Ethnogenesis of the English people Watch

slaven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Can somebody explain how the English people are evolved and the modern english nation is created.

From my understanding the Scots and Welsh are just Celts that the germanic tribes did not conquer. So how did the English were created?
0
reply
dan.lunnux
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
5th century - Saxons, Jutes, Angles settled in post-Roman Britain

6th/7th centuries - Saxons, Jutes and Angles formed kingdoms like Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia, Kent.

8th century - King Offa of Mercia became the dominant king over the other kingdoms

9th century - Mercian dominance ended, and Wessex took over, but the Norse Great Heathen Army destroyed East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria. King Alfred the Great of Wessex stopped the Norse, and divided the country between him and the Norse (Danelaw).

10th century - Alfred'schildren (Lady Aethelflead and King Edward the Elder) reconquered the Danelaw under Wessex rule. Alfred's grandson, Athelstan united the country under his rule by conquered Norse York (first King of England).

11th century - King Sweyn of Denmark and his son King Cnut conquered England. After Edward the Confessor died, the Norman Conquest and end of Anglo-Saxon England.

So to keep it short, the Angles, Saxon, Jutes formed kingdoms, they fought off Norse, formed England.

Genetically, the ENglish are a mix of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and some Norman.
3
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
I am of the school of thought that traces the tribes that settled Britain back to Israel.

The Danish Lejre Chronicle reports that primeval King Ypper of Uppsala (Sweden) had three sons, Dan, who afterwards ruled Denmark, Nori, who afterwards ruled Norway, and Østen, who afterwards ruled the Swedes. It says Dan first ruled in Zealand and when the Jutes fought Roman Emperor Augustus (he of Luke 2v1), they, the men of Fyn (modern Funen) and Scania called upon King Dan to help, and upon victory made him king of Jutland, renaming it Danmark.

I can't find any historical record of this battle but according to P.F. Suhm: Historie af Danmark (1782), in 235AD King Dan Mikillati ("The Magnificent" ), king of the Danes in Scania and Halland, was also crowned as king of the islands. When the Jutes and the Angles were invaded by the Saxons, Dan successfully helped them, and for this the Jutes and the Angles also crowned him as king in Viborg, Jutland.

Dan was Israel's most northerly tribe.
Judah was among Dan's northern "overflow" section, indicated by Joshua 19:34
"Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising",
also Jeroboam “recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah”- 2 Kings 14:28.)
Linguists note that certain consonants became "harder", so "d" became "t".

In the 5th century AD, when the earth in Jutland was exhausted and could not support the population, the Jutes invaded England along with the Angles and the Saxons. In these invasion are not mentioned any Danes. The Danes and the Norwegians only invaded the British Isles in the later Viking Era (8th to 11th century).

Saxo Gramaticus in his Gesta Danorum ("Deeds of the Danes" ) begins his history with two brothers named Dan and Angul, made rulers by the consent of the people because of their bravery. Angul is the eponym of the region of Angul and from his people eventually came the English who gave their name to England. The name of the Angles may have been first recorded in Latinised form, as Anglii, in the Germania of Tacitus. It is thought to derive from the name of the area they originally inhabited, the Anglia Peninsula (Angeln in modern German, Angel in Danish). This name has been hypothesised to originate from the Germanic root for "narrow" (compare German and Dutch eng = "narrow" ), meaning "the Narrow (Water)", i.e. the Schlei estuary; the root would be angh, "tight". Another theory is that the name meant "hook", as in angling for fish; Indo-European linguist Julius Pokorny derives it from *ang-, "bend" (see ankle).

During the 9th century, all Germanic tribes who invaded Britain were referred to as Englisc, who were speakers of Old English (which was known as Englisc, Ænglisc or Anglisc). Englisc also goes back to Proto-Indo-European .. showing their origin to the East where the tribes of Israel; were scattered and multiplied.
Genesis 49v16: "Dan shall judge his people"... a leader
also Exodus 38v23: "Aholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, an engraver, and a cunning workman, and an embroiderer in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen."- these people were artistic with metal and clothing.
(link).

Saxons - sons of I-Saac (Genesis 21:12"in Isaac shall thy seed be called." )
These were the Saka/Sacae people who migrated from the East.

