Anyone here interested in Early Dark Ages Britain?

Gildas writes of a state of chaos and confusion with a civilization that had persisted for four centuries collapsing.He thought the end of Roman rule and the invasion of the Anglo Saxons was God’s punishment for their sins.

Anyone here interested in Interwar Britain?

Anyone?

>>1473130
Gildas is also a short-arse wanker.

>>1473136
You hijack threads better than Al Qaeda hijack planes.

File: FB_IMG_1469625580304.jpg (36KB, 1137x640px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1137x640px

>>1473136

>>1473119
Yes. Mostly because there is so little information.

I'm very interested in the relationship between the people of the British isles and their new overlords from Scandinavia and Central Europe. I suppose they were used to foreign rule in the form of the romans, but it's still interesting that there was seemingly very little resistance in England to any invading groups.

>>1473119
Like pre norman?

I am. It's very interesting to see how it developed after Rome just left, but we don't have much info.

>>1473186
Like 400s 500s 600s Britain.

For some reason it's overshadowed in British education. We get taught extensively about the Vikings, but why we're Anglo saxons and not Celts isn't even brought up.

Yeah fairly. I'm an Archaeology student at Edinburgh, and I've taken courses in Medieval Scottish History and the history of Christianity.

>>1473194
>For some reason it's overshadowed in British education.

Because we know fuck all about it.

>>1473194
Yeah i've hit the same problem. Its like that period you mentioned is left blank on purpose

Did someone similar to King Arthur really exist? I mean not in the fairy tail sense, but some king/lord that did similar stuff so that his story got decorated more and more until it became the story of Arthur.

>>1473213
Isn't the new theroy that english born roman commander artious (not sure the correct spelling) is the best fit

>>1473119
That's my Jam!

>>1473212
Like I said, because we know fuck all about it.

>>1473213
Was there a Briton lord who fought against the Saxons? Yes absolutely. Could he have become a figure in folklore, and had various other older myths associated with him? Quite probably. Was he called Arthur? Possibly.

>>1473213
I believe he existed, but what's odd is that the decoration comes LATER. The earliest references are pretty limited: Arthur is a general, in service to kings, who manages to rout the Saxons in a series of battles.

It's only a couple centuries after that that you start seeing Arthur as a King at all, and everything there, the story is made up out of whole cloth rather then simply embelished.

File: riothamus.jpg (48KB, 373x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 373x480px

Yes.

Civilization collapsed. Cities were abandoned for centuries, trade and production diminished, raiding became endemic, it wasn't just a case of an invader razing a few cities only to set themselves up as the new leaders and rebuild everything, it was an apocalypse.

The few literate people with leisure time would read about Romans in the bible, visit the ruins, maybe travel to Constantinople and wonder what the fuck happened. It left a lasting impression. 1000 years later when Europe finally became relevant again they started to feverishly imitate the Romans, they did not feel like they had accomplished anything, only crawled their way back to civility.

Wasn't a roman mosaic found in
Spain with the latin name arthur?
Is arthur even a name or a perhaps a title

Saxon art in britain seemed to be taking on it's own identity

>>1473220

Artorius doesn't fit.

The best fit is a Northern British King.

>>1473237

To be fair, roman buildings and latin were still in use for a while up to the 600's.

>>1473242

Definitely a name, hundreds of Celts have had it through history. It means "Bear Man" and comes from Proto-Celtic "Artoswiros".

>>1473213
>>1473220
>>1473223
>>1473229
>>1473267
riothamus is a compelling candidate, pic related >>1473237

>>1473272
In many places, but early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were pagan and performed human sacrifice, christianity had to be reintroduced and it wasn't until King Alfred that they moved into Londinium's city walls. The 6th century was crazy.

>>1473119
I find the Celtic -> Anglo-Saxon transition so interesting. Do we have any sources besides Bede?

>>1473208
>>1473223
We know enough, we know the Saxons started to invade once Rome left, we know the Britons managed to repel them long enough, the Arthur legend springs up based on whoever held the Brits together, we know that the Brits ended up inviting Saxons to fight Picts but the Saxons just turned on the Brits anyway, we know that they overcame the Britons very fast culturally and genetically with perhaps 300,000 Anglos Saxons and Jutes migrating over once the defences were down.

>>1473303

There's 0 evidence they performed human sacrifice.

Also, Christianity in Britain was a failure to begin with. Only the Irish bought into it, and two british kingdoms, a couple of picts.

>>1473304

Archeology helps. There were already Saxons as of the 390's, who had been hired by Romans as laeti, or mercenaries, alongside the shores. Some of them settled down, like the Gewisse and what would later become the Westseaxe/Wessex. Possibly the Bernicians too.

Then, later on, a King called Vortigern invited two Jutish warlords, Hengest and Horsa over, and shit went very wrong. Bubonic plague, terrible weather and famines meant they couldn't farm anymore, had no more money or lands. So the Saxons took it by force, which led to war.

>>1473310

There weren't even 300,000 people in Northern Europe.

The Population of Britain was at most 50,000 before the Saxons came. 100,000 Saxons arrived OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE HUNDRED YEARS. The initial "onslaught" was about a hundred people.

Hell, the population of Britain still was only barely 100,000 by the Early Middle Ages.

>>1473330

Of course there was.

A farm was excavated, in 500 the family was Celtic, and it gradually got more and more saxonised. First the daughters of the family started wearing some Saxon-like jewellery, then the next generation started wearing Saxon clothes and were buried with a Seax and other Saxon weapons, and finally by 600 they were indistinguishable.

DNA shows the family was entirely Celtic. The Burial itself started changing to represent the Saxon-style burial (decapitate the corpse, with the head facing to the east, bury with posessions) rather than the Celtic style (bury with no posessions, only a horse if you owned one).

>>1473310
Okay. That paragraph tells just about everything we know about England and Wales in the Dark Ages. Scotland, particularly, is still a question waiting to be answered for the most part, despite some fairly inspired scholarship in the field since the 80s. That said, that scholarship is only just starting to be taught in universities, and frankly is highly complex even at an undergraduate level, let alone for school children.

I don't have the faintest clue about Ireland at that time.

>>1473329
Everything you said is factually incorrect and totally outlandish. Populations got low but no fucking way it was 50,000.

>>1473339

That paragraph was almost completely incomplete or wrong.

>>1473329
how the fuck is this awful history still circulating?

the "english are genetically anglo" meme died fucking years ago.

The anglo saxons were a culturally influential ruling class, and little more.

>>1473332
My nigga the Domesday book records 2 million English in 1086 alone.

>>1473341

Yes it was.

The entire northern army by 600 AD was about 1000 people. That's every able bodied man and woman in five different kingdoms spanning just south of Hadrian's Wall to the Forth of Firth.

>>1473342
I don't have the faintest clue about England and Wales in that period either.

>>1473343

I... didn't say anything about genetics? Are you mad?

>>1473346

300 years after the early middle ages. Not... not strictly relevant, is it?

Justinian's plague killed HALF OF EARTH in the 430's.

>>1473348
What's your source on that? Because recreating past populations is, frankly, a fucking joke. We aren't even able to do it particularly accurately for Rome, despite the unimaginable amount of documentation we have for them, compared to Dark Ages Britain.

>>1473341

Hengest and Horsa arrived with three boats, which cannot possibly exceed 100 people.

Most scholars agree almost every battle apart from the bigger ones (Mount Badon) were fought with perhaps sixty vs sixty men.

It's agreed that 100,000 Saxons arrived in Britain from 300-800 AD. Most of them after 500 AD.

>>1473353
Nigga is a population growth of over two million IN 300 years even POSSIBLE?

>>1473358

Contemporary sources of battles and events. Like the Treachery of the Long Knives. Vortigern's entire army was 300 people, they all got slaughtered by the army of 300 Saxons. They weren't dicking about, both armies contained every able-bodied man.

>>1473119
I am it sounds like a very exciting period desu.

>>1473362

Yes it is "nigga".
If you have ten kids, who have ten kids, who have ten kids, who have ten kids, you've already had 10,000 descendants alone in a hundred years.

And you're one guy. Those 10,000 descendants have 10 kids, who have 10 kids...

You quickly get to about a billion descendants. A lot of them died at childbirth, and you have to take into account pedigree collapse (interbreeding), but you can easily make a lot of humans quickly.

In 70 years we've gone from 1 billion to 7,5 billion humans, "my nigga".

>>1473373
Contemporary sources such as...?

And who's doing that?

This thread is going well no landwaster unfurled yet

>>1473382
That still sounds like you're pulling figures out the air, nigga.

>>1473373
>They weren't dicking about, both armies contained every able-bodied man.

And do you know this for a fact, or is it just assumption?

>>1473348
Middle ages armies are notoriously small but it doesn't represent the population size. The battles of the Hundreds year War were fought with like 10,000 men, when England and France had at least 1.5 million men. Army size doesn't relate to population size in a time when soldiers are gained from influence men and specific feudal levies.

And you are still wrong and have no sources on those insane population figures.
>>1473353
50,000 to 2 million in a few centuries it too great a leap. Justinians plague did not kill half the world...

Can you stop talking such utter shite?

>>1473382
They have 10 kids and 7 of them die. You have no idea how populations work.

>>1473383

Y Gododdin, Gildas...

>>1473382
>In 70 years we've gone from 1 billion to 7,5 billion humans, "my nigga".
You cannot compare the modern age to the middle ages. Modern medicine is the reason for our population boom.

>>1473392

It's not too great a leap. To great a leap is trying to vault over your mother. Let me remind you population has grown 6,5 billion in under a century.

>>1473400
see
>>1473396

>>1473396

Good thing modern medicine predates the population boom.

>>1473394
And who else?

And which academic is doing all this?

What, in short, are your sources?

>>1473392

500 AD =/= Middle Ages.

>>1473392

Every reliable source, including wikipedia for once, supports the fact that justinian's plague killed half of the known world at the time. :)

File: worldPopulationGraph_year0to2100_billionPopYears_400x270.gif (13KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x270px

>>1473406
Actually it corresponds directly to the late 19th and early 20th century, when modern medicine and medical practices really got going. It's also to do with the industrial revolution making agriculture so much easier meaning there was a lot more food so less people starved.

So the modern population boom has absolutely no relation to the demographics of the middle ages.

>>1473410

John Morris, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc...

>>1473406
Of course it predates the population boom, you dumb fuck, hospitals can't give away antibiotics like candy if they haven't been invented yet.

>>1473411
Yes 500AD is the middle ages. I'm starting to think you actually don't even know the basics of medieval history.
>>1473413
So show me these sources :)

>>1473418

You're a dumb nigger.

>>1473420
John Morris who? Which university is he at? What are his qualifications?

>>1473322
Britain was ostensibly christian from the time of Constantine onwards. I remember reading something about human sacrifices in saxon burials, but maybe it was infrequent.

>>1473422

I've named some authors, go read them yourself. Almost all of them have thousand page books, enjoy reading them, and shove them up your arse when you're done. It'll replace the shit your spewing while portending it to be "history".

500 AD is not the middle ages. It's the Dark Ages, or better yet the "Migration Period". Most sane people start the Middle Ages in 800 AD when Charlemagne is crowned, where they become the Early Middle Ages. Then the High towards 1000 AD, and the Late towards the thirteenth-fourteenth century.

>>1473425

Learn to use google. He even has a wikipedia page.

>>1473438
I can't find him on Google you dumb shit if I know fuck all about him other than his name.

>>1473430

It was nowhere near "ostensibly christian". Gododdin was Pagan. Rheged was Pagan. Elmet was Pagan. Pengwern was Pagan. Caer Lundein was Pagan. Dumnonia was Pagan. The Picts were Pagan, some of the apostates who had decided jesus was a Sun God. Shall I go on?

>>1473442

Here you go, pleb.

https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidlMH5j5bOAhVBPRoKHVedDuQQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJohn_Morris_(historian)&usg=AFQjCNGOsFCTN4wO6ArdJjM80vFcAjcCYA&sig2=CfZ9-KZFmACV_mB2sRgqQA

>>1473432
>I've named some authors, go read them yourself. Almost all of them have thousand page books, enjoy reading them, and shove them up your arse when you're done. It'll replace the shit your spewing while portending it to be "history".
So what you mean is, you don't have any source, but you want me to go and look for it. You know if you were writing an academic paper, you'd have to cite the author, book, publication version, and specific page, you couldn't simply tell the reader to go find it and shove it up their arse. This may just be a Inuit Ice Fishing Congregation but you needed sources to back up your facts all the same to be taken seriously.

You are the worst kind of debater.

And yes, 500 is the middle ages.

