>We don't mix with these people
Aren't British people a mix of the native Celtic Britons, Anglo-Saxons and later Germanic invaders like vikangs? Then the Anglo-Saxons must have mixed with the Celts
>Aren't British people a mix of the native Celtic Britons, Anglo-Saxons and later Germanic invaders like vikangs? Then the Anglo-Saxons must have mixed with the Celts
Yes, but the movie is portraying the Anglo-Saxons a demonic villains cause it's a movie. Some historical-ish Arthur movie would have some the Saxons be goodies, some baddies, a bit like how some of the Britons are good and loyal to Arthur and some are bad. I, personally, would have Cerdic be a character, i.e. the possibly Celtic founder and first king of the House of Wessex - something to embody the 'they intermixed' angle
I had forgotten that's what Skarsgard's guy was called. At any rate, he's a pure Anglo-Saxon in the movie. In history, the speculation is that he was a Briton who became Anglicised, cause his name is Brittonic rather than Germaniac and a couple of his children did not have conventional Germaniac names either. It's like the perfect case study of the whole 'acculturation' angle that's gotten popular recently
Couldn't foreign rulers/invaders adopting local names have been an attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the natives?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh, true. Still hints at the same thing, though. Either way, you'd use Cerdic as basically a way of showing Anglicisation occurring without it being some melodramatic ebil genocide.
The saxons were totally demonic villains to the Romano-Britons. To their POV, the Anglo-Saxon invasions destroyed their world and erased their civilization. In this sense the movie captures the accurate historical feeling of Arthur's legend.
In the after-the-fact mythmaking/mythologies, sure. Arthur becomes deified the way the Saxons become demonic, etc. But I wouldn't lean so much into that if I did some film/series showing the Britons and Saxons interact as these events are unfolding. We already know now the 'wipeout' narrative isn't what happened, so it's not like the Saxons declared ethnic jihad.
But Anglo-Saxons even had ethnic slurs for the native Britons. I believe the word Welsh was originally a slur that was 6th century Britain's equivalent of the word Black person.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, and? I never said there was zero conflict. Of course they fought and there was hatred. It wasn't some binary of either peaceful lovey dovey coexistence/mingly or 100% wrath, blood lust, and genocide. Both the Britons and Anglo-Saxons themselves were never collective political entities. The period was marked by both conflict/violent upheavals and truces/coexistence/Anglicisation/acculturation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fair
2 years ago
Anonymous
welsh just means “Celt” and actually predates english
When Rome left Britain, the empire still existed. It was deliberate, not a collapse. So the Roman-British aristocrats needed a replacement police force to protect Roman Britain from internet threats like Picts and forest people.
There was a Christian King who had a British wife, in Anglia, so they invited his entire tribe - the Angles - en masse to populate East Britain and in theory secure the Roman aristocratic holdings.
Then, 100 years later, Saxons were slowly invited or just came.
What happened was that next Rome was collapsing.
So the sons of the Christian Angle king (the tribe was still pagan), Wulf and Eadwacer, split up. Wulf would rule Britain and Eadwacer would fight in Europe.
Eadwacer is Odoacer and he is why it is said Arthur conquered Europe and Rome.
Their mother was the singer in Wulf and Odoacer and she was the Romano-Celtic princess. She was probably related to Constantine’s mother and descended from Jospephus or maybe even Herod Agrippa II. The “Round table” is an esoteric mystery cult, there are synagogue mosaics representing the 12 constellations of the zodiac, so this comes from that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and forest people
What the frick are you talking about
2 years ago
Anonymous
Roman Britain was ruled from manor estates and was sparsely populated. With no army presence, anyone from the countryside could have stage a rebellion or conquest. Forest people is a riff on this movie.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except for the fact that "forest people" weren't injun tier savages living in the woods, they were peasants and farmers. Why are you trying to defend the historical accuracy of this shitty movie?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I’m not. Just making a point that with no army and lavish estates, Roman Britain was a juicy target for britons
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah but the "forest people" didn't exist. They were christian, peasant farmers who might have abandoned farming and became looters and petty bandits, they weren't tribal warpainted savages
2 years ago
Anonymous
During the Dane invasions, the Welsh were fricking brutal. They may have been silk robed Christians, but they were still Celt savages
2 years ago
Anonymous
The welsh in reality were civilised, christian people who preserved roman texts, who had a rich literary and storytelling tradition and saw themselves defending their society against Anglo saxon savagery
