Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:50 AM   #1

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,280
Viking>Saxon>Romanobreton


Why after the Fall of Western Rome Saxons were stronger than RomanoBretons and Vikings Were Stronger than Saxons?
Especially for last two did they become weaker because got more civilized? Weren't saxons just like vikings before ?
Naima is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2018, 04:38 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,501

Romano Brittons were not unique. All over the former Western Empire Romans were weaker than the invading/immigrating barbarians. Civilization had a role in it. Romans had degenerated into pleasure-seeking people with little or no interest in martial glory. The Roman aristocracy was engaging in tax-avoidance strategies to the point where the empire was unable to finance an effective defense. The Roman aristocracy was also very fickle in its loyalty. They would support whoever guaranteed them secure land titles. Sometimes this was the barbarians rather than the Roman state.

With the Vikings, one of their advantages lay in their mobility. They could pop up over the horizon, raid a coastal community or monastery, and disappear again before the Saxons could mount an effective response. When the Vikings abandoned raiding tactics and attempted major invasions, they had mixed success. The Great Heathen Army of the 860s and 870s did manage to establish a semi-permanent Viking presence in Brittain but also lost major battles at Ashdown and Edington. Another failed Viking invasion ended at Stamford Bridge in 1066.

Saxons did slightly resemble the later Vikings in that they were a maritime people who sometimes engaged in raiding, but the Saxons were more interested in permanent settlement inside the former empire. Generally, once the Saxons saw Brittain, they stayed there rather than go back home to raid again in the future.

Last edited by Chlodio; January 2nd, 2018 at 04:42 AM.
Chlodio is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 07:03 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,182

The defense of Britain was handled by the Roman army, which left. This made Britain fairly easy pickings. Same thing happened in Spain, but in Spain they don't speak the Germanic language of the Visigoths, and there was less influence culturally, genetically, and so on.

The Vikings were Germanic like the Saxons. The people of Britain at the time of the Vikings were probably a minority Anglo-Saxon, but spoke a Germanic language. Most areas had difficulty dealing with invaders such as the Romans, the "barbarians" who invaded the Roman Empire, and the Vikings.
betgo is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 07:13 AM   #4
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Regnum Teutonicum
Posts: 112

I do not think it is that easy.
For example once saxons were elected german kings (Liudolfing Dynasty), the vikings were pushed pack to the north. Heinrich I managed to beat the vikings in 934 and managed to erect the March Schleswig (between Schlei and Eider rivers) and selected a margrave. The seat of this margrave was Haithabu, together with Birka, the most important city of the vikings (imagine today, if Russia lost St. Petersburg or the USA lost New York City). His son Otto then founded the bishopric of Schleswig. The vikings expanded several times the Danewerk at the border. In addition Otto founded the Holy Roman Empire. The saxon Liudolfing Dynasty also started the Ottonian Renaissance. So while the viking age came to and end, for the saxons there began a golden age. And the saxons managed to do all this even while being under attack by the vikings AND the magyars at the same time.
So you see it's not easy to simply say vikings>saxons
Otto I is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:03 PM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,513

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naima View Post
Why after the Fall of Western Rome Saxons were stronger than RomanoBretons and Vikings Were Stronger than Saxons?
Especially for last two did they become weaker because got more civilized? Weren't saxons just like vikings before ?
Without any centralised command under the romans, Roman Britain experienced a civil war and was repeatedly raided by Picts, Irish and Saxons. St Patrick was a Briton kidnapped and taken into slavery by men from Ireland. I don't even think he ever mentions Saxons. In addiiton, various theories exist as to the military manpower available in Britain. Men could go fight for the romans on the continent and it is matter of debate how many stayed abroad and never came back. Much of the sort of archaeology that we find in late roman britain more or less disappears nearly half a century before any signs of saxons.
authun is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:07 PM   #6

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,385

The Norse's record agasint the anglo-saxons was extremely mixed. They lost major battles before, during, and after, the Great Heathen Army's campaigns. They also were conquered by Anglo-Saxon kings (Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Edmund, Eadred), and incorporated into an English governance and legal structure. Even Cnut, a Norseman himself, continued and strengthed Anglo-Saxon ways. I'd argue the Norse lost the Anglo-Saxon wars, considering whilst settling in England in large numbers, were culturally assimilated and politically subsumed into a distinctly English kingdom and structure.

I don't see how anything can be said, considering the Norse in England became Christian and abandoned Germanic paganism, they learnt to speak English (though these were Anglo-Norse dialects), and they all swore allegiance/fealty to a King of the English, and not a king of the Norsemen. By the Norman Conquest, there was no real distinction between Anglo-Saxon and Norse. At least not like in Alfred, Athelstan's, or Edgar's time. By 1066, everybody was English, even those with Norse ancestry. Harold II himself had a Norse mother, and maybe was bilingual (English/Norse).
notgivenaway is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 01:34 PM   #7

Pruitt's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Spring, Texas
Posts: 785

I read somewhere a while back that the climate changed in Europe. It became colder and wetter where the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians lived. They were relocating to Britain because the climate was better there. The Angles and Saxons brought an improved plow with them and they could turn over the heavy clay soils better than the locals. Basically the Angles and Saxon settlers were bringing new farmland into production. Not all Saxons went to Britain. Many migrated across Germany to what is now called Saxony.

