Talk:History of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
History of England is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status
I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat
[edit] Article poblems
I've identified two major problems with this article, at least I think they're major.
- Firstly: this article approaches English history with a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards English successes. It seems to have been written in a very wiesely way.
- Secondly: the term "England" seems to be used extensively in regards to the south of England. I realise this is where the Anglo-Saxon ("English") first colonised but there were Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and people in the north too at later points, yet its hardly mentioned. Its only mentioned in passing as if in the context of "oh yeah and there was some Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the north...but you don't want to hear too much about that!". I think the north of England needs more mentioning.
- Thirdly: there's a rant lower down on this page that claims the Celts became christians before the "pagan" Anglo-Saxons. I'm almost possitive that is wrong. Ever heard of Bede? He was christian and documenting christianisation (as well as other things) at the same time christianity was winning over the Celts. So I think its fairer (and wholely more accurate) to say that the English and the Britons were undergoing christianisation at the same time.
- Fourthly: why are the ancient Britons constantly refered to as "the Welsh"? I'm pretty sure that the Scots, Irish, Manx and Cornish are all descended from ancient Britons too. But this is just another example of how the article has centred itself around southern Britain and southern culture and southern history.
I'm not saying the article needs rewriting but its needs a few big clean-ups and some context shifts (and less pro-Welsh interference) before it'll ever be completely satisfactory.
[edit] England before the English
This part of England's History, is nothing but scandalous. No word about Britons,about the british people or so very few, that it is really a shame. And the best is of course the worse, with this stupid story of "Roman England"..! Is it so difficult to write : Roman Britain instead of "Roman England"..has never existed ?!!!
Britain the fathers land of the Britons and not the England of the English who were in Germany at this time.
- We have articles on Prehistoric Britain, Iron Age Britain and Roman Britain to cover the history of the area before the English came. I hope to see this list will expand further in due course to include other periods of prehistory. There is a brief synopsis of earlier periods in this article to put things in context but the bulk of the information you seek is elsewhere. It makes sense to discuss the pre-English history of the area that was to become England in the introduction, thus talking about southern Roman England although anachronistic can be a convenient term. adamsan 16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I dont understand why people get so upset over seperating britain form england. i realize we shouldn't call it "roman england" but to say "all of England had been conquored by the year X" is a statement about geography not national identity. If i stand in england and say "what is the history of this land?" i would hardley expect someone to say "oh, well it appeared out of nowhere around the year X" what happened in britain is part of englands history.
[edit] New Outline of British History
Recently, Dr. Goldstein said. "One tends to think of England as Anglo-Saxon," "But we show quite clearly there was not complete replacement of existing populations by either Anglo-Saxons or Danes. It looks like the Celts did hold out." British historians have generally emphasized the Roman and Anglo-Saxon contributions to English culture at the expense of the Celtic. A recent history of Britain, "The Isles" by Norman Davies, tried to redress the balance. The Celts were ignored, he noted, in part because no documentary histories remain, the Celts having regarded writing as a threat to their oral traditions. Generations of historians saw British history as beginning with Roman invasions of the first century A.D. and indeed identified with the Romans rather than the defeated Celts. "So long as classical education and classical prejudices prevailed, educated Englishmen inevitably saw ancient Britain as an alien land," Dr. Davies writes. The new survey indicates that the genetic contribution of the Celts has been as much underestimated as their historical legacy. Dr. Davies said in an interview that "traditionally, historians thought in terms of invasions: the Celts took over the islands, then the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons." "It now seems much more likely that the resident population doesn't change as much as thought," he continued. "The people stay put but are reculturalized by some new dominant culture."
[edit] Pre-Roman England?
An anachronism... England didn't exist in Roman times, and the English weren't there either, let alone prior to the Romans. The Anglo-Saxons only started coming in during the decline of the Romans, and England as such took centuries to coalesce from the various Anglo-Saxon/English kingdoms.
From LaurelBush 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Does 'pre-Roman legacy in England' avoid the anachronism?
-
- Just say Albion? Matthieu 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "Pre-Roman England" refers to the territories that would later constitute England. SKC 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Pre-Roman England ? It is really a joke !
