|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Apr 27, 2018 8:01:44 GMT
1. Of core snot! That's a contradiction. Surrey and Greater London are two different counties, and it's not possible for anywhere to be in both places. 2. Brentford cannot possibly be in Middlesex, because Middlesex doesn't exist (it stopped existing in 1964). 3. Harrogate is in North Yorkshire, which means it cannot possibly be in the West Riding. 4. Yes 5. No (q.v.2) Oh John, you're so easy to wind up. But just for you, from www.gov.ukSomewhere near to that is a press release from Eric Pickles (when he was SoS for Local Gvt)announcing that he was flying the West Riding flag outside the ministry on Yorkshire Day (or whatever it was.) Adam, for the sake of your own sanity it's easier just to agree with Johnloony.  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 27, 2018 8:55:16 GMT
Fair point, well made. I've always thought of Tower Hamlets as the epicentre of the East End and the latter as being Essex rather than Middlesex, wrongly of course. Yes I know what you mean - it feels like it should have been in Essex. I suppose it was in the old Anglo Saxon Kingdom of Essex if you want to go back further I think the consensus is that the kingdom of Essex was probably the same territory as the diocese of London, i.e. all of Essex and Middx, plus a few scraps of Herts. and that Middlesex was a sub-kingdom. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 27, 2018 12:27:39 GMT
Yes I know what you mean - it feels like it should have been in Essex. I suppose it was in the old Anglo Saxon Kingdom of Essex if you want to go back further I think the consensus is that the kingdom of Essex was probably the same territory as the diocese of London, i.e. all of Essex and Middx, plus a few scraps of Herts. and that Middlesex was a sub-kingdom. Consensus when we're talking about the sixth or seventh century doesn't really exist for anything, and certainly not for where the borders lay (e. g. there have been arguments - not tremendously convincing ones, but published in a reputable journal nevertheless - that Sutton Hoo might actually have fallen within the boundaries of Essex.) And sub-kingdom is such a vague term that it's almost meaningless - it covers a variety of different power relationships, and even within a single power relationship the two principals might have conceived of their relationship in different terms. It's also used to translate interchangeably a number of different Latin and Old English terms. To the extent there is any evidence, you can argue that Surrey was in Essex - the name literally means 'southern region' and kinds from the East Saxon dynasty turn up as sub-kings in Kent on occasion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 12:41:11 GMT
I think the consensus is that the kingdom of Essex was probably the same territory as the diocese of London, i.e. all of Essex and Middx, plus a few scraps of Herts. and that Middlesex was a sub-kingdom. Consensus when we're talking about the sixth or seventh century doesn't really exist for anything, and certainly not for where the borders lay (e. g. there have been arguments - not tremendously convincing ones, but published in a reputable journal nevertheless - that Sutton Hoo might actually have fallen within the boundaries of Essex.) And sub-kingdom is such a vague term that it's almost meaningless - it covers a variety of different power relationships, and even within a single power relationship the two principals might have conceived of their relationship in different terms. It's also used to translate interchangeably a number of different Latin and Old English terms. To the extent there is any evidence, you can argue that Surrey was in Essex - the name literally means 'southern region' and kinds from the East Saxon dynasty turn up as sub-kings in Kent on occasion. It's traditionally believed that Hertfordshire and Middlesex, or areas roughly approximating to them, fell under the rule of the Kings of Essex for a while. As East Anglian Lefty says, there were also clearly links with Kent and Surrey at least for a time. However, reliable documentary information about independent Essex could be written on a postcard. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 27, 2018 13:24:00 GMT
Thank you gents, I knew you'd be along with the nearest we'll get to a definitive answer.
