Jump to content

Talk:History of Anglo-Saxon England/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

A great start. This is what I'd call a "trunk article:" the reader should find a hyperlinked mention of almost all Wikipedia's articles in this area, cleverly knit into paragraphs, with plenty of those Main article:... headers. --Wetman 09:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, I noticed there was the category, but not the article; later, I realized there was no Anglo-Saxon England either, so I made it a redirect. This should, as you say, be a concise summary of the topic, with lots of links to the relevant specialized articles. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Update

I've expanded on what was here before. It's still a (very) brief guide to Anglo-Saxon England, but should now be more comprehensive. Previously there was very little on later ASE, and some relatively minor points (e.g. population displacement) had much more said about them than very important points, such as the development of England in the 10th century. I've also tried to separate history from legend with some emphasis on sources.

very nice, thank you. How current are the terms "First/Second Viking Age"? We should have individual articles about the vadious sections, so we do not have to give a selection of biographical articles as "main articles" at sections' headings. I don't know if First Viking Age, Second Viking Age would be appropriate titles, however. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
First/Second viking age is now outdated, I believe, though not entirely undescriptive. Perhaps 'Viking Raids and Settlement/The Viking Challenge ' and 'England under the Danes' respectively, or something similar? Harthacanute 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Term Sub-Roman - A bit outdated, Early Medieval Period is more appropriate Jg282 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetic material

I've removed the long paragraph on genetic research from this page, and included a summary and link to the Anglo-Saxons page where it is covered in detail. As this is supposed to be an 'outline' of Anglo-Saxon England I don't feel there is the need to go in to great detail on any one particular area of research. Other views on this? Harthacanute 17:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon History

Im confused which article is the main article for Anglo-Saxon history, this one or Anglo-Saxons, they both point to each other as the "main article" for Anglo-Saxon history, and contain different parts in detail. Plus there are some other articles as well. It would be really great to have a single article that is the main Anglo-Saxon history. I dont think Anglo-Saxons should be it. --Stbalbach 14:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd rather have Anglo-Saxons as a page describing the term and the people rather than the history, though it is hard to separate these entirely. I think this page now gives a fairly good overview of the period, though perhaps a bit weighted towards the earlier period, especially in comparison to the available source material. Harthacanute 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we move the "history" material out of Anglo-Saxons to this article? And then have a single-paragraph or two with a "main article" pointing to this article? The history should be just like the other sections in the Anglo-Saxons article: Literature, Art, Language, etc.. Im not sure how to integrate the history material from that article into this one. --Stbalbach 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a problem most academic writers can't get round! The 'thematic' ideas won't fit nicely into the 'chronological' arrangement. Maybe if we just appended sections on Literature, Art and Language to the chronological section of Anglo-Saxon England. Ideally more general themes such as Religion, Social Structure, Kingship and so on could all do with being included, though I guess the fear is not to make the article too long. Harthacanute 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've made some changes to this page and Anglo-Saxon England. I've divided up this page into a Chronology section and a Themes section. I'll be doing more work on the Themes soon. Harthacanute 12:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very "generic" problem on Wikipedia, and it may be wise to address it on WP:VP. Take Franks vs. Frankish Empire, or any other historical people. Of course these articles will overlap, but they vary in scope. The article about the people should talk about their origin, their culture, their genetics etc., while the "territorial" article should deal with timelines of histrical events, battles, rulers, etc. So, yes, they are each other's main articles, the "Anglo-Saxon" one will have a section "Anglo-Saxon England", and "Anglo-Saxon England" will have a section "The Anglo-Saxons". But I would argue that the "themes" section is superfluous here, essentially duplicating the "Culture" section at Anglo-Saxons. Let this article be purely chronological. Your point about "thematic ideas not fitting" is valid, Harthacanute, but it is still enough to list them once. dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree that there should be a separate page for the Anglo-Saxon people covering culture, language etc.. I don't beleive it's possible to separate these from Anglo-Saxon history (as I'm sure you'll agree there's more to history than battles and kings). I suppose there's no easy way out of the problem, though, and clearly a lot of people have put much time into this "generic" problem! I'll play with the article a little more to see if I can iron out these problems.Harthacanute 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
History on wikipedia generally means chronology of important events, typically political and social. History is a sub-topic of Anglo-Saxon culture no more or less important than the other articles like Literature or Art. There are some things in the "Anglo-Saxon" article that clearly belong in the History article (the invasion dispute). Some things are more grey. --Stbalbach 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First King of England?

Did Edgar really consolidate the kingdom or is this just a nationalist subterfuge to evade the reality of a Danish King Knut being the first King of All England??--Jack Upland 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the truth of the matter is that no one individual can be singled out as the first king of England, because it purely depends on what we mean by "first king of England". Here are some candidates - Offa, Egbert, Alfred, Athelstan, Edgar. I've never seen Canute being described as it, though I have seen William, which is just as embarrassing since he too was a foreign conqeror. TharkunColl 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least let us know what the bounds of Edgar's kingdom were. By way of comparison, Alfred's kingdom of Wessex never encompassed all of what is now England. William is a different case: he acquired an intact kingdom. He was clearly not the first king; however the English monarchy and the aristocracy derive from the Norman Conquest and he could be placed at the head of a line of succession. Of course there are many breaks in this line, with convoluted dynastic disputes, but nothing as stark as a foreign invasion.

