Saxon Engeland

KeskusteluMedieval Europe

Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.

Saxon Engeland

Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.

1Coessens
syyskuu 13, 2010, 4:07 am

I was wondering if anyone could provide me with titels of good history books on the Saxonperiod in Engeland. In a more general way, good history books on the end of the Roman occupation and what came afterwards.

2Nicole_VanK
syyskuu 13, 2010, 4:25 am

I like Arthur's Britain : History and archaeology A.D. 367-634. In a way the author focuses on a search for a historical core for the Arthur stories. But in doing so he gives a fair treatment of the end of Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxon invasions, and the way the Britons tried to deal with these.

3cemanuel
syyskuu 13, 2010, 6:24 am

I have two which cover what you're talking about. An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England by Peter Hunter Blair (wouldn't touchstone) and The End of Roman Britain by Michael Jones.

Of the two I think Blair's likely more what you're looking for. It's more of a historical narrative. Jones dives more into theory, though Blair does some of that too.

4mcalister
syyskuu 19, 2010, 4:32 am

Touchstone for Peter Hunter Blair - An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England

5Conachair
syyskuu 22, 2010, 6:52 am

I quite liked Daily Life in Anglo-Saxon England by Sally Crawford

6ArmchairWarrior
elokuu 4, 2011, 5:54 pm

The classic book on Anglo-Saxon history is Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, which is a comprehensive general introduction.

You could also read a translation of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles or Bede's The Ecclesiastical History of The English People. Both are contemporary texts but very readable.

Just in case someone is still curious.

7Coessens
elokuu 10, 2011, 5:23 am

Thanks for all the tips. I have the Stenton, the others will be on my list.

8mnleona
elokuu 11, 2011, 2:10 pm

Into the Path of Gods by Katheen Cunningham Guler.

9erilarlo
syyskuu 2, 2011, 11:49 am

Note on Stenton: It's more readable than a lot of reliable works 8-)

10Stoney63
huhtikuu 8, 2013, 10:57 pm

In the peliican history of England set is "The Beginnings of English Society" By Dorthy Whitelock

11anglemark
Muokkaaja: huhtikuu 9, 2013, 7:09 am

12PossMan
huhtikuu 9, 2013, 7:20 am

A book I found very illuminating on the post-Roman (400-1070) is Britain after Rome by Robin Fleming. Very good on settlement/urbanisation/de-urbanisation.

13BobbieJoe101
huhtikuu 9, 2013, 8:03 am

I have recently found out the my family tree can be traced back to the first Anglo-Saxon kings. I would really like to learn more about them. I believe that I will locate some of these books to read.
Thank you!

14BobH1
huhtikuu 9, 2013, 3:13 pm

Who were the first anglo-saxon kings?

15ELEkstrom
kesäkuu 16, 2013, 7:00 pm

Offa was one of the first.

The best two books on the period in my opinion, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is a timeline of events, written in A, B, C, and D versions (depending on where the entry was written, you get a Godwinsson bias or not), and Ecclesiastical History by Bede the Venerable. I also like Barbara Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of early Anglo-Saxon England, though a bit expensive for a digital download.

16BobH1
heinäkuu 9, 2013, 3:08 pm

Offa was King of Mercia, not of England. He lived well before the Kingdom of England was established.

The first King to be aclaimed Bretwalda or "Ruler of the British" (in 830) was Egbert the Grandfather of Alfred. And he started life as King of Wessex and defeated the Kingdom of Mercia on his way to suzerainty over the region.

My point was that to claim decent from "the first Anglo-Saxon kings" requires a definition of the Kingdom the King was King of, a definition of "Anglo-Saxon" and some idea of what is meant by "first".

17ELEkstrom
heinäkuu 12, 2013, 12:01 am

BobH1, it's my understanding that Mercia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, so wouldn't that make him one of the first kings?

18BobH1
heinäkuu 16, 2013, 7:38 am

As I said it depends on the Kingdom you are talking about.

If you want the very first Saxon Kings you probably need to go back to the Saxon kingdoms of the north German plain before they conquered the majority of the island of Great Britain.

On the other hand another definition of first Anglo-Saxon kings might mean the first Kings to claim to be Kings of England.

It also depends on your definition of First. The period we are talking of covered a period of five hundred or so years.

19anthonywillard
heinäkuu 17, 2013, 12:39 am

Whoever they were they probably have an awful lot of descendants by now.

20Schizophrenia86
heinäkuu 17, 2013, 4:28 am

18: I doubt that there were any "Saxon kingdoms of the north German plain"; even in the 8th century, there weren't any Saxon kings in Saxony, only dukes acting as military leaders of the different tribes. So you would not have to go back that far (but nevertheless, I get your point).

