For a contrarian view, it's interesting perusing (the summary of) Oosthuizen above, which argues that "there is little evidence of landscape restructuring or of Romano-British communities being reduced to servile status by a new Germanic elite." But who knows! I wouldn't want to pick a fight with Caedmon.
Well history told they tend to put Ish and isch on back of the countries they took over. The Goth tribe took over rome 410 and the Visigoths took over Spain and France. They are the elite and even another group i will not speak of
I would also point out nationalism of a dominant country is different from the patriotism of an oppressed country. The Arthurian legends resonated a lot in Wales, who was threatened by English domination, invasion and colonization for centuries. Afterwards, England then the British Empire/United Kingdom reappropriated those stories for themselves (especially since their currently most famous iterations are written by English or French authors, and Christians), but at its roots, the Arthurian characters come from Briton pagan tradition
I feel like the interpretation of it boils down to how you want to write it. An author can turn it into something nationalistic, intolerant and vile, as much as they could use it as an allegory for anti-colonialism and the fight against oppression. And ofc depends on which Arthur an author wants to draw from-- the imperialist conqueror who marched on all the way to Rome, or the underdog hero resisting against colonization? Myths can be used to tell anything we want them to tell essentially
I'm far too uneducated about the history you're discussing to make any comment about that, but I've done a fair bit of reading about Arthur (only remembered really in hazy contours), but isn't it the case that people argue over whether he was one of half a dozen people over a period of something like a thousand or more years? Some saying he was Roman, others Welsh. It seems hard to pin him to any particular point in history. Although maybe I'm mixing up the "historical Arthur" with the character represented in the various stories about him.
For a contrarian view, it's interesting perusing (the summary of) Oosthuizen above, which argues that "there is little evidence of landscape restructuring or of Romano-British communities being reduced to servile status by a new Germanic elite." But who knows! I wouldn't want to pick a fight with Caedmon.
Well history told they tend to put Ish and isch on back of the countries they took over. The Goth tribe took over rome 410 and the Visigoths took over Spain and France. They are the elite and even another group i will not speak of
Have you heard this podcast that speaks about how the Saxons affected Britain (and much more) -it’s very good
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-english-podcast/id538608536
I will definitely get this
Yes, I very much agree
Ordinary Britons typically became servants under Saxon masters. Cf Caedmon the 1st English poet, a Celtic serf at St Hilda’s monastery.
Some British aristocrats took ship for Celtic Brittany, & the Breton knights in 1066 thought they were getting revenge.
I would also point out nationalism of a dominant country is different from the patriotism of an oppressed country. The Arthurian legends resonated a lot in Wales, who was threatened by English domination, invasion and colonization for centuries. Afterwards, England then the British Empire/United Kingdom reappropriated those stories for themselves (especially since their currently most famous iterations are written by English or French authors, and Christians), but at its roots, the Arthurian characters come from Briton pagan tradition
I feel like the interpretation of it boils down to how you want to write it. An author can turn it into something nationalistic, intolerant and vile, as much as they could use it as an allegory for anti-colonialism and the fight against oppression. And ofc depends on which Arthur an author wants to draw from-- the imperialist conqueror who marched on all the way to Rome, or the underdog hero resisting against colonization? Myths can be used to tell anything we want them to tell essentially
I'm far too uneducated about the history you're discussing to make any comment about that, but I've done a fair bit of reading about Arthur (only remembered really in hazy contours), but isn't it the case that people argue over whether he was one of half a dozen people over a period of something like a thousand or more years? Some saying he was Roman, others Welsh. It seems hard to pin him to any particular point in history. Although maybe I'm mixing up the "historical Arthur" with the character represented in the various stories about him.