandals etc.) a dark period ensues
of which we have barely any information, except that about the middle of the
5th century Germanic tribes from the North Sea coast began to invade the
eastern parts of Britain in unknown numbers. Traditionallly, these were the
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, though there may have been others. The Angles
seem to have come from part of Jutland, and the Jutes are supposed to have
been from Jutland as well. The northwest of Germany was the home of people
called Saxons. Some of the invaders may have been Frisians from the North
sea coast or even Franks who had been invading what became known as France.
At the same time, raiders from Ireland (Hibernia or later, Scotia, to the
Romans) were raiding and settling the west coast of Britain and at least some
of these were known as Scots and invaded what is now Scotland, where at least
part of the earlier people were the Picts. The Scots were also known as
Gaels and the chief language of Ireland until the 19th century was Gaelic.
It also is still spoken in the Scottish Highlands. The name Scot was
transferred to part of Scotland and eventually to the whole place, after the
Scots conquered the Picts, at least part of whom spoke a language like Welsh;
the Welsh-speakers of Strathclyde in the southwest around Dunbarton;
English speakers in the southeast, where the Angles had invaded, and Norse
speakers where Vikings had invaded in the north. The Lowland Scots of today
is descended from the English dialects and I guess it is now spoken all over
Scotland.
John M Chapman
<star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
>It was Harold's supporters against William's.
I would agree with you there but no further
>Not until the time of
>Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>
>England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
>the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
That was precisely what the laws of Praemunire, beginning with the
statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
Johnny-come-lately in all this
--
John M Chapman
Inger E Johansson
ba...@my-dejanews.com skrev i inlägg <75h0im$hsu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <366EEA...@daedal.net>,
> j...@daedal.net wrote:
> > Erland Gadde wrote:
> <snip>
> > These two questions deal with times (eras?) that are hundreds of years
> > apart. I haven't read "Ivanhoe" in quite a few years (but I have read
> > "Robin Hood" and "King Arthur" more recently). The "Saxon-Norman
> > conflict" must have occurred between 1050-1200 or thereabouts, and of
> > course Robin Hood must have occurred around 1200, since Magna Carta was
> > 1215 when John was king, so Richard must have departed.
> >
> > The Saxon and Angle part of it must have been considerably earlier.
> > Now, of course, we hear of the "Anglo-Saxons." A long time ago, it
sems
> > to me that there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Gaels, Celts, and some
> > other tribes that were (I think) Germanic or Gallic. I have a hunch
> > that these were left over from the Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths,
> > Vandals, Franks and what have you that overthrew the Roman Empire.
Considerably earlier - during the Migration Age first years.....
> >
> > There were tribes from Scandinavia in here too, although I don't know
> > which is which. (I know about the Vikings though.) And the Picts,
> > Scots, and Danes.
There are reasons to believe that the Picts where connectied if not related
to the Norwegians.
Paul Murphy
Johansson <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> writes
>There are reasons to believe that the Picts where connectied if not related
>to the Norwegians.
Can you provide a citation for this?
All of the available evidence points to the Picts being either a Celtic
or pre-Celtic race (proto-celtic?), as their language seems to share
some elements with Gaelic, most notably the "son of" phrase which is
seen as "maqi" on Pictish symbol stones, and of course as "mac" in
modern Gaelic. This alone suggests that the earlier poster's assertion
that the Picts were related to the Welsh is incorrect, since the Welsh
form is "ap". Then again, the "pit" element in place names (Pitlochry,
Pittenweem, etc.) is unknown in any Celtic language, and is a major
defining factor for Pictish influence.
Although there is evidence for the Picts being seafaring at a very early
stage, and indeed Celtic monks were in Iceland before the Vikings
arrived, there is very little evidence for contact between what is now
Scotland and what is now Norway before about 780AD, which is after the
height of the Pictish kingdoms, which declined towards 843 when Kenneth
Macalpin (a Scot) gained the throne.