21Nicole_VanK
Muokkaaja: heinäkuu 17, 2013, 5:18 am

even in the 8th century, there weren't any Saxon kings in Saxony, only dukes acting as military leaders of the different tribes

Yeah, but (especially prior to Frankish conquest) it's hard to tell how those guys saw themselves, or how their people saw them. Their western neighbours the Frisians are known to have had early kings.

22ELEkstrom
heinäkuu 17, 2013, 11:14 pm

I was referring to the general term used for the rulers of what we know as England that were descended from Offa and Alfred and the general public know as rulers. Most of my readers don't care about the technicalities.

23BobH1
heinäkuu 20, 2013, 4:39 pm

Like saying it doesn't matter that they live in Mexico or Canada, they all live in North America so they must be American.

And again the "first kings" of Mercia and Wessex were centuries before Offa and Alfred.

24ELEkstrom
heinäkuu 24, 2013, 1:52 am

Thanks, Bob.

25DinadansFriend
syyskuu 8, 2013, 6:59 pm

To BobH1
As a Canadian I am a North American, and wonder why Inhabitants of the United States of America claim to represent all Americas North and South by calling themselves "the Americans". I'd just like to know? :)

26dkhiggin
syyskuu 8, 2013, 7:21 pm

I'm sure the main reason is really just because it is part of our country's name -- you know, the United States of America. We are pretty egocentric, though. ;-)

27AnnaClaire
syyskuu 9, 2013, 11:04 am

>25 DinadansFriend:
Got an alternative? "USians" is okay for internet shorthand, but a bit weird for offline use.

28Nicole_VanK
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 9, 2013, 11:32 am

"Statians"? "Unitedians"? ;-) I propose "Yanks" - it's how you guys are commonly referred to much over the world anyway, and never mind if you happen to come from the South.

Don't get me wrong. But I once was "attacked" (in writing, by an American - and I deliberately leave this one ambiguous; the guy might possibly have been Canadian) for "daring" to use the term European Union while not all of Europe was united. Fair enough. But in that case: the United States of America should hold it's breath until it manages to unite all the states in both Americas. Northern Canada right up to Tierra del Fuego. Not going to happen anytime soon, is it? ;-)

29varielle
syyskuu 9, 2013, 12:48 pm

>25 DinadansFriend: I've heard South Americans asking the same question.

30PhaedraB
syyskuu 9, 2013, 4:23 pm

28, 29 >

It might be helpful to reflect on the fact that the usage became common in a time when most people would spend their whole lives without contact with people from other parts of the the Americas, much less from the rest of the world. So it's an old formulation that's unlikely to change organically any time soon. Not to mention that no other country in the Americas uses America in its name.

It's also useful to remember that when the term the United States was coined, it was pretty clear to everyone that those states comprised only a small fraction of the continent. It simply indicated that of all the states/territories/commonwealths/colonies/whatevers in the Americas, this particular bunch was united into a common nation. I'm reminded of the United Arab Emirates; I doubt if Arabs get sniffy about the name because every Arab emirate doesn't belong. Or maybe they do; I don't read the language.

31DinadansFriend
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 9, 2013, 4:27 pm

A further note on "Anglo-Saxon Kings". It seems according to John Morris' "The Age of Arthur" that the name "Anglo-Saxon' is a 19th century term. It seems that when the members of the Teutonic kingdoms in Britain wanted to talk about themselves as a group, they used the word "Englisc".
Phaedra: thank you for your useful note on nomenclature :).

32anglemark
syyskuu 11, 2013, 3:21 am

Yes, 'Englisc' won out at a very early stage, even before the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes had amalgamated. However, it did not win out before the word 'Saxon' had established itself as the term in the neighbouring Celtic languages.

33anthonywillard
syyskuu 11, 2013, 3:55 am

Maybe if the Anglo-Saxon kings had called themselves Americans it would have simplified matters in the long run. LOL.

34anthonywillard
syyskuu 11, 2013, 3:59 am

I have also had British get quite stuffy with me for assuming that Great Britain and United Kingdom referred to the same entities. I was forced to eat my words and be very precise about which specific islands or parts of islands I was referring to.

35PhaedraB
syyskuu 11, 2013, 12:02 pm

34 > Were they Britains or UKers?

36DinadansFriend
syyskuu 11, 2013, 8:40 pm

Great Britain is Scotland, Wales, England and....(wait for it...) the Isle of Man. It excludes Northern Ireland. If you throw in the Northern Irish, it's the United Kingdom. There are no Britains, but the usage "Britons" was sometimes in use during the early 20th Century. I've never heard of UKers but then I'm mostly an auto-didact.
The whole term "America" was laid on by an early (1507) mapmaker Martin Waldseemuller, apparently (according to Wikipedia) working in France.
He named it after Amerigo Vespucci. But Amerigo is the Italian form of the name Heimrich, so if Martin had been more ethnocentric, the continents could have been named "Heinrichland!"
It didn't go like that, but it coulda! :-)
Did Amerigo Vespucci actually get to the Continent named after him? I think there was considerable doubt at one time.