Is what the British people ever existed in Britain before the Romans and before the conquest war of the Anglo-Saxons?
Of course "England didn't exist in Roman times, and the English weren't there either" and it is a very well known system used by the "English" historians (like David Wilson " The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.1971.) : destroy the Briton's History, write very few or nothing about Britons or speaking about them with insulting words like "indigenous peoples" "aborigine" (when the Britons were Christians and the Anglo-Saxons pagans!) or working to destroy the Briton’s identity in using words like "Celts" "Romano-British" "pre-Celtic peoples", "legendary tales" , "Legendary History".
Examples:" The Anglo-Saxon peoples (....), before they arrived in England." "The conquest of the rest of England probably started, as did the colonization of America (...)". David Wilson «The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.
Note: But the historical truth it is that England did not exist yet at that time there. This country was called Britain since centuries before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon barbarians! Example:" "The Britons, under such legendary heroes as Arthur, for example,put up a considerable resistance against the Saxons. David Wilson " The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.1971. Surprisingly they do not use the words "legendary stories" or "legendary tales" when they speak about Anglo-Saxons but only for the Celtic Britons.
No, those words are only "special tools" for killing the Britons and their National Memory a second time with words after having killed their wives, their children and their old people with swords and stolen their towns, houses, lands and properties which ones are now between English hands like the stolen lands of the Indian Nations, Native Americans in United States of America or Aborigines peoples in Australia.
It is clearly a colonialist and imperialist view of History written by the descendants of the barbarians and savage conquerors came from Germany.
Many "English" historians write as short as it is possible about the Britons and their national wars of resistance against the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons and they prefer put in front head the Romans and just after the English. When we know quite a lot now about the Britons by Caesar and Tacitus writings and many others and very new researches. It is not very simple like that ? Before the so distinguished English ? What ? Who ? Nothing ! ladies and gentlemen ! But only a few very very chic "jetsetters" from Roma ! But that is a soviet's like history of England rewritten by Stalin, Beria and co. ! Are they are ashamed ? No ! not a at all, but they should do, really. And the old British people History ? This people never existed ! Not concerned ! And History of real old Britain of British king Arthur, his knights and his British people ? Not concerned ! Only the "Romans" and the "English" !. Were any Britons living here in England in old times ? What kind of Britons ? Like some (very few, hopely) Germans say: Jews were living here ? Jews ? What kind of Jews ? But this is history negationnist. But this is negationnism.
So, what is the beginning of England History with the aggressive coming of the Anglo-Saxons in Celtic Britain ? Only a few very nice stories written by the "propaganda staffel" of the Germanic conquerors described like peaceful and smiling tourists just arrived from north Germany ?
Fortunately, honor of Britain is safe with a very few English honorable historians and scholars, like Nora Chadwick, Pr in Cambridge University, who have written quite good books about the Britons and their Britonnic Kingdoms during and after the horrific and savage German’s conquest of Britain with terrific killings of Britons civilians on large scale like Germans do in east Europe during the Second world War. A kind of (Germanic) genocide in many places of old Celtic Britain.
A word for the end: the "welsh"* people, named like that by the Germanic conquerors and invaders, is the direct descendant of the old British people and his real name is British people.
It seems now, after recent genetic researches, that a quite large part of the English people is also descendant of the old Britons rescued of Anglo Germanics massacres. We must think and remember that Britain-Britannia means the land of the Britons.
Please ! don' t forget the old British people History and their famous Kings and heroes like Arthur and their proud Queens like Bodiccea who were not Anglo-Saxon, who were not "English" ! but "British".
from Taliesin, Aneurin and Llewellyn.
(*which means "stranger», when the "Welsh/British" people was on his own fathers land ! Britain=land of the old Britons.
- This entire rant is based on a single extant piece of writing by Gildas (who died in the 570s) whose main target was what he saw as the 'British' leadership grown soft and riven with internicine conflict. As such, his work, De Excidio Britanniae'is polemic rather than an history. Wulfstan II, who doubtless knew of the the De Excidio, wrote a remarkably similar piece warning in which the Danes played the part of God's agents of punishment. Archaeological evidence simply doesn't support the wholesale extermination of the Britons; the continuity of occupation and burial customs (see descriptions about the recently discovred tomb of an Anglian noble in Prittlewell) and chemical analysis of human remains all point to the survival of the indigenous population.
