How peaceful/ violent was it?

How peaceful/ violent was it?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    daymonklotz666@ig

    teuton landlord diff

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pretty violent towards the native britons and romans, which caused them to flee towards brittany or galicia in spain
    later on they got btfo by william and rest of normans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Funny thing is that like 40% of norman army were bretons from brittany.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A similar, or even higher, percentage of the footsoldiers in the initial Norman conquests of Ireland were Welsh as well. "Walsh/Breathnach" is a common surname in areas that had substantial Norman settlement. In Galway, which was founded by Normans and their footmen, there is an area named after a former village that was called Baile an Bhreatnaigh ("Welshmen's Village").

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We honestly don't know. There was obviously war and conflict but the collapse of Rome was literally civilization ending for the Romano-Britons. The cities were abandoned, the country fragmented into like 20 different warlords fighting for control. The economy evaporated. The church was weak. Probably most dramatic in Britain than anywhere else in the WRE. As a result, there isn't a huge amount of written info on the Saxon invasion.

    It is presumed to be violent but could have had some peaceful aspects. For instance, the first king of the West Saxons (Wessex), was Cerdic, a likely Celtic name. There have been burials of elite "Saxon" men with R1B-L21, the typical Celtic lineage. Early sources say the Saxons were trusted mercenaries and warriors.

    What we do know is that the Picts and Irish were raiding frick out of Britain, and in return, British kings, famously Vortigern, invited large numbers of Saxon mercenaries in and settled them on the east coast. The Saxons soon rebelled over lack of supplies though and began to establish lordships of their own and defeat the Britons. Its likely waves of Anglo-Saxons, like other Germanic tribes migrated over decades, settling on the eastern shore. Eventually by the 6th century they controlled the east and south east coasts, and as the climate and agricultural input worsened, managed to overwhelm the Britons and push inwards, defeating the inland kings and uniting dynasties of both people to establish new kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Northumbria, Bernicia). Arthur, likely a semi-historical figure based on a few real men Ambrosius Aurelius for example, is said to have stopped the Saxon onslaught for a while and established peace for a while. By this point the island was likely split between a Celtic west and Saxon east, but by 600 AD the Saxons had conquered the land around the Severn valley and Mersey, splitting the Britons into Strathclyde/Cumbria in the north, Wales in the west

    1/2

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And Dumnonia (Devon+Cornwall) in the south. By this point on the Saxon domination of "England" was clear and they began Christianising and fighting more regularly amongst themselves. The full process was not gone though. The permanent border between the Mercians and the Welsh was not established until the 770s, and Cornwall was not conquered until King Alfred (late 800s). Large parts of northwest England remained Celtic in culture, until the end of the 1st millennium, when Strathclyde was absorbed by both Scotland and England. Welsh is still spoken today.

    As for how violent it was for the commoners, its unknown. There likely wasn't a genocide, rather the British nobility intermarried or was killed in battle, and poor destitiute peasant Britons then had to live in a society in which half of their peers were Saxon and their rulers Saxon. This would have made assimilation into Anglo-Saxon culture inevitable, old Celtic languages and customs were dropped. Genetic evidence shows the English are still 60-70% pre-Saxon in genetics. Strangely though, there isn't much Brythonic words in English, likely because they were lost over 1,500 years, but it may have influenced the grammar and syntax of English.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A bunch of celtic words have survived in France and the grammar is more noticeable there, does that say something about the process in England?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It indicates an almost complete population replacement, especially when you consider that Celtic toponomy is completely replaced by Anglo-Saxon place names in the core AS zone of settlement. The Anglo-Saxons seem to have viewed both the Celtic Britons and Romano-Britons (there was a non-negligible population of them, even after the Roman withdrawal) as hostile enemies to be subdued. In some dialects of Old English the word for "chattel slave" is derived from the same root as "Welsh" ("Celt/Roman")

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it does, and we have historical accounts suggesting such as well, but the genetic evidence doesn't line up with it
          was a reason people took Bede's account seriously, but as

          We honestly don't know. There was obviously war and conflict but the collapse of Rome was literally civilization ending for the Romano-Britons. The cities were abandoned, the country fragmented into like 20 different warlords fighting for control. The economy evaporated. The church was weak. Probably most dramatic in Britain than anywhere else in the WRE. As a result, there isn't a huge amount of written info on the Saxon invasion.

