I have always thought of Great Britain as a homgenous society, in stark contrast to the very diverse United States. Then I learned that it is place that has been invaded countless times, each invasion bringing with it a new culture and language.
Some of the original inhabitants were Celts, and we still see hat culture reflected in surnames like MacMillan. Later came Viking invaders. Angles and Saxons added to the fun. Later came Normans and their French culture and language. All in all, a pretty good mix.
There must have been a time in which this island resembled A country like Yugoslvia, with various groups of people, each of which maintained its own identity. Eventually this changed, and we now have a people with a more or less common language and culture.
When did England as we know it today emerge as one nation? Are there still folks who idnetify as belonging to one tribe or another, Angles or Saxons? And what caused England (I focus here on England even as I recognize the other bouroughs) to develop as one nation, in contrast to a country like Yugoslavia which never developed a cohesive national identity?
If England (as opposed to Great Britain) was ever “Balkanized,” that came to an end with the Norman conquest of 1066. The Saxons had already done a fair amount of consolidation even before William arrived, but as soon as William established his reign, he began to take steps to ensure that he ruled one country, not many.
There are areas of England that maintained strong regional cultures and dialects into the 20th century (although this was no different than most European (and, perhaps, worldwide) societies in ways that would be very startling to a citizen of the early 21st century U.S.*
Wales was subjected to the English by the 13th century, continuing to hold on to a Welsh identity, but not to their tribal identities, to the present.
Scotland (and a bit of the disputed territory at the North of England) maintained a nearly tribal culture until the seventeenth century, although the English suppressed most of those outstanding differences in the early eighteenth century. They held on long enough that the clans are still recognizable social entities, but they are much removed from the internecine warfare that existed among those clans a few hundred years ago.
- As recently as the late 1960s, postage stamp-sized countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands still had pockets of people who spoke two dialects, the common Dutch (or Flemish) and the local dialect that was nearly unintelligible to outsiders. Britain had similar dialects into the twentieth century, as did most nations–even the U.S. supported dialects that caused travellers grief.
Invaded is perhaps too strong a word. “Landed on” might be better. Aside from tribal struggles, the only real invasion England has suffered was from the romans. They’ve been attacked by numerous others, vikings, french, germanic tribes, danes, etc., but most haven’t lasted more than a generation or two. Yes, there has been some blurring of the cultures, of course, but comparing it to the the Balkens (or the rest of europe, for that matter) is a little much.
Actually, most of the culture changes have come from non-invasions. French influence is obvious, they fought for a while, then intermarried. Same with some of scandinavia, denmark, etc. However, there has never been a time when the UK proper has been under threat of becoming franceland, vikland, etc.
In return, england didn’t have too much luck invading it’s neighbors either. A little germany here, a little france here, but never for very long. Inter-UK fighting did, however, traine british for fighting tribes in other areas around the globe, hence their territories gained in the last couple hundred years.
Now I get a flavour of what you American dopers must get when you read foreigners take on American history! The above replies are pretty funny read here from London. Sorry, that sounds patronising! Part of the problem is the problem of defining all the different terms and subdivisions of our islands and the fact that what comprises the various nation states has never been constant for even a century. Currently we are “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island”, comprising England and Scotland. Wales is not a separate crown in the Union - only a principality, but confusingly still a nation.
The habit of our overseas friends of calling any or all this “England”, or the people “English” doesn’t allow us to accurately answer many such questions without potential confusion.
I am not sure why “invasion” might be considered a strong word if the Romans invaded then tomndebb is nearer the mark. These Isles have been invaded, successfully and unsuccessfully several times since the Romans - lastly the so called “Glorious Revolution” when the Dutch conquered us. The extent to which invading peoples settled and changed the demographic varied greatly, especially regionally. The Romans oddly enough barely at all - they were at best a ruling class (even more so the Dutch and Hanovarian ruling class) - whilst the Angles, Saxons and Jutes setttled widely, and Vikings (Danes and others) enough to effect the language, physiology and place names north and east of the “Dalelaw” (a line roughly following the M1 motorway) to this day.
The United Kingdom as one homogonous nation has never emerged - and hopefully never will. Our people and culture continues to be influenced by continued immigration - Eastern European Jewry, Hugenots, and most lately since the last war from the West Indies and Indian subcontinent - which has had a fantastic effect on our music, food and feel of the place. Role on the rainbow nation…
For those who want to follow up the original question in detail I can recommend no better modern history that Norman Davies’ “The Isles - A History” (OUP 2000). It takes you from pre-history to modern Britain is a very entertaining fashion - challenging many assumptions, myths and misaprehensions along the way.
What I took away more than anything is the peoples who live in our Isles, especially the English, have mythologised ourselves and our history probably more than anyone else. There so you guys from across the pond are acquited after all and we ourselves stand in the dock…
Just skip the parts about Ireland. Davies got a lot of it quite hilariously wrong.