All that aside, I don't really think it's a complicated question. The boundaries of England have existed for a millenium. Who was the first to rule this unified kingdom? Canute is sometimes cited (as a quick google shows).--Jack Upland 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ælle of Sussex? Listed as the first bretwalda in any case. dab (𒁳) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this evades the point. Bretwalda is one thing. The point is not holding sway over other kingdoms, being top dog, but actually running the place. Not sure why there is such avoidance of the issue. (Because candidate Canute is correct???)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it's a difficult question to answer. Edward the Elder may not have ruled all of England, but he ruled as far north as the River Humber. Athelstan ruled as far north as the Southern Uplands, well north of the current Anglo-Scottish border in the east, south of it in the west. Edgar ruled all of England that Canute did, so did poor old Æthelred the Unready. Why Canute exactly? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"king" is a title. In Germanic culture, even a religious office. A king may or may not "run the place". A king may nominally "run the place", but in practice he will always depend on the goodwill of the powers-that-be: Elizabeth II "runs the place" very much nominally by merely ceremonially opening the parliament. Things may stand not all that different for pre-Civil-War kings, such as John of England being forced to sign the Magna Charta. A king "runs the place" excactly to the extent he is being let. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My candidature of Canute was a genuine question. The article on Edgar suggests he was only receiving the nominal allegiances of several other kings for as long as his military dominance lasted. From this discussion I can only presume that before Canute no unified kingdom of England lasted and afterwards it didn't disintegrate. Correct me please if I am wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The kings who are said to have met with Edgar at Chester are not "English" kings, but Welsh and "Scottish". Edgar and Canute may both have supported their candidates as kings in "Scotland", both may have meddled in Ireland. Yes, Canute's empire made him a more powerful ruler than Edgar, but Edgar and Canute both ruled more or less the same parts of modern England. In neither case did they have as much control of events north of the Humber as south of it, and very little north of the Tees, but the same was true of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. While English kings from Æthelstan onwards controlled different parts of Northumbria at different times, there was only one royal mint, at York, in Northumbria and dozens in the south. Æthelstan was able to campaign in "Scotland" and force the temporary submission of the king, which is just as much as William could do 150 years later. Being "king of the English" had no more to do with control of the far north of modern England than being "king of France" depended on control of Burgundy or Provence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
On this issue, talk of the Scots and the Welsh is a diversion. For the umpteenth time, was Canute's (or Edgar's) kingdom lasting? If not, whose was? William the Conqueror's clearly - whatever troubles he may have had in the north...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Edgar and Æthelred ruled the kingdom of England. Canute ruled the kingdom of England. The kingdom of England had more or less the same limits under Edgar and Æthelred as under Canute, not that these can be fixed with much certainty in the tenth and eleventh centuries. If this isn't continuity - "lasting" - what is it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Edgar it says:

Six kings in Britain, including the kings of Scotland and of Strathclyde, pledged their faith that they would be the king's liege-men on sea and land.

Did these kings include English kings? If so it seems to be more of a case of overlordship.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The lists of kings at Chester are all rather late, at least 150 years after the event, and don't agree among themselves. Put another way, they could be made up. Even the number of kings isn't immutable. Initially there are six, later eight or more. There's a list here: "King Kenneth of Scots, King Malcolm of the Cumbrians, King Magnus of Man and the Isles, King Donald of Strathclyde, Joint-King Hywel of Gwynedd, Joint-King Iago of Gwynedd, King Idwallon of Morgannwg and King Sigefrith (possibly a deputy in Norse York)." It's probably wrong in detail, not least because there are eight rather than six names, but right in the general idea. Those present were mostly kings from Wales, some from Scotland. The only one who many have been a king in England on that list is Sigeferth, and the evidence for his existence is only this forged charter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

William the Conqueror's kingdom was not "lasting" - under Stephen it fragmented into warring factions, and again under Charles I. So the first person to rule all England, since which time it has never fragmented, is Oliver Cromwell. TharkunColl (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Civil wars don't count. Obviously. If Edgar's kingdom, barring civil wars, was passed down to his successors then he should be recognised as the first king.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


The major problem there is no definition of what constitutes England. The modern borders may be one thing, the Commonwealth of England may be the true borders and we today are in a recessed state.

Given that Edward the Elder controlled the majority of what is today (and at the end of the Kingdom of England) constituted England then I would argue he was the first king, but I say again, you must define what England is first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Þingalið

I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers.4u1e (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Map discussion

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous map was incorrect as it shows Cornwall as included in Wessex - this map indicates that this was not the case in 1035. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EmpireNorth.JPG -- William of Malmesbury, writing around 1120, says that King Athelstan of England fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar in 936 after the remaining Cornish had been evicted from Exeter and the rest of Devon in 927 - "Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race". (ref: Professor Philip Payton - (1996). Cornwall. Fowey: Alexander Associates). In 944 Athelstan's successor, Edmund I of England, styled himself 'King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons' (ref: Malcolm Todd -- The South West to AD 1000 - 1987), an indication of how that accommodation was understood at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.68.25 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The map of England in c600 is incorrect in that Somerset and Dorset were not under Saxon control at this time but part of Dumnonia, in all probability. Distinction between British and Saxon control by colour is needed. The map for 802 is incorrect in that Dumnonia no longer existed as such but British control still existed over Cornovia. 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.157.222 (talk)

You'll need some references to back that statement up. Where does it say that Dorset and Somerset were not under Saxon control? Bearing in mind that the names Dorset and Somerset are Anglo-Saxon in origin...the counties wouldn't have even existed then in their current shape or form. White43 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree with both comments above - the Russian map should be modified to reflect the historical fact of the continuity of a Kingdom of Dumnonia and Cornwall through the so-called 'Anglo-saxon' period and beyond. However, it could be acknowledged that this was very likely a client kingdom of its powerful Wessex neighbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.3 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you calling it the 'so-called Anglo-Saxon' period? White43 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The map and the dates are incongruent. The map should be removed as it is a-historical, if that's a word! :), and should be replaced with a more accurate version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek (talk • contribs) 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Huge Anglo-Saxon gold hoard found

Unparalleled Anglo Saxon gold has been found, see Huge Anglo-Saxon gold hoard found. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Staffordshire Hoard now has an article. Revcasy (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

John Morris

{copied from my talk page} Hi Doug

You just reverted my Anglo-Saxon England edit citing John Morris, Dark Age Dates as the was too old.

However, his was the definitive work on this subject and historians are still citing his work. A few more recent publications that cite his work:

Sussex archaeological collections, Volume 132‎ - Page 118 (1986), The end of Roman Britain. Jones‎ - Page 47 (1998), Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex‎ - Page 310 (1983), The historic King Arthur: authenticating the Celtic hero of post-Roman Britain. Reno‎ - Page 81 (1996), After Empire: Towards an Ethnology of Europe's Barbarians‎ - (2003), or a current website via google http://www.hereticemperor.co.uk/VMP/Book%204/Chapter%2016/1DAgeDates.html#DAgeDates3

I could go on. The fact is his work still stands, what he did was to take some dates from Gildas that could be verified from other known reliable sources and Gildas wass out by 20 years, so he speculated that all of Gildas dates were out by 20 years. To my knowledge nobody else has done any work in this area since. So rather than quote a secondary more recent source, I would like to restore the original Morris.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfridselsey (talk •contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Doug