- As for the term Welsh; this does indeed mean foreigner, or sometimes slave, in Old English. I have an hypothesis about this. I believe that this description may have arisen amongst Germanic traders, landing their goods in Roman Britain and speaking to the merchants and officials in Latin. They may have observed the labourers and slaves speaking a language neither Germanic nor Latin; a language exclusively spoken by the apparent underclass. Not Britons surely, they spoke Latin, so what were they? Strangers? Slaves?
- One last point. It always strikes me that the people who write this kind of article presumably believe the 'Invasion' model of British history. But, they never seem to go back and ask 'what about the people who lived in Britain BEFORE the Celts (c700-800 BC)?'. No trace of them exists at all in terms of culture or an extant population. They, like the Picts displaced by the Scots, have been expunged from recorded history; ethnic cleansing par excellence! Edgewood 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders
Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons. The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century. Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English
It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side.
And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.
Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical.
But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied.
- These genetic studies, based on analysis of current populations, are very difficult to interpret. It has been conclusively shown that the genetic differences likely reflect very old (pre-Roman and pre-'Celtic' isolated inter-breeding populations) differences rather than migrations during any historical period. Careful, long-term and far more extensive work studying the development of individual settlements and isotope studies that identify the birthplaces of excavated human remains reveal very little impact of the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' on the indigenous population. They adopted Anglo-Saxon customs in much the same way that present-day Britons eat Big Macs, watch Brad Pitt movies and wear jeans. Incidentally the same is also probably true for the Celts. The 'genuine' Celts (e.g. the Hallstadt culture people) never got to Britain, just elements of their culture with the indigenous population picking and choosing oranaments and decoration but keeping their distinctively non-Celtic houses and burial customs. So, the Celts didn't genocidally exterminate those who already lived in Britain, and the 'Celts' weren't exterminated by the English. For a general discussion of these issues see Miles D. (2005) 'The Tribes of Britain', Weidenfield & Nicholson, London, UK; Pryor, F. (2004) 'Britain AD' Harper Collins, London, UK; James, S. (1999) 'The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention', British Museum Press, UK. Edgewood 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglo-Scottish border
"The territory of England has been politically united since the tenth century"?
- In Scotland the Earldom of Northumbria wasnt recognised as English until 1157, when William I renounced Scottish claims to sovereignty.
[edit] Beaker Folk
I'm never sure whether to add to these pages at the beginning or the end, but here goes. I just looked at this properly for the first time and noticed that the Beaker Folk are mentioned. I remember learning about them in school, but I thought it was now generally accepted that they were a myth - what actually happened was that Britain imported these goods, or at any rate the culture, from the continent. Is this generally agreed and would it be okay to remove the reference to the Beaker Folk? Deb
Refactored. Cornish debate now resolved and removed by ignoring it entirely and noting general fluctuating state of England. sjc
[edit] Miscellaneous
I changed the line about the rise of machine labor to something an economist would not scoff at. Machines resulted in increased productivity not because of tax advantages but because they allowed for worker output to increase.
The line about wealth increasing due to colonial expansion was also removed. There are very few examples of a nation becoming wealthier from colonies. Most British colonies cost more in terms of administration and military expenditures then they returned in tax receipts. The dramatic rise in British wealth from 1780 through the 19th century is due to the efficiencies of the agricultural and industrial revolutions and the policy of free trade.
As to luddites, it might be mentioned that within those industries that used machines in production there were vast increases in the number of workers employed. The luddite predictions were not only wrong but completely wrong. Machines created jobs, by raising output per worker and therefore making each additional worker more valuable.
We should also mention, that in the moral climate created by industrialization and capitalism, people on a mass scale first began to perceive slavery as evil, and sought its eradication, and that this moral climate led the British people to demand an end of the world slave trade, which their Navy successfully enforced. This is one of the greatest humanitarian achievements in history, and is far more important than much of the drivel that is ritualistically mentioned in standard histories (luddites, for instance). - TS
You make some v. interesting points, Tim, and there's not much I'd disagree with in what you say. sjc
Thanks, Tim - good edits and useful take on industry.--MichaelTinkler
I have a gripe about this article -- it seems to in its second part treat the history of the United Kingdom as the history of England. As every one knows, the UK is more than just England. (Though how often do people seem to forget it?) -- Simon J Kissane I agree but how do we separate it? --rmhermen
This is a largely intractable problem. My proposal is this: that we draw a line at the point at which the Union is fixed and then just move stuff across and link. sjc
16 October 2001. Still no Wikipedia entry on the British Empire, AFAIK. Largest empire in the history of the world, sun never sets, etc, etc. I am not competent to begin this. Anybody else want to step in?
From the article:
in 1666, London, the timbered capital city of England, was swept by fire, the Great Fire of London, which raged for 5 days, killing 20% of the city's population and destroying c. 15,000 buildings.
Was 20% of London's population really killed? If I'm remembering my history lessons correctly, only 6 people are known to have died, and although probably many more than that actually died (beggars and so forth), I've never seen a mention of anything like 20%. Where did this number come from? -- DrBob
Sounds like a faux pas to me. 6 looks like a decent figure to me. sjc
I think having the History of England as one page is going to get more and more messy. Perhaps breaking them apart (with History of England linking to them and the pages linking to History of England) or some system of header and sub-headers that are perhaps anchored and linked to at the top of the page.
That's possibly true but the status quo does have the advantage of being better if you want to print a coherent article. However if we are going to split it, I'd like to split into at least three articles pre-1066 (History of Britain), 1066-1707 (History of England) and post-1707 (History of the UK) on the grounds that this would go someway to solving the problem that this article would be better described as the History of Britain/England/UK at the moment.
- That looks an extremely sensible split. I would note a couple of caveats. England still did not have a recognisable shape of being England until much later; certainly Cornwall was autonomous at this time as were parts of Cumbria and the North, and the Welsh boundaries fluctuated erratically as a consequence of military and political ebb and flow.
- BTW Whoever reworded the 1st paragraph has done an excellent and thoughtful job on it which should remove most of the controversy about the status of Cornwall by neatly avoiding the subject altogether. I might have to belt in a few caveats about the general shape of England but this seems an eminently more practical resolution of the problem than has been adopted by a few proponents of the Deep England mythology. I am now going to refactor the Talk page to reflect that I consider it a dead issue. sjc
I don't like having the pre-Anglo-Saxon history under the topic of "History of England". Why can't that be put under "History of Britain"? That way we wouldn't have to acknowledge and ignore anachronism. john 21:16 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
complementary waves of Germanic tribesmen - what does that mean? RickK 02:48, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- It means, or maybe it should say, that successive waves of Germanic tribesmen came because of previous waves. They were invited by the earlier waves, or came on their own because they heard good things about the land from the earlier waves. Adam Bishop 02:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- It should probably say that specifically, because I sure don't get that meaning from reading it. RickK 02:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- It doesnt take a rocket scientist. Tridesch
-
-
- Thank you for being obnoxious. RickK 03:03, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
I want to make a History of Britain Series, this is, of course quite impossible between England, Scotland and Ireland and their various pre-1600 histories. So... I was thinking of making a History of England Series ending at the Union of the Crowns, after which History of Britain would come into effect. A history of Scotland will also be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:History_of_England - this is a table I have come up with, not all of the articles linked to are satisfactory. If anyone thinks it's a good idea - I wouldn't mind some help/imput etc. --OldakQuill 19:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, fair enough but note that England and Scotland as political entities only exist between about 500 AD and 1700 AD. Before that History of Britain is a more appropriate title since the Angles lived in Europe and the Scots in Ireland. After that History of the United Kingdom would be more appropriate since Ireland is involved. -- Derek Ross 21:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, I am trying to think of a method with wich a table can be used - and yet serve both Scottish and English history between 500 and 1700 CE. Can you come up with anything? Splitting them in two, then merging them when Britain came about made sense... Please post suggestions.--OldakQuill 22:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The period dealing with the final years of Romano/Celtic Britain and the advent of the Anglo-Saxon peoples into Britain are less than 100% accurate in my view. While I am neither competent enough or have the time to edit this properly and would not wish to bodge such an article. However should anyone wish to attempt it I would recomend reading, amongst other works, "The Age of Arthur" by the late John Morris. Morris makes a reasoned case for the Celts retaining control of much of Britain right up to the later years of the sixth century and adduces fairly convincing archeological evidence in support of his case. A fascinating book well worth reading by anyone seriously interested in the period. ... User:theidiamin 09:05:04 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.107.224.8 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 May 2004.