I’m interested Ruadh - I hesitate to ask for cites (like if it is not on the internet it doesn’t exist) but would like examples. I’m talking here about historical facts. Trying to flush out I guess if it is just his opinions and conclusions you disagree with or you can show he has got some fundamental stuff plain WRONG.
Well, for one thing he states that De Valera’s side won the Civil War. This is pretty frigging fundamental to Irish history, and definitely just plain wrong.
He also states that, in the original Bloody Sunday (the 1920 Croke Park massacre), the Black and Tans/Auxiliaries drove tanks onto the pitch. This is not true. He seems to have got it from the Michael Collins film.
These are just off the top of my head …
I can’t believe I’m citing a Dennis Kennedy column :o , but here are some more examples of Davies’s wacky sense of accuracy.
The reason I referred primarily to England was partially for the sake of what I thought was a clever thread title, and partially to keep things simple. My posting here implied that I have an ignorance of English and British history (even as I know some rather basic facts), but I was certainly well aware of the existence of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One will not catch me using “England” and “Great Britian” interchangeably.
In calling the U.K. a homogenous nation, I did not mean to exclude folks from India, Pakistan, Africa, and elsewhere who have settled there. I meant simply that those Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Normans, and others who have invaded over the years are now pretty much one nation, in contrast to the Balknized Yugoslavia (thanks to tomndeb for reintroducing me that word).
If I was wrong about anything I wrote, I do not mind being corrected. But I do not think my being ignorant about the history of a particular place betrays an overall unwillingness to learn about the rest of the world.
I’ve read both his books (Europe and Isles), while they’re both throughly entertaining he has a tendency to report myth as fact.
Rubbish! The invasion of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the 5th century may not have depopulated England, driving the Brythonic refugees to Strathclyde, Wales, Cornwall, Devon, and Armorica). But it was at least as profound as the Roman invasion. Old English replaced Brythonic languages in England, which Latin had never done.
Besides which, I think you are setting the bar far too high. ‘Invasion’ implies a military expedition, not population replacement. The US invaded North Africa in Operation Torch. The Allies invaded France on D-Day. England was not invaded by the Romans: Britain was, but there was no England until centuries later.
The OP may find this site, which discusses the division of early England into seven mutually hotile kingdoms (the ‘Heptarchy’), responsive, <http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/saxkingdoms.htm>.
Regards,
Agback
G’day
By the way, the British analogue to e pluribus unum is trias juncta in uno. This is the motto of the Order of the Bath, and appears, surrounding a symbol of three crowns, in the stars in a British Army officer’s insignia of rank.
Regards,
Agback
In response to the Earl of Sandwhich -
My Lord (I cannot say Dear Earl!!), forgive me I if gave the impression otherwise! Ignorance should be attacked, and I did not mean to. After all this board is dedictated to fighting it, so we dont want to discourage folk from accepting that they might be.
The fact you knew the Roman, Angles, Saxons and others invaded the British Isles - yet alone that you can spell Balknized Yugoslavia - must put you firmly in the upper quartile. My post was just to highlight the differences between British and English (and indeed Britons before England existed) before terminological inexactitude confused the thread completely! 
And thanks Ruadh - I’ll take his writings with a pinch of salt (I do most things) but the fact he writes so well is something!
Just to clarify and resolve any errors, (purely in the interest of fighting ignorance) can you provide an example of this “terminological inexactitude”?
The Vikings managed to get much further west than that, IIRC. Ormskirk, thirteen miles out of Liverpool, was founde by a Viking named Orm, who had travelled with the Vikings on one of their invasions from either Ireland or the Isle of Man.
My village, just outside of Wigan, “Aspull”, also derives its name from the Norse for “wooded hill”.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Ormskirk is a Saxon word, as are ing, ham, ton, and about a squillion other word fragments that make up most of Britain’s place names.
Birmingham, for example… Birm (A Fresian family patriarch) + ing (family) + ham (a fortified village, I think… I might be confusing that one with ton).
To answer the OP, much of Yorkshire was purely Viking until some time after the Norman conquest; the inhabitants spoke a different language and had almost no contact with the rest of the island. This may go some way to explaining why Yorkshiremen are still impossible to understand…
If you want really interesting place names, try Dorset- West and East Camel and Shepton Mallet, for example, provided hours of hilarity when I were a lad.
The Vikings got pretty far South too, where I live, Reading, was the the site of a Viking stronghold. In fact where I sit noe eould of been part of Danelaw as it extended to the north bank of the River Thames.
Oops, I should just say that Reading is 30 miles West of London and that’s where I sit now (in Caversham on the north bank of the Thames).
According to tradition, Viking parties also made it up the Chichester Harbour on the south coast. Certainly king Cnut, who was Danish, was there at one point (one theory is that he built sea-walls to contain the harbour tide, which failed, sparking the legend), and his daughter is buried in seaside church in the area.
I should also mention that he was a silly Cnut.