Paul.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Murphy - Dark Age Re-Enactment, The Vikings! - Ousekjarr Herred |
|paul at ousekjar . demon . co . uk (Cambridge, UK) 01223 311845 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Inger E Johansson
Paul Murphy <pa...@see.SIG.for.address> skrev i inlägg
<3mNfODAG...@ousekjar.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01be2bd7$49d03f20$0cce...@win95.swipnet.se>, Inger E
> Johansson <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> writes
>
> >There are reasons to believe that the Picts where connectied if not
related
> >to the Norwegians.
>
> Can you provide a citation for this?
What I can do is providing three things:
a) connection earlier than 400th between some parts of Norway(Agdir) and
southern Pictish area + northern Yorkshire. Archaeological evidence.
b) If You read St: Columbas Confession and sources in regards to his
ancestors not only will You find that Nial the Icelandic claims to have
lived long after, but You also will find Norse roots.
c) regardless of what some Scholars today read into the Honorable Bede's
writings, I have had the pleasure to examine a pholiat(we could only borrow
it for one day to our Universities Library) in regards to the lines about
the Picts being from Scandinavia - and I have to tell You that I can't
see(and I am used both to read old Anglo-Saxon and old English as well as
handwritings of Bede's Age) otherwise than that Bede made that connection.
In other words I can't present any proofs, only strong believes that there
at least have been some connection between the Picts and the Norse.
> All of the available evidence points to the Picts being either a Celtic
> or pre-Celtic race (proto-celtic?), as their language seems to share
> some elements with Gaelic, most notably the "son of" phrase which is
> seen as "maqi" on Pictish symbol stones, and of course as "mac" in
> modern Gaelic. This alone suggests that the earlier poster's assertion
> that the Picts were related to the Welsh is incorrect, since the Welsh
> form is "ap". Then again, the "pit" element in place names (Pitlochry,
> Pittenweem, etc.) is unknown in any Celtic language, and is a major
> defining factor for Pictish influence.
I do believe that the Picts where living in what we in Bohuslaen(belonged
to Norway in older times) call the Southern Islands. But I also do believe
that Picts and Norse had intermarried if they wasn't having the same roots
from beginning - that is possible too.
>
> Although there is evidence for the Picts being seafaring at a very early
> stage, and indeed Celtic monks were in Iceland before the Vikings
> arrived, there is very little evidence for contact between what is now
> Scotland and what is now Norway before about 780AD, which is after the
> height of the Pictish kingdoms, which declined towards 843 when Kenneth
> Macalpin (a Scot) gained the throne.
Oh there are archaeological evidence among those presented by the Yorkshire
Archaeological Society. As well as archaeological evidence at least in
regards to West-Agdir in Norway. Not to mention the Scandinavians that was
in Roman Service at Hadrian's wall during the late 2nd Century, there exist
lots of short notatations about them.
Paul Murphy
> > >There are reasons to believe that the Picts where connectied if not
> related
> > >to the Norwegians.
> >
> > Can you provide a citation for this?
>
> What I can do is providing three things:
>
> a) connection earlier than 400th between some parts of Norway(Agdir) and
> southern Pictish area + northern Yorkshire. Archaeological evidence.
I presume by this you mean Lothian, which was _not_ Pictish at all. The
archaeological evidence may suggest a trade route, but your original
suggestion was either that the Picts were related to the Norwegians, or
that they had very close ties (it can be read either way). A trade
route is not evidence of a close connection - it could be argued that
anything which is Norwegian in origin which turns up in Yorkshire and
also among the Picts was first of all traded to Yorkshire, and then
shipped on by them to the Picts. Or vice versa.
> b) If You read St: Columbas Confession and sources in regards to his
> ancestors not only will You find that Nial the Icelandic claims to have
> lived long after, but You also will find Norse roots.
All of the writings of this period have fanciful and massively overblown
claims of ancestry from anyone famous, including Odin, Moses, daughters
of the Pharoahs, and so on. None of it should be taken as gospel (:-}).
> c) regardless of what some Scholars today read into the Honorable Bede's
> writings, I have had the pleasure to examine a pholiat(we could only borrow
> it for one day to our Universities Library) in regards to the lines about
> the Picts being from Scandinavia - and I have to tell You that I can't
> see(and I am used both to read old Anglo-Saxon and old English as well as
> handwritings of Bede's Age) otherwise than that Bede made that connection.
