3 of 3
3
Leave us face it
Posted: 11 October 2013 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-01-03

It has been my understanding that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were invited in by the Britons to help in defense against the Scots and/or Picts after the Romans had decamped.  As usual, I am open to correction.

That’s the story that Bede tells. If true, it is likely to be only part of the story. (Bede simplifies quite a bit and omits things that don’t fit the narrative he wants to impose on events.) Many were not invited. I’m not sure what Orosius and others have to say. If suitably ambitious (i.e., procrastinating from dissertation writing), I’ll look it up over the weekend.

The word invasion is not necessarily wrong in this context, but it can give the wrong impression (as can settlement). The Anglo-Saxon settlement of England was not like the Norman conquest, a short, decisive military campaign, but neither was it all hugs and bunnies. There were a series of wars/battles in addition to more peaceful settlement and trade. (The Viking invasion/settlement of England was much the same.) And the Anglo-Saxons did replace the British socio-political hierarchy in what is now England.

The mostly non-Romanised Britons living in the west and north of Britain were largely unaffected by the Anglo-Saxon settlement.

That’s flat out wrong. They weren’t conquered, at least not right away, but unaffected isn’t a word I’d use. By the time the Normans came on the scene, the Anglo-Saxons were pretty much in control of Cornwall. The Normans would then take on Wales and Scotland, a process of subjugation that would take several more centuries. (And some would argue has never been complete.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 05:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  845
Joined  2007-03-01

That’s the story that Bede tells. If true, it is likely to be only part of the story. (Bede simplifies quite a bit and omits things that don’t fit the narrative he wants to impose on events.) Many were not invited.

But some were. There is clear archaeological evidence of the existence of Germanic settlements alongside Roman communities in fourth-century Essex, in places like Shoebury and Mucking. It’s generally presumed that these were groups of foederati settled by the Romans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3538
Joined  2007-01-29

The mostly non-Romanised Britons living in the west and north of Britain were largely unaffected by the Anglo-Saxon settlement.

The last sentence suggests or intimates that the Britons in the west and north may have had some kind of understanding, agreement, truce, or whatever that they would be left alone.

It doesn’t suggest that to me, it suggests they successfully fought them off (for a while, anyway).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-01-03

But some were. There is clear archaeological evidence of the existence of Germanic settlements alongside Roman communities in fourth-century Essex, in places like Shoebury and Mucking. It’s generally presumed that these were groups of foederati settled by the Romans.

That’s different than what Bede says. His story is that the Anglo-Saxons were initially invited by the Britons, not the Romans who had already decamped Britain, to help ward off the Picts and Scots. Bede goes so far as to name the names of the inviters and invitees.

But there was a lot more migration and moving around than the traditional histories would suggest. That’s my only point.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
‹‹ FAIL - EPIC FAIL      Common Sense ››