Submitted by AutoModerator t3_11ojmfz in history
ThePinkKraken t1_jcnul1e wrote
I'm hoping someone can help me here. One quite niche topic and one very broad. Looking for good sources on both of them :)
-
English history
I've just recently learned that both vikings and Rome went all the way up to the UK. I'm very curious about this time period. Why did they go up there, how was Britain ruled back then, etc? I'm planning on moving to the UK and want to know more about the place, so recommendations about all time periods are welcome.
Exception: WW1 - present time. -
History of crochet
Now, the more niche question. I love crochet myself and I adore the old patterns, so I'd love to learn more about this craft. There are a lot of variations (irish crochet, Bavarian crochet, jewelry, lace crochet, filet crochet, etc) and I just want to know more. Who came up with the notation? How did it develop over the years, stuff like this. It's my "maybe someone has any pointers if I'm lucky" question :)
quantdave t1_jcptyuy wrote
England was long attractive to conquerors or raiders for a variety of reasons, from its resources (notably its productive agricultural land and minerals, attractive to Romans, Anglo-Saxons, vikings and Normans) to its strategic importance as a large offshore island with extensive Continental interactions and close to its southern neighbour (and potentially too close for comfort, a particular concern for Caesar after his conquest of Gaul, with which southern Britain had substantial affinities - though it was left to Claudius to expand the Empire beyond the Channel): Norse raiders were conversely drawn to its proximity and extensive irregular island coastline, a vulnerability in the face of seaborne attackers ( and btw for them it was across or sometimes down rather than up, so climatically less unappealing than for Roman soldiers with the misfortune to be posted there.)
The country's economic condition in this millennium is somewhat puzzling: that it exported grain under Roman rule and provided viking raiders with enormous treasure suggests that it had productive capacity to spare even with the limited technology of the time, yet was at least by the later period already a place of notable wealth. That it seems simultaneously to have been under-exploitated yet capable of yielding a surplus may offer a clue to its subsequent ascent as well as its attractiveness to invaders.
The country passed through various forms of administration - from a patchwork of local kingdoms or chiefdoms and then a Roman province under successive governors and occupied by 40-50,000 Roman troops and again a patchwork of post-Roman and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, to a unified realm from the 9th-10th centuries (for a time in the 11th under Danish rule) to a Norman kingdom notable for its centralisation under the crown, another source of its later power even as royal fiat gave way to parliamentary government, most notably from the 17th century when a king ignored his legislature and rather lost his head. Regional identities (and accents!) persist, but with none of the political continuity that characterises Continental provinces and regions.
The big facts though in modern England are industry and Empire, both mostly or wholly gone but casting a vast shadow. Early factory mechanisation made Britain (as the state now was) the world's economic frontrunner from the 1780s until the emergence of more dynamic rivals from the mid-19th century, and while its economy is today (like most of the developed world) essentially a post-industrial one reliant mainly on services, the abruptness of the earlier break transformed society and disrupted its traditions more thoroughly than probably anywhere else. A "deep" England survives in some more rural parts but for most persists only in period TV drama. This is a modern nation, for all its nominal adherence to (largely likewise re-imagined) pageantry invoking earlier times.
The other thing that hasn't gone away is the phantom of colonial empire in which Britain used its industrial might and wealth to impose its rule over at one time a quarter of the world. The loss of bygone power and prestige still provokes bewilderment and sometimes resentment among a (mostly but not exclusively older) segment of the population and hangs over political life: it's not omnipresent, but you'll encounter it. Race is reassuringly less of an issue than in some societies, England's insularity and innate conservatism being tempered by its modern reality and centuries of global exchange. But Acheson's observation that "Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role" remains relevant.
For a good place to begin the story I still recommend PH Sawyer, From Roman Britain to Norman England, after which it's probably best to trace developments thematically (society, economy, political evolution) unless you want to tackle the multi-volume Oxford History of England (two series, the old now being replaced apart from its first volumes of which the updated two-part vol 1 and Stenton's revised vol 2 remain important for the first millennium).
Crochet's an interesting one, to my surprise only emerging as a discrete form in the early 19th century but with antecedents in 18th-century Scottish knitting and French embroidery. So that's something I learned today!
ThePinkKraken t1_jcq2jd0 wrote
So many long replies, I'm loving you all! It's also interesting to see that even in this small comment chain people are already having different opinions on how valuable England was. I'll dig into your comment a bit later, it's a long one and my brain functions with 5% capacity right now.
Shame that nobody has any sources on crochet, but I'm aware it's a very niche topic.
en43rs t1_jco8ayx wrote
So. Here is a very simplified timeline of Britain:
-Before 43 AD Britain is made up of a lot of Celtic tribes, not that dissimilar from Gaul.
-In 43 AD the Romans invade and conquer what is today more or less England and Wales. This is an unruly province (it's isolated and far away, that plays a role) so they put a lot of soldier on it and build Hadrian's wall (under emperor Hadrian) to keep the picts (in what is today Scotland) out.
-Roman culture is present in cities but is still very much limited.
-In 410 Rome is falling apart and Rome leaves. The island is now made up of small Celtic kingdoms/tribes more or less Romanized. From this time up to the 800 or so there isn't a lot of written sources, so it's very very difficult to be sure of the details.