>Image result for middle ages
In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages
>Middle Ages, the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century CE
https://www.britannica.com/event/Middle-Ages

Deal with it.

>>1473449

Gildas, De Excidio, his only work
Nennius, his only work
Bede, his only work
Geoffrey of Monmouth, his only work
John Morris, the Age of Arthur,

>>1473449

You are the worst kind of debater, and a shitty human being. I hope ISIS kills you.

>>1473460
Yes please point out where in these works they give specific numbers to the population of the British isles...
You need to prove your claim of 50,000 people living in Britain around 500AD

>>1473448
...are you actually using research from the fucking SEVENTIES?

You dumb shit, was there even any archaeology in there to begin with?

>>1473448
>Although popular with the public, the book was heavily criticized in professional historical circles, severely damaging Morris' academic reputation in the eyes of many of his peers.

You're a fucking moron, kid.

>>1473475

WAS. Past tense. Now it's being heralded as one of the best historical works of all time. People are admiring John Morris.

>>1473478
Appeal to authority fallacy

>>1473470

In John Morris? Of course.

>>1473466

It's an accurate estimate by Morris. No idea which page, I read it in one of those google book things. Buy the book and read it.

>>1473480

You're a moron fallacy. Oh wait, that's not a fallacy.

Only shit debaters try and discredit opponents with fallacies. Sounds like rather than a fallacy you need a phallus, see?

>>1473483
SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE FOOL

Or actually i have a source which says the population was 300 million just go find the book and read it yourself

>>1473478
>Now it's being heralded as one of the best historical works of all time.

No, they aren't.

>People are admiring John Morris.

Morons like you, you mean?

>>1473481
Well guess what?

It's fucking irrelevant, because now there's been FORTY YEARS of research that Morris, the old hack, doesn't have the faintest clue about having been dead since '77.

>>1473484
>Only shit debaters try and discredit opponents with fallacies
Right and only good debaters use endless fallacies to win an argument, like calling their opponent nigger.

>historical discussion
>it devolves into 'your sources are shit!'

Everytiem

>>1473483
>accurate estimate

Considering I'm actually studying this shit I can tell you right now there is no such thing as an accurate estimate when recreating past populations. And the idea you can do it by reverse engineering a figure from literary sources is laughable.

>>1473511
Well to be fair, the guy doesn't even have a source.

>>1473505

You called me a nigga.

>>1473519

You're not studying "this shit". You're probably some pleb studying the colour of Napoleon's spats, and you think that qualifies you to talk about all historical matters.

No historian would call what he studies "shit".

>>1473511
Yeah, that tends to happen when amateur morons use shite sources.

>>1473520

I've named six sources. I'm sorry you can't read.

File: lullingstone.jpg (165KB, 1080x400px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1080x400px

>>1473445
obviously pagans and christians lived side by side, all I said was "christianity was reintroduced", I never said it was 100% pure christian, what the fuck is your problem? did I trigger you or something?

>Wall-painting from Lullingstone Roman Villa, Kent, showing Christians at prayer
here is my proof

I wanted to discuss riothamus, his death at avallon and how that is close to the legend, how camulodonum might be camelot and interesting shit not quibble with a fedora

fucking /his/

>>1473527

They aren't shit sources, they're the only sources.

>>1473529

Christianity was barely there to begin with, you unclefucker.

>>1473528
You listed some books, but you were asked to prove your claim of 50,000 people, you need to go into more detail than listing 6 entire books. You might as well say "My source is the internet", Besides, i bet those books don't even say 50k once.

>>1473534

Why would they say "50K once"?

The k abbreviation for thousand didn't even exist, you nignog.

>>1473524
I am doing a degree in Ancient Mediterranean Civilisations at Edinburgh University, which comprises of a joint degree between Classics and Archaeology. As such not only have I been studying the archaeology of the prehistoric British Isles but also Ancient History where I have come across attempts to recreate ancient populations from the wealth of contemporary documentary information given to us by Athens and Rome.

Even with this wealth of information, NO ONE has been able to accurately estimate the population. The idea you could do it from Medieval chronicles is absolutely fucking laughable.

>>1473539
50,000 then

>>1473530
Gildas isn't a source, he's evidence used by your (only) source John Morris, who was a joke in his own time and utter fucking irrelevant today.

Academia isn't like the movies, when an academic is almost universally dismissed that doesn't mean he's actually right.

>>1473530
You're almost as bad as that dumb shit who keeps trying to argue Indo-European kings fucked horses.

>>1473561

I think he meant you fuck horses. Since you certainly do.

File: 1449375643419.jpg (71KB, 359x391px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 359x391px

>>1473586
Well I guess that means I win the argument.

>>1473596

You don't, since you're wrong.

And it's only an argument if debaters are on the same level of knowledge. Mine clearly outweighs yours, sorry.

>>1473599
What's your degree title?

>>1473596
I find the correlation between anime posters and retardation quite amusing

>>1473612
I may be a retarded, horse fucking anime poster, but I'm a retarded horse fucking anime poster you haven't been able to prove wrong.

>>1473612
>>1473637
And I think that says more about you and your arguments then it does about me.

>>1473637

He's not the OP, I am.

>>1473662
I never said he was OP?

>>1473666

"You haven't been able to prove wrong".

I'VE been proving you wrong. He just got in.

>>1473671
No, you haven't. Your arguments have been simply laughable up to this point. John Morris' is completely out of date by now, and was fairly ridiculous even at time. Even then, you have failed comprehensively to provide even a page number for your claim.

Assuming Morris does even say that, the figure seems to be based upon two assumptions: 1) that contemporary accounts are accurate and trustworthy and 2) that the armies were comprised of "every able bodies man available".

The first, in many cases, is provably incorrect. The second has absolutely no evidence behind it. Add to that fact the final figure is an extrapolation based of these supposed figures, and that there doesn't seem to be any archaeological component to the estimate (at least none that you shown) then it seems likely that the estimate is much like the academic consesus of Morris' book: a "tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided".

The fact you've been completely unable to prove you have any kind of academic education in history, and have resorted to ad hominems and samefagging just makes this whole situation orders more pathetic.

For fuck's sake, why can't we just ban everyone who doesn't have or isn't currently studying for a history degree?

File: adventus_saxonum.png (43KB, 311x143px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 311x143px

>>1473119
Yes. It's fascinating despite the fact nobody here in the UK even knows much about it. I don't think i've ever heard it mentioned anywhere.