Why are you defending this shitty 2004 movie that portrays britons as woad wearing native americans?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Foul Welsh savage
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Anglo-Saxons were the savages. The Welsh, along with the Irish of that period were ardent christians with a learned priestly class.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Welsh didn't really exist until after the Anglo-Saxons were firmly entrenched right? Like to the Romano-Briton elite and Celtic countryfolk of what is now England, the people in what is now Wales would be regarded a peripheral bumpkins, right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Welsh were semi romanised to an extent and had adopted christianity and some other roman trappings but were viewed by most as ruralites
it changed when the anglo saxons invaded and Romano-British elites from the heartland fled to wales
2 years ago
Anonymous
I guess it's me being a bit of a hairsplitting, like calling the Romano-Britons in what is now England Welsh is *technically* some misnomer, but it still fits if the people in Wales at that time had the same culture (where it counts) and it's the ancestor culture to Wales
2 years ago
Anonymous
Where did all the sheep shagging stereotypes come from? If the Welsh are the descendants of sophisticated Romano-British elites
2 years ago
Anonymous
I really have no idea if this is accurate, but the only explanation I ever got was that the penalty for sodomising livestock as lesser than that being caught stealing some else's. On the areas bordering English shires, if a farmer or some hired to raid was caught making off with a sheep, they'd claim they only wanted to bugger it avoid the stricter theft penalty.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because there's a lot of sheep in Wales and because when Edward invaded Wales it was full of fractured petty kingdoms and not a nation like England was at the time
For some reason the welsh had a stereotype as bad hunters this is where welsh rarebit comes from
2 years ago
Anonymous
The native Welsh aristocracy that didn't collaborate probably got dispossessed by the Normans in the same way the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was after 1066.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I really have no idea if this is accurate, but the only explanation I ever got was that the penalty for sodomising livestock as lesser than that being caught stealing some else's. On the areas bordering English shires, if a farmer or some hired to raid was caught making off with a sheep, they'd claim they only wanted to bugger it avoid the stricter theft penalty.
Because there's a lot of sheep in Wales and because when Edward invaded Wales it was full of fractured petty kingdoms and not a nation like England was at the time
For some reason the welsh had a stereotype as bad hunters this is where welsh rarebit comes from
The native Welsh aristocracy that didn't collaborate probably got dispossessed by the Normans in the same way the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was after 1066.
What's the difference between a stupid Welshman and a genius one? The stupid one runs down the hill to frick a sheep. The genius one calmly walks down the hill to frick several sheep.
I agree with you that a genocide did not take place. But we could very much argue a "ethnocide" did occur. The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a rare event of cataclysm resulting fron mass migration in the middle ages because unlike the Goths and Franks in Gaul and Spain, or the Turks in Persia, where the backward conqueror assimilated to the more complex conquered civilization, Saxons enslaved lots of Britons, didn't give any rights to conquered non-slaved Britons, destroyed their towns and farms while they themselves in 90% of cases built new settlements with no trace of the previous culture. The conquered Britons started speaking Old English in a few generation in order to assimilate and acquire rights now as 'saxons'. Also, one of the more important aspects of this event was that Saxons were pagans who managed to erase a Christian culture. Contemporary observers described the Anglo Saxon migration as part of the "end of times" while writing chronicles and secular reports, that is, before the legend was born, see Gildas for example. More nuanced interaction between Britons and Saxons/Angles occured after the first 150 harsh years of the invasion, specially in the southwest, where Saxon nobles adopted some Britonic culture and the North of England.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Angle migration was a single event and happened a full 50-100 years before the slower and more sporadic Saxon settlement.
The Saxon settlement was like a unchecked borders immigrant problem. The Saxons were welcomed as small numbers sometimes invited. Then they just started inviting their cousins over and stopped giving a shit what Britons said. That’s the bad part.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Angle migration was a single event and happened a full 50-100 years before the slower and more sporadic Saxon settlement.
The Saxon settlement was like a unchecked borders immigrant problem. The Saxons were welcomed as small numbers sometimes invited. Then they just started inviting their cousins over and stopped giving a shit what Britons said. That’s the bad part.