"These noble Saxons were a nation hard and strong, On sundry lands and seas in warfare nuzzled long;
Affliction thoroughly knew, and in proud Fortune's spite, Even in the jaws of Death he dar'd her utmost might:
Who under Hengist first and Horsa, their brave Chiefs, from Germany arriv'd,
and with the strong reliefs Of th' Angles and the Jutes, them ready to supply, which anciently had been of their affinity,
By Scythia first sent out, which could not give them meat, when forc'd to seeke a soil wherein themselves to seat.
Then at the last on Dansk their lingering fortune drave, where Hoist unto to their troops sufficient harbour gave."

(source - Poly-Olbion, song 11, author Michael Drayton, Elizabethan poet from the region and time of the Pilgrim Fathers. He was obviously deeply interested in scripture and history. "His version of the Song of Solomon, executed with considerable richness of expression. However, with the exception of forty copies, seized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the whole edition was destroyed by public order." He later wrote under a pseudonym, Rowlands. He was "friend of some of the most famous men of the age." including John Selden, jurist and a scholar of England's ancient laws and constitution and scholar of Jewish law. Selden helped him with Poly-Olbion.
Attached files
2
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 months ago
#4
The Vikings

From Old English wicing meaning "pirate" ... but they were not ignorant barbarians. They knew exactly what kind of military and ideological pressure they were up against. Whenever we hear of Vikings we are presented with the idea of completely unprovoked attacks by ignorant savages who performed acts of cruelty and sacrilege more or less for the fun of it. This is a stereotype that needs to be seriously revised. More and more historians begin to agree that the first Viking attacks were the direct result of Catholic provocations and a very real threat against Scandinavian culture and religion and a means to secure ancient and very important international trade routes.It is now often believed that the Viking raids from Scandinavia from the start were attempts to ward off the Frankish expansion.

Even in the early 8th century AD the threat from the south could be felt in Scandinavia. The Danes in particular could not but see the danger of invasion from the south and began building large defensive fleets and other ocean-based defensive systems. This was intensified when the Frankish leader Karl Martell (714-741) pillaged Friesland in 734 AD and killed their military leader.This Frankish victory so close to Denmark was the main reason why the Danes built such a strong naval military fleet, yet even as early as the 720s they had built their first canal defensive system, the Kanhave Canal. Another system of defense was to place poles in the ocean close to the entrance to important ports and power centers. The first Danish maritime military base in Schlei is dated to 734 AD and the first constructions of the great wall known as Danevirke began in 737 AD. The Danevirke was a sort of northern European “Chinese Wall” – the palisade was 4-5 meters high, and from the top the Danes could view well the flat landscape to the south. The Danevirke was North-Europe´s largest defense construction in its time and lasted until the 11th century AD.Charlemagne (748-814 AD) became the new Frankish king from 768 AD and spent his entire career expanding his realms in all directions. He also forcefully converted his new subjects to (Catholic) Christianity.

In the year 782 AD he force-baptized 4500 unwilling Saxon (the Saxons of contemporary Germany south of Denmark) men by the town of Verden, close to present day Bremen. After baptizing the men, he decapitated all 4500 of them. The massacre was but one in a series of similar outrageous acts against heathens who refused Christianity. Adding to this important religious centers were destroyed and priests and priestesses were murdered, raped, tortured, and so on… The Franks were fought ferociously under the leadership of the Saxon king Widukind who used guerilla techniques as the only means by which they could stand against the Frankish land-army.The Saxons found natural allies in the Danes and many Saxon refugees went there to tell the tales of massacres, sacrileges and abuse. King Widukind himself went to Denmark in 777 AD and received both moral and practical support from the Danish kings, who also made sure to strengthen the Danevirke wall. When Charlemagne continued his aggression against the Saxons in 798 AD, he sent a representative (diplomat) to the Danish king Sigfred at Lejre (Hleidargard, and ancient royal seat and the very one in which Beowulf once met with his monsters…), a Frankish attempt to stop the Danes from supporting and receiving Saxon refugees.