I was in the town of Lancing earlier, it was likely named after a Saxon war chief who strode ashore and destroyed the local Britons.

>>1473420
>John Morris

I have Age of Arthur on my shelf Anon, but be careful as fuck. The guy is considered (somewhat unfairly in my view) as horrifically unreliable for the period because he had some wacky ideas like that Byzantium saw post-Roman Britain as a vassal and shit like that.

>>1473533
That isn't true Anon. Most of the Romanised parts of the country (the so-called "lowland zone") was heavily Christianised in the towns and many rural areas. It's a testament to the strength of the religion in the province that it survived the traumatic transformation after the Roman evacuation in 410. When the Pope sent St Germanus to the island there were deputations of local bishops, most of whom were strongly Pelagian in belief. He destroyed them in a theological debate (or so the biased as fuck sources say).

File: 584.png (521KB, 4328x5480px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 4328x5480px

Bit of a clusterfuck.

File: hinton st mary.jpg (285KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 800x534px

>>1473533
The pagan intellect on full display...

>>1473696

Fine... But where is that smug anime face from?

>>1473696
+1

File: tis_a_silly_book.png (416KB, 521x536px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 521x536px

>Britain was still Roman in 410, and remained Roman for a generation. Political independence did not disrupt the settled Roman economy. In 420 Germanus of Auxerre encountered opulent bishops and normal civil life, and at about the same date Patrick found his family secure in their property; in the 440s Patrick was concerned with cultured bishops, who still exercised normal ecclesiastical authority, while Germanus met a civil government that still ruled its region effectively in southern Britain. But since the imperial government no longer gave protection, the British had to fight to keep their civilisation.

>>1473975

No. It survived in Ebrauc and Strathclyde thanks to the ancestors of both kingdoms being Christians, it didn't survive in whatever you mean by the "lowland zone".

It survived in Ireland, who invaded the Picts and Wales. Which is why those areas were Christiain in the Dark Ages.

>>1474058

Didn't fight very well then, did they? Canterbury and Bath were ruins by 430. They defaced murals by removing or covering up the images on them, and spreading rushes over floor mosaics. After that, they buried all the coins and went back to a cattle economy.

So yeah, no.

File: sub_roman_canterbury.jpg (40KB, 525x370px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 525x370px

>>1474063
>it didn't survive in whatever you mean by the "lowland zone".

It did, until the Saxons pretty much destroyed all extant local administrative structures. And lowland zone is all of south-eastern England essentially. Most of the north and western areas weren't as heavily Christianised but it has been suggested that with heavy migration by more Romanised city dwellers (more likely to be Christian) to those areas as the south-east was conquered by the Angles, Saxons, Frisii and Jutes the more northern and westerly areas, as you say places like Ebrauc, were Christianised and became the surviving holdouts of the religion as Germanic paganism took root. Places like Strathclyde most certaintly hadn't been Christian that early, Christianity came hand in hand with close ties to Roman culture in Late Antiquity. The Welsh were Christian before the Irish were. You seem to be forgetting that St Patrick was a Briton and the son of a wealthy local Christian from somewhere in western Britannia.

>>1474070
I don't agree with what Morris is saying, while his book is a worthy tome with a lot of information in it, half of the stuff he is says is complete madness. I take issue especially with "did not disrupt the settled Roman economy" which is ridiculous. They did actually fight quite well, the invaders only made massive gains in the early 600s, at least 150 years after they arrived en-masse. Prior to 600 they were mostly stuck clinging to the south-eastern coast. Saxon king lists for example fall completely silent for Sussex for an entire century after Badon. It is somewhat of a myth that they were completely crushed within decades, somebody seemed to fight on. Shit, the Northumbrians were almost destroyed on Lindisfarne by an alliance of northern Briton kingdoms until one of them betrayed the others. I think Bath lasted in some condition for quite a lot longer than 430, even if in a reduced state (like the entire former province desu). Canterbury was fucked, yeah.

meh, i prefer post norman conquest britain. but its all a matter of preference, i guess

>>1473303
Germanic religion didn't have human sacrifice though

>>1473952
>Like that Byzantium saw post-Roman Britain as a vassal and shit like that.

Tbf I find that idea interesting. Clearly that is somewhat true in terms of religion, I wonder just how much contact there was, exactly.

>>1474092

There is no archeological evidence to back up christianity being so widespread. I've made a map of known Christianity, it's limited to Strathclyde (Ceredig Ceredigion, circa the mid fourth century, was a devout Christian) and Ebrauc (Either Mor or Arthwys converted in the early to mid 400's). In Ireland, it was well-established, but the Picts had completely disregarded what Palladius and Patrick had told them and made Jesus a Sun God.

The only true Christian provinces were:
-Ebrauc
-Strathclyde
-Powys
-Dyfed
-Brycheiniog
-Glywysing
-The Entirety of Ireland

Gwynedd held out for a time, since it was the only non Irish part of Wales. I think Beli ap Rhun was the first Christian King of Gwynedd. The Gododdin turned to christianity at some point, as the Y Gododdin makes mention of Christianity.

>>1474048
Use Google image search.

>>1474143
It did

>>1474137
Why?

I'm talking majorities, by the way. You'd find the odd christians in some of the Pagan kingdoms.

Also, preserving civilisation? Everyone went back to living in mud huts. Yeah, no.

>>1474154

It didn't. There's ZERO evidence of it.

The "wicker man" shit in Celtic Paganism was disproven. There's no need to disprove it in Germanic religions since it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

A basic understanding of Germanic Paganism (the way Helheim functions) suffices to know why they would never do that shit.

>>1474162
Wasn't there human sacrifice in the Nordic religions? Doesn't that suggest there may have been human sacrifice in other Germanic regions?

>>1474092

No. The Britons were defeated a lot before the 600's.

And by 600 AD, every single (what is now geographically English) kingdom except the Hen Ogledd ones had fallen to the Saxons.

Here are some pre-500 AD battles:

Pevensey: completely destroyed by Aelle.
Natanleag: completely destroyed by Cerdic.
Battle of Lincoln: the Britons won by a hair's breadth.

Catraeth was the icing on the cake, not the start of the invasion but the end. And that was, what, 599-601 AD approx.

>>1474168

Some men are rapists, does that not mean other men are rapists?

^Same exact argument. See the flaw?

>>1474154
Blòt at most involved a horse or pig sacrifice.