Checked out the website and they cite a more recent publication by Morris (The Age of Arthur) latest edition 2004, and it has a table of dates pp.512 - 517 and again it suggests the dates were earlier by 20 years. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He died in 1977. If I read the article correctly, he's being used for something about genetics? Reno thinks there was a real Arthur, Higham's book on Gildas doesn't mention Morris -this is The English Conquest, Gildas and Britain in the fifth century - are you saying no one has done any work in this area? Snyder's The Age of Tyrants doesn't mention Morris. Jones is referring to Morris's concept of "living memory". The web site is someone's self-published work, so irrelevant. We should be using modern writers, eg Jones, Snyder, Thompson etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also sketchy about this. Why not just cite some more recent material?--Cúchullain t/c 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again from my talk page:

Hum you're right the website was a mistake. The genetic stuff was something else entirely, some research done by the University of Reading on Y-chromosome variation, they were able to work out the number of Anglo-Saxons who migrated to Britain and the intermarriage rates. That was published in 2006. It is quite interesting as it supports mass migration into Britain as opposed to what was modern thinking that it was just an elite band of raiders that arrived. No Morris simply compared known dates with what Gildas had recorded and was able to identify some that were verifiable and they were wrong. The book I have was reprinted in 2004 I notice that the original publication was '73. I know that he had some criticism about his methodolgy on a lot of his work, but not in this case. I am not saying that there has not been any work by others in this area, I just said that Morris did the first serious work on dating, this was one essay on the one subject, I have not seen anything else on that scale, just a mention that Gildas was suspect and usually a reference to Morris. The sentence in the article was Bede dates the Coming of the Saxons to 446 AD; but this is now doubted., it had a citation request next to it, so as I said Morris is the definitive work in this area, so I used him. I guess that is it you want a recent citation, I would prefer Morris. If there is a contrary view to Morris, I would also like that up as well. The way the references are set up make it somewhat difficult to explain citations in any way. I think that it would be better if there was a Notes Section as well as a Reference. Now I guess that should be on the Talk page? BTW -I notice that Stenton is also given as a reference in the same article, his book was first published in '43. I know Reno's views are some what strange. I did not say I agreed with him, just that he had used Morris as a reference. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC) :The article needs a lot of work. You should read the Nick Higham book I mention, although it hasn't been met with unanimous agreement, it's all about the issue. I appreciate your trying to provide a citation. The genetics is cited by Mark Thomas's work I see. But again, Morris has been superceded by a lot of people, eg Ken Dark. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So we know what we are all talking about...

John Morris. Dark, Age Dates pp.151 -155

"Gildas wrote without written record, from the memories of old men. which included what they had heard from their fathers. The limits of his information are 'living memory', a period that in any age covers hardly more than a century. Beyond the horizon of living memory, his information is slight and misconceived. He had heard of Boudicca's revolt. of Diocletian's persecution, which he wrongly supposed to have occasioned martyrdoms in Britain, of the Arian controversy, and of Maximus' rebellion (A.D. 383-388), which he mistakenly took for the end of Roman rule. He saw the two northern walls, and explained their construction by a triad of enemy invasions, separated by two Roman expeditions, placed after Maximus, at the end of the fourth century. All this was long out of memory, and it is somewhat idle to relate the walls or the raids to actual events. Gildas' living memory begins in the early fifth century, at the point where continental record ceases, when, after the break with Rome, the British repelled their enemies. There followed a period of great prosperity 'of which no after age remembered the like'. Then came the dreadful rumour that the old enemies were come again, and then a plague. Thereafter the 'members of the council' and the 'proud tyrant' in their blind folly invited the unspeakable Saxons to defend them against Picts and Scots. The first 'three keels' (cyulis) were followed by larger numbers. Subsidies kept them quiet 'multo tempore', but they eventually rebelled, mastering the island and destroying its civilisation. Some of the survivors emigrated overseas, taking with them whatever written records may have existed, but those who stayed were rallied by Ambrosius Aurelianus, son of an emperor, and, after a long war of alternating victory and defeat, finally overcame the enemy at the siege of Mount Badon. Orderly government endured in the lifetime of the men who had won the war; but as they died out, it was subverted by a new generation who had known nothing of the troubles, and had experienced only 'our present security' (serenitas).

The main events, the coming of the Saxons and their rebellion, the migration, the resistance and its victory, have been accepted as fact by later historians from Bede to the present day; and rightly so, both because they are confirmed and dated by contemporary continental evidence, and because the experience of Gildas' first readers imposes its own limits. If a present day historian wrote for a public like Gildas', that had never seen a newspaper or a line of written historv. he might freely abuse the distant past. If he chose to make Marlborough defeat Napoleon at Minden, he would meet no effective protest; if he confused the battles of Sedan and Verdun. only the very old would object. But if he congratulated his twentieth-century readers on their freedom from war in their own lifetime', or praised the long unbroken democratic record of modem Germany, he would not be believed. Living experience may be misinterpreted, but it may not be invented. But, though the sequence of the main events is beyond dispute, the narrative based on living memory is dateless. Beside this undated oral record, Gildas shows knowledge of only one document, a single date, a letter addressed by unspecified 'British' to the Roman commander Aetius 'ter consul' (between 446 and 454), asking for help against unnamed barbarian enemies. He took the enemies for Picts, and placed the letter at the very beginning of his narrative of the fifth century, after the third of his triad of raids, before the British success, before the long period of prosperity and subsequent events. He had nothing to guide him on the context of the letter, for he had no means of knowing either the date of Aetius or the date of the events he narrated. He had to guess where he should place it; and his guess was certainly wrong. For between the letter and the Saxon rebellion he places events that fill at least a generation, the British victory and long prosperity, the rumour and the plague, the arrival of the Saxons and the 'long time' of quiescence before their name. If all these events followed after about 450, the first Saxon rebellion would have occurred within a few years of his own lifetime, the wars of the resistance and the battle of Badon well within his adult experience.

His mistake caused abiding confusion. Bede, editing Gildas two centuries after he wrote, had not the means to correct the error, though he detected a problem. He makes plain his evidence, and the conclusions he drew from it, for he made two separate attempts to date Gildas' narrative, and reached widely different results on the two occasions. The first attempt is in the Chronicle, issued as an appendix to his de Temporum Ratione in 725, The Chronicle is arranged under the reigns of emperors, and under each emperor the events are set down strictly in chronological order, according to the dates given bv his continental sources, which are m almost all cases readily identifiable. The events set down under 'Theodosius minor .. annis XX et VI' (423-449, rightly 450), are

Proclamation of Valentinian Marcellinus (425)

Vandal conquest of Africa Isidore (c. 427)

Death of St. Augustine of Hippo Possidius, etc. (430)

Palladius' mission to the Scots Prosper (431)

Third Pictish raid on Britain Gildas, 19

Epistola ... ad Aetium ter consulem Gildas. 20

Prosperity, plague, invitation to Angli Gildas, 20

S. Maria Maggiore dedicated Liber Pontificalis I. 232 (432/440)

S. Stephen's relics brought from Jerusalem Marcellinus (439)

Huns waste Thrace Marcellinus (442)

Bede here dates the Aetius letter to the 430s.