37anthonywillard
syyskuu 16, 2013, 2:18 pm

>35 PhaedraB: The most recent was a UKer. He insisted that some parts, for example Wales, were governed "from Westminster" and not by the crown. I followed what he was saying at the time, but now I can't remember it. He had St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha in there somewhere (as well as Jersey and Guernsey, which are part of the French Duchy of Normandy or something which Elizabeth is Duchess but not Queen of). Makes life fun for stamp collectors.

38DinadansFriend
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 16, 2013, 3:54 pm

To Anthony Willard
Some Welsh nationalists are trying to get an arrangement like the present one between Great Britain and Scotland, where part of the internal Government are now run from Edinborough. Westminster, is a part of the London conurbia, where the Houses of Parliament for Great Britain are located. The channel Islands are all that remains of the house of Windsor's claim to the Duchy of Normandy, which they last lost in 1453 with the conclusion of the Hundred Years War. It's simple really! :-)
There are also the few remaining parts of the British Empire, odd spots like the Falkland Islands, Tristan de Cunha etc.., which have not yet found a path to their own self government. I hope this helps.

39Nicole_VanK
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 16, 2013, 4:26 pm

I still would say: what does it say on your passport? You're from that place and you have a Welsh passport?, or a Falkland Isles one? No? If not, you're probably a UK citizen.

Personally I object to English, Scottish and Welsh national teams partaking separately in world / European soccer championship contests, for instance. It feels like cheating - hedging your bets. In practice it's no big deal though, since it's very rare to see more than one proceed to any serious round.

ETA: We're a bit off topic now, aren't we?

40EricJT
syyskuu 22, 2013, 11:34 am

>3 cemanuel: 6 The Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain, though it is part of the British Isles.

41anthonywillard
syyskuu 22, 2013, 12:52 pm

>40 EricJT: I also am now given to understand that The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, but is a Crown Dependency like Jersey and Guernsey, and is not part of the European Union.

42Nicole_VanK
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 22, 2013, 1:35 pm

Good. Good riddance. Put up a fence around that bloody isle and keep them contained there ;-) Want to bet they can still settle anywhere in the EU because they're UK citizens, and can travel without visas, etc.? Do they have a Manx passport?

ETA: As a continental European I don't give a damn if you're from the Isle of Man or the Isle of Woman. You're all just simply "Brits" to us. ;-)

43anthonywillard
syyskuu 23, 2013, 8:31 am

>42 Nicole_VanK: As a Californian, the dependency status of the Isle of Man is of no concern to me, except when I am being dressed down by an Englishman for my ignorance, so I try to stay au fait, so to speak. I've never met a Manxman, but I have met a Manx cat. So that's something. She did not have a passport. Or if she had one, would not admit to it.

44anthonywillard
syyskuu 23, 2013, 8:33 am

But isn't that what distinguishes Manx cats, their lack of passports?

45DinadansFriend
Muokkaaja: syyskuu 23, 2013, 4:36 pm

Thanks to Eric JT for continuing my geographic Education. I'll have to remember the Crown dependencies. Is there a list anywhere?
I'm not sure about Manx cats, is it true that one finds oneself trying to focus a little bit behind them, and wondering why?
I admit the ones I know are self assured, and reticent about their immigration status. ...Goodness, we'll be wondering about their ability to meet criteria for holding office next!
How far can we get off topic? hold on!

46Coessens
syyskuu 26, 2013, 3:39 pm

getting back to the original question: books about the Anglo-Saxon period.
Any read "A brief history of anglo-saxon England"?

47anglemark
syyskuu 27, 2013, 3:24 am

I can't find such a book. ISBN? Author? You don't mean A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons?

48EricJT
syyskuu 29, 2013, 3:19 pm

# 45 There's a list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependencies. As of 2013, three jurisdictions held this status: the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey in the English Channel and the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea.

49DinadansFriend
syyskuu 29, 2013, 6:51 pm

Thanks EricJT. Now, I can sleep again:).

50Coessens
syyskuu 30, 2013, 2:11 pm

@47, you are absolutely right, that is the one. Any comments, reviews?

51Crypto-Willobie
toukokuu 25, 2014, 2:42 pm

Speaking of Saxon England... Tolkien's translation w/ commentary of Beowulf has just been published. No Hobbits...

http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-Translation-Commentary-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0544442784...