From a new study >Here we present two results: First, we detect a substantial increase in continental northern European ancestry in England during the Early Anglo-Saxon period, replacing approximately 75% of the local British ancestry. Second, we highlight the yet continuous presence of ancestry identified in Iron Age and Roman individuals during the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Our observation of a culturally homogenous but genetically diverse Anglo-Saxon population demonstrates that admixture between Britons and continental immigrants was not a geographically restricted or exceptional phenomenon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That’s how women work. Choice A: be a Briton slave. Choice B: spread your legs for a freeman. What do you think happened?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I curious what the Britons looked like vs. what an Anglo-Saxon looked like. If we look at Irish/Welsh actors like Colin Farrell or Ioan Gruffudd, there is a dark look. I'd even say that Keira Knightley's appearance is an expression of her Welsh genetics. Was there a visual discrimination?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was exactly like in this scene
2 years ago
COPIUM SNEEDMAN
really, cause the woman and the "saxons" look exactly the same
2 years ago
Anonymous
>entirely Welsh ancestry >have the dark look mentioned >but born and raised in southern England
Sort of a weird situation. I sound English, feel English, etc. but I have no claim to English-specific heritage/past. It's simply not mine and the only form of 'cope' (were I so inclined) is that England has, for eons, had plenty of its own people with a bit of Welsh in them or shit like the Tudors being part Taff and making Wales English in a legal sense. There's also a disconnect when it comes to Welsh stuff because I wasn't raised in the fricking place. I'm not truly a part of that culture either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's only in England and only from Anglo-Saxon sites. It's not hard to imagine that there was a resurgence of Celtic ancestry later which explains why most of Britain is more Celtic than not.
no they werent
they were a foreign culture that bell beakers larped as and then adopted, and then they were conquered and assimilated by the romans
the anglo saxons at the time were fighting christian romano britons, not celts from the 1st century
If Celts moved into Britain in the early iron age then how were they not considered natives by the time the Anglos got there?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The celts didn't move into britain you moron
There was no mass migration of celts into britain, there was a small migration of some gauls into britain but most of thet pre celtic peoples adopted celtic culture. all "celtic" groups in the british isles descend mostly from pre celtic conquerors
celts were not an ethnic group
2 years ago
Anonymous
Please look at my ebin hot takes and be impressed: the post.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>larper coping
there is no such thing as a celtic ethnic group
2 years ago
COPIUM SNEEDMAN
by this standard there is not an italic or germanic ethnic group either
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes
2 years ago
Anonymous
>AAAAHHH I MUST DECONSTRUCT ALL ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS!
Just shut up
2 years ago
Anonymous
There was a study which found that a 50% replacement happened when the Celts moved to Britain in the late bronze age/early iron age
Kek, this is such hairsplitting bullshit. A Celtic culture predated the Romans/Germanics and was the dominant one of the island and with specifics far less lost/shrounded to history than the fricking Bell Beakers. They get the 'native' designation by virtue of being the earliest civilization we've known about since Antiquity and didn't require anthropology to unearth centuries after Rome fell. The Anglo-Saxons also entered a land where Celtic was still spoken by the majority in the hinterland
2 years ago
Anonymous
>celts who had been in britain for four hundred years are native >whites who have been in the americas for four hundred years are not native
LMAO
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're too much of a dipshit to understand how these perceptions are inherited from Antiquity vs. what has been inherited from the 16th century onwards. Namely, the records. Britain entered the historical record in substance with the Romans visiting it, and they found an island where a Celtic culture predominated.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is no historical record that names the ancient britons as celtic.
"celts" came from modernist romanticism. Both the ancient irish and the ancient british were bell beakers genetically who spoke a celtic language and practised a celtic culture, it's that simple
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, they weren't Bell Beakers anymore because when Celts invaded from central Europe they replaced 50% of the Bell Beaker ancestry everywhere except Ireland
And even there he's wrong because they were 50% Celtic from central Europe
show study or you're wrong
>who spoke a celtic language and practised a celtic culture
Well there you fricking have it then. The Romans encountered a people who of a Celtic culture in fricking Antiquity, where they didn't have 19th century+ anthropology departments running around to establish this Bell Beaker genetics shit. Britain enters the historical record as a land of Celtic culture, with no real reckoning of what occurred in Antiquity before this. This understanding has then be inherited generation after generation through centuries upon centuries. You autistic hairsplitting over ACKCHYUALLY THEY HAD BELL BEAKER GENETICS AND ARE NOT NATIVE!! ignores this historical context, and as well as being stupid deconstructionist bullshit as a whole.