Under the next reign, 'Martianus et Valentinianus annis VIII' (449-456, rightly 450-457), the first event is the landing of the English, 'tribus longis navibus', to be followed by larger forces. The visit of Germanus and Lupus is misdated to 443/4 (rightly 429), and the resistance of Ambrosius, with alternating war extending to the final victory of the English, is placed in the reign of the emperor Zeno, dated between 484 and 491.

By the time he published the History in 731, Bede had acquired more information. In particular, he had secured the full text of Constantius' Life of Germanus, and learnt that there were two visits of Germanus, not one; but he still had not discovered Prosper's date for the first visit, so he transcribed Constant ius out of temporal order, at the end of his fifth-century narrative, because he did not know where it fitted. He had also learnt the date of Aetius' third consulate, 446, the 23rd year of Theodosius, reckoning from his accession as senior emperor in 423. His first dating had allowed a proper interval between the letter, at the beginning of Gildas' narrative, and the Saxon landing twenty years later. Now that the letter was dated, the interval could be no longer maintained. He refrained from shifting the whole of his dates, and made as few changes as possible. He left out most of his continental events, and jumped straight from Palladius' mission in 431 to the letter of 446, following it with two new items, Attila's wasting of Europe and the Constantinople earthquake (both from Marcellinus, 447), thereafter the prosperity, the plague and the rest of Gildas' narrative. The English landing is given a slightly looser date (450/7 instead of 450/453) and Badon is for the first time admitted, and precisely dated by the emendation of a corrupt passage in Gildas to 44 years after the English landing.

The text of the Chronicle also needed correction; but it was already published, and it was not possible to change the order of events. Our manuscripts contain a striking peculiarity; with two exceptions, no event is given a precise year date within a reign, though the order is always chronological. These two exceptions are the Palladius' mission and the Aetius letter; after the first come the words 'anno Theodosii VIII' (431), after the second the words 'XXIII Theodosii principis anno' (446). The second of these is certainly a correction to the original text, for the letter is placed before numerous events that Bede certainly knew were much earlier than 446. The first was presumably inserted to provide a date bracket for the sequence of British events. It is quite clear that Bede had no independent authority whatsoever for his date of 449 (450); he had to do the best he could with Gildas' text, and he went wrong because Gildas' single date was misplaced, an error which he had no evidence to correct. But because Bede is the greatest of English historians, his date has passed into our received tradition, and, until quite recently, has blocked the search for further evidence.

Such evidence exists, known to us but not to Bede; and once the false light of the date 450 is put out, it is not difficult to detect."

Do you normally make people jump thru hoops on one authorative citation??

BTW - Of nine references given in the article, one is a dead link, two are selfpublished work and one is to a letter page (it is on Brit Archaeology site I suppose). Good to see a universally high standard of references?

Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point and I regret that you seem to be making this personal. I think it's clear below that I think this article isn't very good. I was only dealing with what I saw happening on my watchlist, not with the article as a whole. And of course there is a considerable discussion on the date since Morris. Please don't take the attitude that I'm going to revert every edit you make, which hopefully is very unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doug! I would like to make this article better. I think that putting the two templates up was the way to go.

I didn't think that the Morris citation would be so contentious. In the world of history and particularly in the Dark Ages historians argue every point, however if you managed to read the extract I put up, I think that you'd agree that it's not really controversial. I think that this section is the one cited by other historians (including Jones). Where his essay does become controversial is the interpretation of the results, Morris says essentially that Gildas/ Bede were approx. 20 years out on known verifiable dates therefore they must be 20 years out on all dates. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

400-600 or so

Anyone writing a paper on this period would be using sources such as the historians Christopher Snyder's The Age of Tyrants and Michael E. Jones The End of Roman Britain, the archaeologist Ken Dark's From Civitas to Kingdom, etc. I apologise that I can't spend my time doing this, but I wanted to let others know about some of the important modern sources for this. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I am aware of Jones in particular and have used his analysis on preliterate AS poetry in the past. But as you agree Jones did cite Morris! Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that was discussing living memory, right? But in any case, it's always better to use recent scholarship, and as you probably know, Morris's work on Arthur is considered pretty dubious (not that you are using it). Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The bit on living memory was part of a general discussion on how Gildas derived his dates. I am not sure that discusing Arthur is a safe topic and in case he is not really my area. Geoffrey of Monmouth rules in my book! And if Oxford University would give us a copy of the ancient book in the British language that their archdeacon gave to Geoffrey perhaps we could unravel the mystery of Arthur or should it be that well known Roman surname Artorius? Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References

I have added a Notes section this should make it a lot easier to manage citations better. Please make sure you provide details of the source in the Reference section and explain your citation along with page number etc in the Notes section. Thanks Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup continues

One of the problems with this article, is the original editors have a discussion about reliabilty of dates and sources throughout. I think that this discussion should be confined to the Sources section only (maybe consider a Dark Age Dates section to discuss dates), otherwise it wrecks the flow of the narrative. For example, everytime Gildas is mentioned it is prefaced by "if his date/ info can be relied upon"!! Anyway, I have cleaned up the Historical Context section on this premise, and included a few up to date citations for Doug. Also removed the Morris/ Higham citations about dates from the Migrations section for reasons already given. Gone but not forgotten! Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of Maps

I have changed the map for the year 800AD as the map it replaced showed Cornwall as part of the Anglo-Saxon domain, this is not the case at 800AD. Cornwall and it's allies lost against Wessex in about 838AD although it is not particularly clear whether it was completely taken over by the victors. Therefore I think that the 878 map is nearer the truth as it says Wessex and it's dependancies. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have ploughed my way through the History of Anglo-Saxon England and updated it. I think that we are pretty much there. It would have been quicker to rewrite it from scratch, but I have tried to retain what the original editors were saying. Anyway I think that you'll agree it is now somewhat better structured and has citations for everything. I have removed the discussion on sources as I think that would be more appropriate on the English historians in the Middle Ages and the discussion on accuracy of dates I think is more appropriate on Timeline of Anglo-Saxon England. I think that we can remove the refimprove and citations request template. I am not sure that we need a further reading list now either? Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Short DNB article

