Final Instalment of Netflix's "Last Kingdom"

Page 5 of 9 [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

03 May 2023, 2:11 am

KitLily wrote:
It was something to do with Viking hygiene and appearance though. There are quite a few pretty jealous accounts of them by Anglo Saxon men (monks) :lol: Vikings bathed once a week, dyed their hair, took great trouble with their hygiene and appearance. Apparently the sheer amount of combs and hygiene implements like ear spoons they've found in Viking graves suggests they were pretty obsessed with their looks. So I expect there was a bit of preference from local girls too.


Fascinating. Wasn't there a belief in the old days you would your death if you took a bath?



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

03 May 2023, 2:14 am

cyberdad wrote:
Yes Ethno-nationalism impacted England, Holland and Germany, but for completely different reasons.
England - British empire (a large reason why the royal family is so fondly adored)

In contrast Scandinavians were never exposed in the last millennia to subjecting vast tracts of territory to their rule. They got that out of their system early :lol:

According to my cousins the Danes and Swedes are fiercely welcoming to outsiders of any colour or shade, particularly if you speak their language.


Most people in England are going off the royal family though. They aren't as popular as they used to be.

Yes that's funny isn't it: the Scandinavians started out fierce and invaded everywhere, but now they are the most peaceful. However, once Vikings had invaded a country, apparently they were extremely good at integrating with the locals and pretty friendly.

There is research suggesting it was the Anglo Saxons which completely subjugated the local Britons. That makes sense because DNA testing is widespread now and it shows that most native Brits are actually Anglo Saxons. This should not be the case. Most of us should be native Briton or at least Celtic. Some historians say that the Anglo Saxons put a form of apartheid in place, which stopped the Britons marrying and reproducing. Which could be why we are mainly Anglo Saxon and our language is English. No other invaders had the effect on us that the Anglo Saxons did. There has to be a reason. Even the Normans didn't have such a great effect.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

03 May 2023, 2:16 am

cyberdad wrote:
KitLily wrote:
It was something to do with Viking hygiene and appearance though. There are quite a few pretty jealous accounts of them by Anglo Saxon men (monks) :lol: Vikings bathed once a week, dyed their hair, took great trouble with their hygiene and appearance. Apparently the sheer amount of combs and hygiene implements like ear spoons they've found in Viking graves suggests they were pretty obsessed with their looks. So I expect there was a bit of preference from local girls too.


Fascinating. Wasn't there a belief in the old days you would your death if you took a bath?



I think you're right, there was. The Anglo Saxons were a lot less hygienic, maybe because of that? I think vanity was frowned on but Vikings were vain as anything :lol:


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

03 May 2023, 2:50 am

KitLily wrote:
There is research suggesting it was the Anglo Saxons which completely subjugated the local Britons. That makes sense because DNA testing is widespread now and it shows that most native Brits are actually Anglo Saxons. This should not be the case. Most of us should be native Briton or at least Celtic. Some historians say that the Anglo Saxons put a form of apartheid in place, which stopped the Britons marrying and reproducing. Which could be why we are mainly Anglo Saxon and our language is English. No other invaders had the effect on us that the Anglo Saxons did. There has to be a reason. Even the Normans didn't have such a great effect.


This is an extremely unknown area but three sets of complete replacement happened in Britain
1. Around 2000BC the entry of the Beaker people (Indo-European speaking Corded ware folk) from northern Europe completely erased the paleolithic builders of stonehenge (these are the so called Cheddar men). Around 10% of British profiles is thought to be paleolithic through the female line.
2. Around 750-500BC the celts displaced the Beaker people. It's widely thought the Picts may be have been a remnant of the Beaker folk
3. Around 500AD the Anglo-Saxons displaced the celts in the area we call England.

In all three cases the likely process was typical of Indo-Europeans
1. Kill the males
2. take the women



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

03 May 2023, 7:07 am

cyberdad wrote:
This is an extremely unknown area but three sets of complete replacement happened in Britain
1. Around 2000BC the entry of the Beaker people (Indo-European speaking Corded ware folk) from northern Europe completely erased the paleolithic builders of stonehenge (these are the so called Cheddar men). Around 10% of British profiles is thought to be paleolithic through the female line.
2. Around 750-500BC the celts displaced the Beaker people. It's widely thought the Picts may be have been a remnant of the Beaker folk
3. Around 500AD the Anglo-Saxons displaced the celts in the area we call England.

In all three cases the likely process was typical of Indo-Europeans
1. Kill the males
2. take the women


That is so interesting! Humans eh. The violent creatures.

It is so odd however, that the invasions which happened after the Anglo Saxons did not much affect the English language or DNA. Modern DNA studies show that most white, native English people are Anglo Saxon. DNA tests are so common now that a large percentage of Brits have been tested. Most Brits are like me: mostly Anglo Saxon with a bit of Welsh/Irish and Scandinavian.

The Viking invasion only changed our language a little, and native Brits are generally not Scandinavian, they are Anglo Saxon. The Norman invasion changed our language somewhat more but it is still English, and we are still basically Anglo Saxon, i.e. more Germanic than French or Scandinavian.

So what the heck did the Anglo Saxons do to make us Anglo Saxon? They must have been the most successful at displacing the natives because no one since has been successful.

Even the Romans before them didn't have much effect. I don't think Latin ever became the major language of Britain and anyway it was displaced by English after 400AD or so.

I wonder if it's because MOST invaders of Britain kept 'their language' for the 'posh people'- the royalty, the courtiers etc. The common folk kept their own language.

However, when the Anglo Saxons arrived, maybe they decided everyone should learn English and that's why it became our language. I know that King Alfred was very keen on literacy and decided everyone should learn to read, so maybe it was his project? I don't know.

What an enjoyable conversation this is! :D :D


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

03 May 2023, 4:44 pm

KitLily wrote:
So what the heck did the Anglo Saxons do to make us Anglo Saxon? They must have been the most successful at displacing the natives because no one since has been successful.

I wonder if it's because MOST invaders of Britain kept 'their language' for the 'posh people'- the royalty, the courtiers etc. The common folk kept their own language.


This is something I have been wracking my brain about for years. Even during the French Norman conquest the posh people, learned folk and aristocracy only used French. Indeed The 400 years Rome ruled Britain, Latin was the lingua franca and so if you map posh people (including the christian Anglo-Saxon kings) Latin was used as a court language and the language of the monks.

Yet despite Latin and French words entering our vocabluary we have maintained the basic Germanic structure and composition of English (Indeed the language and identity of the English people still harks back to the Angles from the Danish peninsula)

So why did 500AD make such an impact? I think there must have been a great replacement of the celts of western Britain with Anglo-Saxon settlers. There was evidence that post-Rome many of the people from N/W Germany were on the move due to famine and drought and so were compelled to migrate to Britain. Was it a violent incursion? British sources suggest it was

The second conundrum is that English despite originating from Scandanavia is not a Scandanavian language,. The Angle and Saxon dialects of N/W Germany have little resemblance to English. But old English is almost identical to old Frisian. Even today Modern Frisian is the closest living language to English. Even germanic DNA of western England is closer to Frisians of N/W Holland > Danes. Other evidence includes stock animals that arrived in Britain (Frisian cows) and even English rodents that hopped on boats in Europe show DNA profiles from the precise region where modern Frisians live.

So why don't we call our language Frisian?? another mystery



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

04 May 2023, 10:45 am

cyberdad wrote:
KitLily wrote:
So what the heck did the Anglo Saxons do to make us Anglo Saxon? They must have been the most successful at displacing the natives because no one since has been successful.

I wonder if it's because MOST invaders of Britain kept 'their language' for the 'posh people'- the royalty, the courtiers etc. The common folk kept their own language.


This is something I have been wracking my brain about for years. Even during the French Norman conquest the posh people, learned folk and aristocracy only used French. Indeed The 400 years Rome ruled Britain, Latin was the lingua franca and so if you map posh people (including the christian Anglo-Saxon kings) Latin was used as a court language and the language of the monks.

Yet despite Latin and French words entering our vocabluary we have maintained the basic Germanic structure and composition of English (Indeed the language and identity of the English people still harks back to the Angles from the Danish peninsula)

So why did 500AD make such an impact? I think there must have been a great replacement of the celts of western Britain with Anglo-Saxon settlers. There was evidence that post-Rome many of the people from N/W Germany were on the move due to famine and drought and so were compelled to migrate to Britain. Was it a violent incursion? British sources suggest it was

The second conundrum is that English despite originating from Scandanavia is not a Scandanavian language,. The Angle and Saxon dialects of N/W Germany have little resemblance to English. But old English is almost identical to old Frisian. Even today Modern Frisian is the closest living language to English. Even germanic DNA of western England is closer to Frisians of N/W Holland > Danes. Other evidence includes stock animals that arrived in Britain (Frisian cows) and even English rodents that hopped on boats in Europe show DNA profiles from the precise region where modern Frisians live.

So why don't we call our language Frisian?? another mystery


This is so interesting, I've underlined the bits I like best.

Apparently also, when they do DNA tests on British men, they can't distinguish between British and Danish men, it's impossible.

