Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.
Quote:
Vortigern Wrote:Well, some flooding, by no means all, and over more than a century. And the Huns never made it that far north, either. As if they would. 8)
Ah yes, but it's the refugees in their wake, who would,
themselves, be seeking farmland of their own. As Andreas pointed-out,
the Frisians etc couldn't farm the highland (poor soil), they couldn't
go South West and tackle the Franks, and to the South East there are
these refugees fleeing the Huns. If they could have stayed-put, then
they may have been okay. But, those rising sea-levels...

I wonder what makes you say that they couldn't tackle the Franks. After all, we see many Saxon settlements along the Belgian and French coasts, especially the Loire area. Remeber those saxons there in the late 5th c.? So some could, and evidently did. Besides, the whole of the province of Belgica II was in upheaval, with effective Roman rule either withdrawn to the south or turned ver to Frankish groups. This would be a perfect spot to get a foothold, and some seems to have succeeded. And some went to Britain, sure, I keep saying that. Just not thousands upon thousands who managed to drive off a native popultion of millions.

Quote: Erm, see above? It doesn't have to be the only answer, but we do need to start somewhere. They didn't fly-off into space.
Sure. But with an open mind, I hope. OK, I'll grant you that - space is out of the question! Big Grin

Quote:
Yes, it's an eminently reasonable point. Though it's one I
thought I had dealt with already. But here goes once more: The
Germanic chip-carved buckles were adopted (from fashion and practicality) by the Western Roman Army in the 4th & 5th century.
Not made in Germania, or even by Germanic peoples, probably, but
by and for Roman soldiers. However, what makes them not Germanic mercenaries, or even Roman soldiers of Germanic descent,
(necessarily) is that they are still also wearing their Roman crossbow brooches etc. There is a fusion of styles, over a period of
time, and not a sudden replacement of one native style by another, foreign one. I could accept that the 5th c. Jutish graves in Kent might
be native Britons dressed-up as Jutes if they were still wearing a diagnostic artifact which was normally worn by pre-Jutish-arrival
Britons. I mean, from Andrew Richardson's survey of Jutish brooches
in Kent, he can even tell from the nuances of Frisian styles incorporated into them that the Jutes must have had contact with the Frisians on their way from Jutland. Which is hardly surprising, actually, and fits with the fact that the safest way to sail from Jutland to Kent was to skirt the
coast of Frisia. So we can see the subtle influences of Frisian culture imprinted on Jutish brooches in the 5th c. But we don't see any
Romano-British influence on them. Confusedhock:

Why, if there was the slightest contact between Jutish and Romano-
British culture, is there no Romano-British signature on Jutish brooches?
And why, if the Britons were adopting Jutish brooches, did they just
copy them perfectly (or buy them) without adding any nuances of
Romano-British brooch design? You see what I'm saying? There was
more cultural exchange between Jutes and Frisians from an overnight
stop for a bagel and a coffee than there was between the Jutes who
came to Kent and the native Britons over a period of 200 years.

Good one. That's always a difficult point, who's influencing who? What you call Roman crossbow fibulae are in fact not totally Roman ones (yes, they are produced by Romans for Romans), but the type is directly derived from German fibulae.
And hey, I'm not suggesting that there were no Jutes in Kent and all Jutish jewellery must be traded and worn as fashion. Of course not. But trade may/must play a big role here, nonetheless. Maybe it was the Jutes of Britain that continued to make these objects, for a British market, whose customers were Jutes, Saxons, Anglians, as well as Britons?
Take for instance the wealth of finds from Dorchester on Thames, which include many Germanic finds, including female jewellery. But also Romano-British stuff that we just classified as non-Germanic Roman military..
I'm just saying it can be possible.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-07-2006, 07:49 PM
More \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-07-2006, 10:10 PM
More \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-07-2006, 10:56 PM
And yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-08-2006, 12:17 AM
Even more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-08-2006, 12:38 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by Robert Vermaat - 08-08-2006, 02:44 PM
Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-09-2006, 03:12 AM
Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-09-2006, 03:53 AM
Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-09-2006, 05:03 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-09-2006, 05:31 AM
Racial haplotype - by Aryaman2 - 08-10-2006, 05:26 PM
Re: Racial haplotype - by Chariovalda - 08-10-2006, 06:27 PM
Re: Racial haplotype - by Aryaman2 - 08-11-2006, 07:30 AM
Re: Racial haplotype - by Robert Vermaat - 08-11-2006, 09:50 AM
Re: Racial haplotype - by Chariovalda - 08-11-2006, 10:42 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 09:26 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 10:31 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 12:15 PM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 12:43 PM
Re: More \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 02:06 PM
Re: More \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 02:28 PM
Re: More \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-12-2006, 04:05 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 01:39 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 02:46 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 04:08 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 04:29 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by Robert Vermaat - 08-13-2006, 07:47 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 07:56 PM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-13-2006, 08:39 PM
End of Round One - by ambrosius - 08-17-2006, 05:34 AM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-18-2006, 12:50 AM
Re: Yet more \'Pryor\' assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-18-2006, 12:51 AM
Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-18-2006, 04:43 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-18-2006, 05:33 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by Chariovalda - 08-22-2006, 02:40 PM
Enemies or Friends - by ambrosius - 08-22-2006, 09:13 PM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-22-2006, 10:57 PM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-22-2006, 11:59 PM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by ambrosius - 08-23-2006, 12:26 AM
Re: Pryor assumptions - by Felix - 08-23-2006, 06:39 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Where to put your Saxons? Arturus Uriconium 28 6,554 02-12-2009, 11:32 AM
Last Post: Arturus Uriconium

Forum Jump: