Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 4th July 2010
York appears to be founded as the last major town founded by the Romans in Britain but why was it founded in the first place and how did it become the Centre of the Roman Empire twice and not London? It was the capital of Britannia Inferior yet becomes associated with the Vikings and continues with the links to Tostig and Harold Hadrada and the Plantagenets - why?
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 2
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 4th July 2010
The Vale of York contains probably the richest agricultural land between southern England and the Firth of Forth, making it almost certain to be a 'central place' in political and military terms. Britannia Inferior was by far the more militarised of the two British provinces (when the twofold division held sway), and hence far more important in times of crisis than the area around Londinium.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 4th July 2010
Hi Catigern
Many thanks. It seems to me that York plays a central role in British History which seems to stem from its foundation but is this because of the areas agricultural riches, or location or what? Unlike many Roman cities which just faded away, York seems to run on and on through history...for various dynasties.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 4
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 4th July 2010
Hi TA,
It seems to me that York plays a central role in British History which seems to stem from its foundationΒ
Painful though it is for a proud Lancastrian
to admit this, you're spot on there. Eg, Imphal Barracks in York is still, as far as I know, the HQ of the King's Division, and hence the military centre of northern England, both east and west of the Pennines.
...but is this because of the areas agricultural riches, or location or what? ... York seems to run on and on through history...for various dynasties.Β
I suspect it's a combination of both the rich land, which is, obviously, less important in an industrial age, and the inertia and momentum provided by the city's ever-increasing history as a 'central place'. It may be harder to explain why other Roman cities faded away that to explain why Eburacum continued to flourish...
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 5th July 2010
Hi TA
Recent investigation of Iron Age settlements in Easingwold and Rawcliffe Moor suggest that the Vale at that point had been developed as a network of fortifications, with the most important one strategically very likely to have been situated on the confluence of the Ouse and Foss, exactly where Eboracum was sited (and one assumes why). This would explain why the Romans were relatively late in establishing their fort there since it was in all probability being used as a Brigantine base during the conflict which had brought Celerius and the Ninth north in the first place and only available for takeover and development Roman-style once the Brigantes had been completely subdued. If Easingwold serves as a comparison then the site would have had a dual military and civilian purpose, just as the one which developed later around the Roman fort also maintained.
Seems the long history of York as a town/fort with a crucial role in historical events could well be even longer than previously supposed.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 6
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 5th July 2010
And, more importantly, they make chocolate . . .
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
Hi Nordmann
Thanks - that is new - so obviously the site has been in use for a long time but why would it be so influential over the centuries, giving rise to dynasty after dynasty, yet it is often thought of as one of the smaller cities but was this really the case?
Why did the Vikings settle here and not further south? Why were the great Earls situated here? What was the worth here?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th July 2010
It is a mistake to equate a city's political power and relevance to its population size, even now, but especially so in the era up to the industrial age. London, and for a period its larger counterpart Norwich, for example, spent many centuries completely overshadowed in these respects by cities such as York, Winchester, Canterbury etc - none of which were especially noted for their burgeoning populations.
In the particular case of York I believe there are several factors which contributed to such a longevity in its career as major political focal point, and ironically a hint of those factors lay in the very action which contributed to what is traditionally regarded as the city's founding by the Romans - rebellion.
Its situation, as stated above, is the underlying basis of its importance, in that it was ideally placed to serve as a militarily defensible strongpoint, ergo an administrative hub for the surrounding area, and ergo plus as a thriving trading hub. The retention of all these three qualities meant that it must always have constituted a primary target for anyone with the political desire to exercise regional control (and derive the bounty from said region's trade). This of course could all have ended suddenly with the arrival of the Vikings (many ancient power-bases diminished or disappeared in the face of Viking re-prioritisation of military and civic requirements), except for the ironic fact that the river, which had constituted a major element of the town's defensibility since its foundation, to the Norseman acted as an open-door invitation for takeover of a ready-made military, political and economic base. Revitalisation under Scandinavian ownership enhanced its importance yet again.