King Arthur was based on a Roman general.

>yfw the Brits were always cucked
>yfw so cucked they picked a foreigner as their hero
> Arthur was actually a cuck in the legend

The whole "Arthur gets cucked by Lancelot" thing was invented by a French author. Really figures eh!

It's likely but not proveable that Aelle and his sons died, leaving only his granddaughter in the house of Sussex. Cerdic took over when he united the Thames tribes into Wessex. He probably also became a regent for Sussex, or even just usurped it. Indeed, her son later became the King of Sussex again (Riccéol)

>>1474192

Blotmonath is a bit of a complicated thing to study. It does seem to have involved quite a bit of killing, but never human sacrifice.

>>1474196

King Arthur was not based on a Roman General.

"Artorius Lucius", if he existed, was away in Spain and never even saw so much as a square foot of British soil.

Arthur was a Romano-British general, if he existed. Not a foreigner.

>>1474200
Exactly, in pretty sure human sacrifice was made up by Christians (saying this as a practicing Christian btw, this isn't fueled by butthurt or anything)

File: artorius.jpg (47KB, 450x550px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x550px

>>1473119
Who was he?
Is he ever coming back?

>>1474196

> the idea of some 13th century frog sitting in his keep with his beret and mustache drinking wine at 10 am saying "uh uh uh, oui oui mon amis, I have it! We will turn the Brit hero Arthur into a cuck in their stories. That is how we will get revenge!"

File: no regression at all.png (563KB, 680x938px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 680x938px

>>1473119

barbar bar bar bar barbarbarbarbar

>>1473339
>I don't have the faintest clue about Ireland at that time.
While the English were colonising the Britons, the Irish were colonising the picts.

>>1474211

He was either made up as an allegory, or a real King who got glorified posthumously. The Celts were big on metaphors. For example, they described the Saxons as "The White Dragon", and the Britons as "The Red Dragon". They used Epithets quite extensively too, despite few other cultures doing so at the time.

If he was a christian, he was a shit one, or he'd have been sainted. Everyone and their mother got sainted in Dark Ages Britain. Some Saints they have were Pagans (???), some were Rapists, one of them fucking raped a nun and still got sainted!

Arthur must have been a terrible christian. Him fucking his sister would be a good cause not to saint him, which lends credibiliy to the idea Mordred was his incest-born nephew/son.

Otherwise, he was just some King. I think he was a Northern King. Arthwys ap Mor is a good contestant, though "Arthwys" is not the same name as "Arthur". They mean different things (Bear-wise and Bear-man respectively).

>>1474223

Not really, they basically came and there was no opposition. 0 sign of a struggle, and 0 mention of it, and it seems to have happened over a century. The 90 year old Dal Riadan King Fergus arrived in about 500 AD. If there was some big battle, the Britons or Picts would have recorded it.

>>1474217

You do realise by the 1200's the english were still essentially French? Their Queen-mother and King were frenchies.

>>1474146
I'm talking c.410 when the Romans left. Christianity was a religion for the metropolitan population, why do you think it would have taken hold in the more tribal north and west and not in the civitates of the south first? I think we're at cross purposes here, you're talking about after the Saxon conquest?

And Ceredig was 4th century? What? Ebrauc makes sense since it had been the most important city of the north and possibly the site of whatever post-Roman administration remained up there. Whatever your thoughts of Coel Hen it is likely some urban culture survived there briefly, even if not in the discovered archaeological record, and so Christianity would have clung on there.

I don't believe the Irish held as much of Wales as you think, they were mostly confined to the coasts particularly Demetia/Dyfed in the south-west.

It's great to find people interested in the period though. I've got a book by Nowell Myres but it focuses too much on the English.

>>1474173
Ignoring the fact that the Hen Ogledd ones were huge and much of what is now geographically England. It was only AFTER 600 with warlords like Penda finishing what men like Ceawlin had begun the generation prior that the remaining regions of England began being taken en-masse. Most of central England was still held by Britons along with a couple of enclaves elsewhere. The kingdom based on Wroxeter (Pengwern?) was still intact, Bath, Cirencester etc. had only been conquered a few years earlier and even Elmet was still intact by 600. Bernicia and Deira were almost destroyed around that time.

Pre-500 was a close run thing, but something stopped the advance for a generation or two. Whether it was "Badon Hill" or not is up for debate but something happened that fucked the invaders up hard. Aelle and Cerdic's descendants didn't have an easy time of it.

>>1474223
And the Britons. Parts of Wales were conquered by Irish raiders.

>>1473339
Some picts got some sheep. Then hundreds of years later the first modern Scot was born.

>>1474226
most likely a left over from Roman Era. That didn't retreat back to Gaul or Rome during the fall of the western empire.

>>1474245

What? The Irish had an immense hold on everywhere in Wales except Gwynedd and Powys, which was a shadow of it's former self by 500 AD.

I'm talking about 410-500. Most Christians were Romans, and most Romans left the Island. Dumnonia? Pagan until the 530-550's when Cado's son Constantine converted.
The Ceintish Britons? Gorgawn's son Guiadam seems to have been a Pagan too.

Most christians were in Ebrauc and Strathclyde. And yes, Ceredig was in the 4th century.

>>1474261

No, that's not "most likely" and it's a theory that no one supports anymore. Arthur was not a Roman general.

>>1474245

Any battle the size of Badon Hill would have been recorded. It's the only battle where the descendants of Hengest all died and the Sussex royal family was slaughtered, so I'd say it's a pretty fucking good contender.

File: 450.jpg (34KB, 392x302px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 392x302px

For people who might not know much about the period (nobody really knows all that much)

>late 4th century, Roman Britain declines somewhat as Roman troops are stripped from the province to fight in civil wars, cities begin shrinking due to less cash floating about, larger raids by Picts, Saxons and others
>later evidence suggests that there was some major administrative reorganisation in this period coinciding with some areas losing their garrisons, a man called Coel Hen ('Old King Cole') supposedly given overlordship of the northern part of the province, could be bullshit though
>410 AD. After Britain rebels against Roman rule under a usurper called Constantine III, the usurper ends up just marching pretty much all remaining legionaries across to Gaul leaving the province defenceless
>in this year the Britons throw out Constantine's magistrates becoming de-facto independent. Whatever new administrative structure forms is pretty much unknowable, perhaps a consillium (Council) of cities. Petty kings and warlords pop up all over the place to stake a claim
>Roman cities in the province very quickly begin to decay, public buildings rebuilt in wood if at all, local militia troops only
>more raids from abroad
>Germanic mercenaries granted an area of land in exchange for aid against the raiders by a local British warlord, who also wants help against other Britons. Potentially Ambrosius Aurelianus and Vortigern are their names (but fuck knows).
>c.440-450 AD due to some form of dispute (probably about payment) leads to the Saxons (apparently led by a man called Hengist) rebelling against the Britons of the south-east and seizing Kent
>decades of internecine wars and raids ensues and parts of lowland Britain are seized by roving bands of Germanic warriors under tribal leaders
>late in the century a battle is won by the Britons (potentially under a man that was mythologised into King Arthur) that damages the Saxon advance for at least half a century
>tbc

Feel free to argue.

