Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Briton without the romans
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
what would have happened to britain without the romans - what if the invasion had failed
pre roman invasion britain was a very stable celtic nation - tribal culture - a few internecine wars every so often - but it seemed to work
400 years of stable government didnt seem to help us as after the romans we were open to foreign invasion - we had to start again as a military power - arthur rules ok
if the tribal culture was in place - the same resistance against the romans - the huge boudiccan armies - would have been launched aginst the saxons - no chance of a successful settlement surely
although the roman occupation was great while it happened - it didnt help us after it was over - nothing the romans gave us was long lasting (not even the wine lol)
st -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
I quite agree with the point. Romans having destroyed the tribal military system in Britain left it largely incapable of resisting to even feeble armies such as the initial Saxon one. To aid your point I will remind you that the same had happened elsewhere, in Greece for example that some centuries fought off successfully a raid of 1 million Persians in the 5th century B.C. and 500,000 Gauls in the 3rd century B.C. and could not fight off the raid of a mere 20,000 badly-armed Goths in 4th century A.D.
I think if Romans did not enter in Britain, the mere fact that Britons would live on an island next to a large Empire always under the danger of invasion would probably make them want further integration among them forming strong alliances. It would also mean the maintenance of a larger number of armies and thus any invader should have thought of it twice before invading. Most certainly the invaders would not be a handfull of Saxons. -
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi
I think that this may be a bit simplistic. Surely one of the reasons that Rome won in the first place (round 2, I suppose) was that there wasnβt a βBritishβ army and that basically the Romans βpicked offβ the tribal armies one at a time, some of them actually surrendered without much of a fight at all (if any).
It would also appear that there were a number of different races invading Britain including the Picts, Scotti, Angles, Saxons and Jutes but even if they hadnβt combined in numbers surely the Vikings (who could put armies into the field) would have overwhelmed at a later stage?
Regards β TA
PS β Roman Roads lasted a long timeβ¦. -
Message 4
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
<>
I am not even British, and I can think of a few long lasting things..
*A culture based on Latin.
*Roads (more or less the same roads you still use today)
*They built cities, or made existing places into cities: London (!), York, Bath, Lincoln...
To see the Roman occupation of Britain as just a period inbetween two more important periods, is a typical feature of 19th century (romantic) british historiography. -
Message 5
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
"PS β Roman Roads lasted a long timeβ¦."
I was once told that the Roman road system in Britain was actually worse in some ways than the Celtic one. Not because of the materials but because it was city-centric (in particular London centric) and that is the reason why it is so difficult to get around nowadays, particularly in the South East.
Not sure if that is true or not. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
I do not know if it is Roman heritage or not but then having lived in South England for 5 years I confirm that the road system - independently of its effectiveness - remained incomprehensible to me. I could never say where it is north, south, east or west - a mere 200m away from my house and I could not say wether my house is on the left, right... behind me or in front of me! Now add the fact that I drove on the right-side a manual car and that my left hand's dexterity is almost equal to that of my left foot... Had I been an invader even old Vortigern could fight me off...
-
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
I have to say that I have always thought that the reason for a road in the first place was to go from one place to anaother - so that the "City Centric Road Argument" perhaps applies to all ages.
Getting around the South East has always been difficult which is why Caesar had his camp near Bracknell and not London...
Regards - TA -
Message 8
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 13th February 2009
Did they then survive to become the Romano-British and later be overrun by the Saxons? Or were they displaced earlier by other, more sophisticated newcomers?' "We do not know, says Chris Stringer, the head of human origins at the Natural History Museum, whether they were supplanted by later influxes of farmers, and by Bronze and Iron Age peoples, or whether they simply embraced the new technologies as they developed. This is a matter of fierce debate.
So too was the nature of the Saxon invasion. Was it an early example of ethnic crime? Or were the Saxons more like the Romans and Normans, subjecting local people to foreign rule rather than actually exterminating them? More pertinently, who got to pass on their genes to the boys and girls of the 21st century? Once upon a time it was fashionable to think in terms of rabid invaders raping their way into the national bloodline. Then in the 1960s a milder view prevailed, and it came to be believed that the Saxon "conquest*'owed more to politics than cold steel.