Another factor important in York's history is its part in two important rebellions (or three if you include the Brigantine rebellion which induced the Romans to arrive and establish it). Its role as centre of resistance to the Normans immediately post-conquest, and the political necessity of William to secure and derive income from his new kingdom as quickly as possible, meant that once the rebellion had been ended militarily there was yet another enhancement of its political role and importance under the Normans. It again provided a focus of Catholic dissent under Henry VIII which again, once settled, led to the royal authority consolidating its power over York's ecclesiastical and civil administration. In both cases York's importance was ultimately enhanced rather than hurt by its intransigence.
Of course a city itself does not gain importance, it is its denizens and in particular those who administer it who are the beneficiaries of elevated status, and in the competition to monopolise such benefit it was an inevitable side-effect that the city would produce dynasties, would-be dynasties and important dynasty-destroyers throughout its life. Many other cities throughout the kingdom underwent the same political processes, but few were as importantly placed both politically and geographically as was York. It was in the right place at several right times, right up to its economic eclipse by Leeds&Co in the 19th century.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 8th July 2010
Theres the geography as well.
The river in York was navigable up to that point. It had quite a thriving port at one point. It was also a crossing point prior to the Romans and after they left the bridges were still standing. I dontthink they got round to digging the piers for the bridges out until quite late on.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th July 2010
And don't forget the church. Pope Gregory nominated York as his intended northern bishopric based, it seems, purely on its past Roman status (and that it had a Roman road leading to it) rather than any particular desire to target Deira for conversion. When the plan was eventually put into execution it panned out rather disastrously (King Edwin being killed after conversion and the bishopric having to be moved to Lindisfarne) York could have been abandoned as a big bishopric and the subsequent reduced ecclesiastical status might well have worked against it in subsequent history.
As it was the Whitby synod about thirty years later reversed the decision and reactivated Gregory's original plan, without which York might never have finally achieved the archbishopric and which more or less guaranteed its prizeworthiness as a political capital in the centuries to come.
Without the church's initial apparently arbitrary but dogged preference for York and its subsequent determination despite setback to use it as their northern base the political future of the town could well have been very different.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 11
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 9th July 2010
For the Romans, York was first and foremost one of their military bases, a legionary fortress. Their military policy in Britain was directed towards repelling threats from the North and West, and they needed a "safe" supply base which would not be under threat by any immediate invasion. It was a base for gathering supplies and barracking soldiers, and both could be directed forward to Hadrian's Wall as needed. The military road, now the A68, which went directly to the forward supply base at Corbridge (about 10km from the Wall), was important in this respect. The city had to be placed in a fertile agricultural area (to readily obtain needed supplies), with good supply routes particularly by river.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Silly question.
Given that the church arrives and fixates on York as their seat in the North as Nordmanns said, does any one know why? Was it a religious centre pre the romans leaving or is it just a memory of when it was the temporary base of the whole empire?
I suppose what I am asking leads on to do we know what sort of information about the situation in Britain was available to Rome when they decided to send the missionaries out? Did they know or suspect that the cities in Britian had declined as much as they had?Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Adam Hart-Davis (I think it was him in any case) once said on TV that one could examine all kinds of theological, political and ecclesiastical reasons for why York was picked, but one should never discount the simple fact that the pope needed a base up north and York had a pretty decent road running to it, thanks to the Romans.
And given its early history as a church HQ the fact that it had a pretty decent road running AWAY from it was no bad thing either.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 14
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Aren't we discussing why the Romans founded York? And we understand that the foundation was made centuries before Christianity was practiced in Britain, right?
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
If you actually read the thread you'll see that we well understand it, thanks all the same.