Bede was not some all-seeing, all-knowing academic pillar of knowledge.
He was a reasonably well-educated man in a time when education meant
being able to read and write. Any impression he had that the Picts were
from Scandinavia had no factual basis, since he knew very little about
the history of any of the peoples of Britain for the very simple reason
that they knew very little about it themselves. At various times,
records have been created to prove conclusively that the Picts were from
Scythia (effectively the Russian steppes), and that the Scots were
descended from Scota, daughter of some Pharaoh in Egypt. The Irish
attempted to justify themselves with Milesians, and firbolgs, and all
sorts of other stuff with very little historical basis. All of them are
complete bunk - they were trying to prove that they were an ancient
race, and invented any old rubbish to try to support this claim. The
fact that they couldn't just say "we've been on this island for 1000
years" suggests that they didn't know very much about their origins.
>
> In other words I can't present any proofs, only strong believes that there
> at least have been some connection between the Picts and the Norse.
What do you mean by connection? Trade, yes. Close ties? Definitely
not.
> I do believe that the Picts where living in what we in Bohuslaen(belonged
> to Norway in older times) call the Southern Islands. But I also do believe
> that Picts and Norse had intermarried if they wasn't having the same roots
> from beginning - that is possible too.
Excuse my ignorance - what is the generally-accepted modern name for
this area, and where is it? What time period are we talking about
here?
>
> >
> > Although there is evidence for the Picts being seafaring at a very early
> > stage, and indeed Celtic monks were in Iceland before the Vikings
> > arrived, there is very little evidence for contact between what is now
> > Scotland and what is now Norway before about 780AD, which is after the
> > height of the Pictish kingdoms, which declined towards 843 when Kenneth
> > Macalpin (a Scot) gained the throne.
>
> Oh there are archaeological evidence among those presented by the Yorkshire
> Archaeological Society. As well as archaeological evidence at least in
> regards to West-Agdir in Norway.
I've dealt with this above - but I'd appreciate some details of the
publication you mention so that I can have a look at it.
> Not to mention the Scandinavians that was
> in Roman Service at Hadrian's wall during the late 2nd Century, there exist
> lots of short notatations about them.
This is not a good argument - there were Assyrians, Spaniards,
Egyptians, and many other nationalities stationed on the wall during its
active life. Would you suggest that the Picts were connected to the
Egyptians as well? Hopefully not.
Paul.
James Tuttle
> > b) If You read St: Columbas Confession and sources in regards to his
> > ancestors not only will You find that Nial the Icelandic claims to
> > have lived long after, but You also will find Norse roots.
>
> All of the writings of this period have fanciful and massively
> overblown claims of ancestry from anyone famous, including Odin,
> Moses, daughters of the Pharoahs, and so on. None of it should be
> taken as gospel (:-}).
Now here's a connection I want to follow up on. I have a typed
manuscript, written around 1912, that claims the "Tuttles" or "Tothills"
derive from "Thoth's Hill" (pronounced "tote"), located somewhere in
England, and that "Thoth" was a Norse god (?) related somehow to the
Egyptian deities.
There are some more details I can't remember. I do know that Odin (or
"Woden") is mentioned, and I think the son of Ra as well.
Should any of this be taken as gospel?
> Any impression [Bede] had that the Picts were from Scandinavia had no
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Now here's a connection I want to follow up on. I have a typed
>manuscript, written around 1912, that claims the "Tuttles" or "Tothills"
>derive from "Thoth's Hill" (pronounced "tote"), located somewhere in
>England, and that "Thoth" was a Norse god (?) related somehow to the
>Egyptian deities.
Someone had a very good imagination! One of the sources of the
surname <Tuttle> is a common place-name from Old English <to:t-hyll>
'a look-out hill'. (Here the colon indicates that the preceding vowel
is long.) The compound and its first element are well-attested in
place-names, though they have not survived in other sources. Among
the places bearing this name are Toot Hill (Essex), Tothill (Lincs.,
Middlesex), Tootle Height (Lancs.), and Tuttle Hill (Warwicks.). No
Egyptian god, I'm afraid. The supposed connection with a Norse god
perhaps lies in the fact that there's some evidence that in some cases
the modern surname <Tuttle> derives from the Old Norse personal name
<Thorkell> (by way of such intermediate forms as <Turkil> and
<Tirtle>).
