Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1066 and all that.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Sorry Jen - most of those French examples you quoted were Latin derived.


    Chapel from old middle English from old middle French from Latin: Capella

    Crag - definitely seems to be from Celtic (18th C)

    Flannel - Seems to be from Welsh Gwlan wool

    Penguin - 16th C origin denoting the great auk, unknown
    All these are ex-Oxford English Dictionary.
    Damn - Work
    Brod - The P.Ceitic languages predate 'middle English and 'middle French' by centuries possibly even millennia. They are as old as Latin - possibly older, who the hell knows?

    As you seriously suggesting there that no Brythonic influence survives AT ALL in English and no Gaulish AT ALL survives in French?? The Breton language survives, the Welsh language survives, Gaelic survives all spoken in geographically close proximity to English, and once by the same people (multi linguism and the ability to speak and understand several dialects was essential for anyone of note living back then) and yet none of these surviving languages has any linguistic influence whatsoever on English as it developed?

    I just bunged those words out off the top of my head (I speak fluent Welsh, good French and of course English) and I just quickly chucked a few out there - and you've been and looked them up to prove that they have a Latin root?

    I'm sorry but I don't accept that there is 'naff all' Celtic influence in the English language. There was a study done by a German university a couple of years ago that proved this not be the case because I read it when I was researching my dissertation (and if I could remember the name of it, I'd find a link so you'll just have to take my word on it) that proved the influence of Celtic on the development of English was indisputable.

    There was no genocide of the Romano-Celts, there was no mass exodus westward, they were assimilitated.
    Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 15 Apr 12, 16:13.
    "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
    - Mad Jack Churchill.

    Comment


    • #32
      No one from the British Isles was a Celt ever. They were Britons, a distinct population seperate from the Gauls etc that originated from NW Spain .

      As for the OP, if William lost he almost certainly would have died, having ordered all his ships destroyed. That plus the fact that the Vikings had shot their bolt meant Harold would have been in both a political and financially strong position. He may have tried taking on the 'Celtic' homelands of Wales and Scotland, but would have almost certainly failed. Personally I don't think he needed to, and would have been more likely to have pursued a possible comquest of Scandanavia rather than Normandy imho.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        No one from the British Isles was a Celt ever. They were Britons, a distinct population seperate from the Gauls etc that originated from NW Spain .

        As for the OP, if William lost he almost certainly would have died, having ordered all his ships destroyed. That plus the fact that the Vikings had shot their bolt meant Harold would have been in both a political and financially strong position. He may have tried taking on the 'Celtic' homelands of Wales and Scotland, but would have almost certainly failed. Personally I don't think he needed to, and would have been more likely to have pursued a possible comquest of Scandanavia rather than Normandy imho.
        Nick they weren't all 'Britons' and not Celts that's just plain wrong!

        'Briton' comes from Brythonic who were just one group (of about a dozen all told), and Keltoi was the collective name for all of them, from which 'Celt' is derived. The main three being the Gauls, the Britons and the Gaels. They were 'Celts' (as they are collectively dubbed by historians for ease of explanation when talking about them in general terms) - the Britons are just one group but there were Gaels here also.

        Calling them 'Britons' doesn't make them not Keltoi. They are one and the same thing.
        Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 15 Apr 12, 16:10.
        "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
        - Mad Jack Churchill.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
          Nick they weren't all 'Britons' and not Celts that's just plain wrong!

          'Briton' comes from Brythonic who were just one group (of about a dozen all told), and Keltoi was the collective name for all of them, from which 'Celt' is derived. The main three being the Gauls, the Britons and the Gaels. They were 'Celts' (as they are collectively dubbed by historians for ease of explanation when talking about them in general terms) - the Britons are just one group but there were Gaels here also.

          Calling them 'Britons' doesn't make them not Keltoi. They are one and the same thing.

          http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...itishancestry/

          Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands.
          I've read his work and am convinced.

          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #35
            Well, of course, there are Religious Sects and other theorists [sic] who have claimed that the Bristish peoples were actually descended from one of the "Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel :-Ephraim to be precise

            Reinforcing such claims are spurious family trees that show that the modern House of Windsor can trace a lineage back to King David, and the Stone of Scone was actually the pillow upon which the Biblical Jacob laid his head.
            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
            Samuel Johnson.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

              http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...itishancestry/



              I've read his work and am convinced.