The DNA evidence is now swinging back to bloody slaughter. If our chromosomes are telling the truth, something happened in the Dark Ages that resembles ethnic cleansing, and Englishmen owe their Anglo-Saxon stiff upper lips to an event that modern jurists would call a crime against humanity. Just like the Victorian people-hunters, UCL geneticists took advantage of family doctorsβ enthusiasm for scientific inquiry. This time the volunteers carried not tape measures and notebooks but sterile tubes and swabs, and instead of swamping the UK they spread out in a discrete line across the thickest part of the country, from Norfolk to Anglesey. To sample ancestral DNA, the doctors took cheek swabs from men who had been born, and whose paternal grandfathers had been born, within 30 kilometres of a selected market town. For comparison, the UCL team collected samples from Friesland in the Netherlands, part of the Anglo-Saxon homeland, and from Norway, home of the Vikings.
The results seem to bear only one interpretation. Across all the breadth of middle England, the Y-chromosomes matched those of Friesland. But the Welsh were utterly different. Conclusion: the Saxons advanced from the east across central England but were halted at Offa's Dyke (a historic man-made rough barrier in the area between England an Wales), beyond which the indigenous Britons continued to flourish. In the English towns, the most striking thing was the sheer scale of Saxon genetic input. "Our conclusion from the figures," says Mark Thomas, "is that there was between 50% and 100% replacement of indigenous men by migrating Anglo-Saxons." If true, this was an achievement beyond the blood-lust of even the maddest modern tyrant. How could it have been achieved?
link<<<<<<<
From a military perspective, you have ( probably) a lower population base without rhe intervention of Rome, and even less concerted action by teh fragemented tribes against a unified attacker. -
Message 9
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 13th February 2009
missed the link, doh!. -
Message 10
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 13th February 2009
hi fredirik
no - it wsnt based on latin - after the romans the dark ages kicked in when latin took a very back seat - latin came later when we had settled down a bit
roads - not sure - did british armies use them - or saxons or vikings - were they the main arterial route for the battles ??
cities - the roman towns were superb civilised centres - but they seem to have less importance in the dark ages - for instance london - the saxon london grew up away from the stone built roman town - canterbury wasnt used as a base - saxons built outside the roman walls
st -
Message 11
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 15th February 2009
If the Roman invasion had failed all of Britain would have followed a pattern similar to those of Ireland and Germany. There would be some myths, a story of a great king probably built around the Catuvellauni and/or the Brigantes, and gradual penetration by outside influences.
There is an argument that the destruction of Varus's legions in the first century by the Germans under Herman stopped the Roman settlement of Germany.
There is also an argument that there was no unified Roman Britain except in the minds of the Roman state. The cities were mainly settled by immigrants from the Empire and the local tribal leaders only played lip service to the idea of Pax Romana. Indeed, Stuart Laycock in Britannia: The Failed State makes an argument to show that tribal warfare continued spasmodically throughout the Roman period.
The collapse of Roman Britain is attached to so much luggage and romance that it has become difficult to sort the wood from the trees. How vulnerable was Roman Britain to external pressures so that we can construct a theory as to the vulnerability of a later non-Roman Britain?
There is also a theory that the pre-Roman British were used to foreign incomers entering the country anhd setting up their own polities. The idea of the Parisii is used to justify that argument.
I think the Angles and Saxons would have arrived in much the same way: not so sure about the Jutes though. There would have also inevitably been Frankish influences as well in due course. The Vikings and the Danes would have arrived eventually as would the Normans: not quite in the same way but similar.
The big differences are touched on above: cities, roads and The Wall. Having said that though, none of the cities survived except maybe London. I think we can reasonably say that without the Romans London would not exist. -
Message 12
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Sunday, 15th February 2009
The Romans left a huge legacy in terms of foods.
"The list of vegetables introduced to Britain includes garlic, onions, shallots, leeks, cabbages, peas, celery, turnips, radishes, and asparagus. The leeks' importance as a part of the staple diet of the British population is illustrated by its later adoption as the national emblem of Wales. Amongst the many herbs that they introduced to Britain were rosemary, thyme, bay, basil and savoury mint. They also introduced herbs that were used in brewing and for medicinal purposes.