>There are some more details I can't remember. I do know that Odin (or
>"Woden") is mentioned, and I think the son of Ra as well.
>Should any of this be taken as gospel?
Nope: it's utter nonsense.
Brian M. Scott
M.Serve
In article <NlXIKCAt...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) writes:
>In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>, M.Serve
><star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>
>>It was Harold's supporters against William's.
>
>>Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>>This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>>the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>>
>>England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
>>the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
>
>statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
>Johnny-come-lately in all this
>
I must submit to your superior knowledge. Please expand on the acts
referred to.
Rob FF
M.Serve
In article <>, CG Luxford (hi...@bris.ac.uk) writes:
>
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, M.Serve wrote:
>> In article <758no8$m92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com (collou...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
>> >In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> >> > >
>> >> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
>> >> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
>> >> states until much later.
>> >
>> >Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
>> >still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
>> >but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
>> >
>
>> So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
>> It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
>> Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>> This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>> the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>>
>English state. It had been a de facto part of the English realm for
>generations (IIRC it was Henry IV who finally "conquered" it, though it
>was much earlier that English rule first entered the principality)
>
>The consolidation of England is perhaps earlier than Henry VIII, though
>not that much. Centralisation is usually credited to Thomas Cromwell
>acting under Henry VII's instructions, though some historians are
>putting in a claim for the Yorkists as the originators of this process.
>
>> the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
>
>standardise the language as the same Bibles were read in churches in
>every part of the realm.
It was in 1376 that Wycliffe delivered his course of lectures "On
Civil Dominion", was it not? That was before he translated the
Vulgate.
This period saw the Papacy in a very weak condition, but it was also
a period of enormous economic upheaval. The Black Death in Europe
had irrevocably damaged feudalism by destroying a substantial
portion of the workforce. This led to a growth in wage labour and,
presumably, also the yeomanry.
Simultaneously, during the latter part of the century, Europe
experienced a dramatic change in its climate which, from about 1200
- 1350, had gone through a mini ice age. The better weather of the
late 14th century generated a lot more food and, one assumes, wealth.
No doubt this renewed prosperity encouraged the more speculative
philosophical currents of the time. The growth of a merchant class,
of freeholders, wage labourers and craftsmen, may have led the state
to respond with an alternative ideology to replace the automatic
allegiance secured through feudal ties. The idea of people not
being owned by, or owing allegiance to something, or somebody, is
always deeply troubling to the state.
Rob FF
>
Duane Brocious
>Paul Murphy says:
>
>> > b) If You read St: Columbas Confession and sources in regards to his
>> > ancestors not only will You find that Nial the Icelandic claims to
>> > have lived long after, but You also will find Norse roots.
The Scandinavian Njal is based on the Irish Niall and is a post viking era
story. Not the other way around.
>> Any impression [Bede] had that the Picts were from Scandinavia had no
>> factual basis, since he knew very little about the history of any of
>> the peoples of Britain for the very simple reason that they knew very
>> little about it themselves.
One ought IMHO view all the North and Baltic sea cultures as having major
contact for thousands of years. The seas are a connecting point not a
boundary. The only reason we view the British Isles as separate from
Scandinavia is because William beat Harold. Had Harold or Harald been
victorious we wouldn't have an "English/French" language but a purely Germanic
one, and maps would include the British Isles as a part of Scandinavia.
Ferret
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmm, "Ferret" --- I like that. "Duane Brocious" is also for real?
'Twould be "Viverra/viverra" in Latin --- which has a pleasant sound
to it.
"My daughter Viverra and I will be on the lanai at six, for
cocktails."
"Viverra, with her whips and chains was a handful --- even for
Adam --- who was in the full strength of his manhood."
"Viverra, we'll always have Paris."
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Viverra
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Duane Brocious wrote in message <75mcn3$h2e$1...@pigpen.csrlink.net>...
>
>>Paul Murphy says:
>>
>>> > b) If You read St: Columbas Confession and sources in regards to
his
>>> > ancestors not only will You find that Nial the Icelandic claims
to
>>> > have lived long after, but You also will find Norse roots.