>>1474245

This is a good map of 600 AD Britain.

http://www.britannia.com/history/600.gif

They're not "clinging to the coasts", they've invaded 3/4 of the fucking country.

The Britons were almost all gone.

Also, you're completely failing to take into account in-fighting.

>>1474292

I'd argue with every single point, but I'll be called a fag or nigger or some shit.

>late 4th century, Roman Britain declines somewhat as Roman troops are stripped from the province to fight in civil wars, the Britons start moving out of cities to live in roundhouses, larger raids by Picts, Saxons and the Irish.
>Britain is split into six provinces around the time of Magnus Maximus. Dux are put in place to administrate them.
>410 AD. After Rome was too busy killing people, the Roman army in Britain "elected" a man named Constantine to be their Emperor and defend them from the Germans. This failed horribly, Constantine and his son Constans were arrested in Gaul and decapitated.
>410 AD: After Rome was sacked by Germans, a massived Exodus (probably around a million) happened, with almost all of the Romans in Britain leaving. Most of the Dux also left, leaving the provinces to fend for themselves. Several Kings emerged to rule over the province, such as Coel Hen, Constantine (a son of Magnus Maximus') and Cunedda Wledig.
>Roman cities in the province very quickly begin to decay, public buildings are preserved to the best of everyone's abilities, but still decay. The population is completely fucked, most armies are about 300 people at most. Most of those untrained levies, some Roman soldiers stayed over.
>Raids continued. In order to not die, they sent a letter to the Roman Emperor, who famously replied "go suck a cock you niggers". Vortigern, a young ambitious Lord, decided to kill King Constantine, his son Constans, and become King. He did, and, since the Roman Emperor was a cunt, declare he would hire the mercenaries himself. When he went on mercenarycraigslist.com, he chose the worst possible Mecenaries, who only had one star and a very bad review. "Hengest and Horsa Mercenary company."

Fixed. Continued in next post.

>>1474294
>This is a good map of 600 AD Britain.

It's a shit map of 600 AD Britain. Mercia had literally been founded ten years before and had barely even expanded, let alone covered an area that size. The Hwicce aren't even on it. Sledd of Essex hadn't conquered a kingdom that large. Bernicia and Deira were nowhere near that large and around 600 were almost totally destroyed, barely holding out as independent powers during a British attack on Metcault/Lindisfarne.

>Also, you're completely failing to take into account in-fighting.

No i'm not. There was a shit load of infighting. Amongst both Britons and Saxons.

>>1474298
The entire period is contentious as fuck. Feel free to shit on every single point one after the other seeing as how we can't be sure about much of it at all, Coel Hen especially.

>>1474311
I find it fascinating that Hadrian's Wall was somehow maintained after the Romans left, by a local group of soldiers.

>GThese mercenaries came and killed the Picts. As a reward, Vortigern showered them in luxuries, payment, land and food. But Hengest took this as a "you're welcome to stay", and invited about 4-5K other Saxons, women and children this time. One was a hot-ass 16 year old bit of skirt called "Rowena", who Vortigern chose as his wife. Her dowry was pretty fucking expensive: hengest wanted Kent.
Vortigern, being a professional douchebag, ejected the King of Ceint Gwyrangon, and gave Kent to Hengest. But too many Saxons had come over: Vortigern had no food, land or luxuries left to give. The Saxons started taking it by force, so a rebellion started. First was the sons of the King Vortigern had killed and usurped the throne from, Ambrosius and Eutherius. Then, angry Romano-British nobles, and finally Vortigern's own sons, Vortimer/Brydw, Catigern, Pasgen and a few others. His hot ass daughter Scothnoe got married off to the Irish, so that the war with Ireland stopped.
>c.450-460 AD The war was terrible. After a series of crushing defeats:
-Ambrosius was slain in battle
-Vortimer was poisoned by Rowena
-Lightning struck Vortigern's feasting hall and the burning thatch collapsed on him.
-Horsa slipped on a banana peel and died, killing Catigern too.
-The Saxons back in Germany are suffering from the Huns, floods, storms, literally everything going wrong. They even thought it was Ragnarök, the end of the world. After their crops were ruined by floods, and they were starving, they were led by a young Saxon King called Aelle.
>Aelle arrived with his kiddies, Cissa, Wlencing and Cymen. He marries Vortigern's daughter with Rowena Alice, and whores his kids around to the other Saxons, making him some kind of overlord (think CKII).
>Cerdic arrives in 495 AD. He's a bit of a cunt.
>514 AD: The battle of Mount Badon happens. These are the traditional belligerents:
-King Aelle
-Duke Cerdic
-King Osla "Big-Knife"
VS
-King Arthur
-King Cado
-John Cena
>tbc

>>1474318

It wasn't maintained for very long. They realised it was fucking useless. Who would they defend from? Their cousins on the other side of the wall?

File: tfw_no_complete_roman_conquest.png (501KB, 624x546px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 624x546px

>>1474333
Could be legit. Who the fuck knows?

>>1474312

Sledda of Essex was a fucking beast.

Also, not very hard to conquer large swathes of land. Most of it was farms or deserted.

>>1474341

We do know people like Coel Hen existed, though. Vortigern is mentioned by name in a pillar, and Ambrosius Aurelianus is also probably a real figure.

It's only really contentious if you're a cunt (not you personally, you seem level-headed and ready to read the legends. I've met too many "geoffrey of monmouth is fantasy lol" people though) who won't even look at the legends for information.

>>1474312

Send me an email at [email protected] . I'd love to talk less anonymly there, I can formulate my points a bit better and also provide images and sources.

>>1474177
False comparison.