-From the 500s onward Germans start to migrate to the Island and takes over the eastern part. Those Germans are Angles and Saxons (from which we get England and Anglo-Saxon). They rule over and integrate the local Celts and basically rule over what isn't mountains (so not Wales and not Scotland..... so England). That's where the Wales (Celtic) and England divides comes from. England is not united but made up of several kingdoms, around the 700 there are seven small Anglo-Saxons kingdoms.
-Around 800 Scandinavian raiders (what we call Vikings, which isn't a culture, it's a job basically, it means to leave for an expedition) start attacking Western Europe, Britain included. Around 860 Scandinavians start to migrate in large number in order to settle in Britain. That's not the first time this happened (the Angles and Saxons did it, and it's not the only place the Scandinavians settle, they do it in France, in Russia, so on).
-From the 870s to the 1030s Norse/Scandinavians from Denmark control Eastern England. In 1042 finding it too difficult to maintain the Danes leave. An Anglo-Saxon king now controls all of England for the first time.
-In 1066 Normans (from the French region of Normandy, descendants of Scandinavians and local French people) led by William the Conqueror invade England (at the same time the Norwegian also try to take it over, in what is the last Norse invasion of England, it fails). They conquer it and that's where the modern England we know come from : an Anglo-Saxon people (with Norse influence and a dash of Celts) ruled by a French nobility which as centuries progress becomes more and more English (but it explains why the English language doesn't looks like Germans but uses a lot of French words).
England only becomes the UK in 1707 when England and Scotland (ruled by the same kings since 1603) merge into a single country.
ThePinkKraken t1_jcobhwa wrote
Wow thank you so much for the summary! I have so many more questions now tho - any pointers where I can learn more about it?
You've made me even more curious now, especially about... everything to be fair. How much influence of those earlier cultures can still be found? Why got it evaded by so many different countries if it's so hard to maintain any influence there?
Am I understanding you right, 800 Scandinavias (thanks for the correction about Vikins!) people were enough to attack and settle down?
calijnaar t1_jcohjwe wrote
If you want a really detailed account, I'd recommend the British History Podcast (be warned, though, Jamie is now at episode 414, and has just reached the Norman conquest in 1066, so there's a lot of detail and probably still a few decades to go until he reaches the 20th century)
ThePinkKraken t1_jcq2u7y wrote
Uhhhh. I love myself some podcasts to listen to while doing chores or doing mindless stuff in games. As long as this guy isn't making up things that should be right up my alley!
calijnaar t1_jcqzjbn wrote
He's not a historian, but it is very well researched. (There's a subreddit for the pod, by the way: r/BritishHistoryPod )
en43rs t1_jcodit2 wrote
For more info you will need to track down books, podcasts or videos. I'm sorry but I don't have anything specific to recommend on England.
Why did a lot of people invade England? Actually England is nothing special. Before the year 1000 the history of Europe is the history of massive invasions. For example France: Celts took over the local people (we don't know anything about them) in 700 BC (and the local people probably took over other people before), the Romans came around 50 BC, then a small number of Germans (called the Franks) took it over around 500... Europe before the year 1000 had a lot of migrations and Invasions. It was just part of the local scene. Why it stopped is complicated but a theory is that when countries became stronger it became a lot more difficult to take over a place and so vast migrations stopped. Also those migrations/invasions were often due to a lack of resources which can be prevented by stronger trade network: if you can buy food elsewhere you don't need to leave your country. And this wasn't true just for Europe: in America, Africa, Asia, you see vast migrations throughout the ages.
For what remains of theses culture... depends where you are. In Wales Celtic culture (in the form of the Welsh language, spoken by 18% of the population of Wales) is still very present. In other places? Not really. Outside of places names it's very difficult to see. This video is interesting on that subject (also it's funny). Those cultures haven't been relevant in a thousand years, so outside of the occasional town name, there isn't really anything.
>Am I understanding you right, 800 Scandinavias (thanks for the correction about Vikins!) people were enough to attack and settle down?
My bad! I meant that in the year 800 several thousands of Scandinavians took over eastern England. They still weren't a lot of them, they exploited rivalries between Anglo-Saxons to succeed.
quantdave t1_jcpye4x wrote
In fact I'd say England was special: why it should have been so remains shrouded in mystery, but that it could engorge Scandinavia with more money than raiders knew what to do with and then lured Norman rulers even at the expense of their powerful Continental duchy suggests there was something of note going on there.
This isn't to invoke any spurious English exceptionalism: any country's only as special as its resources and characteristics make it in the wider conditions of a particular time - but you can see even in this early formative period indications that there's a capacity that seems not to have gone unnoticed even among contemporaries.
Research in the past half-century on the origins of later British growth has tended to push the start back well beyond the onset of the classic period of industrial prosperity and imperial expansion: I think we can see the beginnings at a very early stage, even as the country struggled to keep up with the sophistication or military prowess of Continental neighbours.
ThePinkKraken t1_jcq1vy3 wrote
>My bad! I meant that in the year 800 several thousands of Scandinavians took over eastern England. They still weren't a lot of them, they exploited rivalries between Anglo-Saxons to succeed.
...This makes so much more sense, I was really impressed by those 800 raiders. :D (In my defence I'm currently a bit ill. )
I appreciate you taking your time for giving me more insight on England and it's history. Thanks a lot, I have a lot to learn it seems!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments