Yeow! Um, berserk, could we have that in English? ( I actually went & looked up stug, on the off chance it might be a word. Nope. )
**Aldiboronti ** were you being totally sarcastic or really wondering? I think most University level historians expert in the area of England 1066 would say that a fusion occurred and a new society was created in the aftermath of the Norman invasion. Certainly you’d get a lively debate if you HAD to say either culture were “absorbed” it is a VERY open question whether it was the A/S, or the Normans. I’d give “fusion” as most accurate tho. Specifically Normans brought things like the bow, feudalism, administrative government, castles, closer RC Religious ties, re-continentalism and a non-A/S form of kingship that still exists today. Also, (nitpick) recall that the Normans didn’t conquer the A/S per se, they conquered the Danes at Hastings, who had conquered the A/S and had ruled them for about 200 years at that point …
Some links:
From WSU about the Normans “birthing of a common European civilization to England’
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORMANS.HTM
Great site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6777/norman.html
Here is what this one had to say on your OP:
http://members.tripod.com/~Battle_of_Hastings/Consequences.html
Before the Norman conquest, the English only fought with other nations to protect themselves from incursion and invasion. They really had no interest in anything beyond their own island. After the conquest, England had special interests on the Continent and became deeply involved in European politics. The Normans imported their culture into England and inherent in this was their propensity for war; which was not limited to war between themselves as with the Anglo-Saxons.
I’m glad your proud of your heritage and of America and not ashamed to say that (seriuosly & not patronizing you), but if FUTILE GESTURE had you pegged, think about what he’s saying there Robin Hood.
As any sensible poster has already established this OP is complete and utter poppycock from start to end. I add only that none of the mentioned ‘tribes’ came ‘out of the German marshes’. Let’s leave aside that it intends to mean Germanic, which in itself is only a barely useful term. Since it did say German I must feel required to correct this, the various tribes referred to sloppily as being of Angeln came to present day England from what is present day Southern Denmark. The various tribes carelessly referred to as Saxon came there from the rough area today known as north western Germany and Northern Holland, BTW two BRD states still carry the name in part. ‘German Marshes’ might be a simple-minded, semi comical invective, but is hardly efficient base for discussion.
In other words (as already noted by others, but worth repeating): The Anglo Saxon Tribe (note the singular) never existed and hence could not be anything, including the most bloodthirsty whatever. Post the immigration of some peoples in the regions here mentioned to the British Isles, noting them as ‘a tribe’ is like calling the population of the Internet the denizens of a global village; cute but pathetically lacking in precision and accuracy.
Why is this OP receiving such rebuke? Maybe, because although the author might be perceived as very PC in assuming responsibility for past atrocities of what is considered an ancestral culture, it is sinister in as much as that it is guilty of feeding a long standing, and in serious thinking minds since long debunked myth of bloodline being synonymous with culture and nationality.
Culture is a dynamic and ever changing feature of humanity. It is not inherited in blood, but nurtured through customs. Some customs are easily transcended, others have staying power beyond their sense, while yet some are fascinatingly catchy and contagious. Cultural heritage has dynamics that are hard to describe and too discrete to follow in sweeping motions like the OP pretends. Language has a lot to do with this, hence there is some validity in referring to something like an Anglo Saxon culture if one means the predominantly English speaking cultures, but even that falls apart at closer scrutiny. Is for instance the cultures found in Yorkshire County, UK and Los Angeles, CA comparably the same on any sensible level or just plain different? For more about this all I refer you to a text about ethnicity and culture by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, a rather prominent and/but sometimes controversial scholar in social anthropology at Oslo University in Norway, he’s got some fun stuff cooking for all those who think that they know their goddamned ‘ethnicity’ or ‘racial origin’ by their culture and vice versa.
We are all just silly mongrels in the long run. Some of our ancestors were murderous, saliva frothing maniacs. So what? Are you? If not, get over it! If yes, get some help before you hurt someone or someone hurts you!
In any case; we should all use whatever brain there is in the little cabesa on how we can be less prone to the mistakes of our (‘our’ as in humanity’s) common ancestors, instead of walking around cataloging the world in absurd cultural and ethnical subdivisions that make less sense than the Manhattan phonebook would to an illiterate citizen of ancient Rome.
Cultural differences are too important a source of so much good and evil that we as humans cannot allow ourselves these sweeping general misunderstandings anymore.
PEACE
Sparc
“Warlike and expansionist” – I think I’d want to look at each separately.
I rather thought advanced capitalism and technology fuelled much of the Empire’s expansion – not just in terms of the New World but also in its expansion East. Even going back to Elizabeth I’s reign, the Privateers - with their capitalist philosophy (as it were) - proved far more tenacious than their conventional opponents/prey.
Were the British more “warlike” than their rivals France and Spain ? More successful, maybe, and they certainly edged a few close military encounters. Not so sure about warlike, though.
IMHO, even in today’s wars we can surely discern a capitalist agenda. Perhaps we’re just more ardent in the accumulation of wealth.
But you have no problem blithely writing off Scots, Irish & Welsh who “came along for the ride” with this mighty, chiefly-in-your-imagination, Anglo-Saxon tribe?
Nothing wrong with being a proud Englishman, but it’s this kind of attitude and nonsense that gives English nationalism a bad name and seriously irritates everyone else.
if you just analyze it on the basis of territory i would agree. but look at who their competition was. native americans and australian aborigines didn’t even have horses before europeans showed up. at least the romans had to compete against people with similar technology.
see: GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond
have to worry about the next 100 years though. how long before anyone can make genetically engineered diseases that will kill people of choice. smallpox that only kills black people or white people or yellow people. the conquest created hostilities. i believe the popular term for the response is “blowback.”
Dal Timgar