Oh, and you might even find the speculation that the Romans actually developed an existing fortification, which would mean that they didn't actually found the place (they just found the place).Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 16
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 12th July 2010
²υ±θ±π³¦³ά±τ²Ή³ΩΎ±΄Η²ΤΜύ
QuiteLink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
No harm in speculation, especially when it's based on research yielding plausible theory.
Or have you another method?Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 18
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Well, I thought that theory based on evidence was rather different to speculation, which is an imagining of what might have happened, but which we do not have actual evidence for.
You seem determined to be confrontational but I only asked 2 questions because I was non-plussed as to why you were discussing Christian history in York, when the subject is why York was important to the Romans (and after).Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
The Christians were after.
For further info regarding the speculation I mentioned (not mine) check out Patrick Ottaway's "Romans on the Yorkshire Coast" and the March 2010 edition of York University's "Antiquity" journal.
By the way, I don't do confrontational. I just respond to it.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 20
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Oh, and just in case you have problems with your browser let me help you along with the subject matter under discussion here too. The title of the thread is not "Why (was) York was important to the Romans (and after)" but "Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?"
There is a not-so-subtle difference between the two, don't you agree? While one is of course free to contribute theory regarding why it was important to the Romans, surely you can see that the scope of the actual question takes in a lot more history than just our friends from Italy.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 21
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi All
Many thanks for the input.....
It has raised some other points. Could it be that York and the surrounding area was probably rich in agriculture (if we take on board that the Vale of York was a provider for the troops on the Wall) and was far enough away from London (and had historic form for being a capital in its own right – of Britannia Inferior and prior to that the Brigantine capital) that it was easy to create or indeed to continue using it as a Power Base.
Is it possible that location in its own right can influence the course of history acting as a gravitational pull on the people and that there is a natural empathy in the landscape that influences us all or is it more mundane in that the continuance of cities was based upon access to rivers.
I ask this as Calleva (Silchester) was a capital of the Atrebates pre-Roman and a known exporter of goods, the Romans made it a centre of their Southern Road Network, it was a large town, yet became completely abandoned and never rose again whereas Winchester became one of the major cities of Wessex and continues to this day as York has.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
I don't think anyone would dare imply that the Brigantes had a capital in York since it is generally agreed that its location was slap bang on their frontier. The presence of contemporary fortifications along the same stretch of river suggest it was part of a chain of defences.
Ottaway suggests that the Romans favoured the site (as opposed to its neighbours) because it was much better appointed from the point of view of defending on all sides, which to him reinforces the theory that it had been developed in a similar manner by the Brigantes beforehand as the principal fort in the chain.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 23
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
The vale of York was and still is for that matter rich and fertile farming land. From what I can remember theres no doubt that it was being exploited well before the Romans arrived.
The Capital of the Brigantes was I thought further North. Near Richmond? If its where I think I seem to remember Mortimer Wheeler dug it up at some time. They found a lot of signs that the Romans had visited. Mainly dead bodies in the ditches of the hill fort.
A lot depends I suppose on timings it might, or might not have been depending on how far the range of the Brigantes was? I've read various things that put them as being purely Yorkshire based and others that say their lands went as far as the Lake District and straddled the line of Hadrians Wall.
I suppose at one time or another they all could be right.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
They mightn't even have been one "tribe" as the Romans tended to describe them. If they were then they had more than their fair share of leadership crises and the archaeology would seem to suggest quite a bit of falling out amongst themselves into the bargain.
Aldborough in North Yorkshire seems a likely candidate for their HQ, if they had one. It seems to have retained a civilian Brigantian population into the 2nd century in any case and is the only settlement to which the Romans added the suffix Brigantum (Isurium Brigantum).Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 25
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
HiNordmann
Falling out amoung themselves?
Nowt changes in Yorkshire. Well, apart from we dont go head hunting any more..... Apart from in Shipley.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 26
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi Guys
Thanks for the correction (and I do appreciate the "tribal thing" but certainly to be effective against the Romans they do seem to have combined into quite large forces.