              And I've read his work and I'm not. And neither are plenty of eminent historians.

              It's just playing with names ultimately, labels and to say Britons were not 'Celts' is wrong Nick, and that we are 'Basques' and all that nonsense. For starters no firm conclusion has ever been reached about the origins of the 'Basques' other than they were another indo European group. All that stuff about them having 'unique' genetic characteristics has been debunked anyway.

              Yes, they are genetically linked to Welsh and Irish Celts, but all that proves is that the Basques are likely part of those groups of peoples that the ancient Greeks called 'Keltoi'.

              Disparate groups of people - are collectively labelled by other, more educated people (the Greeks) as 'Keltoi' in ancient times. Sub groups - Goidelic (Gaels), Brittonic/Brythonic (Britons), Gaulish (Gauls), Celtiberian, Tartessan, Lepontic etc. etc. Within all those groups you have tribal sub-groups, hundreds of them.

              To say the Britons were not Keltoi is wrong. I can't say it enough times. Keltoi (Celt) is a collective term for a diverse number of people living across large swathes of Europe and beyond (that most likely included the 'Basques' as the various claims for their genetic uniqueness are debunked) and the people who came to (what became) these islands in the 5th and 6th century BC were 'Keltoi' - Celts!

              The Celts weren't a race!! They were disparate peoples ... but identified by the Greeks (and Romans) as sharing sufficient characteristics with each other in terms of languages, customs and appearance to be given a collective name. That's all 'Keltoi' is - a collective name for lots of different people.

              Nick I've been studying this for over 25 years, and I know my subject backwards, forwards and inside out. A statement like - 'no one from the British Isles was a Celt ever' is not only simplistic - but it's wrong. I'm sorry but it is.

              If you want to carry it on ... then let's take it to another thread, but this one has gone so far off topic now, I'd prefer to get back to my original question as I am currently deeply engrossed in the period post 1066 and would like to continue to focus on that as far as this thread goes.
              Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 15 Apr 12, 20:06.
              "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
              - Mad Jack Churchill.

              Comment


              • #37
                Addendum to the above:

                Nick - before I leave this I wanted to clarify a couple of things, because reading this back it sounds like I am being dismissive of Oppenheimer's work. I'm not. 'Origins of the British' is one of my favourite books and I've recommended it to others on here, as well as listing it as one of my favourite books on my profile. His work is painstaking and fascinating and the book itself is an excellent read. It's the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it that I don't agree with.

                And when I refer to other historians being 'not convinced' (although he certainly does have his critics and rightly so) what I am referring to here is those who may see it as another piece of a puzzle slotting into place (as I do) but not the whole solution to the puzzle, as you seem to.

                Hope that clarifies.
                Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 15 Apr 12, 20:06.
                "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                - Mad Jack Churchill.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                  Brod - The P.Ceitic languages predate 'middle English and 'middle French' by centuries possibly even millennia. They are as old as Latin - possibly older, who the hell knows?

                  As you seriously suggesting there that no Brythonic influence survives AT ALL in English and no Gaulish AT ALL survives in French?? The Breton language survives, the Welsh language survives, Gaelic survives all spoken in geographically close proximity to English, and once by the same people (multi linguism and the ability to speak and understand several dialects was essential for anyone of note living back then) and yet none of these surviving languages has any linguistic influence whatsoever on English as it developed?

                  I just bunged those words out off the top of my head (I speak fluent Welsh, good French and of course English) and I just quickly chucked a few out there - and you've been and looked them up to prove that they have a Latin root?

                  I'm sorry but I don't accept that there is 'naff all' Celtic influence in the English language. There was a study done by a German university a couple of years ago that proved this not be the case because I read it when I was researching my dissertation (and if I could remember the name of it, I'd find a link so you'll just have to take my word on it) that proved the influence of Celtic on the development of English was indisputable.

