• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Celt
Conrad: I agree, the Anglo-Saxons were heavily indebted culturally to the Scandinavians. Interestingly enough, some scholars now think that the Jutes were acutally the same people as the modern inhabitants of Jutland, in Denmark. That would explain why even pre-Viking English has a lot of Danish borrowings. In any case, the "Saxons" were from far north of modern Saxony, the came from a region close to modern Holstein, so Scandanavian culture/language saturated their lifestyle. Not to mention the hundreds of years of Viking domination of Eastern England.

Not only that:) , the most famous A-S burial at Sutton Hoo reveal a man in contemporary Swedish armour (this armour is used as a model for the Rohirrim in Jacksons the Lord of the Rings) identical to the armour found in Old Uppsala, Sweden. Some have suggested that the royal dynasty of East Anglia was Swedish.
 
Bretons aren't Gaelic...

What history books have you been reading. The Bretons were British Celts who moved into Brittany to escape the Saxon invasions of the dark ages. The word Breton is derived from Britain and is testemont to the inhabitants origins.

In fact the Breton language is a cletic language and has close links with Welsh. Just because in 20th Century Brittany they speak mostly French is not the point. In Wales most people speak English, over 80% in fact speak english as their first language, doesnt mean the Welsh arnt celts. In fact welsh is an old anglo-saxon word meaning foreigner.

In fact I just dare you to goto Dublin and say they are not celts but a bunch of English speaking Saxons.

Bretons are Gaelic
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Celt Conrad: I agree, the Anglo-Saxons were heavily indebted culturally to the Scandinavians.

No doubt on that score, but I'd say the pre-Viking Age Saxons owed more to the Franks and even Irish.

Interestingly enough, some scholars now think that the Jutes were acutally the same people as the modern inhabitants of Jutland, in Denmark.

That theory is a very old one and has fallen out of favour in recent years. Old West Saxon is much closer to Frisian than Old Norse. If the Jutes came ultimately from Jutland, an intermediate stage - a generation or two around the Rhine mouths - has been conjectured.

That would explain why even pre-Viking English has a lot of Danish borrowings.

Can't think of any that can be proven.

Even well into the Viking age the Danish language was seen as different enough from OE that it's mildly satirised in 'The Battle of Maldon'. Says the Danish herald...

Me sendon to þe sæmen snelle,
heton ðe secgan þæt þu most sendan raðe
beagas wið gebeorge; and eow betere is
þæt ge þisne garræs mid gafole forgyldon,
þon we swa hearde hilde dælon.
Ne þurfe we us spillan, gif ge spedaþ to þam;
we willað wið þam golde grið fæstnian.
Gyf þu þat gerædest, þe her ricost eart,
þæt þu þine leoda lysan wille,
syllan sæmannum on hyra sylfra dom
feoh wið freode, and niman frið æt us,
we willaþ mid þam sceattum us to scype gangan,
on flot feran, and eow friþes healdan."


'Snelle' and 'grith' are typically 'Danish' words and would probably have been recognisable as such.

In any case, the "Saxons" were from far north of modern Saxony, the came from a region close to modern Holstein, so Scandanavian culture/language saturated their lifestyle.

I wonder whether it's helpful to speak of migration age Scandinavian culture as a separate entity at all - as Conrad mentions, the English national epic is about a Geat who goes to Denmark. Franks, Swedes and Finns also figure. I might also mention Widsith. All Germanic cultures were part of a distinct system until Christianity enters the region, and to some extent even after.

Not to mention the hundreds of years of Viking domination of Eastern England. [/B]

Granted. The famous Kirkdale sundial...

//www.ormerod.uk.net/Places/Kirkdale/kirkdale2.jpg

+ORM GAMAL SVNA BOHTE SCS GREGORIVS MINSTER THONNE HIT WES AEL TOBROCAN & TOFALAN & HE HIT LET MACAN NEWAN FROM GRVNDE XPE & SCS GREGORIVS IN EADWARD DAGVM CNG &N TOSTI DAGVM EORL+

'Orm son of Gamal bought the minster of St Gregory when it was all broken and fallen and he made it new from the ground in the name of Christ and St Gregory in the days of Edward and Earl Tostig.'
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Valeria Victrix
What history books have you been reading. The Bretons were British Celts who moved into Brittany to escape the Saxon invasions of the dark ages. The word Breton is derived from Britain and is testemont to the inhabitants origins.


Yes, the Bretons are Celtic, but like the Welsh, Cornish and Strathclyders they're Brittonic. Not Gaelic. Not all Celts are Gaels despite what EU might have one believe.

I did once suggest to a Scot he was more likely a Picto-Flemish halfbreed. I don't think I'll be trying that again :D

I can't claim to be an expert on many things but this is my ground.
 
snuggs,

Do you think England would have survived as a single entity had Hastings been reversed?