Harold's uncle, Ælfwig, gets a short mention in the old DNB, s:Ælfwig (DNB00) and here. A very short article, or redirect to some other article, but the creator will find Ælfwig already exits. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have included a link on the main page. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

England ... no, Britain ... no, England

This article is schizophrenic in its use of England/English and Britain/British. There was no British nation until 1707 and no "British" people until 1707. You can argue all you want about what the Romans called this island and what they called the people who lived on it but there was no country, nation, kingdom, feifdom, principality or whatever called "Britain" or "British" until 1707. The Romans occupied what is now England, the Anglo-Saxons occupied what is now England (and gave it its name), the Normans occupied England. The article is inaccurate in talking about "Britain" as if it was a country in the 5th century or "the British" as a people when really no such identity existed for another 13 centuries. wonko (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is more appropriate to Sub-Roman Britain. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"Britain" is actually the accurate term, as it can refer to the island of Great Britain. "England" actually shouldn't be used, as it's the name of a kingdom that didn't even exist for a major period of time that this article covers. Swarm X 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UT

The mistake that you are making, OP, is to think of the British as they were known by the Romans and the British in the post 1707 world as the same group of people - culturally and politically this is not true.

I'm afraid I can't agree wonko. For example, the Roman frontier was once marked by the Antonine Wall which is deep into Scotland. The Romans also controlled Wales. The only sensible designation for this area is Britain - as the plethora of books on "Roman Britain" testify.TheMathemagician (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting historical terminology correct is always a problem. Though the island of Great Britain may have always existed, neither England nor Scotland existed as countries in the way we think of them today. We can of course use 'England' and 'Scotland' to mean the geographical areas covered by the later states - but then we'd have to omit Bernicia from 'Anglo-saxon England' because it became part of the later state of Scotland. Similarly the 'English' and 'Scots' can be described as 'British' today but in Anglo-saxon times the term British really meant the Welsh and Cumbrians i.e. earlier inhabitants who had been displaced and pushed west. And a little more digging reveals it all to be even more complicated than that. So best to always write with care. Cassandra.