>
>The Scandinavian Njal is based on the Irish Niall and is a post
viking era
>story. Not the other way around.
>
>>> Any impression [Bede] had that the Picts were from Scandinavia had
no
>>> factual basis, since he knew very little about the history of any
of
>>> the peoples of Britain for the very simple reason that they knew
very
>>> little about it themselves.
>
Paul Murphy
<mrfe...@csrlink.net> writes
>
>One ought IMHO view all the North and Baltic sea cultures as having major
>contact for thousands of years. The seas are a connecting point not a
>boundary. The only reason we view the British Isles as separate from
>Scandinavia is because William beat Harold. Had Harold or Harald been
>victorious we wouldn't have an "English/French" language but a purely Germanic
>one, and maps would include the British Isles as a part of Scandinavia.
If you mean what I think you mean, then you have an extremely blinkered
view of sea travel. Contact across the North Sea was extremely limited
until the development of the longship, since the earlier vessels were
not at all suited to extensive journeys out of sight of land. The
earliest Celtic travellers to Iceland were monks who supposedly sailed
in something not much bigger or sturdier than a coracle, which makes it
a bloody miracle that any of them ever arrived at all. The number who
quietly perished is not recorded...
Contact across the English Channel on the other hand goes back a lot
further, simply because the crossing is easier, and on a good day, land
is never out of sight. Even then, winter crossings of the Channel were
hazardous even in the 1800s, so it was very much a seasonal exchange.
Going back to your point on 1066, we view Scandinavia as being separate
from Britain in the same way that we view Germany being separate from
France - they have different languages, different cultures, and a
different ruler. Yes, if Hadrada had been successful at Stamford
Bridge, the English throne may have reverted back to Danish control as
it had been under Canute, but the question of whether he could have held
the throne against William, and defended its northern boundaries against
Malcolm of Scotland is another question entirely. Would Hadrada have
settled in England like William, or merely added it to his collection of
thrones and continued travelling the western world? If the latter, his
hold on the crown would have wavered, and in either case, Denmark and
Norway would probably have taken precedence.
If Harold had been victorious, it would have been seen as the final
affirmation that England was finally free of the Norse yoke, either
directly in the form of Danish kings using the Danelaw as a hopping-off
point for full invasion, or third-generation Danes barging in from
Normandy. In neither case would his victory tie England closer to
Scandinavia - quite the reverse in fact, since his father was vehemently
anti-Danish, even if Harold had tolerated them at times.
John M Chapman
>>statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
>>Johnny-come-lately in all this
>>
>
>I must submit to your superior knowledge. Please expand on the acts
>referred to.
writ of enforcement started 'Praemunire facias xxx' ie Cause xxx to be
forewarned...'They began when in November 1296 Pope Boniface VIII issued
a Bull 'Clericus laicos' which forebad any cleric giving or any secular
authority receiving a grant of aid which Edward I reckoned he needed
from the church which had acquired considerable wealth from lay sources
by this time. Edward wanted the money for his wars with Scotland.
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing one of Edward's implacable foes became
Pope Clement V in 1305 and summoned the archbishop of Canterbury to Rome
to answer all his alleged crimes. Edward told him that if he went he
need not come back. He then passed the First Statute of Provisors in
1306 which enacted "that no tax imposed by any religious persons should
be sent out of the country whether under the name of rent, tallage,
tribute or any kind of imposition'
The second Statute of Provisors was passed in 1351 by Edward's son
Edward II which ordained 'the free election of all dignatories and
benefices elective in the manner as they were granted by the king's
progenitors' - in other words 'Pope don't try appointing clergy in
England!'
The First Stature of Premunire came in 1353 "all people of the king's
ligeance of what condition they may be which shall draw any out the
realm in plea .. shall be allowed two months in which to answer for
their contempt of the king's rights in transferring their pleas abroad'
In 1365 a further act imposed heavy penalties on anyone who tried to get
a bene3fice or citation from the Pope and suspened the payment of Peters
Pence.
In 1390 there was another Statute of Provisors (referred to as the
Second) and in 1393 the Second Act of Praemunire (one got tyher idea
they couldn't count very well)
Many more such acts followed over the years until the Royal Marriages
Act of 1772.