          It is presumed to be violent but could have had some peaceful aspects. For instance, the first king of the West Saxons (Wessex), was Cerdic, a likely Celtic name. There have been burials of elite "Saxon" men with R1B-L21, the typical Celtic lineage. Early sources say the Saxons were trusted mercenaries and warriors.

          What we do know is that the Picts and Irish were raiding frick out of Britain, and in return, British kings, famously Vortigern, invited large numbers of Saxon mercenaries in and settled them on the east coast. The Saxons soon rebelled over lack of supplies though and began to establish lordships of their own and defeat the Britons. Its likely waves of Anglo-Saxons, like other Germanic tribes migrated over decades, settling on the eastern shore. Eventually by the 6th century they controlled the east and south east coasts, and as the climate and agricultural input worsened, managed to overwhelm the Britons and push inwards, defeating the inland kings and uniting dynasties of both people to establish new kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Northumbria, Bernicia). Arthur, likely a semi-historical figure based on a few real men Ambrosius Aurelius for example, is said to have stopped the Saxon onslaught for a while and established peace for a while. By this point the island was likely split between a Celtic west and Saxon east, but by 600 AD the Saxons had conquered the land around the Severn valley and Mersey, splitting the Britons into Strathclyde/Cumbria in the north, Wales in the west

          1/2

          mentions a lot of things don't quite fit with a full genocide

          • 1 month ago
            daymonklotz666@ig

            never enough killed we see short all fvey all space and time confirmation. those out are

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We honestly don't know. There was obviously war and conflict but the collapse of Rome was literally civilization ending for the Romano-Britons. The cities were abandoned, the country fragmented into like 20 different warlords fighting for control. The economy evaporated. The church was weak. Probably most dramatic in Britain than anywhere else in the WRE. As a result, there isn't a huge amount of written info on the Saxon invasion.

            It is presumed to be violent but could have had some peaceful aspects. For instance, the first king of the West Saxons (Wessex), was Cerdic, a likely Celtic name. There have been burials of elite "Saxon" men with R1B-L21, the typical Celtic lineage. Early sources say the Saxons were trusted mercenaries and warriors.

            What we do know is that the Picts and Irish were raiding frick out of Britain, and in return, British kings, famously Vortigern, invited large numbers of Saxon mercenaries in and settled them on the east coast. The Saxons soon rebelled over lack of supplies though and began to establish lordships of their own and defeat the Britons. Its likely waves of Anglo-Saxons, like other Germanic tribes migrated over decades, settling on the eastern shore. Eventually by the 6th century they controlled the east and south east coasts, and as the climate and agricultural input worsened, managed to overwhelm the Britons and push inwards, defeating the inland kings and uniting dynasties of both people to establish new kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Northumbria, Bernicia). Arthur, likely a semi-historical figure based on a few real men Ambrosius Aurelius for example, is said to have stopped the Saxon onslaught for a while and established peace for a while. By this point the island was likely split between a Celtic west and Saxon east, but by 600 AD the Saxons had conquered the land around the Severn valley and Mersey, splitting the Britons into Strathclyde/Cumbria in the north, Wales in the west

            1/2

            I'm sure many Angles and Saxons were invited but there were more who didn't arrive peacefully. Contemporaneous Irish annals list frequent seaborne Saxon raids on eastern/southern Ireland during this period and I'm sure there were many more larger scale ones in Britain that were never recorded.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It indicates an almost complete population replacement
          Yep except the evidence of Gaelic on Scottish English is very little despite it being definitively known that there was no population replacement and the language spread because of Lords using the English language in administration in towns
          So no this doesn't prove violence