It seems in British history, the Vikings got the bad reputation of being the most violent invaders. But recently I've read that it was undeserved...because ALL invaders were the same. They all raped and pillaged the places they invaded.

I do suspect that the Anglo Saxon mercenaries who were apparently invited to defend Britain after the Romans left, took over Britain pretty violently. I think they probably did their best to wipe out the locals in whatever way they could, and there surely must have been an official effort to wipe out the local language and replace it with English, or we wouldn't still be speaking English over 1000 years later.

I know early Anglo Saxon is incomprehensible to us now but from about the 14th century, we can read and understand it i.e. Chaucer's era. It has more or less stayed the same.

And if you look up English words, half of them are Anglicised French anyway. They didn't stay French. They became English.

So Anglo Saxon culture left a huge mark on us.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

04 May 2023, 10:30 pm

KitLily wrote:
It seems in British history, the Vikings got the bad reputation of being the most violent invaders. But recently I've read that it was undeserved...because ALL invaders were the same. They all raped and pillaged the places they invaded.

I do suspect that the Anglo Saxon mercenaries who were apparently invited to defend Britain after the Romans left, took over Britain pretty violently. I think they probably did their best to wipe out the locals in whatever way they could, and there surely must have been an official effort to wipe out the local language and replace it with English, or we wouldn't still be speaking English over 1000 years later..


Yes this seems more logical than current attempts by progressive archaeology which posits the alternative that the Anglo-Saxon mercenaries peacefully settled among the Celts OR Anglo-Saxons were living in Britain during/prior to the Roman period isn't actually supported by evidence (particularly since the Arthurian legends, Welsh monks and even Anglo-Saxon monks designate Saxons as incomers from across the seas much like the latter vikings were designated)

So there is a tradition that every wave of invaders up to the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the previous population. The Anglo-Saxon identity has remained the most robust for the English people and withstood cultural exposure to the ruling French elite. It might also explain the martial/military traditions that led to the success of the British empire where a numerically inferior number of English soldiers managed to defeat half the known world. In that sense the English have a renowned pedigree for military conquest unrivalled by other peoples except perhaps the Germans and the Japanese/Mongols.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

04 May 2023, 10:42 pm

KitLily wrote:
I know early Anglo Saxon is incomprehensible to us now but from about the 14th century, we can read and understand it i.e. Chaucer's era. It has more or less stayed the same.


The great vowel shift between Chaucer's time 1300 and 1700 mean't English started taking on a structure that makes it quite different from both the Latin and Germanic languages.

Chaucer's middle English was the last point where a German/Scandanavian could still understand most of what an Englishman was saying. I think if one of us went back in time we could learn to speak to a 1300 Englishman fluently in a matter of months (it all looks familiar)

But go back to 1100 and English is almost a different language. I've read some podcasts from Scandanavian speakers who claim that learning English seems quite easy for them. Not surprisingly in Denmark you don't have the problem in France of finding somebody who can translate for you.



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

05 May 2023, 3:10 am

cyberdad wrote:
KitLily wrote:
It seems in British history, the Vikings got the bad reputation of being the most violent invaders. But recently I've read that it was undeserved...because ALL invaders were the same. They all raped and pillaged the places they invaded.

I do suspect that the Anglo Saxon mercenaries who were apparently invited to defend Britain after the Romans left, took over Britain pretty violently. I think they probably did their best to wipe out the locals in whatever way they could, and there surely must have been an official effort to wipe out the local language and replace it with English, or we wouldn't still be speaking English over 1000 years later..


Yes this seems more logical than current attempts by progressive archaeology which posits the alternative that the Anglo-Saxon mercenaries peacefully settled among the Celts OR Anglo-Saxons were living in Britain during/prior to the Roman period isn't actually supported by evidence (particularly since the Arthurian legends, Welsh monks and even Anglo-Saxon monks designate Saxons as incomers from across the seas much like the latter vikings were designated)

So there is a tradition that every wave of invaders up to the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the previous population. The Anglo-Saxon identity has remained the most robust for the English people and withstood cultural exposure to the ruling French elite. It might also explain the martial/military traditions that led to the success of the British empire where a numerically inferior number of English soldiers managed to defeat half the known world. In that sense the English have a renowned pedigree for military conquest unrivalled by other peoples except perhaps the Germans and the Japanese/Mongols.


Yes...it's unlikely that mercenaries settled peacefully isn't it. Whereas Vikings came here specifically to look for lands to settle in. After they'd invaded, they brought their wives and families and integrated. The Vikings weren't mercenaries, no one was paying them. But the Anglo Saxons were, and a bunch of mercenaries aren't going to settle down.