Why do you think Silchester collapsed when York didn't and St Albans and London continues?
The collapse of the cities is still fully unexplained but obviously some didn't - cities like Silchester and Wroxeter which were obviously important during the Roman occupation seem to continue for a little time then are left totally abandoned - what changed?
(No prizes awarded for "the Romans left").
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Silchester is a real puzzle, isn't it? A sudden abandoning of the place but without any evidence of trauma associated with the event.
Maybe the real mystery is how both Winchester and Silchester managed to co-exist for so long, being as close as they are.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Isn't the evidence that virtually every single town was abandoned? The reason for that was the economic dislocation brought about by loss of central authority and division of the country, and of course the evidence is that town life was very much in decline even before the Romans left. If Silchester had not been abandoned, THAT would be a mystery.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
In Silchester there appears to have been a determined effort to abandon the place rather suddenly and permanently - wells being stopped up, buildings systematically dismantled etc. It's not a pattern that can be replicated from the evidence in other towns.
Though in towns that enjoyed a resurgence of course such evidence would be destroyed, so your theory could well be right.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 30
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi Nordmann.
Silchester doesnt have a river? London and York did.
Presumably the Romans laid one on, along with sewers. There was a bath house at some point.
When they packed up theres no alternative supply close, well at least looking at google earth there isnt.
Plus if its at a road junction and the roads arent being used any more why stay?
The population decreases due to the lack of traffic taking the skills and money needed to fix the plumbing. The drains back up and the prototype british housewife says "I'm packing my bags and going to my mothers" and the village size population thats left moves a mile or so over the hill to where, presumably, there is water.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Yet a concerted effort to defend it had occurred not long beforehand. Grim's Bank was a massive undertaking for a town Silchester's size.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 32
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi Nordmann
Silchester had a thriving water supply from underground springs yet it would appear that these were filled in deliberately before abandonment.....
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Yes, very rum!
Though only yesterday I came across a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ news article from April this year where an archaeologist currently engaged on the site dated the inn-filling of the wells, rather curiously, to the 1st century (how did they get the water out for the next 400 years?).
He did so as "evidence" for Silchester's potential as the site of Boudica's defeat, which won't go down well with Hampstead residents.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 34
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi all,
had a quick look last night. There seems to have been two periods of well filling One linked to a rebuild on a site arround the second century. The wells were filled and a house built on top of them and more later on. This is in the area thats been excavated from what I can see theres areas of the site that havent been touched at all yet?
As I see it it gives a series of options for whats happening at the end.
1/ The inhabitants successfuly defended the site. Realised they couldnt hold it permenantly. Evacuated it and sealed the wells to deny the use of the town to the attackers. Which raises the question of who was attacking? if the defenders felt the need to deny its use then who ever it was valued towns. Which traditionally, puts the saxons out of the picture as they were supposed to not fancy twons much.
2/ The water table altered and the wells were filled in as they dried up over a decade or so a public safety thing. Eventually they dried to the point that the town was unuseable.
3/ The inhabitants failed to defend the town were conquered and the attackers filled the wells in to deny its use to the defenders as a rallying point and the population either killed or dispersed. A quick chorus of "By the rivers of Winchester" any one?
4/ Possible ritual significance. In this case meaning. We dont know yet.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 35
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi Nordmann
I would tend to agree with you.
Calleva thrived for the whole occupation - it was a major centre in the road network for the whole of the South of England - virtually everything would have to have gone through there!
The infilling of the wells seem more like a desperate attempt at a "scorched earth policy" (with no burning) but by which side who knows?
Could it have been just that? Could it have been made uninhabitable in order to disrupt communications from one side of the country to the other?
This might be reflected in the creation of Grims Bank, as you mention, which cuts the roads to London and to Cirencester.
So was Calleva abandoned not so much because of the Romans leaving but more because it was the centre of old tribal boundaries who fought each other to gain supremacy?