[edit] Magna Carta
The article simply jumps from Henry II to Henry V without mentioning the considerable events that took place in between. . .such as King John and the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. I think is a pretty significant oversight, and if the original author does not change the article to reflect that, I will take the liberty of editing it. Shakantala 16:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Magna Carta has the arms of England and Cornwall at the top.
[edit] Cornubia
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[1] [2]
Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [3]
George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.
Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.
Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.
Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.
From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?
Bretagne 44 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Largely because there wasn't one and the exact legal and constitutional status remains an ongoing anomaly. Sjc 11:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
In relation to History_of_Scotland it's only lately been noticed that it was included in the category "History_of_the_Germanic_Peoples". This caused great anguish to some, and confused others. History_of_England was in the same category. I have removed it. If this causes pain, please let's discuss it. Ta. Angus McLellan 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ye Gods! I myself came across a reference to the Caledonians as 'Vandals' in the piece on the Emperor Hadrian. You may be interested to learn, assuming you do not know this already, that some ninteenth century historians-Scots among them-described English speaking Lowlanders as 'teutonic' and Gaelic speaking Highlanders as Celts, Irish or, worst of all, Erse. I don't suppose I have to tell you who was considered to be superior. Rcpaterson 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stuarts and Scots and other Matters
Several small-and large-corrections of fact:
1. Charles I did not 'flee' to Scotland; he surrendered to the Scottish army besieging the royalist stronghold at Newark. He was then taken to the Scottish base at Newcastle, where several months were spent in fruitless attempts to make him accept the Covenants. In January 1647 he was handed over to the commissioners of Parliament. No money was involved in this transaction. The payment the Scots received was for the services of their army in England, not for the person of the king. This is an ancient misconception.
2. After the execution of the King in 1649 England became a Commonwealth. Oliver Cromwell did not become Lord Protector until 1653.
3. The plague came to London in 1665 and lasted to 1666. There was no outbreak in 1664. If you doubt this I suggest you consult the bills of mortality for the period.
4. The Battle of Culloden was fought in 1746, not 1745.
5. I've removed the questionable and highly biased reference to Argyll and Queensberry as 'English puppets.' I assume this must have been inserted by some rabid Scottish nationalist! John Campbell was the finest Scottish soldier and statesmen of his generation, widely respected in both Scotland and England. Rcpaterson 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Treaty of Northampton
Edward II, his defeat at Bannockburn notwithstanding, continued the struggle with the Scots until the end of his life. The campaign was only abandoned after the conclusion of the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, during the minority of Edward III. Rcpaterson 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Surely the page on the history of England should mention the invasion of England by Louis xviii - The First Baron's war". This was a significant point in English history and involved a whole new King being crowned. This surely deserves a mention!
[edit] Powerful duchy vs powerful kingdom
I replaced this sentence "William ruled over Normandy, then a powerful kingdom in France." to "William ruled over Normandy, then a powerful duchy in France.". The reason being that Normandy has never been a kingdom, a duchy is what it was. Matthieu 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglo-Norman language and William the Conqueror
William and his nobles spoke and conducted court in Anglo-Norman, in Normandy as well as in England.
Are you sure about this? I thought the Anglo-Norman language didn't even exist yet, that it would appear only later an was used by the aristocracy yet not by the court (which simply used Norman French).
[edit] Are the people of Great Britain and Ireland really that different?
It appears that this would NOT be the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?em&ex=1173243600&en=69a2f9fdf8440806&ei=5087%0A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.113.237 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
![[2]](http://www.walkingtree.com/images/mapsFullCornwall.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/munster_england-det_1550.jpg){kind=link}