The Anglo Saxons were worse than the vikings.

That has nothing to do with reality though.

The British ARE Vikings (at least partly as Vikings intermixed with the local population in different regions). There is a strong Norse admixiture in the English, as well as in Wales and even in Scotland. Practically everywhere.
The British are not Vikings.

There is not a strong Norse bloodline in England, it falls well below Saxon and Celtic-Briton.

It could also be mistaken from other Germanic genes from groups such as Angles, Jutes and the already mentioned Saxons.

The Viking gene pool is minimal.
 
Apr 2017
681
Lemuria
Yes but where is this estimate? How is the figure estimated?




I am well aware of the Harrying of the North and still have my original copy of Kapelle's "The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation, 1000-1135" but you cannot project what Kapelle terms 'Government by punitive expedition' in Yorkshire onto the rest of England. Why do you suggest that 30% of the populations of East Anglia, the Midlands, The South West, South and South East lost 30% of their populations?

If I could remind you about your reference to the genetic maps which show the south to be populated by a large contingent of french, I'd like to look at that too.
If the Harrying claimed at least 100,000-150,000, more must have died during the main invasion as well as other minor uprisings (mostly from starvation and deprivation). As for the genetics maps (discussion is banned here), they can be found everywhere. Around 30% is not as ridiculous as you think. The Normans were very hostile to the locals. They basically lived in fortifications and regularly set out to terrorize the people. This was not a good environment for prosperity. Diseases and starvation would be common. However, once the situation stabilized, the population exploded to 6 million from around 2 million rather quickly.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
681
Lemuria
Another point to make. Before the invasion 10-30% of the population in England were slaves (slaves not serfs). Possibly Celtic slaves. William freed them while destroying their Anglo-Saxons and Danish slavers entirely, completely replacing them as elites.
 

Haesten

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,892
Why do you say this? AFAIK, the Anglo-Saxons definitely didn't outnumber the native Britons when they arrived in England. We know that the Anglo-Saxons didn't simply massacre all the Britons so there had to be some mixing between the two groups, although early Anglo-Saxon rulers did segregate their realms.
Language says they did not mix although place names say the Celts/Romano Brits lived among the Angle-Saxons.
 
Apr 2017
681
Lemuria
You've been asked twice for a reference to the estimate of this supposed 30% and have failed to provide it. I'm beginning to think it is your own guess.
I never said I'm referencing anyone here. I'm basing this from my own observation and analysis of what I've read. Now to prove (or disprove in the process by arriving to another conclusion) that number requires serious scholarly work which I'm not willing to do :zzz: (I'm not that interested in English history to be honest). I'm discussing this from a casual point of view. Call it instinct.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,118
Another point to make. Before the invasion 10-30% of the population in England were slaves (slaves not serfs).
Really? Where do you get this from? You can't keep quoting these figures whilst refusing to supply the references when requested. Russell and Darby both claim a figure of around 28,000 for the whole country.

Darby, H. C. (1977), Domesday England,
Russell, J. C. (1948), British Medieval Population
 
Sep 2012
3,751
Bulgaria
I like the Conqueror. Everything about him is extraordinary. The way le Batard inherited the dukedom, the civil war, the Conquest, even his very funeral. He certainly hastened the demise of slavery as a system, but to represent him as some kind of early medieval abolitionist slash freedom fighter against the evil Anglo-Saxon slaver folk is too much.
 
Apr 2017
681
Lemuria
Really? Where do you get this from? You can't keep quoting these figures whilst refusing to supply the references when requested. Russell and Darby both claim a figure of around 28,000 for the whole country.

Darby, H. C. (1977), Domesday England,
Russell, J. C. (1948), British Medieval Population

This I might provide. I'm just operating from memory (which is accurate in my case). The 28,000 you are referring were those listed in the book not the number of outright slaves.

Economists (about slaves being a sizeable minority)
How Norman rule reshaped England


According to the Domesday Book census, over 10% of England's population in 1086 were slaves (after the Normans not before)

Davis, David Brion (1970). The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture. Pelican Books. p. 53
 

Haesten

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,892
I never said I'm referencing anyone here. I'm basing this from my own observation and analysis of what I've read. Now to prove (or disprove in the process by arriving to another conclusion) that number requires serious scholarly work which I'm not willing to do :zzz: (I'm not that interested in English history to be honest). I'm discussing this from a casual point of view. Call it instinct.
DB "waste" does not indicate William did it even in the North, it's an accounting term for land with no tax value, but can also indicate scorched earth policy, which William used on the east coast 1085 the reason for the DB survey in 1086.
The 1085 wasting was likely way more than the harrying of the north, which was basically a failure with many of William's troops deserting him.
 

Similar History Discussions