Or was it the invading Germans?
As you say a definite conundrum....
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 36
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Can we give accurate dates for these activities of filling in wells and dismantling buildings, also the building of the dyke?
If they are proven to have been carried out immediately prior to the abandonment of the town, then it is a conundrum.
Towns must have become non-viable when trade became impossible due to the country being divided up and threatened by invaders. There is no more mystery to Saxons trying to take the town than there is of the Huns trying to take Aquileia - they wanted to loot it.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Apparently not - or at least the estimated timing of the well-filling seems as dependent on each particular archaeologist's own pet theory as on anything else. If some were filled prior to later building above them then they were most definitely not just before abandonment. But it doesn't seem to be true for all of them which have been located thus far.
Grim's Bank would suggest that the inhabitants perceived just such a threat as you suggest, though whether it was Saxon or not isn't clear. Nor is it clear that the town met its end in a calamity of any description.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 38
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi Fascinating
It would seem that the earth works were post Roman and the filling in of the wells was deliberate however dating is always an issue. I attach the following links which offer more of a description than I can:
www.silchester.rdg.ac.uk/ -
www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba87/feat1.shtml
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 39
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
TA - thanks for the links but they don't seem to work, any idea why not?
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 40
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi fascinating
Try it now
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 41
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Ta, TA.
I like that second link; it uses a lot of evidence, including that from Gildas (not throwing his account away wholesale as some seem to do). Of course it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there could have been conflict in post-Roman Britain. The written sources show it was taken over by "tyrants" (local strong men).
I only take issue with the idea that the Saxons came in very small numbers. The AS Chronicle says that they killed 4000 Britons in battle in 457. In 490 they beseiged a city called Andred and killed every Briton in it. In 508 they killed a British king and 5000 men.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 42
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi Fascinating,
'Andred' was perhaps the decayed Roman shore fort of Anderitum, that is Pevensey Castle in East Sussex.
The precise numbers of all these Britons killed seems, at first sight, very convincing. But the ASC was being written around AD 890-900; that is nearly 450 years after the events you mention.
I think it is reasonable to pose the question as to the form in which this these figures were retained for centuries prior to their incorporation into the Chronicle.
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 43
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
I suppose the figures out by a factor of 10 either way, but even if on the lower side that implies really quite large battles, for a Britain that had a total population size of maybe modern Birmigham. I am actually inclined to believe the AS figures as being of the right order; the AS was written 1000 years closer to the events than we are, and must have been using earlier sources. I am unconvinced that Andred was the decayed fort, it is referred to as a town, in which all the Britons were killed, that does not sound to me like the capture of a small fort.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 44
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Actually I find that Pevensey was called Caer Andred, so it does look to be the same place.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 45
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi fascinating,
I think the designation of Caer Andred as Pevensey Castle is probably correct. The original Roman name probably derives from a Brythonic description meaning something like 'great ford'. This would fit the landscape as it was in Roman times. Now the sea is 1-2km away and the Roman walls are high and dry.
The shore fort would have been a formidable defensive position if adequately manned, but once penetrated would form a 'killing ground' from which escape for the defenders was impossible.
You will not be totally surprised that I cannot agree with your other points. The fact that the ASC was written nearer the 'age of migration' than we are makes no odds if it was still written centuries after the events described.
The writers of this portion of the ASC must indeed have had access to some source or sources other than Bede & Gildas but we have no idea of their type. The size of armies and the numbers of the slain are famously hard to believe in all ancient records. There are good reasons for questioning the accuracy of this part of the ASC in fact. The battle of Mons Badonicus is omitted entirely.
My guess is that the source was epic poetry glorifying the martial traditions of Royal families. Under the circumstances there wouldn't be much praise in the royal hall for tales of peaceful co-existence and successful cattle raising.
