Comments | nostalgia_lj: FAO: Miriam

nostalgia_lj

FAO: Miriam

Sep 22, 2007 11:42

From a book written in 1918:

"The Saxons were slow and difficult to move [...] did not mind fighting, if their crops were in and they had nothing else to do, and it was difficult to keep them together as an army, unless the call for their services was very urgent. They did not trouble very much about their Church, or church-buildingm thought very ( Read more... )

history

Comments 29

dracothelizard September 22 2007, 10:57:41 UTC

But, but, but, ROMANS! The Romans had bits of Britain! And indigenous people got chased into Wales, Scotland and Ireland by the Romans and the Angles, Saxons and Jutes!

nostalgia_lj September 22 2007, 11:11:48 UTC

"Indigenous" is such a difficult term to apply to Britain, isn't it?

neadods September 22 2007, 16:09:54 UTC

"Indigenous" is such a difficult term to apply to Britain, isn't it?

Borg-like might be more appropriate. Everywhere else gets invaded, looted, and left. People invade y'all and put down roots.

edithmatilda September 22 2007, 11:12:56 UTC

And by the time the Angles etc got there the Britons were pretty much Romanised anyway for added messiness! The fun of it all!

Thread 8

wal_lace September 22 2007, 11:03:35 UTC

Harold and the Saxons tend to get looked down on. The fact that his army had just speed-marched* the length of Britain twice, winning an extremely bloody battle in between, and still managed to outfight the Norman army suggests that they were seriously hardcore.

*Okay, they would mostly have ridden, but that's still brutal travel.

nostalgia_lj September 22 2007, 11:13:09 UTC

I wonder if it's because the Normans displaced the native aristocracy, meaning that of course they must be better because that makes Normans posh as opposed to your common or garden Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Celt-Viking peasant?

edithmatilda September 22 2007, 11:24:18 UTC

Yes it is.

edithmatilda September 22 2007, 11:19:14 UTC

Harold was an oppressive imperialist Wessex git! I can hate him too!

But yes, he was hardcore as all hell. You have to be to get to be that successful an oppressive git. And really, it's a bit hard on him to be known only for Losing A Battle.

Thread 8

edithmatilda September 22 2007, 11:23:30 UTC

This is the kind of horseshit that spawned the vehemence of the "Normans destroyed traditional freedoms" school of thought.

Although Bede's mostly to blame for the idea that there was a coherent pre-Norman "England", and he is Teh Man, so I am a bit fuzzy on that out of misplaced loyalty.

But the thing you quote is cultural and militaristic Imperialism in undiluted form and I do not CARE how unsophisticated I look for saying so.

Oh, and a big chunk of Scotland had Anglo-Saxonness going on in it so it is also your heritage and you are allowed to grump. Also, you got a fuckload of Normans too (Bruce? Balliol? Not Gaelic much are they?) but that's because your king fancied our king was a raging Anglophile who imported them, and also Towns and Money. So much more depressing than swords and feudalism and genocide, really.

Incidentally, David I was married to (obviously) Matilda, the daughter of the last earl of Bamburgh, so if you ever fancy an extra claim to English Northumbria you may find that handy.

nostalgia_lj September 22 2007, 11:30:19 UTC

It is a Ye Olden book intended to teach Children about The Past. Them is the opening bits about how nothing happened before 1066. Also stuff did not happen in 1066 such as Edward the Confessor and Stamford Bridge.

Oh, and a big chunk of Scotland had Anglo-Saxonness going on in it so it is also your heritage and you are allowed to grump. Also, you got a fuckload of Normans too (Bruce? Balliol? Not Gaelic much are they?) but that's because your king fancied our king was a raging Anglophile who imported them, and also Towns and Money. So much more depressing than swords and feudalism and genocide, really.

I can't be bothered untangling my heritage so am happy to assume I am some generic cross-breed of successive invaders like most people in the UK. Can I hate Normans on grounds of hating Monarchies and Oppression?

Incidentally, David I was married to (obviously) Matilda, the daughter of the last earl of Bamburgh, so if you ever fancy an extra claim to English Northumbria you may find that handy.When/if Scotland becomes independant ( ... )

grondfic September 22 2007, 11:43:46 UTC

The Orli Bloom movie (Kingdom of Heaven, yeah?) is VERY pc all round. And besides, it has Orli in it .... and also that Kevin McKidd, later seen being Lucius Vorenus and chopping people up in a pc fashion in Rome

A lot of this "Saxon" nonsense in the late C19/early C20 history books stemmed from (a) Sir Walter Scot (who gave us Robin of Loxley, oppressed-Saxon freedom-fighter in Ivanhoe, and Rudyard Kipling, who was writing all kinds of stuff about Saxons and Normans in Puck of Pook's Hill/Rewrds and Fairies. IMHO of course.

nostalgia_lj September 22 2007, 11:45:33 UTC

Don't be oppressing people who oppressed previous oppressors!

Thread 12

diarytypething September 22 2007, 12:23:48 UTC

The Anglo-Saxons had vernacular literature from about the 7th century onwards, which makes them the first people in northern Europe to manage that. Other people did have writing systems around then, but as far as anyone knows they were only using them for keeping records, instead of writing down their stories. And they could make interesting things out of metal. To be honest, they were probably quite happy farming, drinking, and reciting epic poems, so fighting was something to do in the winter when things were quiet. If you're going to diss a way of life like that, then you are also dissing the Spartans, who first created the type of education system that the extremely posh still use today ( ... )