But the Danes had heard the tales of Widukind and the Saxon people many times already and understood that their fate could easily also become the fate of Denmark. Reports spread to Norway, since the ocean way between Denmark and important Norwegian power centers in Viken, Agder and Rogaland was very short. It was not only the massacre in Verden and the new religion that frightened them (or, perhaps, angered them… but also the realization that Charlemagne´s empire threatened the very core of their cultural and political system.Charlemagne had crushed the old Saxon societal order where the political and still quite democratic parliament-system played such an important role.

Fortunately we have some detailed descriptions of this from the monk Lebuini who was a missionary among the Saxons in 770 AD and wrote down his observations:“It is the custom among the Saxons that once a year they hold council by the river Weser…There came usually all the chiefs from all the various areas (tribes) as well as 12 chosen nobles, 12 free men and even 12 less free men (slaves? Vassals?) There together they renewed their laws, made decisions in important court cases and decided what to do in the year´s coming peace and war operations…”Indeed, other sources confirm that there were some 36 “parliament-men” representing the highest political power in all public cases among the Saxons. To compare, the Viking "Ting" parliament had to begin with 36 leaders. We may reasonably assume that this custom was general among all the Germanic-Scandinavian tribes.

Viking democracy extended to all members of society except outlaws (that of Athens was only 10% of the population).

Charlemagne understood that this kind of decentralized democratic ruling system threatened the kind of rule (dictarorship) that he wanted, and promptly forbid it entirely as soon as he conquered Sachsen during the 780s. He wanted absolute power monopoly and introduced his own laws overruling all others. Thereafter he also introduced Christianity with violence and the death penalty to all heathens and heretics.... cont/.
Attached files
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 months ago
#5
Scandinavian people had never before encountered such a dominant threat against their cultural, political and religious traditions. The way in which Charlemagne ruled was completely at odds with all their traditions. They had seen how he went forth in Sachsen, and saw that he also made attempts to gain influence in England and managed to make an alliance with the English people in 793 AD. It was easy for Scandinavians to see that the alliance between England and Frankland was dangerous and could be a way of strengthening the forces against Denmark. Norway lay right next in their path.
Norwegians allied themselves with the Danes in their common interest against further Frankish expansion. In 787, the Franks had established a missionary station in Bremen very close to the Danish border at the time, and represented a possible military challenge against the Danes. They had seen for themselves that Christening under Charlemagne´s “protection” was strongly associated with military and political submission.

With their intelligence-network in the form of traders, the Danes and the Norwegians gathered the information (confirmed in writing) that they were on the Anglo-Saxon missionary agenda. They had also seen and understood the consequences of Frankish missionary activity. Around 791 Charlemagne had gained so much power that he could go against Denmark.

Like the heathen Scandinavians, Christian Charlemagne also based his power on pillaging just like the Vikings. His officers expected many great gifts, and Charlemagne could only comply by expanding militarily and pillaging his new subjects. The Frankish pillaging has been called an “Orgy of Conquests”. Charlemagne´s officers and soldiers were motivated by the prospect of spoils.
The Saxons fought relentlessly against the Franks for almost thirty years until they were thoroughly crushed. In 799, Charlemagne chased all the old Saxon clans away and gave their lands to his own men. More than 10 000 free people were exiled and made into serfs. Even the defeated Saxon noblemen were made into serfs, and in this and many other ways the entire Saxon population was thoroughly humiliated.

Charlemagne´s alliance with the English and the way his expansions negatively affected the important and age-old Scandinavian international trade with prestigious goods from Asia and southern Europe was another serious threat. They also remembered how they had earlier been able to stand up against the Roman Empire (The Franks were by themselves and the entire Catholic world considered the new Roman Empire, only now it was also “Holy”).
Source.
Attached files
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 months ago
#6
BBC Timewatch program on the Vikings:

Name:  Vikings-1.jpg
Views: 62
Size:  250.7 KB
Attached files
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 months ago
#7
Once settled, vikings had a peaceable society. The Vikings bathed once a week on Saturdays and in England had a reputation for excessive cleanliness. In the Scandinavian languages Saturday is referred to as 'laugardagur' or 'laurdag' or 'lordag' - "washing day", 'laug' still means "bath" or "pool" in Icelandic. Was this a dim memory of a Sabbath practice? ...
“And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean" (Numbers 31:24)

Picture:Source: The Hávamál (a viking book)

Name:  Viking code.jpg
Views: 62
Size:  106.8 KB
0
reply
coppergate
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 months ago
#8
(Original post by slaven)
Can somebody explain how the English people are evolved and the modern english nation is created.