And also adding to the martial/military traditions...Britain was ruled by the Romans for about 500 years. I can't believe the Roman military ways didn't have some effect on local Britons. The Romans had a high standard of living and people wanted to join them and become Roman citizens, so no doubt that would mean the men were trained in the Roman way of fighting. Surely that was passed down through the generations too. I think anywhere that was invaded by the Romans must have a military tradition.

^^this is another way the invaders wiped out the locals- by having such good living standards, the locals wanted to join them and reject their old ways of living. The Romans and Normans definitely did that, I'm not sure about the other invaders.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

05 May 2023, 3:20 am

cyberdad wrote:
KitLily wrote:
I know early Anglo Saxon is incomprehensible to us now but from about the 14th century, we can read and understand it i.e. Chaucer's era. It has more or less stayed the same.


The great vowel shift between Chaucer's time 1300 and 1700 mean't English started taking on a structure that makes it quite different from both the Latin and Germanic languages.

Chaucer's middle English was the last point where a German/Scandanavian could still understand most of what an Englishman was saying. I think if one of us went back in time we could learn to speak to a 1300 Englishman fluently in a matter of months (it all looks familiar)

But go back to 1100 and English is almost a different language. I've read some podcasts from Scandanavian speakers who claim that learning English seems quite easy for them. Not surprisingly in Denmark you don't have the problem in France of finding somebody who can translate for you.


I may have told you this before but I've got this brilliant book How We'd Talk If the English Had Won in 1066 by David Cowley.

It's how English would be if the French hadn't invaded and added their words to ours. It's like a vocabulary book in sections from easy to hard. About half of the words in that book are understandable to us, the other half of words have been lost to us through time. So fascinating, highly recommended!

Yes I expect we could learn to speak to a 1300 English person quickly :lol: It's funny how Scandinavians and Dutch can learn English easily but it's much harder for us to learn their languages.

The other thing is, since the Norman Conquest in 1066, how many foreign rulers have ruled England. For 300 years, English monarchs were not born here, nor was English their first language. We did not have a native English king til the 15th century!

Then there was a period in the 18th century when English kings were German and didn't speak English.

England/Britain has been invaded A LOT! :lol:


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

05 May 2023, 3:22 am

btw Cyberdad, did you know The Last Kingdom has 5 series and a film to finish the series off? I'm not sure you saw my comment earlier.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

05 May 2023, 3:27 am

Actually the military pedigree is 2000 years older than the Romans who arrived in Britian around 50BC.
In 2000BC the a nomadic semi-pastoral Indo-European speaking people called the Bell Beakers (named after the "beaked" pottery). In northern Europe these people were also known as the Corded ware people and they basically wiped out the paleolithic people of continental Europe in a matter of one generation. Their use of the horse and bronze weapons made them far superior to Paleolithic populations of Europe, The paleolithic builders of britain's stonhenge shared culture and religious belief with other peoples of pre-IndoEuropean peoples.

The Bell Beaker people wiped out the British population leaving them to dominate Britain from 2000BC to 500BC by which time the modern celts arrived in Britain (from which Britain gets its name). The Celts did the same wiping out the Bell Beaker people leaving perhaps the remnants in northern Scotland (Picts?). These tribes ruled for 500 years before the Romans arrived. From the Romans we know that the Celts fought amongst themselves in constant wars and practiced human sacrifice. So even before the Romans Britain was populated by a fiercely warlike people. The Romans did introduce the idea of a regimented military which was adopted.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

05 May 2023, 3:29 am

KitLily wrote:
btw Cyberdad, did you know The Last Kingdom has 5 series and a film to finish the series off? I'm not sure you saw my comment earlier.


Yes I've seen all 4 series + the film. As with a lot of series the first made the biggest impact watching the story of Uhtred and how he was cheated out of his birthright to Bamburgh Castle by his uncle and his (and a young Saxon girl's) adoption by invading Danes. Enjoyed his relationship with young Ragnar and his first contact with the then King of Wessex Alfred.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,300

05 May 2023, 3:34 am

KitLily wrote:

Then there was a period in the 18th century when English kings were German and didn't speak English.

England/Britain has been invaded A LOT! :lol:


Oh yes! completely also forgot about the Royal family and their ancestry to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line of Germany. I don't want to say anything unkind about seeing HRH as a child with her favourite uncle doing this
Image

Or hearing the new King of England speak perfect German



Sigbold
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,931
Location: Netherlands

06 May 2023, 12:18 am

cyberdad wrote:
Fascinating. Wasn't there a belief in the old days you would your death if you took a bath?


Most likely the answer to that question is no. And that believe can probably be traced back to misconceptions that where formed during the Victorian era.