Posted on 07/18/2006 10:33:09 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Genetic analysis of men in modern-day central England shows that more than half of them possess a Y-chromosome that can be traced to Germania - an ancient region of central Europe... Evidence of the apartheid system can be found in ancient texts such as the 7th century laws of Ine, Thomas says, which place a greater value on the life of an Anglo-Saxon. For example, these laws stated that if an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the "blood money", or "Wergild", payable to the family was up to five times more than the fine payable for the life of a native Celt.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
history bump
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
This is a fairly stupid conclusion. To believe it, you would have to think that the 200,000 Anglo-Saxon males brought their women with them to ravish and pillage fair England. I doubt it.
They came and conquered a portion of central England, then took the Celtic maidens as the spoils of their conquest - breeding lustily with favorable laws, etc. The result is the 50% Germanic Y-DNA chromosome, which is passed only from father to son. It doesn't matter whether the mother was Celtic or German origin. Surely, she was Celtic in the main.
"For example, these laws stated that if an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the "blood money", or "Wergild", payable to the family was up to five times more than the fine payable for the life of a native Celt."
And the Saxons got paid back when the Normans took over, e.g. "Presentment of Englishry."
Still, I favored the Celts first, then the Saxons, the Normans least. But then they cleaned out the Muslims from southern Italy and Sicily and were outstanding Crusaders which I suppose makes up for it.
 |
Genetic Genealogy  |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off GGP list Marty = Paternal Haplogroup O(2?)(M175) Maternal Haplogroup H |
|
| GG LINKS: African Ancestry DNAPrint Genomics FamilyTree DNA mitosearch Nat'l Geographic Genographic Project Oxford Ancestors RelativeGenetics Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation Trace Genetics ybase ysearch |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
I suppose the blood money only applied when a male was killed, not a female.
This article doesn't specify which haplotype this Sassenach DNA is, but implicit in the article is that it's not WAMH (Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype), such as is found in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and western England.
It appears, from looking on google, that this Sassenach haplotype poured into the central area of England and pushed out the WAMH, which makes sense if you look at history, the Celts were displaced in central England.
bump for later
Were the Late Anglo-Saxon Lords any better than the Normans? That question can be argued both pro and con.
Actually, being Germans, they were very methodical.
The amount of wergild depended on the value of the party killed. More for a higher noble than a lesser noble, less for a woman, least for a slave. They might have even worked it out to actual body parts damaged.
I guess it was cheaper than a blood-feud.
I think the Normans were pretty brutal efficient killing machines. The Anglo-Saxons probably lacked the organizational skills of the Normans.
Like I said, they cleaned out the Muslims in Sicily and southern Italy - no mean task even back then, based on the problems we're having in the Middle East. Its amazing what lopping off enough heads and slashing apart in combat can accomplish. Perhaps we should consider emulating their methods.
Time to rewatch "King Arthur" starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightly.
Would this segregation be the "Dane Law" established in the eastern part of England? I believe you can note its spread by the germanic names of towns. The locals paid the germanic people a Danegeld to keep them from raiding.
The Viking people who populated Iceland brought their wives and livestock, but the freeman of the farmstead commonly had celtic slaves. I don't know why it would be different in England.
The Danelaw was 9th century, and was imposed (as one might expect) by the Danes when they arrived in force. There was also the Danegild, which was a ransom (more accurately, protection money) paid by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to keep the Danes from making war on them.
The Anglo-Saxons probably lacked the organizational skills of the Normans.Nope, the army of the English king was the best in Europe up to that time. A couple of things that helped the Normans were the stirrup (which allowed them to ride their chargers and use both their hands at the same time) and a brain fart by King Harold, who should have taken a breather after the march down from the north (Stamford Bridge), and mustered a larger army for at least a few days before Senlac (better known as the Battle of Hastings).
Well, actually, I think this part of the discussion was in the context of whether the Anglo-Saxons were more efficient at brutalizing the Celts, or the Normans were more efficient at brutalizing the Anglo-Saxons.
I agree with you that the Saxons could have won at Senlac.
Harold was under a lot of pressure, having just beaten the Scandinavians at Stamford Bridge in Northern England.
He traveled a long distance back quite quickly, and arrived there before the rest of his army from the North could catch up with him. I think he only had his personal housecarls and the local fyrd to relie on.
William had already landed.
He had to decide whether or not to stop William there immediately, or wait for the rest of his army to catch up. What should he do? What would you do? Waiting might have allowed William to establish himself and threaten the countryside. Acting right away could have resulted in a defeat as he would have had fewer men.
I don't know what I would have done in his place.
In the ACTUAL BATTLE, Harold's men took up a defensive position and the Normans attacked them. Not once but three times. The REAL reason he lost was because part of his shield wall disintegrated, despite his objections, when some of his men broke ranks to follow up the retreating Normans after the first attack - and were promptly killed. This helped to shatter his defense line and the Normans deliberately pulled the same tactic a second time, killing more Saxons.
The rest is history. Harold was apparently killed by an arrow shot and two Norman Knights who hacked him to pieces. (There's a new book out about the Bayeaux Tapestry which interprets events in a clearer light. If you're interested, I'll give you the title.)
Yes, I know about the stirrup, couched lance and better thrust from a cavalryman using them. But arrows, and the failure of the Saxons to hold their position lost the battle.
A well trained, well-disciplined, armored infantry force is more than a match for cavalry, even heavily armored knights. This was proven later in the Middle Ages by Flemish and Swiss Pikemen. Only if the cavalry force had effective archery could they overcome such an infantry unit.
Had the Saxons not broken their shield wall to pursue the retreating Normans, they might very well have won the battle.
Now, getting back to the original issue of who was better organized, I still believe the Normans, as administrators and rulers were far more efficient than the Saxon were. Saxon rule had been not been as efective as Norman rule in controlling disruptive barons or as effective in exploiting the national wealth for the benefit of the crown.
The exchequer, the Domesday book, the total domination of the countryside by Norman Motte and Bailey castles, all atttest to the almost Teutonic intensity of Norman overlordship which waas expanded on by their successors the Plantagents.
So I think the Saxons had an overall rougher time of it than the Celts had from the Saxons.
Saxon rule had been not been as efective as Norman rule in controlling disruptive barons or as effective in exploiting the national wealth for the benefit of the crown. The exchequer, the Domesday book, the total domination of the countryside by Norman Motte and Bailey castles, all atttest to the almost Teutonic intensity of Norman overlordship which was expanded on by their successors the Plantagenets.I see your point about the systematic way the Conquest proceeded. The whole country was carved up and awarded to (surviving) members of William the Bastard's conquering army. The great census was William's way of finding out how much he was worth, and he lived just about long enough to find out. His son William "Rufus" (the Ruddy) II turned out to be a real jerk, who died in a "hunting accident", shot (arrow, maybe a crossbow?) by one of his companions. "Honest, I thought he was a fallow deer..."
Alfred wasnt a British monarch - He was an English Monarch.
Scotland had its own and distinct Royal family (which then sired the British monarchy)
Great, because I didn't say that he was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
