Alpenjager
Regular Member
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 121
- Points
- 0
Could you provide a link for this graphic? I couldn't find it in the study's supplementary figures.
It's there. You should look again.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Could you provide a link for this graphic? I couldn't find it in the study's supplementary figures.
From what I recall, monks and hermits did, or were supposed to practice celibacy, but the regular parish priests did not, not until quite late and under increasing pressure from Rome.
I think that's right, and not surprising. The Anglo Saxons in England and the Lombards in Italy were the same. There was none of the inclusiveness of the Romanization process
It's there. You should look again.
There are lots of Gaelic individuals (mixed/unadmixed) dated of pre-christian era in Iceland.
The settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain is poorly documented, but it's clear there was a process of Anglicisation in many areas outside of South-East England rather than outright replacement (hence why we don't all look like Danes or Germans), as well as adoption of certain native practices by the newcomers. Only when you get to the late-6th and early-7th century do you have reliable documentation of the politics of the period, and it's clear that the genealogies contain many distinctly British names (Cerdic, Caeawlin, Cenwalh, Cædwalla in Wessex) and that society in general was influenced by Gaelic practices further north (in Northumbria, where I live).
Out of interest, I've noticed you make comments a few times now that were critical of the Lombards. What is it in particular that you dislike about them?
The settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain is poorly documented, but it's clear there was a process of Anglicisation in many areas outside of South-East England rather than outright replacement (hence why we don't all look like Danes or Germans), as well as adoption of certain native practices by the newcomers. Only when you get to the late-6th and early-7th century do you have reliable documentation of the politics of the period, and it's clear that the genealogies contain many distinctly British names (Cerdic, Caeawlin, Cenwalh, Cædwalla in Wessex) and that society in general was influenced by Gaelic practices further north (in Northumbria, where I live).
Out of interest, I've noticed you make comments a few times now that were critical of the Lombards. What is it in particular that you dislike about them?
there is nothing to celebrate when someone conquers another people. i extremely dislike the romans for what i know about them. they were the worlds first imperialists. sure you could say they were quite advanced in certain areas but so were others. and many of the things they achieved would not have been possible without their imperialistic nature. i actually do not care about how civilized someone is as long as he is the agressor and is extremely cruel when conquering. and the romans were certainly like this when they exterminated whole cities and tribes just because they needed to punish someone or needed more loot and slaves.
it makes no sense to compare the level of civilization in my opinion. the romans conquered and enslaved others for the same reasons as everyone else. they just liked to call it civilization.
I think you need to read more about the romans and their conquered lands ...for one, they did not enforce Latin onto their subjects , they basically said , ...if you want to talk to us , learn Latin, speak to us in Latin................this system was also used in the Ottoman empire , like the use of dragomansthere is nothing to celebrate when someone conquers another people. i extremely dislike the romans for what i know about them. they were the worlds first imperialists. sure you could say they were quite advanced in certain areas but so were others. and many of the things they achieved would not have been possible without their imperialistic nature. i actually do not care about how civilized someone is as long as he is the agressor and is extremely cruel when conquering. and the romans were certainly like this when they exterminated whole cities and tribes just because they needed to punish someone or needed more loot and slaves. actually i have to say at least the lombards were not as reliant on their slave populations as the romans.
it makes no sense to compare the level of civilization in my opinion. the romans conquered and enslaved others for the same reasons as everyone else. they just liked to call it something like "spreading civilization".
You hate Britain as well, and Spain and Portugal? It could be said Spain and Portugal could teach the Romans a thing or too about conquest and the deliberate extermination of native peoples. Of course, the disparity in arms and technology was much, much greater.
Ever investigate the campaigns of deliberate extermination against the Indians of southern South America? Same with slavery. Want to compare slavery in Brazil versus slavery in Rome? Or the treatment of slaves in the Spanish Caribbean? Or even slavery in the southern U.S.? Brandings, hangings, lashing to death, setting dogs after them, young girls and women deliberate impregnated to create more slaves when the well went dry? PLEASE. Perhaps there are subtle differences, but are we going to have a scale of relative evil?
I'm an equal opportunity basher. I don't make my judgments based on absurd ethnic criteria. I make them based on an objective application of a set of standards. Try it some time. Read some history first, though.
What I was talking about, if you can follow the logic, is what was the experience of one area of Europe under two sets of conquerors. As I said, the Romans didn't come and conquer some of my ancestors to bring them prosperity, civilization, and the benefits of the Pax Romana. They came to get access along the coast to other parts of Europe. It's undeniable that the other things came along with them, however, and that almost nothing of value came with the Lombards. In fact, we moved backwards, and it took at least five hundred years to get even part of it back. It's even been said, and by archaeologists, that it took until the 19th century to recover. End of story.
I think you need to read more about the romans and their conquered lands ...for one, they did not enforce Latin onto their subjects , they basically said , ...if you want to talk to us , learn Latin, speak to us in Latin................this system was also used in the Ottoman empire , like the use of dragomans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoman
these empires did not enforce their language onto their conquered subjects...............modern NATIONS are the ones that enforce their language onto their subjects .........IIRC the arabs and their language where the first to enforce arabic onto the conquered people from circa 600AD
Yes, I agree.
The main source are the Brittons, who were their ennemies.
I doubt their view was not biassed.
It doesn't look like the Anglo-Saxons were out to exterminate the Brittons.
They were mainly interested in arable land, which they took from the Brittons.
In all historical cases of conquest societies, the politically and militarily dominant ethnic group is known, or can be assumed, to have had a substantial social and economic advantage, but the quantification of this advantage is difficult. In the Anglo-Saxon case, the best evidence may be found in the rates of wergild in seventh century laws. Wergild is the ‘blood money’ payable to the family of any victim of killing in order to prevent a blood feud; this is graded according to the social and ethnic status of the victim. The late seventh century laws of King Ine of Wessex, which differentiate between natives and Saxons, stipulate wergild for the latter which is between two and five times the money payable for a ‘Welshman’ (native Briton) of comparable status (Whitelock 1979). The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979); their wergild is consistently lower than that payable for a free man, which is between 1.25 and 2.5 times that of the blood money for a læt (Whitelock 1979). Similar wergild differences between immigrants and natives are found elsewhere in early medieval Europe, for example in the Frankish kingdom (Ward-Perkins 2005).
of course i do not like britain, spain and portugal. why should i? maybe they learned their stuff from the romans?
why are you listing all this stuff? i indeed dislike these but unlike you i never compared them to germanics and tried to get something good out of them. or did i say that the spanish, british and portugese at least brought civilization to america? does this relativate their evil in your eyes? if you dislike people and differentiate between them only because of their technological standards what's the difference when someone dislikes people based on other values?
I'm always for the civilized "core" against the "barbarians" of the periphery. Of course, the people who were once the barbarians can then become the civilized core, as has indeed happened. Those are the cycles of history, yes?
so, did the germanics force their language on conquered people? or did they actually adopt it? i do not celebrate the lombard conquest or the saxon one or the viking one. i dislike them. but why should i differentiate between these conquerors only based on their thechnological or social standards? roman society was probably not really superior to the ones of the people they conquered anyway.
This thread has been viewed 36890 times.