I consider the fusion of post-conquest Norman and Plantagenet innovation combined with the fledgeling centralized Saxon state to be the defining moment in English history.

There's also some Continentalization of the country as a nobility with links to France inevitably brought England out of it's position as a backwater.

I've often wondered what England might have looked like after fending of the Normans, and for some reason I think of a patchwork of smaller states in the mould of Medieval Germany to be a chilling possibility. When one looks at the dynastic woes and decentralization of Wales, Scotland and Ireland during the same period then losing a bunch of Saxon/Scandanavian nobility and replacing them with Frenchmen doesn't look too bad :)
 
Originally posted by Dinsdale
snuggs,

Do you think England would have survived as a single entity had Hastings been reversed?

I consider the fusion of post-conquest Norman and Plantagenet innovation combined with the fledgeling centralized Saxon state to be the defining moment in English history.

Reading through what I wrote above it does look as if I'm trying to say the Norman conquest was inconsequential - of course it was anything but. What might have been is something I've given a great deal of thought to.

There is cause to believe it might have turned out the way you say. The late Saxon earldoms have the characteristics of fledgling territorial principalities. In fact, here beyond the Tees there's not much sign of central control at all, not from York and certainly not from Winchester. It's quite easy to imagine England going the way of France or the HRE given a line of weak kings or divided succession.

On a dynastic level, it all depends on how 'Harold II' chooses to establish himself and his dynasty. What he does with Edgar Aetheling and the other domestic claimants, and how if at all he deals with Sweyn Estrithson. I see him ruling long and well, but you can see succession becoming a major issue. IRL Edgar Aetheling lived well into the twelfth century and it's not hard to imagine him coming to rule after Harold's demise albeit with the Godwine dynasty remaining the power behind the throne. What happens after this God knows, but even if power transfers smoothly after Harold's death we can choose to see dynastic strife on the horizon.

Externally, the Godwine family's links with Flanders might lead to dynastic union somewhere down the line. I had an 'Arnulfing' dynasty under a line of Baldwins, Harolds, Edwards and Conrads. In my skit, this led ultimately to a Hundred Years' War style confrontation in the Low Countries and Germany between a rampant France vs an Anglo-Flemish / Aquitainian axis, with various HRE and Iberian minors, internal rebels and Scotland on the periphery.

Lacking the Norman influence I see no Ranulf and no Strongbow. I imagine the English conquest of Wales proceeding far more incrementally, almost as a local affair as border lords pushed up towards the Clywd and southwards across the Wye. Scotland is an enigma. On the one hand they'd face a far weaker southern neighbour - at least this far north - and a near-autonomous and easily manipulated Northumberland, on the other they'd suffer unknowably in the long run due to the non-availability of new ideas and Anglo-Norman and Flemish immigrants. I envisaged Scotland, to a greater extent even than England, coming to face Scandinavia rather than the continent. Not hard to imagine a Nordening of the Scottish court and aristocracy - God knows what long-term effect that might have had. Maintaining the unity of the state would be even more problematic than it was IRL, though they would probably have retained Cumbria and supremacy north of the Tees for the foreseeable future.

Normandy, meanwhile, would be finished as a regional power, to the great relief of all its neighbours. I had an 'Angevin' dynasty wrest the royal title in the 1140s and unite northern France, ultimately creating a monster.

Many more questions have answers that can't even be guessed at. Do the English ever embrace cavalry tactics? If not, does it matter? Do they build castles and cathedrals of Continental size? What happens in Ireland? How does OE develop as a literary language? What status has the Church, Pope and the various monastic movements? Can we see the free merchants of England cornering a vastly more powerful Hanse-like network? (I pursued this idea to include wholesale English participation in the Baltic crusades, while the First Crusade was directed at a still-heathen Sicily.) And so forth.

In the end I had great fun plotting the advance of Englisc across North America, thinking of suitable Saxon-style names for things. Envisaged uber-France (by now HRE) colonising most of the CSA, the Caribbean and Mexico - Spain forms out of Leon and Portugal to dominate most of South America, Aragon by then being a vassal of France. Lost the whole thing to a hard disk crash :mad:
 
Originally posted by snuggs
No doubt on that score, but I'd say the pre-Viking Age Saxons owed more to the Franks and even Irish.
'

Actually before Charlemagne the saxons was recognized to be under the danish sphere of influence. only after Charlemagnes father is the saxons under frankish dominans. this is some hundreds of years AFTER the first anglo (Angel i a region in Schleswig- Holstein) - saxon migration to britain.
 
Try 'The Godwins' by Frank Barlow. It's a rip-roaring account of the whole dynasty.

Thanks for your kind comments, volks.

Lasse Nielsen: I meant the Anglo-Saxons not the Old Saxons as being under Irish influence :)