The Germans certainly had very similar gods with the same names, if not the same gods. I think that, with linguistic similarities and geographical proximity does suggest a certain amount of similarity and perhaps common ancestry.

If we turn the question around, if religion in other Germanic regions didn't have human sacrifice, why DID they have in Scandinavia?

>>1474368

Definitely, but the schism is quite important. Most of the norse paganism is not in the germanic paganism. For example, Saxons don't appear to have believed at all in Dwarves. Valkyries are a bit iffy too, with a different role t han in the Norse.

File: 1469005388058.png (403KB, 394x391px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 394x391px

>>1474350
I'm one of the optimists who believes in them too. But so much of it is still up for discussion that it's depressing. Sure Coel Hen probably existed, but what was he? Was he just a figure that Hen Ogledd kings used to buttress their own claims? Was he a Romanised dux given command of a professional-ish military from a base at Eboracum? Was he just some petty chieftain who conquered a shit load of territory? Did his sons really divide all of what was one area into various kingdoms? Was he really appointed by Romans?

They are little more than names in a chronicle that can have virtually nothing ascribed to them other than via logical guesswork or having some faith.

>>1474354
I want to be a John Morris figure. I hold out hope that we can find out real substantial information about the period. But at the same time all the historical bones in my body tell me to be sceptical as fuck. I really don't know anymore. The period is amazing because it causes me to question everything. I just want a miraculous find that confirms just enough to shed some light on an otherwise rather dark period. Imagine finding an Ammianus Marcellinus or Tacitus style narrative history of 410 to 600 written by a British monk. Just imagine it.

>>1474385

Definitely hit up my e-mail, I've discovered some stuff that may interest you a great deal.
[email protected]

>>1474385

To be fair, we know the Celts did practice Gavelkind succession. His kingdoms would have been split up at death, logically.

>>1474223
Actually, this is contested in current scholarship.

It is though the Gaels were native to Scotland, and became culturally Irish through interaction and cultural diffusion. Almost no one thinks the Gaels actually conquered the Picts, the leading theory I know of is that during a civil war/coup in the Pictish kingdom the rightful heirs fled to one of the Irish kingdoms and were brought up Gaelic. When they were restored to the throne, and reigned for several decades between them, Gaelic became the culture of the Pictish court and hence the dominant culture in the region.

>>1474415

Which Pictish King? Around the time Dalriada formed, the kings quite smoothly were brought to power matrilineally, no succesions crises. Drust III seems to have been the ruler when Fergus Mor arrived.

But yes, as I said a few hundred comments ago, I believe it was more of a settling than an invasion. No blood was spilled.

>>1474384
Yes, but are dwarves and Valkyries Nordic religion, or native folklore which was integrated into the religion?

>>1474146
>In Ireland, it was well-established, but the Picts had completely disregarded what Palladius and Patrick had told them and made Jesus a Sun God.
Nigger what the fuck are you on about.

>Gwynedd held out for a time, since it was the only non Irish part of Wales. I think Beli ap Rhun was the first Christian King of Gwynedd.
Again what are you on about.

You're pulling this all out of your arse

>>1474422
No one thinks the Picts practiced matrilineal succession either, these days.

If I remember correctly the last "king of the Picts" listed in the Annals of Ulster was Áed son of Cinaed in 878AD, a few generations AFTER Kenneth MacAlpine, who was recorded as having been "killed by his own associates, which suggests a coup.

After that the Chronical of the Kings of Alba claims that someone called Eochodius takes the throne as a puppet king under the control of someone called Giric. Neither figure is recorded in the Irish chronicals but the Chronical of the Kings of Alba claim after eleven years both Giric and Eochodius were exiled and that Domnall son of Constantín (a nephew of Áed son of Cinaed) took the throne.

Domnall and his successor Constantín son of Áed are both recorded in the Annals of Ulster, but instead of being the "king of the Picts" they are called the "king of Alba", a Gaelic term suggesting a cultural shift from Pictish to Gaelic.

Now we know for a fact that Domnall and Constantín couldn't have been more than 10-15 years old at the time of the coup, and that their aunt was the Queen of Tara.

As such, it seems likely they fled to Tara, became Gaelic culturally and then regained the throne. If so, it may well have been that the Irish chronicalers refused to mention Giric and Eochodius as a political point.

>>1474514

Literally every historian I've read since 2014 still agrees they're one of the few European matrilineal successions.

>>1474514

But this was in the ninth century. I'm talking 400-500 AD and the creation of Scottish Dal Riada.

>>1474521
Well that's funny because literally every major historian I've read and my lecturer in Medieval Scottish History said it's utter horseshit and there is zero evidence for it.

How old are the historians you've been reading?

>>1474543

Youngest was 24, oldest is in his late sixties. There's tons of evidence for it too.

>>1474528
Oh, that. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was Dauvit Broun who suggested the cultural assimilation model rather than invasion. Him, or Alex Woolf, one of the two.

>>1474548
No, there isn't any evidence.

And what I meant was, when was the literature published? And more importantly, who were the historians?

>>1474559
Well, there's one anecdote in Bede, but only an idiot would trust that out of hand.

>>1474572

Yes, but a very smart person would believe it, since Bede is a pretty good historian.

>>1474559

-Bede, I, c. 1
-J. M. P. Calise (2002) in his book on the Picts. he offers a good counter-argument too.

The others are mostly historians I've met studying sub-roman Britain. I'll pull up my other sources, those are the two I remember off-hand.

It's also the only way to make sense of the Pictish kings. They certainly weren't each other's sons.

>>1474578
Except that Bede's anecdote is literally the only piece of "evidence", and no matter how good a historian Bede is he's still a Medieval chronicler writing hundreds of years after the fact, and so whatever he says is highly dubious.

>>1474601

By that logic, Alex Woolf writting a milennium and a half afterwards should be treated as High Fantasy.

Geoffrey of Monmouth makes 11 minor mistakes in his entire Caesar Campaign. The only major one is that he said there was a two year gap when it was actually one year. Yet, he's treated like some sort of lunatic fantasy author.

Bede isn't any more dubious than Gildas, GoM or Alex Woolf.

>>1474601

And the king lists are literally "more "evidence"". They're clearly matrilineal, the King was almost always the last King's nephew.