Oppenheimer Fringe Theory

See the policy on fringe theories; we should not even bother to refute them although they may have their own pages, because to do so would give one undue weight and if we cite one piece of crankery, then we end up having to cite them all - "the Nazis believed that the Anglo-Saxons orginated in Atlantis, but most scholars refute this" "British Israelism holds that the Anglo-Saxons came from the Near East, but most scholars refute this" etc. Paul S (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Absolutely. So, we mention the theory (not giving it undue weight), and refute it. The theory is notable (it is in the public domain, and discussed), and if academic consensus is that it's crap, we say so (politely). If we don't, it is an open door for it to be added, repeatedly. It is far, far, more educational to readers to recognise its existence and refute it, so that poorly informed readers go away better informed. Although your examples are absurd, we have quite polite articles about Mormons, the Bible, Father Christmas, the Loch Ness Monster and all manner of "fringe theories". And we assess them in the light of scholarly consensus - we don't just ignore them because we disagree with them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Although a lot of Oppenheimer's work is regarded as on the 'fringe' I believe that there has been serious discussion by many historians on whether some of the tribes were actually German speaking. I think that the wiki article on the Belgae covers this subject pretty well. The Anglo Saxon England article currently states that"The writer Stephen Oppenheimer has suggested that some of the native tribes identified as Britons by the Romans may have been Germanic language speakers, though most scholars refute this." , which infers that it is an original hypothesis by Oppenheimer, when the idea has been kicking around for a long time, probably going back to Julius Ceasar who claimed that a lot of the Belgae were descended from tribes who had long ago crossed the Rhine from Germania. However most of the tribal and personal names recorded are identifiably Celtic, which is why the majority of modern scholars discount the 'German speaking' hypothesis, but why the Belgae are often described as Celtic with German stock. I would like to see The writer Stephen...etc sentence replaced with "There is an hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been Germanic language speakers although most modern scholars refute this." which I think is more accurate, however the Oppenheimer citations could be left in place and leave the more detailed discussions to the Belgae article? Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with that proposal. My concern was that the suggestion should not be totally ignored here, but if it is regarded as "fringe" we should indicate that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this discussion by Wightman gives some good background info. re the Belgae. I think that any mention of Oppenheimer tends to put a lot of peoples backs up, but in this case I would say that there has been a lot of mainstream debate about this subject so I am not sure that it qualifies exactly as fringe. However, I will amend the article as proposed. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Because it's been on TV that doesn't make it mainstream debate - and neither does unconditional acceptance by people engaged in Nationalist historiography. Can anyone find any other significant body of opinion suggesting some of the Ancient Britons didn't speak a Celtic language? The one thing all linguists who are familiar with Oppenheimer agree on is that he really is spouting nonsense - see here, here, and here already cited to keep the nonsense off the Belgae page... what exactly is the difference between putting the crank Oppenheimer in there and putting Atlantis, the Oera Linda Book and British Israelism in there? Paul S (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul. Don't let your obvious dislike, of Oppenheimer cloud your view on this. It is not about all ancient Britons speaking German. There has always been a debate about some of the Belgae tribes possibly speaking German. Did you check out the Wightman, I put up? That does not really support German speakers in the Belgae heartlands so it is unlikely that there would be any in Britain. As the subject has been seriously debated by historians some who predate Oppenheimer I would suggest that it is a minority view rather than a fringe view? Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between minority views (even ones I definitely disagree with like Koch & Cunliffe on the Atlantic origins of Celtic) and the crankery of Oppenheimer. It isn't about like or dislike, it's about a total lack of sound methodology. As far as linguistics goes nobody who knows anything takes him seriously at all. Paul S (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul. You are missing the point. This is about the possibility of some of the Belgae tribes being German speakers and as you probably know that is not really an original idea (by Oppenheimer). I agree that 4 citations from Oppenheimer is a bit excessive and perhaps we should reduce that. However, as I said it is a minority viewpoint, probably due to a historical misunderstanding. I think that most historians now believe that the Germani cisrhenani of Caesars texts were probably Celtic. You said that it is not about liking or disliking someone, but you have obviously gone after Oppenheimer with a passion, you have shown some of it here. I do not believe in just deleting someone because you dislike their methods. I would prefer to put some citations up that quote the mainstream viewpoint on this and also an authorlink to Oppenheimer maybe? To let people make up their own minds. I have put up Koch (who you don't like but accept as a serious historian) if you have any suggestions then I am sure that we would all benefit. What do you say? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Massive gap in quality between Koch and Oppenheimer. But of course, it's been on TV. So was Von Daniken in the 70s. Ho hum. Paul S (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul. Again you miss the point this is about a hypotheses on whether some of the British Belgae spoke German, not on the credibility of Oppenheimer. Although I have enjoyed our exchange, thankyou. I was hoping that you could have given me some alternative citations to Oppenheimer, because as I said this minority view predates him. For example Peskett was going on about some of the Belgae being of German origin in 1884(Gai Iuli Caesaris de Bello Gallico. Commentariom I. II III with English Notes A.G. Peskett. Cambridge University Press. Book 1 p. 51 Note 2.). However, I have now checked out the Oppenheimer citations and he bases his ideas (on what language the Belgae spoke) on Prof. David Evans, in Gaulish Personal Names. There is a discussion on this subject on the Talk:Belgae which goes into more detail than here. I guess that we could replace the Oppenheimer citations with those of Evans and Peskett. Do you have any other suggestions?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppenheimer does not argue that the inhabitants of the Romano-British civitas of the Belgae spoke German; he argues that the inhabitants of the Eastern portion of lowland Britain spoke German. This may be ignorance on my part, but I have never heard anyone assert that there was in Roman times an island of Germanic speakers in and around Winchester and/or Silchester. All this talk about the Belgae is not really relevant unless there is a body of opinion which does makes such an assertion. Even then, it would have nothing to do with Oppenheimer's ideas because his demarcation line between Celtic and Germanic speakers in Britain is based on genetics. He may be right about the genes, but when he tries to venture into linguistics, that's when he becomes crank because he genuinely doesn't know what he's talking about, hence the total lack of peer review for his theories on the origins of English. Paul S (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul. The hypothesis goes that some of the continental Belgae may have spoke German, therefore some of the Belgae tribes in southern Britain who originated from the continent also may have spoken German. It is not Oppenheimers hypothesis! Please note for it to be a theory, the hypothesis has to be provable. Have you actually read what Oppenheimer said? He says that there is one possibility that they [the Belgae] may have spoken German, that is a hypothesis not a theory and he does not support it with any genetics, purely on what Caesar said and Prof Evans. Check this link out from the 19th century [1] it is the same discussion , however as Oppenheimer was not around in the 19th century, his hypothesis is not original. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So presumably Koch is cited as a modern scholar refuting the view, or rather explaining that when Caesar said the Belgae said they originally came from Germania, this didn't mean they weren't Celtic speakers. However, who apart from Oppenheimer has made the claim that any of the Britons specifically, Belgae or other tribes, were Germanic and not Celtic speakers? I have never heard this from anyone else. Paul S (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, historians just say that it is possible that the Belgae were part German, they do not explicitly say that they spoke German, only that some of those Belgae went to parts of southern Britain. I think that this is because there is virtually no archaeology or lexical artefacts in the areas where any likely German speakers would have been. However you could look at Anne Ross. Pagan Celtic Britain pp.38-39 for example or The Rise of the Celts - Henri Hubert,Gallia Belgica - Edith Mary Wightman. As I said it is pretty much a minority view these days. I guess that in the context of this article we could probably just cite Koch and Ross, they would more than cover subject, there is no real reason to quote Oppenheimer, for the reasons stated in the discussion before. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that as far as I am aware, nobody has ever followed through from Caesar saying the Belgae claimed Germanic origins to the Belgae being in Britain to this meaning that there must have been Germanic speaking Belgae in Southern England and the origins of English could lie with these Belgae not the Anglo-Saxons. Do you know different? The problem is that the article reads "There is a hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been Germanic language speakers" who else has posited this other than Oppenheimer and his followers? Paul S (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul. This discussion is becoming circular, the hypothesis (ie:there is no evidence to support it) was first expounded by Victorian historians. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise in this area but I can see Paul's concern here. The article quotes Oppenheimer: "... one possibility is that the Belgae spoke Germanic languages, perhaps ancestral to Dutch or Frisian, which they carried to England even before the Roman invasion". If Oppenheimer is generally regarded as a fringe source, as you both seem to agree, then we should source this elsewhere. Victorian historians are citable in some circumstances -- not everything changes in a hundred and twenty years -- but it's much preferable to have a modern source, and if the only alternative to a Victorian source is one regarded with suspicion, I'd have to ask why there are no other sources repeating this argument. The sources you link to above don't seem to me, in a quick scan, to have any explicit comments that would back up the quote given from Oppenheimer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What we say in the article is "There is a hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been German language speakers although most modern scholars refute this." and I think that sums it up. Paul S was concerned that the hypothesis was Oppenheimers? And as Paul S says Oppenheimers views go somewhat beyond the mainstream. Anyway it was a Victorian idea. So I don't see the point of having the Oppenheimer citations, we can replace them with one from a Victorian historian like Peskett, and just balance that with the Koch and/or Wightman citations who discuss the various hypotheses. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand what's been said about Oppenheimer being "fringe" - I have no specialist knowledge on the issue - but the fact is that his theories are relatively well known among a non-academic public. If he is not rebutted - by name - in this article, he should be clearly rebutted in his own article. That article has no "Criticism" section, it simply sets out what he said. Academics may well ignore what he said, but that doesn't mean that WP should ignore him. If his views replicate earlier writers' views, and their views have been rejected, we should state both those facts, and lead readers towards the correct conclusion. The "danger", if you like, is that if WP fails to indicate that his views are rejected in academic circles, his views will continue to resonate among WP readers, and there may well be attempts to reinstate his theories here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK Ghmyrtle I take your point. I would say that the evidence on either side of this issue is so thin almost to the point of being invisible so it would be difficult to rebut Oppenheimer(on this specific point) and he himself only says that there is only a possibilty that there would have been German speakers amongst the British Belgae and as I have said this is a very old idea! My only concern really is that we have 4 citations from Oppenheimer which I think is a bit excessive as it all comes from the same section of his book, I would like to merge those citations into one though, and keep the Koch to provide a bit of balance. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem - I think the Oppenheimer citations are a hangover from an earlier version of the article. One would be ample. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OK - it's done. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"It was a Victorian idea" that English was not introduced by the Anglo-Saxons? Which 19th Century historian suggested this? And if there was one, why is Oppenheimer the only citation? Paul S (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
OK - Done. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done, actually - read the whole pamphlet you're citing. It's a political tract which might be called "anti-racist" in modern terms. The author is a parliamentarian who is criticising the emerging myth of Germans as the master race and in doing so goes so far as to suggest that Germanic languages were spoken over the whole of Gaul. Which, although he means well, makes him more of a fruitcake - even for his time - than Oppenheimer, who I notice still gets cited... Paul S (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The point was that they were talking about the British Belgae speaking German, the text I cited was probably one of the least 'offensive' ones. If you start looking at what some of the Victorian historians were saying then Oppenheimer looks quite good in comparison. The discussion continues on whether some of the Belgae were of German origin today, but there is virtually no supporting evidence either way. You have provided no evidence to support the opposite view other than rant about Oppenheimer and vandalise the article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about the Belgae continues only between Flemish and Wallonian nationalists in Belgium for political reasons; whoever takes Caesar at his word as a serious source is still living in Victorian times him or herself. "No supporting evidence" apart from all the personal names and placenames being unequivocally Celtic and the archaeology placing the Belgae firmly in the La Tene area? The nutjob you cited - a politician not a historian anyway - was trying to make out that the whole of Gaul spoke German (with no evidence, of course) Paul S (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes but you were wanting evidence that there were victorians who were suggesting that the British Belgae were German speakers, and he certainly did (and again it was for political reasons). As the (wiki) article says, it is a hypothesis that is refuted by most modern historians. There were plenty of 19th century historians with the same view as this man, you only have to look at Google books to find a few. I am surprised that you have spent so much energy here when there are other pages that cite Oppenheimer as an authoritive source, but before you do please plough through Google books and find a citation that is acceptable to you, or put the Wightman I put up originally, she discusses the Belgae/ Germani link and says that it is an assumption that is now rejected. We can then put this one to bed.Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
These sources are even pre-Victorian, late 18th - early 19th Century. We're straying so far back that they don't bear refuting because the authors believed the Leabhar Gabhala was true (1st on the list) or that the Celts came from India (2nd one) or in phrenology. Pointing out that modern scholars refute their arguments is like bothering to point out that modern scholarship refutes the Firmament, Blemmyes or the transmutation of base metal into gold... Paul S (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
OK - I give up. You are good on invective but not up to much at providing any useful input. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
@Paul S: Unless we hear different views from other editors, it seems that you have not convinced anyone that your approach is correct - so I have reverted your edit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Still no satisfactory citation for this supposedly mainstream view post 1840, only the Oppenheimer modern fringe theory. Further, Koch isn't "refuting" only restating the accepted view - is there indeed anything to "refute"? Adjusted accordingly. Paul S (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me add something else: the Belgae being German doesn't matter unless you can actually find some source that goes further and says that the origin of the English language lies with these Belgic Germans rather than with the Angles and Saxons in the 4th-6th Century. This page is meant to be about Anglo-Saxon England, after all... Paul S (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It was never a mainstream view. Remember read back, I said it is a minority view, however it is a hypothesis that has been discussed by the mainstream and rejected. That is the way of hypothesis, you publish it and it is reviewed by your peers. They test your hypothesis and if it works then it becomes a theory. Your second point I can agree on. The citations that you have removed again work, because they cite an old view a modern view and someone rejecting it. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This was one of Oppenheimers sources for his linguistic hypothesis [2] Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay... I'll get a couple of your old books and we'll cite them in the "Sources" section above rather than in the main body. We've spent too much time on this. Paul S (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, please do not assume that anyone else agrees with you. The fact that the hypothesis exists (or existed) needs to be stated in the text (and refuted), rather than ignored. Reverting again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Paul S. I agree that we have spent too much time on this but you have stonewalled every argument. The hypothesis was first mooted by some 19th c historians or earlier, their logic was flawed I agree and their methodolgy was probably suspect as well. 20th century historians discussed the hypothesis and generally rejected it. Now geneticists are saying that some of the sub-Roman Britains had Germanic markers in their mtDNA, therefore could possibly speak German. Most linguists however disagree. I think that is essentially a summary of where we are. It would be good if you could find a recent paper (probably by the linguist community) that refute Oppenheimers view or even Forsters paper. I looked up Forster: He studied chemistry at the universities of Kiel and Hamburg, specialised in genetics at the Heinrich-Pette-Institute of Virology and Immunology in Hamburg and received his PhD in Biology in 1997. After postdoctoral research at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Muenster until 1999, he was appointed Research Fellow at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge until 2006. In the same period, he became a Founding Member of the interdisciplinary Junge Akademie in Berlin. From 2006-2009 he was a university senior lecturer in forensics and life sciences. Peter Forster is currently Director of Research at the Institute for Forensic Genetics in Muenster (Germany), Vice-President of CSAR (Churchill College, University of Cambridge, UK), Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, and an editor of the International Journal of Legal Medicine (Springer, Heidelberg). Now you are not going to call him a crank too are you?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So all along, it has been about defending Oppenheimer's fringe theories after all. Thought as much. Paul S (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact is Paul S., I refer you to my first observation. You have let your dislike for Oppenheimer, may it just be his views, cloud your judgement on this, fact is there is and has been a hypothesis that some of the sub-Roman Britons may have been Germanic speakers, not just coming from Oppenheimer who was basing his ideas on work by other people in any case. I rather think that you are in denial. I would have respected you more if you switched the Oppenheimer citation for Forster or Sykes for example. The subject is a small aside in this article, the wider discussion will be on the Celtic pages and is on the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain. I was also hoping that seeing that the Celtic domain is your area of interest, that you would have had access to papers that maybe would have contradicted this view, but we seem to have been stuck with your POV on the subject.Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. As no other citations are forthcoming, I would suggest that we remove the existing citations on this and replace it with Forster, and the Thomason Forster was the geneticist who was Oppenheimer's main source for the German speaking hypothesis, and Thomason is a linguist who refutes the hypothesis in no uncertain terms. Thus we support the sentence as wrote. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see Oppenheimer has no academic credentials in this field (he's a medical doctor) and has not published any peer-reviewed articles on his research. All mention of his crank theories should be removed from the article IMO. You might as well as start citing Graham Hancock theories. TheMathemagician (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right however out of date. Oppenheimer was removed from the article some time ago. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW- A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, whilst a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

