Talk:History of Wales
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please be aware that the Welsh were part of the original "Britons" They were called "Britons" before and after the Romans left in AD 408, although officially Britain was still part of the Empire until AD 410, when the rescript of Honourius gave the Britons their independence. Also be aware that the term 'Welsh' was given to the Britons by the invading Angles,Saxons and Jutes from Germany(that is the English) ..it means foreigner or alien in German.."England" was never mentioned(named) until the 8th century(AD).
can you tell me who "they" were that called them "Britons"? As this is an English word, and the English called them "Welsh" and not "Britons" how can this word have been used. Was this term used by the Romans or does the word Briton derive from an earlier Celtic word? When did the Welsh start to refer to themselves as cymry and Wales as cymru? --Cap 16:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- We cannot identify the two terms so readily. The Britons hadn't spread completely through the island of Great Britain by the time the Scots arrived; the Picts appear not to have been Brythonic Celts, from what little we know of them (including place names - Brythonic ones go past Galloway, but don't reach all Scotland; names like Pitlochrie appear to be Pictish, according to some). PML.
Christianity flourished in Britian('Wales') just 20 years after the Christ was crucified.. Caracturus(Caradoc in Latin)and his father "Bran" brought it to the Isles of Britain during and after the "imprisonment" of the father Bran. See Timothy(2)4.21..which is a letter from the apostle Paul to Timothy...Linus and Claudia are Caradoc's son and daughter resp. and Pudens is Claudia's husband...a Roman officer....
Just 100 years later the British King 'Lucius' declared Britain/Wales to be "Christian" ..The first Christian nation on the face of the earth.
Further remember that the Scots were originally an Irish invading tribe called the "Scotti"...also remember that it was Wales(Britain) that provided the Irish with St Patrick..He was born just 40 miles north-east of where David(St David)was born on the south western coast of Wales.
- That's not established. He may have been born in what is now Cornwall, and he may not have been of 100% Brythonic ancestry. PML.
PML Your proof of the "may"'s please.... please 'establish'.. troedyrhiw
- That is to misunderstand. The whole point about "not established" and "may" is that we do not have certain knowledge on the point - to ask for "proof" is to ask for something stronger than was asserted. I am citing things I recalled from somewhere, but even if I had the references ready and to hand that wouldn't "prove" their content - the point I was making was that there was still an open question. For what it's worth, as a question of identity "Cornish" is as much "Welsh" in that era from the cultural points that were raised. It was merely a comment on the specific geography. PML.
- One of the many problems with the past is that we try to use words with a modern meaning to describe things, peoples and places in the past. For example the use of the word Celt to describe Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Cornwall. The problem here is that Celt is a word used by the Greeks to describe Gauls who were the other side of the Alps. Certainly the people inhabiting the islands did not use the word Celt. Indeed it is unlikely that they would have seen themselves as being the same peoples as the Gauls in France, or "Celts" further afield. We use the term Celt, because of writings from the 18th and 19th centuries, when academics worked out that there were similarities in language and culture of continental Gaul, the inhabitants of pre Roman Britain, and Ireland. And thats why we use the term. What it certainly doesn't mean is that the peoples of this Ireland thought of themselves as "one people" or that they described themselves as Celts.
Contents |
[edit] Angles and Saxons conquered the "whole" of England
I find this statement rather amusing. How could they not conquer the whole of England? They conquered part of the island of Britain which became England, as England only came into being because of this conquest. If they had conquered a smaller area than that is the area that would have become known as England! (though to be fair I can see that what is meant is that the Angles and Saxons conquered what is now England and were unable to conquer what is now called Wales/Cymru) --Cap 16:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Anglo-Saxon invasion of England was not as straightforward as you may think. Even the very nature of the invasion is hotly disputed: i.e. was this an invasion of many people, pushing out or displacing the ex Romano-British Britons, or was this an influx of aristocratic warriors who took over the upper echelons of society. Certainly the history of the invasions show that many "British" Kingdoms survived for considerable periods (e.g. Elmet and Lindsey). Other areas such as Cornwall (kernow) seemed to escape invasion. Other areas, such as south and east Scotland were captured by the Angles, yet they today form part of Scotland. Essentially the history of these Islands is very complex, and the more you study it, the more complex it becomes. --Dumbo1 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Early History
The article starts with the Roman invasion. Can someone fill in please with the archaeology and prehistory of Wales
[edit] Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board
I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Llywelyn the Great
I have put the Llywelyn the Great article up for Peer review. Any comments welcome. Rhion 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] human antiquity
from the article: "the earliest known human remains discovered in modern-day Wales is a human tooth, found in a cave in the valley of the River Elwy in north Wales, whose owner lived about 250,000 years ago in the Lower Palaeolithic period". 250,000 years ago? according to the "evolution" section in the human article "Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago." no matter what book it's from i do not believe that humans were in wales 250kya. though this link claims that neanderthals were in wales "between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago." i believe the claim that humans were in wales 250kya is absurd for many reasons. not only does this contradict the examples given but it also a date close to the estimated emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens itself. it should be removed. seeing as that i do not have the book to refrence i would appreciate it if someone could double check it. though i am tempted to remove it and probably will. --Tainter 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map accuracy
An email was sent to the OTRS team a short while ago, expressing concern about the accuracy of the maps in this article. The email is copied below, as to not confuse the original meaning.
The maps you are using to highlight Welsh History are very inaccurate. For example, in the years to AD410 you have an outline of Wales as it currently stands. Just to give you a clue, even as late as AD577, Wales included what is now Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, parts of Shropshire, Cheshire and Cumbria.
Given I know absolutely nothing about Welsh history, I will defer to those who do to investigate whether the emailer was correct. Cheers, Daniel Bryant