File: Carl_Larsson_-_Midwinter's_Sacrifice_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3MB, 6170x3523px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6170x3523px

>>1474162
>>1474192
Romans wrote about Germanic tribes extensively performing human sacrifice

There are also human sacrifices in the sagas

>>1474614
If succession is matrilineal then why are the women NEVER mentioned?

And given we only have a person's patronymic and personal name, the lack of variety in names generally and how badly garbled the king lists are generally, it's very, very difficult to say for sure how anyone in the lists relates to anyone else.

>>1474610
Oh don't be stupid. Bede is Medieval historian, he relies on hearsay and when writing about periods hundreds of years before his time he relies on very old and very garbled hearsay. Add to that the fact we have the issue of transcription of Bede's work throughout the ages and, like with all other writers of that time, you end up with a source that requires a lot of skill to interpret correctly. The idea that modern historians are subject to the same problems is laughable.

Other than that and the king lists (out of which one can easily contrive "proof" to back Bede up) there is literally zero evidence.

>>1474592
So what is Calise's argument, exactly?

File: bog body.jpg (102KB, 615x413px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 615x413px

>>1474143
Yes it did.

>>1474678
nah brah that was just a typical ræp victim

File: 3b-nedsaenkning-farve-stor.jpg (193KB, 1200x566px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1200x566px

>>1474690
>most likely the victim of a ritual sacrifice.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollund_Man

>>1474610
>>1474614
And furthermore Bebe only says the kingship passed matrilineally when "in cases of doubt" which sounds like Agnatic-Cognatic to me. Which would mean that the Picts, rather than being the special snowflakes people have tried to paint them as for centuries, were just like everyone else, no?

File: based_on_a_book_series.jpg (559KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1920x1080px

>you will never play The Winter King mod with /his/

A bit off topic but are there still celts left today? Is Ireland more or less celtic or are they germanic as well.

>>1475186

The Welsh, the Bretons, the Irish and the highland Scots all consider themselves to be Celts. They even have Celtic languages. But in terms of culture, they're pretty much indistinguishable from other Europeans.

>>1475186
Absolutely, culturally and genetically.

>50,000 people in all fo Britain

Yeah, no.
>The Second and Third Centuries AD were a time of general prosperity and the population of Roman Britain reached about 3.5 million by 400 AD.
>The population of England, around 1.5 million or more in 1086

There's no way it was less than 1 million during the Arthurian / Subroman period. This would tie in with the genetic studies that suggest no more than 2 to 5% English genes in the British genepool.

File: cronicas de artur.jpg (67KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x500px

Has someone in this thread read Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles? How historically accurate it is. Not in the plot itself, of course, but in the setting: the main kingdoms of Britain being Dumnonia, Powys and Gwent; Christians slowly overtaking druidic religion; Britons having contact with Brittany etc

>>1475279
>This would tie in with the genetic studies that suggest no more than 2 to 5% English genes in the British genepool
I don't care about the previous argument, but you should know that that study is completely an utterly wrong in every regard.

>>1475298
>but you should know that that study is completely an utterly wrong in every regard.
[citation needed]

>>1475295
Yep.

>>1474801

File: britain_475ad.jpg (120KB, 488x808px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 488x808px

>>1475323

If that map is from the books then no, it's not historically accurate at all.
http://thehistoryofwales.typepad.com/t/5.html

>>1474615
>Romans wrote about Germanic tribes extensively performing human sacrifice
You should watch out with just believing anything you read anon. It might be propaganda, it might be someone that told the writer this, or it just might be the writer inventing stuff to make the story more interesting.

>>1475357
It's not like human sacrifice was anything out of the ordinary in Iron Age Europe, the Romans even did it occasionally in their early history.

>>1474615
Romans were a little biased against the Germanics.

>>1475186
Celts are mostly fucked. Most of them are Germanic now, places like Wales and Cornwall are completely devoid of their own languages, the hallmark of ethnicity.

This shit doesnt make sense

>The Anglos were just a ruling class, we're actually Celtic!
>Anglos get BTFO'd by Normans
>The Normans are just a ruling class, we're actually actually Anglos!

WHICH FUCKING ONE IS IT!?

>>1473119
>Early Dark Ages Britain
literally one the most overrated eras of history

>>1476454
Stone Age

>>1474273
He wasn't a Roman general but he was probably Roman considering Arthur is a Roman name

>>1476454
>using ethnolinguistic terms to man the same as genetic terms
Celts stayed there, they just became indistinguishable from the Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxons remained distinguishable from the Normans.
It's culture m8.

>>1473533
>unclefucker
haven't heard someone say that since middle school

>>1476667

No.

Proto-Celtic: Artoswiros (Bear Artos Man Wiros)
Late Brittonic: Arthur

>>1475350
I know. It's from the books, not based on real life. Although that map is awesome. I doubt Lundein would have existed in that form or been that big, Mercia did not exist, and I doubt an Atrebatia existed at the time, more likely smaller principalities based on old Venta and Bath.

>>1476511
By who?

>>1477094

Lundein existed and was that big. So did Atrebatia and Mercia.

>>1475386
Eh, the evidence for that is very shaky. Livy probably just made it up.

>>1477094

Natan Lleod, for example, the King of Caer Guintguicc, clearly answered to some sort of higher power that wasn't Dumnonia. Atrebatia is an excellent contender, even if Atrebatia is a speculative name.

Caer Lundein's large swathe of land... Just does exist. Not sure where you got the idea it didn't.

And Mercia existed, and was that small. It was founded by Eomaer, who arrived in the late 5th century.

>>1477206

Reminds me of when Livy met Claudius, lol. Claudius pointed out an inaccuracy in Livy's work, and he started insulting Claudius.

Pre-Celtic Britons: ~35%
Celts: ~30%
Anglo-Saxons: ~30%
Vikings: ~1-2%
Normans: ~1-2%
Romans: <1%

That'd be my guess at genetic makeup,based on what little I've read. Culturally England is overwhelmingly Anglo-Norman, of course

>>1476454
Everyone in Britain can undoubtedly trace a lineage back to at least a few Romans and Normans. Their contribution to the gene pool as a whole, however, was tiny.

File: jon.gif (31KB, 226x309px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 226x309px

>>1473358
>>1473383
>>1473410
>>1473425
>>1473442
>>1473448
>>1473470
>>1473504
>tortures man for source
>sends men off to get the source for him, all the while cursing everyone
>servant finally brings report of source
>at this point anon is so full of piss and vinegar that he is about to explode if not fulfilled with source
>reads the source
>denounces source