TPLink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 46
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 16th July 2010
TP, you have got me going now! You will see that I am ready to add a huge pinch of salt to the facts and figures presented by the ASC, but you seem inclined to just ignore the (rather than weigh up) the reported 'facts' on military conflict. You want to believe that there was peaceful co-existence, that these battles were just little skirmishes, and reported with poetic exaggeration, but you can't back that up with any evidence. I am afraid that you betray a cynicism when you say "ALL ancient records" are hard to believe. Scepticism is fine, but cynicism is knee-jerk condemnation of whatever is written.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 47
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 16th July 2010
I don't think TP is condemning ancient records. Far from it - he's merely questioning their value as an accurate record of body counts.
A genetic survey published in the Oxford journal Molecular Biology and Evolution in 2002 suggested that between the 3rd and 7th centuries the genetic make-up of people in England (or at least most of modern-day England) became almost exactly half Saxon. This does not automatically infer that half of the population was Saxon, but it does support the theory that there was a considerable influx.
From an historical point of view however it is all still very inconclusive as the influx could just as easily have happened during Roman times and still have produced the same genetic pattern, or equally have happened very gradually over those four centuries. It would have been nice if someone in Friesland had bothered to record that they'd lost a huge chunk of their population in a mass migration to England but unfortunately no one did. Perhaps no one did so as it never happened that way?
But you're right about the quantity. At least according to the genetic survey there was indeed a considerable number of them migrated.Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 48
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 16th July 2010
I meant to add - the survey also supported the theory that there was no considerable displacement of people within England. That would have produced a higher predominance of Saxon genes than was found. So I'm afraid a blended co-existence, be it peaceful or belligerent, is something that has to be considered a plausible explanation.
Link to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 49
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Hi fascinating
Well I am not really quite as bad as that. You seldom notice the notes of ironic amusement in my posts! But perhaps I could explain in more detail:
"I only take issue with the idea that the Saxons came in very small numbers. The AS Chronicle says that they killed 4000 Britons in battle in 457. In 490 they beseiged a city called Andred and killed every Briton in it. In 508 they killed a British king and 5000 men." Β
In this comment you are using the number of British deaths to make some assessment of the number of Anglo-Saxon migrants. I try to point out that these figures are intrinsically unreliable.
"I suppose the figures out by a factor of 10 either way, but even if on the lower side that implies really quite large battles, for a Britain that had a total population size of maybe modern Birmingham." Β
Well that's better, but to don't really explain why you select a factor of 10, rather than 5 or 20. Incidentally modern Birmingham has a population of just over a million. Exactitude is impossible but many scholars judge the population for Roman Britain to be twice that.
"you can't back that up with any evidence" Β well perhaps I can, but only up to a point. The unreliability of casualty figures in ancient battles, or even medieval battles, is a commonplace. Suppose, as a guess, Anglo-Saxon soldiers are twice as good as British and that in battle the British suffer 50% casualties. In your battle where 5000 British were killed the the original British army was 10,000. To oppose then you need 5000 Saxons and at 50 Saxons per keel that's 100 ships worth. Is this feasible? If you make your factor of 10 reduction then we have to ask how a Saxon army of 500 could win.
My answer is that both sides, British & Saxon, wrote poems and songs celebrating a elite military caste. They exaggerated their victories, and either omitted their defeats or at least placed a positive spin on them. But a 400 year old take on this information is really a poor guide to events of the 5th century.
I can't prove the peaceful co-existence theory but I think it is reasonable to introduce a note of healthy scepticism to the 'battle, murder and sudden death' theory of history. I'm really not trying to be difficult.
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
-
Message 50
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Hi Nordmann
Regarding your statement "the genetic make-up of people in England (or at least most of modern-day England) became almost exactly half Saxon".
Do you know if the population increased during this period (perhaps indicating a very large migration) or a was it the same or less than in the Roman period (around 2 - 3 million) which may indicate a smaller migration with only small warbands.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Why is York so Important from the Romans onward?
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 Β to 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.