The Romans also brought new farming practices and crops. They introduced more productive grains and bread became a more important part of the British diet. Walnuts and sweet chestnuts were another Roman introduction. They also introduced a wider variety of fruit that was brought into cultivation rather than growing wild. This included apples (as opposed to crab apples), grapes, mulberries and cherries.(1) There was a period when the Romans prohibited the establishment of vineyards outside Italy, in order to safeguard its wine trade, but in the third century the emperor Probus granted permission to Britain, Spain and Gaul to re-establish them.
The Romans introduced new breeds of farm animals, such as the prized white cattle. Archaeological evidence suggests that guinea fowl, chickens and rabbits were probably introduced as farmyard animals. The rabbits, which they introduced, were a Spanish variety that would not have survived for long in the wild as the British winters were too cold. The Romans also brought new species of game into Britain including the brown hare and pheasants. Samian bowls, which were popular at the Romano-British dining table, often depicted scenes of dogs hunting hare or deer. Wild boar and oxen were native animals that were also hunted. Food finds from archaeological excavations confirm that a wide range of meats contributed to the diet of some Romano-British people." -
Message 13
Posted by tv-ben-old (U13833476) on Sunday, 15th February 2009
Britain would be very different if it wasn't for the romans invading. so thanks romans.
-
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyregulus (U13844103) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Much depends on whether you think the Romans were a 'good thing'or not !
even without an invasion, Southern England would probably have become Romanised (eg grave goods at Colchester and Verulamium)Germany in AD 9 was probably Rome's worst setback but they certainly didn't leave Germany alone thereafter so long term, full occupation of Britain would have been almost inevitable.
If not, a continuing Iron Age like Ireland and Scotland and probably all drawn into a Scandinavian empire c 10th-11th Century -
Message 15
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Grumpy, I don't see any evidence, really, that the Romans did anything other than leave Germany alone. There was precious little Romanisation anyway.
If the Boudicca's rebellion had been successful, that might have had serious political implications in Rome, and just possibly the emperor who came out on top might have decided that the Gods did not want to Rome to cross the waters of the Rhine or the Channel. Maybe the Vikings would have taken over in the 10th century, but that is 1000 years of British freedom.
Maybe the Roman occupation was for the good though, all those healthy nutritious foods they brought must have done a lot of good. -
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyregulus (U13844103) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
dear makeagreement.
My first thought is How big really was the Boudiccan rebellion. Trouble is, the myth is now far bigger than the historical evidence. Not a lot going for a great British freedom struggle, coordinated by the Druids. The last big inter-tribal conflict ? It only ravaged the territory of the Catuvalauni and, after London,with the undefended South East wide open, they just set off home, taking in Verulamium on the way !
How do we get past Tacitus ?
Second, not sure what a thousand years of 'British' freedom would amount to. Surely the English would still have moved in ( Invasion or not, another can of worms !) and didn't 800 years of 'German' freedom produce the Holy ROMAN Empire ? -
Message 17
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
I reckon the Boudiccan rebellion resulted in the largest pitched battle on British soil for over a thousand years - if not ever!
Yes, tribal peoples could be notoriously fickle. Once they think that they have given their foes a beating, they think they can celebrate and wander back to their farms. They could only be kept together in times of extreme external threat.
Why do you want to get past Tacitus?
A single year, even a single day, of freedom, is valuable. The speculation is that if the British remained free they would have stayed used to fighting, and been able to fight off the Saxon invaders. Even if they failed to do that, that would still mean some 500 years of freedom.
The Holy Roman Empire was not holy or Roman or an empire. It was surely a greater germany unified under Charlemagne wasn't it? Seems a good result, for Germany anyway. -
Message 18
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
...but apart from
400 years of stable government
A culture based on Latin.
Roads (more or less the same roads you still use today)
They built cities, or made existing places into cities:
a huge legacy in terms of foods
new breeds of farm animals,
...what did the romans ever do for us? -
Message 19
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
warsaw pact
that is my point - for 400 years we were into this fantastic civilisation - commerce- industry - trade - roads - towns and cities - and of course the wine !!
but when they left there was nothing in place that helped us
only when we went back into tribal mode could we fght the invaders - for hundreds of years we foght saxons and vikings etc - nothing the romans left usprepared us for this
maybe those 400 yrs weakened us
st -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyregulus (U13844103) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
How do we get past Tacitus ?