if the celts of britain were native then thus whites in america must be considered native
>if the celts of britain were native then thus whites in america must be considered native
I definitely think someone who can trace their ancestry back to the Revolutionary/Colonial period gets to display themselves as a native of the United States. But you're still too stupid to grasp how these perceptions are inherited based on historical context. There was no fricking memory of a pre-Celtic Briton to either the Celtic inhabitants nor the Romans in Antiquity. The European colonists of the 1500's onwards had records and the preexisting populations were recorded and separate and dealt with accordingly through the course of centuries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>who spoke a celtic language and practised a celtic culture
Well there you fricking have it then. The Romans encountered a people who of a Celtic culture in fricking Antiquity, where they didn't have 19th century+ anthropology departments running around to establish this Bell Beaker genetics shit. Britain enters the historical record as a land of Celtic culture, with no real reckoning of what occurred in Antiquity before this. This understanding has then be inherited generation after generation through centuries upon centuries. You autistic hairsplitting over ACKCHYUALLY THEY HAD BELL BEAKER GENETICS AND ARE NOT NATIVE!! ignores this historical context, and as well as being stupid deconstructionist bullshit as a whole.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And even there he's wrong because they were 50% Celtic from central Europe
The majority of average modern bong's genetic ancestry is still celtic or even pre-celtic and keep in mind that brits were "enriched" with germanic genes not only but anglo-saxon, but also norse/danish settlers
>the Anglosphere is the one which imported and ended up worshipping Black folk creating the modern world
VGH THE SVPERIORITY OF THE ANGLO-SAXONIC GERMANIC SEED WHICH MVST REMAIN VNPOLLVTED!
I am not of any kind of British descent, but it's clear the Angles and Saxon early cutural mores and patterns left a deep mark on the English. All other European colonial powers were prone to race mixing (even the Dutch in South Africa) and to adopt native customs. The british colonists were the only ones that everywhere they settled, thouroughly insisted on keeping race mixing to a minimum close to zero and to build their colonial nations from the scratch with preferably 0 native influence. What is taking place today is clearly something new.
Didn't the English always have a level of self confidence/arrogance? Like even before the stereotypes of the Victorian era and the rise of stuff like receive pronunciation that we associate with the arrogant Englishman - a type of perpetual self confidence across all classes. Maybe added another layer of seeing racemixing and diluting the English blood as type of moral crime?
The director wanted to cast Daniel Craig, but Bruckheimer wanted Owen who had received a career boost because of speculation that he'd be the next Bond.
Daniel Craig is a weird slav looking motherfricker. I know they had to whole steppe origin for the 2004 Arthur but Owens looks like some tanned Celt guy, so was a better fit. I unironically get autistic over clearly Germanic or blonde men like Charlie Hunnam getting cast as the Romanised Celtic hero
Last Kingdom is pretty good but it's not about the early Anglo-Saxons in Roman Britain
You could make an argument for the Rohirrim - they were essentially Tolkien's idealised version of the culture, replete with having a cavalry culture that would have robbed the Normans of the advantage they had at Hastings. Their helmets/armor are often more accurate than whatever the frick the Anglo-Saxons are made to wear in the 2004 Arthur movie or Last Kingdom
I can't get into this shit given how stupid they all look. The leather biker capeshit look for the Anglos/Vikings popularised by shit like the Vikings tv show or Assassin's Creed Valhalla is a look I cannot fricking stand.
It's shit and OP keeps making threads about it and shilling it and defending the idea that there were woad painted pagan forest people in 5th century roman britain.
An actual film depicting a realistic king arthur would be good but not the trash we got.
Never liked him. Skaarsgard and Knightley were the only two good things about this movie.
And I liked the idea of Arthur as a Roman eques, though the execution was not great.
I wish they just made this movie based on Riothamus or Ambrosius Aurelianus (the same person?). They went with a 2nd/3rd century minor Roman cavalry officer, who late in life, became the governor of a province just across from Italy. Lucius Artorius Castus just seems to have a similar looking name to Arthur, which may or may not be the basis of the name Arthur, without necessarily being the basis behind the mythologized King Arthur, who seems to have existed as a person during Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages, probably the 5th or 6th centuries. Transplanting a clearly 2nd/3rd century man into the 5th century was a mistake.
>We don't mix with these people
Aren't British people a mix of the native Celtic Britons, Anglo-Saxons and later Germanic invaders like vikangs? Then the Anglo-Saxons must have mixed with the Celts
I think so. At least the Welsh/Irish/Scottish
>Aren't British people a mix of the native Celtic Britons, Anglo-Saxons and later Germanic invaders like vikangs? Then the Anglo-Saxons must have mixed with the Celts
Yes, but the movie is portraying the Anglo-Saxons a demonic villains cause it's a movie. Some historical-ish Arthur movie would have some the Saxons be goodies, some baddies, a bit like how some of the Britons are good and loyal to Arthur and some are bad. I, personally, would have Cerdic be a character, i.e. the possibly Celtic founder and first king of the House of Wessex - something to embody the 'they intermixed' angle
The villain (Cerdic) pretty much carries the film though
I had forgotten that's what Skarsgard's guy was called. At any rate, he's a pure Anglo-Saxon in the movie. In history, the speculation is that he was a Briton who became Anglicised, cause his name is Brittonic rather than Germaniac and a couple of his children did not have conventional Germaniac names either. It's like the perfect case study of the whole 'acculturation' angle that's gotten popular recently
Couldn't foreign rulers/invaders adopting local names have been an attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the natives?
Oh, true. Still hints at the same thing, though. Either way, you'd use Cerdic as basically a way of showing Anglicisation occurring without it being some melodramatic ebil genocide.
The Celts were/are the natives therefore good.
The saxons were totally demonic villains to the Romano-Britons. To their POV, the Anglo-Saxon invasions destroyed their world and erased their civilization. In this sense the movie captures the accurate historical feeling of Arthur's legend.
In the after-the-fact mythmaking/mythologies, sure. Arthur becomes deified the way the Saxons become demonic, etc. But I wouldn't lean so much into that if I did some film/series showing the Britons and Saxons interact as these events are unfolding. We already know now the 'wipeout' narrative isn't what happened, so it's not like the Saxons declared ethnic jihad.
But Anglo-Saxons even had ethnic slurs for the native Britons. I believe the word Welsh was originally a slur that was 6th century Britain's equivalent of the word Black person.
Yes, and? I never said there was zero conflict. Of course they fought and there was hatred. It wasn't some binary of either peaceful lovey dovey coexistence/mingly or 100% wrath, blood lust, and genocide. Both the Britons and Anglo-Saxons themselves were never collective political entities. The period was marked by both conflict/violent upheavals and truces/coexistence/Anglicisation/acculturation.
Fair
welsh just means “Celt” and actually predates english
The history is hidden in plain sight.
When Rome left Britain, the empire still existed. It was deliberate, not a collapse. So the Roman-British aristocrats needed a replacement police force to protect Roman Britain from internet threats like Picts and forest people.
There was a Christian King who had a British wife, in Anglia, so they invited his entire tribe - the Angles - en masse to populate East Britain and in theory secure the Roman aristocratic holdings.
Then, 100 years later, Saxons were slowly invited or just came.
What happened was that next Rome was collapsing.
So the sons of the Christian Angle king (the tribe was still pagan), Wulf and Eadwacer, split up. Wulf would rule Britain and Eadwacer would fight in Europe.
Eadwacer is Odoacer and he is why it is said Arthur conquered Europe and Rome.
Their mother was the singer in Wulf and Odoacer and she was the Romano-Celtic princess. She was probably related to Constantine’s mother and descended from Jospephus or maybe even Herod Agrippa II. The “Round table” is an esoteric mystery cult, there are synagogue mosaics representing the 12 constellations of the zodiac, so this comes from that.
>and forest people
What the frick are you talking about
Roman Britain was ruled from manor estates and was sparsely populated. With no army presence, anyone from the countryside could have stage a rebellion or conquest. Forest people is a riff on this movie.
Except for the fact that "forest people" weren't injun tier savages living in the woods, they were peasants and farmers. Why are you trying to defend the historical accuracy of this shitty movie?
I’m not. Just making a point that with no army and lavish estates, Roman Britain was a juicy target for britons
Yeah but the "forest people" didn't exist. They were christian, peasant farmers who might have abandoned farming and became looters and petty bandits, they weren't tribal warpainted savages
During the Dane invasions, the Welsh were fricking brutal. They may have been silk robed Christians, but they were still Celt savages
The welsh in reality were civilised, christian people who preserved roman texts, who had a rich literary and storytelling tradition and saw themselves defending their society against Anglo saxon savagery
Why are you defending this shitty 2004 movie that portrays britons as woad wearing native americans?
Foul Welsh savage
The Anglo-Saxons were the savages. The Welsh, along with the Irish of that period were ardent christians with a learned priestly class.
The Welsh didn't really exist until after the Anglo-Saxons were firmly entrenched right? Like to the Romano-Briton elite and Celtic countryfolk of what is now England, the people in what is now Wales would be regarded a peripheral bumpkins, right?
The Welsh were semi romanised to an extent and had adopted christianity and some other roman trappings but were viewed by most as ruralites
it changed when the anglo saxons invaded and Romano-British elites from the heartland fled to wales
I guess it's me being a bit of a hairsplitting, like calling the Romano-Britons in what is now England Welsh is *technically* some misnomer, but it still fits if the people in Wales at that time had the same culture (where it counts) and it's the ancestor culture to Wales
Where did all the sheep shagging stereotypes come from? If the Welsh are the descendants of sophisticated Romano-British elites
I really have no idea if this is accurate, but the only explanation I ever got was that the penalty for sodomising livestock as lesser than that being caught stealing some else's. On the areas bordering English shires, if a farmer or some hired to raid was caught making off with a sheep, they'd claim they only wanted to bugger it avoid the stricter theft penalty.
Because there's a lot of sheep in Wales and because when Edward invaded Wales it was full of fractured petty kingdoms and not a nation like England was at the time
For some reason the welsh had a stereotype as bad hunters this is where welsh rarebit comes from
The native Welsh aristocracy that didn't collaborate probably got dispossessed by the Normans in the same way the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was after 1066.
What's the difference between a stupid Welshman and a genius one? The stupid one runs down the hill to frick a sheep. The genius one calmly walks down the hill to frick several sheep.
I agree with you that a genocide did not take place. But we could very much argue a "ethnocide" did occur. The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a rare event of cataclysm resulting fron mass migration in the middle ages because unlike the Goths and Franks in Gaul and Spain, or the Turks in Persia, where the backward conqueror assimilated to the more complex conquered civilization, Saxons enslaved lots of Britons, didn't give any rights to conquered non-slaved Britons, destroyed their towns and farms while they themselves in 90% of cases built new settlements with no trace of the previous culture. The conquered Britons started speaking Old English in a few generation in order to assimilate and acquire rights now as 'saxons'. Also, one of the more important aspects of this event was that Saxons were pagans who managed to erase a Christian culture. Contemporary observers described the Anglo Saxon migration as part of the "end of times" while writing chronicles and secular reports, that is, before the legend was born, see Gildas for example. More nuanced interaction between Britons and Saxons/Angles occured after the first 150 harsh years of the invasion, specially in the southwest, where Saxon nobles adopted some Britonic culture and the North of England.
The Angle migration was a single event and happened a full 50-100 years before the slower and more sporadic Saxon settlement.
The Saxon settlement was like a unchecked borders immigrant problem. The Saxons were welcomed as small numbers sometimes invited. Then they just started inviting their cousins over and stopped giving a shit what Britons said. That’s the bad part.
From a new study
>Here we present two results: First, we detect a substantial increase in continental northern European ancestry in England during the Early Anglo-Saxon period, replacing approximately 75% of the local British ancestry. Second, we highlight the yet continuous presence of ancestry identified in Iron Age and Roman individuals during the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Our observation of a culturally homogenous but genetically diverse Anglo-Saxon population demonstrates that admixture between Britons and continental immigrants was not a geographically restricted or exceptional phenomenon.
That’s how women work. Choice A: be a Briton slave. Choice B: spread your legs for a freeman. What do you think happened?
I curious what the Britons looked like vs. what an Anglo-Saxon looked like. If we look at Irish/Welsh actors like Colin Farrell or Ioan Gruffudd, there is a dark look. I'd even say that Keira Knightley's appearance is an expression of her Welsh genetics. Was there a visual discrimination?
It was exactly like in this scene
really, cause the woman and the "saxons" look exactly the same
>entirely Welsh ancestry
>have the dark look mentioned
>but born and raised in southern England
Sort of a weird situation. I sound English, feel English, etc. but I have no claim to English-specific heritage/past. It's simply not mine and the only form of 'cope' (were I so inclined) is that England has, for eons, had plenty of its own people with a bit of Welsh in them or shit like the Tudors being part Taff and making Wales English in a legal sense. There's also a disconnect when it comes to Welsh stuff because I wasn't raised in the fricking place. I'm not truly a part of that culture either.
That's only in England and only from Anglo-Saxon sites. It's not hard to imagine that there was a resurgence of Celtic ancestry later which explains why most of Britain is more Celtic than not.
Good post. Yes, ethnocide is accurate.
>britons
>celts
>native
the celts are not native to the british isles. why do yanks believe this bullshit?
Not originally but they had lived there long enough to be considered natives compared to the VERY foreign Anglo-Saxons
no they werent
they were a foreign culture that bell beakers larped as and then adopted, and then they were conquered and assimilated by the romans
the anglo saxons at the time were fighting christian romano britons, not celts from the 1st century
Still native
>the romans were native to britain
you are moronic
If Celts moved into Britain in the early iron age then how were they not considered natives by the time the Anglos got there?
The celts didn't move into britain you moron
There was no mass migration of celts into britain, there was a small migration of some gauls into britain but most of thet pre celtic peoples adopted celtic culture. all "celtic" groups in the british isles descend mostly from pre celtic conquerors
celts were not an ethnic group
Please look at my ebin hot takes and be impressed: the post.
>larper coping
there is no such thing as a celtic ethnic group
by this standard there is not an italic or germanic ethnic group either
yes
>AAAAHHH I MUST DECONSTRUCT ALL ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS!
Just shut up
There was a study which found that a 50% replacement happened when the Celts moved to Britain in the late bronze age/early iron age
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/news/2022/jan/large-scale-migration-britain-during-middle-late-bronze-age
Kek, this is such hairsplitting bullshit. A Celtic culture predated the Romans/Germanics and was the dominant one of the island and with specifics far less lost/shrounded to history than the fricking Bell Beakers. They get the 'native' designation by virtue of being the earliest civilization we've known about since Antiquity and didn't require anthropology to unearth centuries after Rome fell. The Anglo-Saxons also entered a land where Celtic was still spoken by the majority in the hinterland
>celts who had been in britain for four hundred years are native
>whites who have been in the americas for four hundred years are not native
LMAO
You're too much of a dipshit to understand how these perceptions are inherited from Antiquity vs. what has been inherited from the 16th century onwards. Namely, the records. Britain entered the historical record in substance with the Romans visiting it, and they found an island where a Celtic culture predominated.
There is no historical record that names the ancient britons as celtic.
"celts" came from modernist romanticism. Both the ancient irish and the ancient british were bell beakers genetically who spoke a celtic language and practised a celtic culture, it's that simple
No, they weren't Bell Beakers anymore because when Celts invaded from central Europe they replaced 50% of the Bell Beaker ancestry everywhere except Ireland
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/news/2022/jan/large-scale-migration-britain-during-middle-late-bronze-age
cope lad
Science has spoken, you can be silent now
show study or you're wrong
if the celts of britain were native then thus whites in america must be considered native
I already did
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/news/2022/jan/large-scale-migration-britain-during-middle-late-bronze-age
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34937049/
has been disproven
Your turn to post the study disproving it
no
Suck it
>if the celts of britain were native then thus whites in america must be considered native
I definitely think someone who can trace their ancestry back to the Revolutionary/Colonial period gets to display themselves as a native of the United States. But you're still too stupid to grasp how these perceptions are inherited based on historical context. There was no fricking memory of a pre-Celtic Briton to either the Celtic inhabitants nor the Romans in Antiquity. The European colonists of the 1500's onwards had records and the preexisting populations were recorded and separate and dealt with accordingly through the course of centuries.
>who spoke a celtic language and practised a celtic culture
Well there you fricking have it then. The Romans encountered a people who of a Celtic culture in fricking Antiquity, where they didn't have 19th century+ anthropology departments running around to establish this Bell Beaker genetics shit. Britain enters the historical record as a land of Celtic culture, with no real reckoning of what occurred in Antiquity before this. This understanding has then be inherited generation after generation through centuries upon centuries. You autistic hairsplitting over ACKCHYUALLY THEY HAD BELL BEAKER GENETICS AND ARE NOT NATIVE!! ignores this historical context, and as well as being stupid deconstructionist bullshit as a whole.
And even there he's wrong because they were 50% Celtic from central Europe
The history of the British isles is an absurd mess of invaders every five hundred years, it's difficult to keep track of.
Yes. In fact, they mixed from day 1 and more peacefully than we used to think.
Cedric was probably already a mutt.
The majority of average modern bong's genetic ancestry is still celtic or even pre-celtic and keep in mind that brits were "enriched" with germanic genes not only but anglo-saxon, but also norse/danish settlers
I like the duality between him and his son who he considers unworthy of succeeding him
>movie is good because.....it says a quote i heard on /misc/
how to spot an underage poster
Uh what
>the Anglosphere is the one which imported and ended up worshipping Black folk creating the modern world
VGH THE SVPERIORITY OF THE ANGLO-SAXONIC GERMANIC SEED WHICH MVST REMAIN VNPOLLVTED!
I am not of any kind of British descent, but it's clear the Angles and Saxon early cutural mores and patterns left a deep mark on the English. All other European colonial powers were prone to race mixing (even the Dutch in South Africa) and to adopt native customs. The british colonists were the only ones that everywhere they settled, thouroughly insisted on keeping race mixing to a minimum close to zero and to build their colonial nations from the scratch with preferably 0 native influence. What is taking place today is clearly something new.
Didn't the English always have a level of self confidence/arrogance? Like even before the stereotypes of the Victorian era and the rise of stuff like receive pronunciation that we associate with the arrogant Englishman - a type of perpetual self confidence across all classes. Maybe added another layer of seeing racemixing and diluting the English blood as type of moral crime?
