| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New 'Research' on the Battle of Agincourt
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


New 'Research' on the Battle of Agincourt

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 09:23
Quote

Thanks Windemere, that explanation really helps a lot with my understanding. I found it really baffling that people today use Briton to describe inhabitants of England and Wales during Roman and contemporary times but then hold out on using the term during the medieval period.


Please read up on all of the invasions and subsequent linguistic, cultural and religious changes to Great Britain thanks to all of the invasions between the end of the Roman period and the beginning of the medieval period which left the only Celtic strongholds on the island in Wales and Cornwall and to an unknown extent in Scotland (since Scots Celts actually settled from Ireland after Anglo-Saxon and Viking colonisation).

You can look at place names [edit: and actually people's surnames!] in Great Britain to see how profound the Viking, Norman and Anglo-Saxon impact was in terms of sweeping aside its previous Celtic (Brythonic) identity - even in Scotland.  That is why Briton is a misnoma for medieval English particularly and still inaccurate for the Cymric (Welsh) unless using it to classify their language.



Edited by Zagros - 28 Jul 2011 at 09:27
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 14:42
The question here is professional terminology and respect for correct usage. Just because Briton is the pedestrian appellative does not mean a colloquial barbarism has a place in good historical writing. The insistence upon the willy-nilly here only underscores one point: Absence of a solid grasp of Post-Classical and Medieval History. It is not about modern identities (and its inherent superfluidities) and their political agendas but instead represents the focus of the Medieval lens so as to properly understand the the Thought and Constructs of that historical period.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
hutcjohn View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hutcjohn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 12:57
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 08 May 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 16:14

As the reports of the battle from the time use the term 'English Army' for Henry V's forces then it would seem that you should use that term.  As the army was led by a King of England and was fighting for the Realm of England not Brition it is also right to use the term English.

Technically there are on a few true Britons left in Great Brition, those from Cornwall and the Marchlands bordering England to Wales can claim this. People from Scotland were never call Britons by either the Roman's or themselves.  The same is true of many of the Northern Welsh peoples who have always considered themselves not to be British as such.  Britons were those people who occupied what is now England, and southern lowland Scotland as well as areas of south wales.  With the massive invasion of Anglosaxons then Viking peoples the area known as Briton became Anglosaxon, or land of the Angles which ended up as England.  The modern us of the term Briton is not the same as the ancient use of the term from Pre Roman through to the pre-medival times.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 19:33
You may be right about distinguishing between south and north Wales. Just for information are you classifying the southern Welsh as Brythons and the northern as Gaels? How would you account for Anglesey havng had such religious significance among the Brythons?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 12:29
Sorry but I find that a bit too radical.  AS far as conventional knowledge goes, didn't Brythons occupy the lands from the South of England all the way up the West of the Country through Cumbria and into Strathclyde?  Is there any relation/correlation between the the names Cumbria and Cymru?  If so, wouldn't that discount the suggested reclassification?
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.