Mostly a rhetorical question. The only way to verify the written sources is via archaeology and, in this case, there doesn't seem to be very much apart from tying destruction layers to that time. -
Message 21
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Actually, that is another thing the Romans gave to us, our history (= written accounts of what happened). The Britons wrote nothing before the Romans came, and without the Romans we would be as ignorant of what they did in the 500 years after Christ, as in the 500 years before Christ.
-
Message 22
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 27th February 2009
surely the English would have moved in?Μύ
I've never believed the tales of saxon against briton as they've been told and taught. To me it doesn't hang aright. Today things seems to be changing, some scholars suggest that the Saxons were here before the Romans and what we had later was political infighting in which the Celt lost out.
In the Scotsman, 21st, Sept.06 it was claimed that the majority of Britons are Celts
A MAJOR genetic study of the population of Britain appears to have put
an end to the idea of the "Celtic fringe" of Scotland, Ireland and
Wales.
Instead, a research team at Oxford University has found the majority
of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving
about 7,000 years ago.
Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these
Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to
one.
The proportion of Celts is only slightly higher in Scotland, at 73 per
cent. Wales is the most Celtic part of mainland Britain, with 83 per
cent.
Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came
from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in
Spain provides a scientific basis for part of the ancient Scots'
origin myth.
The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence
against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they
had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage
tribes".
Professor Bryan Sykes, a human geneticist at Oxford, said the myth may
have been a "residue" in people's memories of the real journey, but
added that the majority of people in England were the descendants of
the same people who sailed across the Bay of Biscay.
Prof Sykes divided the population into several groups or clans: Oisin
for the Celts; Wodan for Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings; Sigurd for
Norse Vikings; Eshu for people who share genetic links with people
such as the Berbers of North Africa; and Re for a farming people who
spread to Europe from the Middle East.
The study linked the male Y-chromosome to the birthplace of paternal
grandfathers to try to establish a historic distribution pattern. Prof
Sykes, a member of the Oisin clan, said the Celts had remained
predominant in Britain despite waves of further migration.
"The overlay of Vikings, Saxons and so on is 20 per cent at most.
That's even in those parts of England that are nearest to the
Continent," he said.
"The only exception is Orkney and Shetland, where roughly 40 per cent
are of Viking ancestry."
In Scotland, the majority of people are not actually Scots, but Picts.
Even in Argyll, the stronghold of the Irish Scots, two-thirds of
members of the Oisin clan are Pictish Celts.
However, according to the study, the Picts, like the Scots, originally
came from Spain.
"If one thinks that the English are genetically different from the
Scots, Irish and Welsh, that's entirely wrong," he said.
"In the 19th century, the idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority was very
widespread. At the moment, there is a resurgence of Celtic identity,
which had been trampled on. It's very vibrant and obvious at the
moment.
"Basically the cornerstone of Celtic identity is that they are not
English. However, to try to base that, as some do, on an idea that is
not far beneath the surface that Celtic countries are somehow
descended from a race of Celts, which the English are not, is not
right. We are all descended from the same people.
"It should dispel any idea of trying to base what is a cultural
identity on a genetic difference, because there really isn't one."
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Re: Message 22.
Laudian,
I was waiting till the "Celts" problem would appear again.
7,000 years ago there were no "Celts", there were "neolithic" "people". Nothing to do with genetics but with the handling of their environment.
And in between one had also the beaker "cultures!" between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago.
"Celts" are only the denomination of recent "peoples" with a common "culture!" with certain common characteristics
And yes it originated in Central Europe and around the nowadays Switzerland.
Prof Sykes is a geneticist and not an historian and he would better let the "craft of historian" to the "real" historians.
If you want more information ask lol beeble and Nordmann, who are my mentors and are more competent about these matters.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Hi All
I don't think that the genetics can just be ignored and flushed away. It is a part of history.
The interpretation of the data may of course be open to question.
The earlier postings regarding the Angle, Jute, Saxon v Brython stands up if you look at the takeover of Britain as a set of Warbands fighting with each other, the local population being used as a serfdom (dont kill the workers).
It is certainly possible that there were Saxons and Angles already based in Britain when the Romans left (some historians think that the Saxon Shore refers to where some Saxons already lived with the Romans) - these may have been retired soldiers who stepped into the Power Vacuum left by the Romans and then invited their friends over to expand.