One of my favourite comments on the paucity of sources in that era was in Michael Woods In Search of the Dark Ages TV series when I think he said you fit all of the literary sources for the supposed existence of King Arthur on a single sheet of A4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 13:42:56 GMT
Thank you gents, I knew you'd be along with the nearest we'll get to a definitive answer. One of my favourite comments on the paucity of sources in that era was in Michael Woods In Search of the Dark Ages TV series when I think he said you fit all of the literary sources for the supposed existence of King Arthur on a single sheet of A4. Oh my God! He's mentioned King Arthur... |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 27, 2018 17:43:15 GMT
Thank you gents, I knew you'd be along with the nearest we'll get to a definitive answer. One of my favourite comments on the paucity of sources in that era was in Michael Woods In Search of the Dark Ages TV series when I think he said you fit all of the literary sources for the supposed existence of King Arthur on a single sheet of A4. How does that compare with the amount of evidence for other ancient historical people? e.g. Jesus, Mohammed, Offa, Moses, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 27, 2018 18:06:29 GMT
Thank you gents, I knew you'd be along with the nearest we'll get to a definitive answer. One of my favourite comments on the paucity of sources in that era was in Michael Woods In Search of the Dark Ages TV series when I think he said you fit all of the literary sources for the supposed existence of King Arthur on a single sheet of A4. How does that compare with the amount of evidence for other ancient historical people? e.g. Jesus, Mohammed, Offa, Moses, etc.? It's a bloody sight less than there is for King Offa. I can't comment on the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 27, 2018 18:07:58 GMT
In an attempt to head back on topic, I shall just mention that of course Winchester was alleged by Mallory to be Camelot.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 27, 2018 18:29:09 GMT
Thank you gents, I knew you'd be along with the nearest we'll get to a definitive answer. One of my favourite comments on the paucity of sources in that era was in Michael Woods In Search of the Dark Ages TV series when I think he said you fit all of the literary sources for the supposed existence of King Arthur on a single sheet of A4. How does that compare with the amount of evidence for other ancient historical people? e.g. Jesus, Mohammed, Offa, Moses, etc.? There's nothing written whilst Jesus was alive, but bits of the Bible probably go back to within a generation and you've got other first-century sources for him (primarily Josephus). I believe there's a decent amount of near-contemporary evidence about Muhammad, but couldn't give details. We've got quite a lot of contemporary evidence for Offa - letters, charters and near-contemporary histories. For Moses there's nothing remotely contemporary, unless you want to play the game where you find a random Egyptian with -mose in his name and declare him to be Moses. But then again he's more of a culture hero than a historical figure. And Arthur's probably closest to that category himself - there's one throwaway reference to somebody being 'no Arthur' in the late eighth century, and otherwise you have to wait until the twelfth century. Whereas he doesn't turn up at all in any of the sources that should have been more or less contemporary to him - those who believe in a historical Arthur tie themselves into all kinds of knots trying to explain why he doesn't turn up in Gildas/turns up with a totally different name. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 18:53:41 GMT
How does that compare with the amount of evidence for other ancient historical people? e.g. Jesus, Mohammed, Offa, Moses, etc.? There's nothing written whilst Jesus was alive, but bits of the Bible probably go back to within a generation and you've got other first-century sources for him (primarily Josephus). I believe there's a decent amount of near-contemporary evidence about Muhammad, but couldn't give details. We've got quite a lot of contemporary evidence for Offa - letters, charters and near-contemporary histories.For Moses there's nothing remotely contemporary, unless you want to play the game where you find a random Egyptian with -mose in his name and declare him to be Moses. But then again he's more of a culture hero than a historical figure. And Arthur's probably closest to that category himself - there's one throwaway reference to somebody being 'no Arthur' in the late eighth century, and otherwise you have to wait until the twelfth century. Whereas he doesn't turn up at all in any of the sources that should have been more or less contemporary to him - those who believe in a historical Arthur tie themselves into all kinds of knots trying to explain why he doesn't turn up in Gildas/turns up with a totally different name. And coins.  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 27, 2018 19:45:26 GMT
Yes. Probably shouldn't have forgotten those, given that a friend of mine has literally written the book on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Apr 27, 2018 21:05:56 GMT
We've got quite a lot of contemporary evidence for Offa - letters, charters and near-contemporary histories. And coins. The original punk. Take that you welsh bastards..... |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589 
|
Post by cibwr on Apr 28, 2018 11:06:49 GMT
Mentioning Mercia, was not Wednesbury briefly the capital of Mercia when Tamworth fell to the Danes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 28, 2018 11:28:57 GMT
Mentioning Mercia, was not Wednesbury briefly the capital of Mercia when Tamworth fell to the Danes? Surely that would be unreasonable. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Apr 28, 2018 11:41:16 GMT
For another 11 months.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Apr 28, 2018 16:00:55 GMT
Mentioning Mercia, was not Wednesbury briefly the capital of Mercia when Tamworth fell to the Danes? Surely that would be unreasonable. Well it was an important metropolis at one time :-) far bigger than Birmingham |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 16:07:53 GMT
Surely that would be unreasonable. Well it was an important metropolis at one time :-) far bigger than Birmingham It was certainly one of the burghs fortified by Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 28, 2018 16:28:46 GMT
No, not even if the EU spontaneously disbands tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 28, 2018 17:38:38 GMT
Mentioning Mercia, was not Wednesbury briefly the capital of Mercia when Tamworth fell to the Danes? No, because Anglo-Saxon kings were itinerant and had no permanent administrative offices, so the concept of a capital has no real meaning. |
|
