Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tales of a Colonial Policeman

Colonel Blimp

War Hero
So you are saying that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes didn't rock up in their longboats in about 440 AD from Northern Germany/Southern Denmark. That is all a myth?
For them to have rocked up all at the same time would have been a migration of massive proportions and there is no mention of it anywhere by anyone. There is no record of thousands upon thousands of Germanic invaders streaming into Britain to change the ethnic and linguistic make up of the country. The archaeological evidence doesn't indicate ethnic cleansing and driving out of a local Celtic population. We have always assumed that a Germanic invasion came about because of one mention in passing by the Venerable Bede. I think.

Someone rocked up in his long boat, but the DNA evidence says that they were, like the Franks who went to Gaul, a ready-made ruling class. You know, chancers and soldiers.
 
For them to have rocked up all at the same time would have been a migration of massive proportions and there is no mention of it anywhere by anyone. There is no record of thousands upon thousands of Germanic invaders streaming into Britain to change the ethnic and linguistic make up of the country. The archaeological evidence doesn't indicate ethnic cleansing and driving out of a local Celtic population. We have always assumed that a Germanic invasion came about because of one mention in passing by the Venerable Bede. I think.

Someone rocked up in his long boat, but the DNA evidence says that they were, like the Franks who went to Gaul, a ready-made ruling class. You know, chancers and soldiers.
As I understand it, the Saxons were brought in by the Romans to act as "private security contractors" to replace Roman legions for internal security work as the Romans drew down troop levels in Britain. When the Romans finally pulled out their troops completely, the Saxons invited in some of their friends and staged a take over of the government. There would have been Saxon villages, but there was no wholesale replacement of the existing population.

From what I understand, at the time the Romans arrived the Britains were mainly culturally and linguistically related to the Belgians. There were Celts, but they were an ethnic minority.

From what I have read, this was common in large parts of the western Roman Empire. The biggest problem the Romans faced during the late empire was internal peasant rebellions. We're not sure just what the social conditions were which provoked wide scale peasant revolts, but apparently they were a big issue. We do know that the economy was in increasingly bad shape during the late empire, but we have limited understanding of the details.

In response the Romans brought in barbarians from outside the empire, and settled them in strategic locations. The barbarians provided internal security forces to deal with the peasant revolts. As Roman power waned, the barbarians assumed ever higher positions in government and eventually declared themselves to be rulers of independent kingdoms. Titles such as "duke" and "count" were senior administrative positions in the Roman administration. "Prince" was also a Roman title, although more of a social rank than a job description.

The current view is that it wasn't a case of things were fine in the Roman Empire and then one day the barbarians swept down out of the north-east and took over in an orgy of pillage and conquest. Rather, they were invited in as mercenaries and gradually took over from below as the central Roman state weakened and decayed.
 
Er....You do realise the Taffs were the original Celtic inhabitants of Britain until my Germanic Hun Anglo-Saxon ancesters came over as hired security on their longboats from Northern Germany/Southern Denmark around 440 AD to keep the sweatys out. "Bloody Huns, far too many of them, they are taking over the place" said the Taffs. And we did, after shagging his daughters as well.

Wales is just a reservation for dispossed Welshmen. Just to show that there is no hard feeling, and to keep them gainfully occupied, so that they wouldn't pull off another Boudica/Iceni stunt like they did with the Romans, we populated it with lots of sheep and goats.

They are still not getting England back though.

Morning @par avion,
We don't want it back.
 
So the thread seems to have gone to ' Tales of Colonial Policing in Roman Britain. The experiences of an Anglo-Saxon Germanic barbarian'.


The normal course of events for many/most Arrse threads :)
 
So you are saying that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes didn't rock up in their longboats in about 440 AD from Northern Germany/Southern Denmark. That is all a myth?


Continuing the thread drift, this explains some of it Saxon Shore - Wikipedia
snip "Two interpretations were put forward as to the meaning of the adjective "Saxon": either a shore attacked by Saxons, or a shore settled by Saxons. Some argue that the latter hypothesis is supported by Eutropius, who states that during the 280s the sea along the coasts of Belgica and Armorica was "infested with Franks and Saxons", and that this was why Carausius was first put in charge of the fleet there.[2] However, Eutropius refers to Franks and Saxons as seaborne invaders. It also receives at least partial support from archaeological finds, as artefacts of a Germanic style have been found in burials, while there is evidence of the presence of Saxons (mostly laeti Roman army recruits though) in some numbers in SE England and the northern coasts of Gaul around Boulogne-sur-Mer and Bayeux from the middle of the 5th century onwards.[3] This, in turn, mirrors a well documented practice of deliberately settling Germanic tribes (Franks became foederati in 358 AD under Emperor Julian) to strengthen Roman defences.
The other interpretation, supported by Stephen Johnson, holds that the forts fulfilled a coastal defence role against seaborne invaders, mostly Saxons and Franks,[4] and acted as bases for the naval units operating against them. This view is reinforced by the parallel chain of fortifications across the Channel on the northern coasts of Gaul, which complemented the British forts, suggesting a unified defensive system.[5]
Another theory, proposed by D.A. White, was that the extended system of large stone forts was disproportionate to any threat by seaborne Germanic raiders, and that it was actually conceived and constructed during the secession of Carausius and Allectus (the Carausian Revolt) in 289-296, and with an entirely different enemy in mind: they were to guard against an attempt at reconquest by the Empire. This view, although widely disputed, has found recent support from archaeological evidence at Pevensey, which dates the fort's construction to the early 290s.[9]
Whatever their original purpose, it is virtually certain[citation needed] that in the late 4th century the forts and their garrisons were employed in operations against Frankish and Saxon pirates. Britain was abandoned by Rome in 407, with Armorica following soon after. The forts on both sides continued to be inhabited in the following centuries, and in Britain in particular several continued in use well into the Anglo-Saxon period.

This being one of my favourites...




Portchester Castle , originally built by the Romans, adapted & added to by the Normans, used in civil war and later as Napoleonic prison and most recently as an AA battery in WW2.
 

Latest Threads

Top