By talking about someones theories, even crank theories you are giving undue weight to what they are saying, when in fact you perhaps don't want to? Surely what you really want to say is that Oppenheimer presents a series of untested original hypothese backed up solely by a survey of previously published results, rather than contributing any new evidence? Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Far too many of our articles talk about theories, or even have 'theory' in their title, when they mean hypotheses. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon influence in modern Britain

Early Britain; Anglo-Saxon Britain, by Grant Allen. I wonder this source could help. Komitsuki (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Grant Allen was a well known writer, but this seems to be one of his worst books. A study of his work comments "Allen wrote at every level of profundity. At the deepest end there are his severely technical monographs on botany We move on through solid articles on every conceivable topic for the general periodicals; past travel guidebooks for the cultured art tourist, and on to shorter 'middles' on natural history and topography for quality newspapers like the St James's Gazette. Nearer the surface are controversial causeries on social topics for the Westminster Gazette, and lighter articles for middlebrow periodicals like the Belgravia. Finally, at the shallowest end, we have the frankly pot-boiling work: commissioned books like one on Anglo-Saxon Britain and another on working-class heroes."[3]. So I'd say no in this case. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions

I have some questions. How does this article related to Anglo Saxons? Should the history sections that I have helped overhaul there, belong here?

Smaller questions: "Anglo-Saxon England", I know Stenton used the term, but in what way was it England before the 9th century? And afterwards what other type of England was there up until 1066. If we are to talk of Anglo-Saxon England as an entity is there a Danish England or a British England - or even is Wessex England different again?

I am just interested to know how we are linking these articles together. I am quite happy contributing to a detailed narative of a history based on the current sources. J Beake (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a great job on both this article and the Anglo-Saxons article. I guess that you have worked out that this article is a general one on the history, where as the other one is more on culture. There is inevitably going to be some crossover. As far as your point, about England, is concerned, I think that the first line of the lead already qualifies it by stating that it is the part of Britain that became known as England. If you feel that is a little too cryptic you might want to expand so that it spells it out a little better. Rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I did add some qualifications into the introduction. Actually on second thoughts it is good to grasp the difficulties in the title. I also suggest we develop the sources section into a historiography section, where we can look back on the development of approaches to Anglo- Saxon history and crucially we bring some of the wealth of scholarly work on the evidence, be it historical, archaeological or linguistic.J Beake (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Something went wrong with these articles, I think. Perhaps Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon England should ineed be merged.

For some reason, many people seem to assume that in order to look smart, they need to "deconstruct" this topic as excessively as possible. Everything is a "narrative", and every other sentence must emphasize how much the author has out-paced the "traditional narrative". Yes, we get it, "Anglo-Saxons" were not in fact "Angles and Saxons", the term is misleading, and, shockingly, wasn't coined before the 8th century. But then how, oh how should we call the Anglo-Saxons of the 7th century?

"Anglo-Saxons" is just the conventional historiographical term for this. I don't see why people think it is helpful or even reflects positively on their intelligence if they go out of their way to distract from discussing the topic over such terminological gymnastics. We have the kingdom of France start in 843, but shockingly the term "France" did not arise until centuries later. We are talking about Habsburg Spain, but what was the meaning of "Spain" in 1500? Did it exist? Are we caught in a "traditional narrative" in calling it "Spain"?

By nature of the historiography of the early medieval period, we do not know all that much about the period. Say it and move on, please, but don't ruin the article because you cannot get over just how "fraught with difficulties" the use of any "ethnic label" is. If you want to argue the semantics of "ethnicity", your contributions may be more at home in articles on ethnicity itself.

"Use of the term Anglo-Saxon assumes that the words Angles, Saxons or Anglo-Saxon have the same meaning in all the sources"? Seriously? This isn't just incredibly naive, it is also arrogant and indeed insulting to all scholars of the Anglo-Saxon period by implying they do not know their own field. I can believe some lost soul has published such a statement in writing somewhere, but this certainly doesn't mean we should repeat it in Wikipedia's voice. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Anglo-Saxon England → History of Anglo-Saxon England – Per some previous discussion at Talk:Anglo-Saxons, there seems to be general confusion over which of these articles is the central article about the Anglo-Saxons. Most seem to agree that this article is primarily about the history of Anglo-Saxon England, while Anglo-Saxons should be about the people (e.g., society and culture). It does not seem that there is consensus for a merge of the two articles, since it would be a massive undertaking and would result in an article that is potentially too long. Therefore, it has been suggested in the past that to clarify the difference between the two, this article be moved to "History of Anglo-Saxon England". Without this clarification, the two titles seem redundant; a reader might be thinking: "Why are there two overlapping articles on this? Which one is supposed to be the main one?". "Anglo-Saxon England" is a general title, encompassing the whole of the topic, and therefore it should ideally have a section discussing culture and society; however, Anglo-Saxons is the article which contains information on said topics. Therefore, to make clear the seemingly purely historical purpose of this article, I propose that we move it from "Anglo-Saxon England" to the more specific "History of Anglo-Saxon England". Biblioworm 04:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Anglo-Saxon England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Endnote

There is an endnote at the bottom of this article:

Throughout this article Anglo-Saxon is used for Saxon, Angle, Jute or Frisian unless it is specific to a point being made; "Anglo-Saxon" is used when the culture is meant as opposed to any ethnicity.

I know the authors have tried their hardest with the terminology in this article, but it continues to be a complete mess. The endnote is confusing and contradictory: the first half seems to suggest that 'Anglo-Saxon' covers people descended from multiple Germanic tribes/groups, but the second that it refers to culture not ethnicity. The people living in England at this time were significantly still the original population of post-Roman Britain but had acculturated to Englishness. Actual Angles, Saxon, Jutes, Frisian, and whatever, were always the minority.

The problem is that "Anglo-Saxon" continues to be a dog's breakfast of a term. It introduces an anachronistic and confusing description to an era (mostly) because people are too wary of projecting 'England' and 'English' backward. But at least 'England' and 'English' have more precision, though equal amounts of anachronism. It would be better to use those terms throughout and have an endnote simply explaining that the people at the time may not have understood the identity but it's used for the sake of the modern reader.

The opening sentence really says it all:

Anglo-Saxon England was early medieval England,...

Can we have a bit of a sanity check on the terminology for this article? [unsigned]

(ec)The terminology used seems compatible with that of the sources. We are not going to go over to "English" until the bulk of WP:RS do, and there is no sign of that. Is this part of the woke American campaign against "Anglo-Saxon"? Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- perhaps the title of the article could be moved to History of Early Medieval Britain - at present, Early medieval England redirects to Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon language redirects to Old English - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
No, Anglo-Saxon is a common usage, and per WP:COMMONNAME we are enjoined to use such things. As noted, the language article is 'Old English' but the Anglo-Saxons are distinguished from the Britons (Welsh, etc) that they partially displaced. The truth is that there will never be a complete, correct, and consistent nomenclature. Our job is not to invent such a thing but to go with what there is, using the best scholarship we can. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England/Archive_1&oldid=1136796496"