This certainly seems to have happened fairly quickly......
The idea of massed thousands fighting each other with the associated genocide of the Brythons seems remote - in fact the Brythons possibly weren't so much slaughtered as subjugated - with the Welsh and Cornish remaining relatively unscathed.
So what did the Romans give us?
Perhaps indeed they sowed the seed for the invasion of Britain by the Germans.
They cerainly did give us the material for Monty Python jokes.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 25
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
I've never believed the tales of saxon against briton as they've been told and taught. To me it doesn't hang aright. Today things seems to be changing, some scholars suggest that the Saxons were here before the Romans and what we had later was political infighting in which the Celt lost out.
Μύ
See
The DNA evidence is now swinging back to bloody slaughter. If our chromosomes are telling the truth, something happened in the Dark Ages that resembles ethnic cleansing, and Englishmen owe their Anglo-Saxon stiff upper lips to an event that modern jurists would call a crime against humanity. Just like the Victorian people-hunters, UCL geneticists took advantage of family doctorsβ enthusiasm for scientific inquiry. This time the volunteers carried not tape measures and notebooks but sterile tubes and swabs, and instead of swamping the UK they spread out in a discrete line across the thickest part of the country, from Norfolk to Anglesey. To sample ancestral DNA, the doctors took cheek swabs from men who had been born, and whose paternal grandfathers had been born, within 30 kilometres of a selected market town. For comparison, the UCL team collected samples from Friesland in the Netherlands, part of the Anglo-Saxon homeland, and from Norway, home of the Vikings.
The results seem to bear only one interpretation. Across all the breadth of middle England, the Y-chromosomes matched those of Friesland. But the Welsh were utterly different. Conclusion: the Saxons advanced from the east across central England but were halted at Offa's Dyke (a historic man-made rough barrier in the area between England an Wales), beyond which the indigenous Britons continued to flourish. In the English towns, the most striking thing was the sheer scale of Saxon genetic input. "Our conclusion from the figures," says Mark Thomas, "is that there was between 50% and 100% replacement of indigenous men by migrating Anglo-Saxons."Μύ -
Message 26
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 1st March 2009
Hi MakeAgreement
There is a link provided about the DNA evidence but does not go anywhere - any chance of trying it again please?
It does seem surprising that anyone would think that Offas Dyke would stop massive armies from invading Wales yet there is no mention anywhere of battles involving thousands of men between the "Welsh / Brythons" and the "Angles or Saxons" so this is a question I have been trying to resolve.
Any ideas?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 27
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
"What did the Romans do for us?"
They taught us to fight as units and to use strategy rather than descend from the hills in screaming hordes.
____________
"It does seem surprising that anyone would think that Offas Dyke would stop massive armies from invading Wales yet there is no mention anywhere of battles involving thousands of men between the "Welsh / Brythons" and the "Angles or Saxons" so this is a question I have been trying to resolve."
I agree, TA, Offa's Dyke wouldn't stop anyone. It isn't even that high of an earth bank. I think we have to go to myths and legends for a clue, because somebody put the boots to the Saxons and they failed to get into Wales.
Arthur (yes, I know, not a real person but a title) was said to have been trained by the Roman army, as were many of Cambria's youths. Arthur is thought by some historians to be one of couple of Roman generals, Macsen Wledig (Maximus) or Emrys Wledig (Ambrosius), or at least modelled on them. We cannot dispute that "Arthur" was a great military leader so he must have been trained by someone with Roman-army experience.
Whoever the man was, he had enough trained men to hold off the Saxons at Cambria's border, and an equal number of trained men kept them out of Cornwall. The Saxons called both Cambria and Corwall "waleas" strangers. At that time, Cornwall was known as South Wales and Wales as North Wales. The Saxons lumped us together and, oddly enough, it is in those two areas that the Brythonic language survived even to today. -
Message 28
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
Hi LavenderBlueSky
Interesting that Cornwall was known as South Wales and Wales known as North Wales but where was Mid Wales?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 29
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 6th March 2009
Hi LavenderBlueSky
It seems to me that there is more than a grain of truth in the Arthur legends.
As you say someone stopped the Anglo Saxons at the borders of Cambria and Cornwall.
