Which Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the heptarchy was thes best? Which was your favorite? Why?
Also, what are some good historical reading materials concerning the Anglo-Saxons and the Heptarchy?
I think the power as centuries goes on is Northumbria > Mercia > Wessex. Penda(Mercia?) is a pretty cool guy, kills a bunch of Bede's favourite christian kings and doesn't afraid of everything.
Wessex rises to the top because Alfred's dad manages to kill all the aethelings(individuals considered king-worthy and therefore a threat to the king) which means his kingdom is a lot more stable when the vikings come rolling in.
>good historical reading materials
Anything by James Campbell is a good start. One argument you should be aware of when reading about Anglo-Saxons is that a lot of the big historians(Campbell included) argue that the Anglo-Saxons ruled a pretty complex state for their time, but IMO they put too much emphasis on the good qualities of the anglo-saxon state because it's their field of study. Paul R. Hyams challenges this point of view pretty well in his book 'Rancour and reconciliation'.
So to get a more accurate historical picture I should read both Campbell and the Hyams book? I'm curious about the positive and negative aspects of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and prefer a more accurate account, though entertainment value is worth something too.
>Hengist (or Hengest) and Horsa (or Hors) are figures of Anglo-Saxon history, which records the two as the Germanic brothers who led the Angle, Saxon, Frisian, and Jutish armies that conquered the first territories of Britain in the 5th century. Tradition lists Hengist (through his son, whose name varies by source) as the founder of the Kingdom of Kent.
>The Old English names Hengest and Horsa mean "stallion" and "horse" respectively.
I don't have a torrent but you don't really need the whole book to understand the point he's making, anything on feud in anglo-saxon england will cover it.
There's no need to read Hyams, Campbell does a perfectly good job of covering Anglo-Saxon history and culture, he just tends to overstate the efficiency of it.
The Anglo-Saxons used cavalry it was just secondary in their arsenal because of the quality of British horses, whereas it was a staple of Norman fighting, the battle of Hastings was a more close run thing than people give the Anglo-Saxons credit for.
Only real Anglo-Saxons:
Yorkshiremen, East Mercians, East Anglians, Kentishmen
rest of Britain are celtic tree niggers
Anglos = anti Race
The end goal of the ANGLO agenda is that all races mix themselves into one Brown uni-race that is goverened by beady-eyed ANGLO BLOOD and intelligent enough to consume and work for low wages but dumb enough to never restist to the Eternal ANGLO
According to nationalist "Celts", the Britons were exterminated or fled to a man out of lowland England and into the mountains of Wales and the old north.
According to sane, rational people, they were merely culturally assimilated by a dominant Anglo-Saxon culture. There is little ethnic difference between modern English and Welsh people.
>There is little ethnic difference between modern English and Welsh people.
That is what it seems. According to surveys done on one of those surveys presented on a Neil Oliver show, Britain is still vastly British, with Anglo-Saxon-Jutes, Normans, and Scandinavians (all the same, anyway) being barely present in English DNA as a whole.
>the House of Wessex will never be restored
>England will not be ruled by Witan again
>Ancient liberties are step by step being removed by the Norman yoke
Everything bad the British ever done was done by Normans, everything good was done by Anglo-Saxons and their heritage.
I'd go with Northumbria just because Lindisfarne is so based.
>Contribute nothing to world culture other than bloodshed
>what are some good historical reading materials concerning the Anglo-Saxons