From my understanding the Scots and Welsh are just Celts that the germanic tribes did not conquer. So how did the English were created?
Neolithic Hunter Gatherers
Celts
Romans
Vikings
Normans
Multiculturals

After the arrival of the Neolithic Hunter Gatherers, future invaders were few in number and apart from the recent multicultural invasion, never made up more than 5% of the total population and therefore the English are still Neolithic Hunter Gatherers to a large extent. The Anglo-Saxon invasion is a myth along with King Arthur.
0
reply
hagbardceline
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 months ago
#9
(Original post by coppergate)
Neolithic Hunter Gatherers
Celts
Romans
Vikings
Normans
Multiculturals

After the arrival of the Neolithic Hunter Gatherers, future invaders were few in number and apart from the recent multicultural invasion, never made up more than 5% of the total population and therefore the English are still Neolithic Hunter Gatherers to a large extent. The Anglo-Saxon invasion is a myth along with King Arthur.
Modern 'English' people have relatively small amounts of DNA inherited from western European hunter gatherer populations. From around 2400 BCE there was a greater than 90 percent genetic replacement within a few hundred years following the arrival of Beaker culture in the British Isles. The Beaker people were descendants of Yamnaya pastoralists who had migrated across Europe from the Eurasian Steppe. The arrival of Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans etc. have had comparatively little effect due to a shared genetic background inherited in large part from the Yamnaya.
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 months ago
#10
London Borough names are worth a look at.
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 months ago
#11
Yesterday's King Arthur's Britain: The Truth Unearthed showed that most people died peacefully (no cuts on their bones) and that they traded rather than fought. It also looked at the research on the DNA of people who can trace their ancestors back at least 2 generations shows that while much of England is "homogonised" due in part to the Roman roads, other areas remain tribal.

However it rubbished the existence of Arthur as there is no evidence of him at they international port Tintagel (Cornwall) and other sources they looked at are questioned, BUT, it has been shown that Arthur was based among the Britons in South Wales.
If you want the evidence, read this book (forget the preface):
Attached files
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 months ago
#12
Another aspect of bias in the above program ... it assumed that because bones didn't have cuts there was no fighting ... they looked in the wrong places!

"It is generally very difficult to pinpoint the location of medieval battles with any accuracy.
People often suppose that archaeology can solve the problem, but this is seldom the case.
Metal rusts and wood rots, and battlefields were picked clean of valuables by scavengers
and bodies were carted away to be buried in grave pits. The battle of Falkirk,
fought between Edward I and William Wallace in 1298, was one of the largest engagements
in medieval Britain, with almost 30,000 men on the English side alone, but not so much
as a single arrowhead has ever been unearthed." (Source)
0
reply
MrControversial
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 months ago
#13
> Modern 'English' people have relatively small amounts of DNA inherited from western European hunter gatherer populations

That's based on a limited set of samples. The evidence actually appears to show far higher amounts of hunter gatherer DNA in the British than a few other sources are claiming. Around 50% on average. You might be thinking of the earlier people to significantly populate the country. Of those the make up might be only around 10%.
0
reply
beacon677
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 months ago
#14
(Original post by slaven)
Can somebody explain how the English people are evolved and the modern english nation is created.

From my understanding the Scots and Welsh are just Celts that the germanic tribes did not conquer. So how did the English were created?
They were created in the same way as the Scots and Welsh (neolithic, not Celtic), only they are slightly more diluted. There was no Anglo-Saxon invasion. None of the other iinvasions contributed more than 5 % to the gene pool because the invaders did not arrive in large enough numbers compared to the population of England at the time.
0
reply
username4279810
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 months ago
#15
Don't forget the Romans and the troops from Africa, Nubians et al who were stationed here. Immigration to this land ain't nothing new :cool:
1
reply
Nabopolassar
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 months ago
#16
Cheddarman was the original Brit. the yts killed him to take over. stay woke.
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 months ago
#17
There's a continual Westward migration.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (118)
17.72%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (70)
10.51%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (117)
17.57%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (99)
14.86%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (64)
9.61%
How can I be the best version of myself? (198)
29.73%

Watched Threads

View All