Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
26 years...is that all? the romans ruled for 400 years. no Winchester is Hampshire a long way from me, nearer London than my neck of the woods. it would be a 3+ hour drive longer in heavy traffic.
the Normans may, in part, have been Viking Descendant's but they were French or Flemish speaking peoples from French Normandy hence Normans.
I agree that there are many place names that have Viking origins.
down south you wont find many if any Viking artefacts but there are loads found up north, down south its Roman and to a lesser extent Iron age and Bronze age remains.
Not just place names, everyday words such as: you, your, want, they, their, though, take, trust, seem, sky, scare, sale, skill, skin, slaughter, regret, race, odd, mistake, loan, law, likely, sick, ill, knife, give, gift, gang, flat, fog, hail, husband, happy, angry, are, awkward, call, cast, equip, elder, birth, die, both, bark, bleak, bull, bag, bait, bask, berserk, sick, ugly, until, wrong, weak, scarf, glove, egg, window, etc.
That's just an example, there's many more we use, regardless of whether you're from the north or the south.
Last edited by PossiblyIndecisive; 02-03-2019 at 08:29 AM..
Until the truth became inconvenient? Sounds about right
you call that truth? 26 years is a blink in time, you make it sound like some kingly lineage, it isn't.
there isn't any Viking remains that I've ever heard of in the south of England its all Roman stuff and I get bored with that too!
negative, the Vikings did not take over the whole of England, they only ruled over HALF of the country, the northern part, known as the Danegeld, the southern and south west part remained under the Saxons.
the Vikings capital was York know as Yorvick.
Appreciate your comments.
What is overrated and underrated must be simply a matter of our understanding of it, and sometimes that understanding is either biased, limited, not stated clearly, or misunderstood.
I don't think it could be said that any country truly "took over" England, since the ancestors of the very earliest inhabitants are still there enjoying or enduring all adventures of the 21st century. Somewhere in England there must be a strong willed woman who, unbeknownst to her, is a direct descendant of Boudica.
We say America is a melting pot. It seems to that if there is a melting pot to be found, it would be in England, which has a much, much longer history.
America is more of a tossed salad, with many nationalities and cultures and races hanging on to their own identities.
What civilization do you think are overrated and underrated?
Metrics to be used:
1.) Are their contributions to science, engineering, culture, and religion overstated or understated by historians and the general public.
2.) The quantity of media and social attention these civilizations receive in relation to how important they were for the time or history in general.
For example I think the Vikings are overrated. In contrast to what has happening in Persia, the Middle East, China, India, Central America and Spain, the Vikings were a sparse backwater civilization. They generally had no scholar, engineer, scientist or writer of any note. Nor did they had no great architectural or engineering feat to their name.
From the same period of time I think the Byzantines were underrated. Great art and architecture. Preserved the heritage of Ancient Greece and Roman. Influence spread from the Middle East and Africa to Russia. Yet often overlooked and under appreciated in the historic sense.
Who 'rates' the Vikings as having made greater contributions to architecture than the Byzantines? No historian does that. Why should historical interest track useful contributions to human civilization? Rhetorical question - it shouldn't. I'm interested in Soviet political history. I find it more interesting than, say, Canadian political history. In that example, I find the Soviets more interesting largely because of their political flaws, and the Canadians so uninteresting largely due to a relative lack of their political flaws (in the same way that Ted Bundy is more interesting than the accountant who lives next door). Some people are more interested in the War of 1812 than in World War II, even though the latter was indisputably more consequential.
Again, there is no reason that historical interest should be commensurate with a qualitative assessment of a subject's contributions to humanity. Neither your nor my interests represent some sort of objective gold standard by which all who differ are shown to be incorrect.
you call that truth? 26 years is a blink in time, you make it sound like some kingly lineage, it isn't.
there isn't any Viking remains that I've ever heard of in the south of England its all Roman stuff and I get bored with that too!
DNA tests show an estimated 1 million men in England today are direct descendants of Romans. Add women to that and it increases to 2 million. I think that's fairly significant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