Cardinal Wolsey was prosecuted under the 1353 Act in 1529.
Hope this answers your queries; but above is a gross oversimplification
of a very long and protracted dispute which probably goes back to the
days of the excommunication of England in the time of King John. All
goes to show how significant Magna Carta was and why it makes England a
very different place than most continental countries.
Most of the English speaking world has a legal system based on the two
simple principles that someone is assumed innocent until proven guilty
and an accused has to be brought to a public trial (even if occasionally
the evidence can be delivered in camera) This is all in sharp contrast
to Roman law where you have to prove your innocence and anyone in power
can act arbitrarily. It was quite a shock to the popes to have their
authority challenged by this clear assertion of English nationalism. It
was a pretty hard lesson for the Popes to learn and it took until
Vatican II to get the message across.
--
John M Chapman
D. Spencer Hines
Not flaky, like so many "What-If" posts.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Viverra
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Paul Murphy wrote in message ...
M.Serve
>=2E
>> > A Jute has blond hair, high cheekbones, icy blue eyes, big ears, rough
>> > skin, averages over six feet in height, straight hair usually worn
>> > long in the bangs.
>> > Jutes joints are frequently gangly and knobby.
>They obviously hadn't perfected their rolling technique at this time.
>
>> > Jutes often have skin complexions that look like they just waded out
>> > of the North Sea.
>> Of dear You are giving a describtion that also fit the Goths, the Vandals
>> and many other Northerners in older times.......
>I thought goths were the ones who dressed in black, wore lots of silver
>jewellery and listen to the Sisters of Mercy.
>
>
I though the Vandals only took the handles - vide B.Dylan.
Rob FF
Duane Brocious
>Vide infra.
>
>Hmmmmm, "Ferret" --- I like that. "Duane Brocious" is also for real?
>
>'Twould be "Viverra/viverra" in Latin --- which has a pleasant sound
>to it.
Actually it is Fero (thief) or Mustella (Rat killer) in Latin.
Frettchen in German (little thief)
Ferret
David Soderberg
In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>, "M.Serve"
<star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>
--
David Soderberg
M.Serve
In article <PUptMAAG...@ousekjar.demon.co.uk>, Paul Murphy (pa...@see.SIG.for.address) writes:
>In article <75mcn3$h2e$1...@pigpen.csrlink.net>, Duane Brocious
><mrfe...@csrlink.net> writes
>>
>>One ought IMHO view all the North and Baltic sea cultures as having major
>>contact for thousands of years. The seas are a connecting point not a
>>boundary. The only reason we view the British Isles as separate from
>>Scandinavia is because William beat Harold. Had Harold or Harald been
>>victorious we wouldn't have an "English/French" language but a purely Germanic
>>one, and maps would include the British Isles as a part of Scandinavia.
>
>If you mean what I think you mean, then you have an extremely blinkered
>view of sea travel. Contact across the North Sea was extremely limited
>until the development of the longship, since the earlier vessels were
>not at all suited to extensive journeys out of sight of land. The
>earliest Celtic travellers to Iceland were monks who supposedly sailed
>in something not much bigger or sturdier than a coracle, which makes it
>a bloody miracle that any of them ever arrived at all. The number who
>quietly perished is not recorded...
>
This isn't my image of life in these islands even as recently as the
Bronze Age. The earliest Celtic inhabitants of Wales came from
Spain. These short, sallow-skinned Weshmen with dark curly hair
were later joined by the fairer, taller, Goidelic Celts who came
from Britanny via Ireland. The Irish Sea was of enormous trading
significance in prehistoric times. Why else would fortified
settlements along the Welsh coast occur in such strategically
significant places?
And if the earliest travellers to Ireland made their journeys long
before the Christian era, why not also to Iceland, or even further?
The fact that they didn't write it down, doesn't mean it didn't
happen. It is important to remember that the climate during the last
8000 years or so has varied greatly. Enough to make the northern
extremities of the British Isles much more salubrious than today.
Indeed, the Dark Ages themselves were characterised by a
particularly bland climate which itself would have aided contact
with Scandinavia.
Rob FF