                  There was no genocide of the Romano-Celts, there was no mass exodus westward, they were assimilitated.
                  Jen, I'm aware the Celts in most of what is now England were assimilated, emigrated as refugees and just plain killed. The rapid expansion of Anglo-Saxon settlement would have resulted in all three scenarios playing out, with way more of the latter during the initial invasion and considerably more of the former as the invaders felt comfortable with having the natives staying on as tenants when the military situation wasn't to the natives' advantage. The "Dark Ages" were a rough time and the imposition of the conqueror's language over any pre-existing language was sometimes all or nothing. Part of the widespread acceptance of the "vacating possession" theory is the change of agricultural practice associated with A-S settlements compared with British practice: the A-S grew grain on the uplands whereas the British grew grain on the valleys iirc.

                  Latin and Celtic languages at the time of the Roman Republic were not too dissimilar, but we have a solid corpus of Latin works. It may have been that the Romans borrowed from the Celts, or vice versa, but we'll never know. Linguists being what they are can only go with the evidence recorded so Latin origins for the Welsh words in your list are now part of the accepted canon. It would take a whole heap of evidence to prove otherwise (but good luck trying ).

                  As for Celtic origins, the best guess at the moment is the Hallstadt culture, with a general moving out from there (a whole lot of what follows is for the benefit of the uninformed). I'm sure you're aware that the Galateans of Anatolia were Celts, having moved there from Thrace, as well as the division of Gaul into Cisalpine (Italian) and Transalpine (modern France) Gaul. The kingdom of Noricum in Modern Austria was also Celtic.

                  I would dispute that the Basques speak a Celtic language, as it bears no relation to any Indo-European language currently extant. There is some suggestion (and I'm working off memory here) that it was linked to the languages of the British Isles before the Celtic invasion. I have seen suggestions that Pictish runes translate better in Basque than any Celtic language, but due to the paucity of the former, kind of hard to prove. I've just checked wiki and note one expert has the view of "P-Celtic built on something else".

                  As for "naff all" influence of Brythonic on English, I stand by that. Come up with ten commonish words in English provably derived from Welsh (I'll accept that Scottish would have more Gaelic borrowings which have since migrated South).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                    Addendum to the above:

                    Nick - before I leave this I wanted to clarify a couple of things, because reading this back it sounds like I am being dismissive of Oppenheimer's work. I'm not. 'Origins of the British' is one of my favourite books and I've recommended it to others on here, as well as listing it as one of my favourite books on my profile. His work is painstaking and fascinating and the book itself is an excellent read. It's the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it that I don't agree with.

                    And when I refer to other historians being 'not convinced' (although he certainly does have his critics and rightly so) what I am referring to here is those who may see it as another piece of a puzzle slotting into place (as I do) but not the whole solution to the puzzle, as you seem to.

                    Hope that clarifies.
                    I don't want to derail your excellent thread, so I'll leave my opinion there .

                    I'll soon be posting a clearer picture of dark age Britain in the King Arthur thread.

                    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                    Jen, I'm aware the Celts in most of what is now England were assimilated, emigrated as refugees and just plain killed. The rapid expansion of Anglo-Saxon settlement would have resulted in all three scenarios playing out, with way more of the latter during the initial invasion and considerably more of the former as the invaders felt comfortable with having the natives staying on as tenants when the military situation wasn't to the natives' advantage. The "Dark Ages" were a rough time and the imposition of the conqueror's language over any pre-existing language was sometimes all or nothing. Part of the widespread acceptance of the "vacating possession" theory is the change of agricultural practice associated with A-S settlements compared with British practice: the A-S grew grain on the uplands whereas the British grew grain on the valleys iirc.

                    Latin and Celtic languages at the time of the Roman Republic were not too dissimilar, but we have a solid corpus of Latin works. It may have been that the Romans borrowed from the Celts, or vice versa, but we'll never know. Linguists being what they are can only go with the evidence recorded so Latin origins for the Welsh words in your list are now part of the accepted canon. It would take a whole heap of evidence to prove otherwise (but good luck trying ).

                    As for Celtic origins, the best guess at the moment is the Hallstadt culture, with a general moving out from there (a whole lot of what follows is for the benefit of the uninformed). I'm sure you're aware that the Galateans of Anatolia were Celts, having moved there from Thrace, as well as the division of Gaul into Cisalpine (Italian) and Transalpine (modern France) Gaul. The kingdom of Noricum in Modern Austria was also Celtic.