I'm pretty sure that's a recent stereotype. The English in the medieval era were stereotyped as uncouth peasants
What about that meme image of the Portugese diplomat noting how much the English loved themselves and England?
ive literally never seen a source for that portugese diplomats statement
Precisely. What anon described in his post is more of a French thing anyway.
Clive Owen was a good casting choice for Arthur
The director wanted to cast Daniel Craig, but Bruckheimer wanted Owen who had received a career boost because of speculation that he'd be the next Bond.
Daniel Craig is a weird slav looking motherfricker. I know they had to whole steppe origin for the 2004 Arthur but Owens looks like some tanned Celt guy, so was a better fit. I unironically get autistic over clearly Germanic or blonde men like Charlie Hunnam getting cast as the Romanised Celtic hero
Craig would have made a lousy Arthur. Too short and not dark enough.
no, merlin 1998 is
You can't deny that this battle is pure kino
Hollywood crap!
Not even any Wagner...
Hans Zimmer does a pretty good job with the score
this is more kino
?t=4117
and no cg crap, no color filters, no shitty droning music and has actual actors like rutger hauer and sam neil
Mid
this looks like garbage
and why is there always a ninja girl in these british/roman movies?
the eagle and the last legion also have one
Because Keira Knightley sells tickets (or used to)
Steve Barron directed some absolute tv kinos in that period:
>Merlin (1998)
>Arabian Nights (2000)
>Dreamkeeper (2003)
Pfft Excalibur is the only actual Arthurian production worth watching.
It was fricking trash
No.
Proof? Source?
This, just so much this! Where are y'all citations?
Try the Netflix original series The Last Kingdom.
Last Kingdom is pretty good but it's not about the early Anglo-Saxons in Roman Britain
You could make an argument for the Rohirrim - they were essentially Tolkien's idealised version of the culture, replete with having a cavalry culture that would have robbed the Normans of the advantage they had at Hastings. Their helmets/armor are often more accurate than whatever the frick the Anglo-Saxons are made to wear in the 2004 Arthur movie or Last Kingdom
Why don't directors or the costume departments let them wear these?
Anglo Saxons were the baddies in that so no.
The Last Kingdom is the best
I can't get into this shit given how stupid they all look. The leather biker capeshit look for the Anglos/Vikings popularised by shit like the Vikings tv show or Assassin's Creed Valhalla is a look I cannot fricking stand.
I'm going to watch it rn and will come back when finished. I hope it's good
Trust me it's good
It's shit and OP keeps making threads about it and shilling it and defending the idea that there were woad painted pagan forest people in 5th century roman britain.
An actual film depicting a realistic king arthur would be good but not the trash we got.
I liked when Tristan shot that traitor in the tree
Mads Mikkelsen's character is supposed to be a Sarmatian
It was bad enough to kill the trend of sword-and-sandal movies Hollywood was doing at the time
The trend went on for a few years after it came out
Shit was so fricking bad
Sick and tired of sharing the board with people like OP
Shut up
We is Romans n shiet
Drippy
Um, why isn't he BIPOC, chud?
I would have defied my saxon warlord and kept Keira Knightley as a thrall. I did not join a warband to be told what to do with my spoils and loot.
I like Clive Owen but this movie sucked balls.
You suck balls
not as good as this Black person directed turd
He nailed it though. Compare it to the recent Arthur takes by white and israeli directors. Notice anything?
Never liked him. Skaarsgard and Knightley were the only two good things about this movie.
And I liked the idea of Arthur as a Roman eques, though the execution was not great.
>mentions King Arthur
>not one picture of Keira Knightley
I don't know how you homosexuals even live
I think that is the one where they tried to give her breasts on the US poster
I remember when I walked out of the cinema and I realized that the era of "epic" films was over.
How was it?
Excalibur should be watched, and no other rendition should even be known of
I wish they just made this movie based on Riothamus or Ambrosius Aurelianus (the same person?). They went with a 2nd/3rd century minor Roman cavalry officer, who late in life, became the governor of a province just across from Italy. Lucius Artorius Castus just seems to have a similar looking name to Arthur, which may or may not be the basis of the name Arthur, without necessarily being the basis behind the mythologized King Arthur, who seems to have existed as a person during Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages, probably the 5th or 6th centuries. Transplanting a clearly 2nd/3rd century man into the 5th century was a mistake.
But who is the best anglo-saxonphonist
Nice Skyrim armor