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It indicates an almost complete population replacement, especially when you consider that Celtic toponomy is completely replaced by Anglo-Saxon place names in the core AS zone of settlement. The Anglo-Saxons seem to have viewed both the Celtic Britons and Romano-Britons (there was a non-negligible population of them, even after the Roman withdrawal) as hostile enemies to be subdued. In some dialects of Old English the word for "chattel slave" is derived from the same root as "Welsh" ("Celt/Roman")

        However, there may be some evidence the Celtic morphology influenced the development of Old English. The Insular Celtic languages had developed a severely reduced set of nominal case inflections by the time of AS colonization and the Irish/British cases are the only ones that carry over from the languages ancestral to English over to Old English.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Insular Celtic
          Just say Gaelic and Welsh

          Before the roman conquest, Belgic tribes from Gaul settled in southeast Britain
          Look up the story of Commius

          >southeast
          *virtually all of Britain and all of Ireland

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine how violent it was when Danes took the lands of Jutes and Saxons and Angles. Fricking bloodbath. Now Danish chads just chill on their land and English cucks do nothing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you referring to Danelaw or to Denmark itself?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Denmark ofc, Jutland is Danish clay. Danes are originally from Scania. They first booted out Jutes and Angles and even followed them to England..with vengeance.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They bred like rabbits with the native britons. Modern brits are mestizos pretty much.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fairly violent as the Anglo Saxons outnumbered the depopulated Britons by a factor of 3:1 going by the size of the villages and the density of the villages.
    In defense of the Britons they managed to fight the Saxons to a stand still and they resisted their better trained and better equipped warriors for nearly a thousand years.
    The Anglo Saxons had been invading since the middle Iron Age, the 400s are merely a convenient date to place an “invasion” because the Saxons gained an inexorable foothold and -19th century historians equated this with Rome’s decline and The Grand Conspiracy.
    The truth was the Britons had successfully resisted for the better part of 300 years by the time The Anglo Saxon “invasion” gained its foothold on the Saxon Shore.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There were roughly 4 million people living in Britain before the adventus so you would be suggesting a genocide on a scale never seen before where 3.6 million people were all killed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not unthinkable that a combination of incessant raiding, colonization, and bride-stealing would either kill or suppress the language and culture of a former majority

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Britain is basically battle royale island where only the strongest can survive, it's the reason Anglos are genetically superior to all other groups.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one in the isles speaks Romano-British anymore, and people don't change language when you sk them nicely

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and people don't change language when you sk them nicely
      I bet you Dutch and Scandinavian kids in the next 50 years will be having difficulty speaking their own languages at a proper advanced level without the incessant use of English loans words.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        According to NATO the American Empire will collapse before 2040

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weren't the Gewisse the first Anglo-Saxons to arrive? I think they arrived in Britannia as Roman auxiliaries even during the 300s AD, a little before the Roman legion departure from that province.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not as peaceful as modern academics like to claim, but not as violent as "muh germanic heritage" types like to say.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Modern English = Gallic farm cattle
    Modern Welsh = Brittonic farm cattle
    Modern Scots = a mutt of Gaelic, Brittonic and Gallic farm cattle
    Irish = Gaelic farm cattle

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How many Gauls/French moved to England, and when? The Norman conquest times, or before?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Before the roman conquest, Belgic tribes from Gaul settled in southeast Britain
        Look up the story of Commius

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a proof that Britain was ever Celtic?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is there any proof against it?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Like above said it’s impossible to really know. Based on genetic lineage tests we know modern white English have a mix of anglo-Celt-Norman etc

    So it’s difficult to say whether it was a mostly peaceful since the land was fairly lowly populated as far as we know. And subsequent mixing of tribes. Or the anglo Saxons raped and pillaged the locals and that’s the mix

Comments are closed.