                    I would dispute that the Basques speak a Celtic language, as it bears no relation to any Indo-European language currently extant. There is some suggestion (and I'm working off memory here) that it was linked to the languages of the British Isles before the Celtic invasion. I have seen suggestions that Pictish runes translate better in Basque than any Celtic language, but due to the paucity of the former, kind of hard to prove. I've just checked wiki and note one expert has the view of "P-Celtic built on something else".

                    As for "naff all" influence of Brythonic on English, I stand by that. Come up with ten commonish words in English provably derived from Welsh (I'll accept that Scottish would have more Gaelic borrowings which have since migrated South).
                    There was also no Anglo-Saxon invasion .

                    My last word on this matter in this thread.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      There was also no Anglo-Saxon invasion .
                      All depends on what your definition of "invasion" is.

                      The Saxons were noted to be in Gaul and Britain by 280 AD, The Saxon Shore was an established military district (Possibly Saxon Laeti) in the Notitia Dignitatum in late 4th century.

                      In reality there are 3 types of invasions.

                      1. The Classic Invasion
                      Where a large group comes in via military force, defeats it's enemies and becomes the de facto population group. This is a relatively rare invasion.
                      Example: Spanish Reconquest

                      2. The Military Oligarchy Invasion.
                      This is an invasion where an army takes over an area, and then the members of the army's culture is set up as rulers, even if the majority of the population is of a different cultural type.
                      Example: Norman Invasion 1066, German Invasion of France 1940

                      3. Population Invasion
                      Where a large group moves into an area with out overtly conquering via military force.
                      Example: Most of the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire Post 450 AD.

                      Considering the Plagues that decimated Roman population, the Antonine Plague of the late 2nd century and especially the Plague of Cyprian in the late 3rd century left huge gaps in the manpower of Rome. So areas on both sides of the Saxon shore were probably devoid of meaningful population.

                      So yes, by the time of the Legion's withdrawal, the Saxons were firmly established in southern England.

                      But the explosion into Middle England was probably associated with the removal of Roman control, and the Balkanization of England by various feudal entities. Continental Saxons, Angles, and Jutes would have migrated over in the post Roman era, and expanded the Germanic holds up to East Anglia, Northumberland and Mercia via successive invasions.

                      Now of course at this time, (420-550) These invasions were probably little more than families of vikingesqe raiders that stayed where they landed, probably in the region of others of their culture/tribe/family.

                      Britain was depopulated, there was room to settle/takeover.

                      In 410 when the legions left, there is much evidence of a strong Saxon cultural region in southern England (Sussex, Kent). The first leaders of it were probably the same Laeti leaders that existed under Roman law. The rest of Roman Britain probably fractured into various landowners and commanders (King Arthur/King Cole) who carved out the kingdoms that existed by 550 AD.

                      So in the sense of an invasion, there was nothing to invade.

                      By 500 AD most of the Continental Germanic Conquest of Roman Territory was over, this possibly prompted the Continental Saxons, Angles, Jutes into moving to England and thus increased the number of Germanic warbands and warlords compared with the Roman Britain ones.

                      So less of an invasion than one recently native group having a population advantage over another recently native group, and then taking over leadership of said groups. Especially post the Plague of Justinian, which created even more empty land.

                      Overall, for the peasant on the ground, he probably had very little impression that he was invaded, only that the Briton Warlord that he paid his taxes to had been replaced by a Saxon Warlord that he paid his taxes to.

                      However, saying Britain was not Celtic is just redefining terms to no end.


                      Now back to 1066, the language would be more Germanic, and less French, but Latin made it's way into Britain via the church, and I do not see that having any major change.

                      Your upper class wording may contain less French and more Latin/German/Brythonic but I would make the case that base language changes little once a nation is born (which I would make the case happened under Alfred the Great).

                      Instead, I would think that the French that came into England Post 1066 would have come in anyway (Even if not as heavily). The German Kings of the 1700s onward had little to no impact on the English Language, which from 1600 onward was formed by writers and politicians, not by kings.

                      So if anything, a "English" Language under Harold would be similar to now, since the biggest changes happened due to internal factors. English of 1100 was very Germanic still.