This would have had to be a mobile force that had some success against the Anglo Saxon method of fighting - perhaps cavalry based on the Roman model.
Certainly the technology would have been known, the Brythons had seen it at first hand for hundreds of years.
On other discussions it has already been found that it would be easy to send messages throughout Wales to England and accross to Cornwall (Tintagel) using a beacon system in a very short time and the distance between South Wales ports and Cornish ports is within a single days sailing time.
Sadly the talk of Arthur seems to offend many historians probably because there have been so many extraordinary claims from everywhere that he is their hero and that any references to him are vague and open to some incredible interpretations.
It is however no more far fetched (and has a certain logic)to think that Arthur was a Brythonic War Band Leader based in Wales battling to keep Cambria and Cornwall for the Brythons against various invaders than it is for him to have been based in England or Scotland.
I only wish that serious scholars would turn their hand to what kept the Anglo Saxons to their Borders at around 500 - 550 AD.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 30
Posted by Iapetus (U551167) on Sunday, 8th March 2009
I'm slighly sceptical of this "genetics show the invading Saxons slaughtered the natives" theory.
All the genetics show is that people in the east of England have more ancestors from (or more people have ancestors from) across the North Sea than people in Wales, Scotland, and (to a lesser extent) the west of England do.
It doesn't show how or when those ancestors arrived.
It seems odd to me to say that the "Celtic" Britons travelled all the way from Iberia hundreds or thousands of years previously, but in all that time no-one came over the North Sea, until a genocidal army of Saxons came over in the 6th century.
Is it not equally plausible that "genetic Saxons" had been crossing over and mixing with and/or settling among the Britons for centuries beforehand? Especially when you consider Tacitus's description of the Silures ("Welsh") resembling the Spanish, the Caledonians resembling the Germans, and "those closest to Gaul resembling the Gauls".
Of course, that's not to say that there wasn't a Saxon invasion, which may well have been bloody (as such things often are), but there could easily have been a lot of "genetic Saxons" already living in SW Britain when they arrived. -
Message 31
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Sunday, 8th March 2009
Hi TA. I'm not sure the Saxons had the concept of "mid" anything as they don't appear to have done anything by halves.
My feeling is that they lumped Cornwall and Wales together as "strangers' because the Brythonic language was still strong in those two areas (as it is today). -
Message 32
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Sunday, 8th March 2009
We can only hope archaeologists turn up something one of these days. So many new discoveries are being made about our past that anything is possible.
-
Message 33
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 9th March 2009
Hi LavenderBlueSky
As you say it would be brilliant if the Archeologists could turn up more evidence.
Wales and Cornwall were both part of Britannia Prima which appears to thrive after the Romans left with ongoing building happening and villas being modernised certainly up to AD 430.
Cirencester (the capital of Britannia Prima and second largest city in Britain after London)does not fall to the Anglo Saxons until 577 when the whole area comes under their sway apart from wales and Cornwall.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 34
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Monday, 9th March 2009
Wales without the Romans would have a different national flag.
The Red Dragon was a standard brought into Cambria by the Roman army.
Regardless of whether we take the leek or daffodil as an emblem, it's the Red Dragon that flies over all. -
Message 35
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 9th March 2009
Excellent point
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 36
Posted by MakeAgreement (U13818550) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
Regardless of whether we take the leek or daffodil as an emblem, it's the Red Dragon that flies over all.
Μύ
And anyway the leek was brought there by the Romans. Probably the daffodil too, I guess. -
Message 37
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
It's possible they brought the daffodil into Britain because Roman soldiers carried daffodil bulbs. If badly wounded, they would chew on the bulbs, which contain a form of narcotic.
The origin of wearing a leek is said by some to have come from a battle with the Saxons. The Welsh and Saxons were hard to tell apart so they didn't know if they were killing friend or foe. That is when they attached leeks to their helmets.
How much truth there is in that is hard to say, because we have few or no written records. However, Welsh archers wore leeks in their helmets during the Crecy and Agincourt battles, so I wonder where they got the idea to do that. -
Message 38
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
Hi LavenderBlueSky
I would be careful eating daffodils - the whole plant is poisonous - see attached link:
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 39
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
You're quite right, TA. I should have said "mortally" wounded.
I suspect, if they knew they were going to die, they'd welcome the narcotic effect to ease the pain.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.