There is much speculation that Eastern Britons were already Germanic and the speaking a German Dialect. If you recall the Belgae of what is now Belgium also had settlements in what became Anglo Saxon lands.

I recall an old Led Zeppelin song (The Emigrant Song) which describes a new ruling class moving in. This would describe the Anglo Saxons and Vikings. The first Anglo-Saxons were invited in as Foederati to help defend the Saxon Shore.

There has been much speculation on why the Western Roman Empire fell to invasions. I have read that the tax system collapsed and diseases like Malaria spread throughout the Empire. Certainly Plagues spread easily from the other side of the Empire. Malaria and other Mediterranean diseases leave the populations weak and listless. A more vigorous people moving in should have been able to defeat the locals.

To sum, Rome transferred the best Roman troops out of Britain. The locals had to relearn military skills and hired "barbarians" to help out. The Romans had to import larger horses to mount their Heavy Cavalry in Britain. The wet climate meant compound bows fell apart which pretty well screwed up horse archers. Light Cavalry on the local Ponies was available. Heavy Infantry was expensive and you needed a source for weapons and armor.

Pruitt
Pruitt is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:47 AM   #8
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Grozny, Russia
Posts: 6
Blog Entries: 1

Anglo-Saxons descendants of Israel.
Anglo-Saxons – lineal descendants of one of the people which followed Moses. Genetics discovered the Chechens and the Germans common Northern German mitochondrial DNA, that is maternal (see Yavus Akhmadovs statement in a round table of “RIA News” in Moscow).
Patrilineal the Chechens and the Ingush have Y DNA of haplogroup J2a, which in major of Cohens, descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses. The grandfather and his grandson from daughter will not have the same Y or Mt DNA, because these lines either only patrilineal or only matrilineal. Y DNA or Mitochondrial DNA are not betrays Anglo-Saxons as descendants of Israel, but they are their lineal descendants, as in the example of grandfather and his grandchildren by his daughter.
Middle Eastern Cohens Y DNA J2a of Gargareans-Chechen in the Caucasus moved to Northern German Mt DNA of Amazons. The historians well know that the Amazons were in alliance with Gargareans in Caucasus and in the three years bring back sons to their fathers. (as it written by Strabon)
Later Amazons have turned to patriarchy and the part of them with Sarmatians moved to Europe.
In the eddas of Vikings (descendants of Amazons!) is not random they pointing to Caucasus as their homeland.
Dr. A. Vagapov found over 5 thousand Chechen words in Old English language. Marcus Aurelius also resettled the Sarmatians - emigrants from Caucasus, to the Britain. Thousands of Chechen words in contemporary Europeans languages are not coincidental. Such known names as Lars, Akka, Utt, Buri, Hattuary, Angus, Van, Sassannach and others links Southwest Asia and Western Europe since ancient times of first civilizations. Albert Machigov.
Adlan Kurchalo is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:19 AM   #9

Aelfwine's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
From: England
Posts: 942

After the incursion by the Picts and Saxons in 367, the Roman province of Britain went into a deep economic depression, and by the late fifth century the land had suffered a virtual collapse of civilization. This is evident in the archaeological record. The British inhabitants in the south and east, according to the evidence from linguistics, place-names and the written records, probably suffered from the three Es: expulsion, enslavement and extermination. By the mid sixth century we can add a possible fourth E: epidemic.
Aelfwine is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:49 AM   #10

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,634

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The defense of Britain was handled by the Roman army, which left. This made Britain fairly easy pickings. Same thing happened in Spain, but in Spain they don't speak the Germanic language of the Visigoths, and there was less influence culturally, genetically, and so on.
.
The Visigoths at that stage were 'Romanised' so to speak. Part of the Empire and speaking vulgar latin, similar to the Hispano-Romans. This could not be the case with the other tribes, the ones who crossed the Rhine on 31/12 406, which were fairly transient in nature - either destroyed by the Visigoths/Romans or moved on to Africa. Only the Swabians/Suevos stuck around to leave some imprint in Hispania, before the Visigoths destroyed them too - in one form or another we aren't quite sure of.

I can see the attraction of Britain for the Saxons. The mighty journey of the Vandals (Asia to North Africa) was ultimately to escape the maelstrom of 'barbarium' with all the constant hazards of invasion by hostile tribes and who-knows what in food supply. I'm sure the Saxons were similar in motivation.

It isn't clear (to anyone) whether the Vandal Odyssey was always intended to end up in the rich lands and security of North Africa, or whether the original target was Western Hispania. The latter became untenable because of the overwhelming force (and hostility) of the Visigoths. Either way they were very few years in 'Spain'.
johnincornwall is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saxon Royal Huscarl Vs Norse Viking cunedda99 Medieval and Byzantine History 73 January 3rd, 2018 01:47 AM
saxon invasion wallside New Users 2 November 14th, 2014 11:30 AM
'Saxon' piracy? Polynikes War and Military History 19 September 3rd, 2014 12:00 PM
Saxon Ships Mr. Rhombus European History 4 September 29th, 2011 03:31 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.