                      Of course if Hadrada won, then England would have remained under the control of the Danes. But still England was on the rise as a power, and whoever ruled England would have become English, much as the English colonists to the new world became American.
                      Last edited by niikeb; 16 Apr 12, 09:54.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                        ...There was no genocide of the Romano-Celts, there was no mass exodus westward, they were assimilitated.
                        I would agree. The Saxon Advent of the mid-5th C was more a replacement of the top tier of society. By the time the "Romans" departed the average Romano-Celt would not have been too concerned with who collected the taxes, just as long as they could stop raiders or other brigands (foreign and local)

                        The decline of towns (yes, there was mini-revival 4thC), populations and the final removal of the governance by Rome would have made the arrival of additional Saxons (tribes or even just family groups) easier. Just as in the 1st C when some tribes fought Rome and other submitted, the 5th-6thC saw the slow but steady "conquest" of Post-Roman Britain and the ground work for "Anglo-Saxon" England take root.
                        Last edited by The Purist; 25 Apr 12, 14:12.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hmmm - my few pennies worth.

                          Tolkein was strangely enough, a Professor of English for a good part of his life. His major area of interest was in Old English - almost Ancient English, going back to Saxon and even Celtic forms.

                          One of his seminal works was in translating one of the very few extant Legendary Stories of those times - "Gawaine And The Green Knight", a Fable which I have read
                          This may have actually been the origin of the creation of the English Order of the Garter in more modern times, from the legendary protecting Green Sash worn by Gawaine.

                          Two points which I have learned, from some of his background writings and works, are that up to the time of the Normal Invasion - Horses were quite rare in Britain.
                          The large scale use of Horses, in War and later for Agriculture, was something deriving from the import of Horses by the Normans. The Saxons did not make so much use of them as the Normans - they were too rare in Britain.

                          An interesting part of his Researches which led to this is contained in his Interpretation and Re-Translation of some ancient texts. I cannot quote the exact words off-hand, and all of my books are somewhat "buried" at the moment.
                          A part of this revolved around a passage which in other modern translations contains a reference to the King's Warband as an "Eored" - which comes from the Root 'Eos' I believe, loosely related to Equus ( a Horse ) - and so a Mounted Warband.
                          Tolkein was able to argue quite convincingly that this was an error in Translation by earlier scholars - and the term should have been "Wared", simply a War Band - which would not necessarily have been mounted.

                          He argued that Early English and Saxon Culture would have been different if Horses had been numerous in Britain.
                          He actually attempted to portray the kind of Culture this might have been, in The Lord of The Rings - the People of Rohan, the "Horse Lords",
                          with mounted Warbands - even the Names of Characters Eomer, Eowyn are a kind of back reference to the root 'Eos' for Horse.

                          My Point - perhaps with a line of Saxon Kings, a Saxon Culture, and without large number of Horses in England - we may never have developed Knights or Cavalry ( a term from the French for Horseman ), or Cavaliers ( French for Horseman / Knight ).
                          I do believe that the Bow would have been more important even than it was, in English fighting. The Bowmen may have had higher status than they did, maybe even the Pikemen would have have had higher status in Battle.
                          G.M. - Sci Fi Game - the "Krissyverse"
                          Darius Jarvinger - Prime Minister of The Phoenix Confederation
                          Kris Martins - President of Attican Republic
                          Kaar Kristoff - Minister of Interior of The Phoenix Confederation

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The Normans\Bretons would leave a negligible genetic trace - far too few of them.

                            In any case as recent genetic studies of Normandy show there is negligible Scandinavian blood in the present French population of Normandy - might have been a bit higher at the Conquest but not much. Western France is 80% RB1 type.

                            Over 90% of Irish and Welsh are RB1 - the original hunter gathers dropping to 70% (due to Saxon and Vikings - same type) further East.

                            Normans immediately abolished slavery and whilst this would continue for a couple of generations, the Caste system (Class) with the Norman protected in this castle, which continues in a milder form today, would not.

                            Protection of small minority in a stone castle not needed under Anglo rule - burghs to protect the whole population. Thus a lot less castle building.
                            Last edited by Scupio; 24 Apr 12, 19:19.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X