Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?

Expand Messages
  • Ruarigh Dale
    The entry for the St Brice s Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests that the English
    Message 1 of 14 , May 6 1:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The entry for the St Brice's Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests that the English peoples understood there to be a difference, unless you think it only refers to visiting Danes, which is one possible interpretation. A charter of Aethelred from two years later ordering restitution to St Frideswide's minster in Oxford refers to a decree "to the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting like weeds amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just extermination". This charter is the only real evidence of the massacre actually occurring, but the terminology suggests that there were clear divisions of identity between the English and the Danes living in England, so there may not have been an Anglo-Danish identity per se, previous discussion on this forum notwithstanding.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Michael
      Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?
      True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066.  The latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors than someone north of the Humber.

    • llama_nom
      Could be, although it s hard to tell how closely the killers idea of who was Danish enough to be massacred would have matched the views on ethnicity of people
      Message 2 of 14 , May 6 2:14 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Could be, although it's hard to tell how closely the killers' idea of who was Danish enough to be massacred would have matched the views on ethnicity of people in general, let alone their victims. Massacrers are notorious simplifiers and lumpers-together... But then you'd think they'd have needed at least some perceived distinction to exploit.

        --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Ruarigh Dale" <ruarigh@...> wrote:
        >
        > The entry for the St Brice's Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests that the English peoples understood there to be a difference, unless you think it only refers to visiting Danes, which is one possible interpretation. A charter of Aethelred from two years later ordering restitution to St Frideswide's minster in Oxford refers to a decree "to the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting like weeds amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just extermination". This charter is the only real evidence of the massacre actually occurring, but the terminology suggests that there were clear divisions of identity between the English and the Danes living in England, so there may not have been an Anglo-Danish identity per se, previous discussion on this forum notwithstanding.
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Michael
        > To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:56 PM
        > Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?
        >
        > True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066. The latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors than someone north of the Humber.
        >
      • Ruarigh Dale
        Well, if you believe some of the later commentaries on this, then the Danes will be the ones that are clean and smell less bad than the English; one
        Message 3 of 14 , May 6 2:35 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, if you believe some of the later commentaries on this, then the Danes
          will be the ones that are clean and smell less bad than the English; one
          commentator suggested that the Danes needed to be got rid of because they
          washed, combed their hair and were getting all the ladies as a result!
          Clearly the English men wanted to be allowed to be slobs and still be able
          to find wives. :-) I have been entertained by descriptions of this
          particular massacre since attending a conference on it in 2002 at Nottingham
          University. I was also fascinated by the commentator, who stated that the
          English women that had married Danes were punished by being buried up to
          their waists and then dogs were set on them to tear their nipples off. How
          do you train a dog to take only the nipples, and why would you do that?
          Sorry, way OT. Shutting up now.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
          To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:14 PM
          Subject: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the
          Anglo-Danes?


          >
          > Could be, although it's hard to tell how closely the killers' idea of who
          > was Danish enough to be massacred would have matched the views on
          > ethnicity of people in general, let alone their victims. Massacrers are
          > notorious simplifiers and lumpers-together... But then you'd think they'd
          > have needed at least some perceived distinction to exploit.
          >
          > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Ruarigh Dale" <ruarigh@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> The entry for the St Brice's Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon
          >> Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests
          >> that the English peoples understood there to be a difference, unless you
          >> think it only refers to visiting Danes, which is one possible
          >> interpretation. A charter of Aethelred from two years later ordering
          >> restitution to St Frideswide's minster in Oxford refers to a decree "to
          >> the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting
          >> like weeds amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just
          >> extermination". This charter is the only real evidence of the massacre
          >> actually occurring, but the terminology suggests that there were clear
          >> divisions of identity between the English and the Danes living in
          >> England, so there may not have been an Anglo-Danish identity per se,
          >> previous discussion on this forum notwithstanding.
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Michael
          >> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
          >> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:56 PM
          >> Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically
          >> to the Anglo-Danes?
          >>
          >> True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an
          >> Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066. The
          >> latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon
          >> neighbors than someone north of the Humber.
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
          >
          > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
          >
          > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
          >
          > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Patti (Wilson)
          You are taking the discussion way back to a time when as I remember reading - a battle was won because the attackers attacked the strangers on Friday/Saturday
          Message 4 of 14 , May 6 11:30 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            You are taking the discussion way back to a time when as
             I remember reading -  a battle was won because the attackers
             attacked the strangers on Friday/Saturday night because
            they all would be bathing and washing their clothes .
            I really wish I could remember the actual circumstances.
            BUT the folk who were in their baths were taken totally by
            surprise, sad !!
            Kveðja
            Patricia
             
            -------Original Message-------
             
            Date: 07/05/2009 05:51:13
            Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?
             
            Well, if you believe some of the later commentaries on this, then the Danes
            will be the ones that are clean and smell less bad than the English; one
            commentator suggested that the Danes needed to be got rid of because they
            washed, combed their hair and were getting all the ladies as a result!
            Clearly the English men wanted to be allowed to be slobs and still be able
            to find wives. :-) I have been entertained by descriptions of this
            particular massacre since attending a conference on it in 2002 at Nottingham
            University. I was also fascinated by the commentator, who stated that the
            English women that had married Danes were punished by being buried up to
            their waists and then dogs were set on them to tear their nipples off. How
            do you train a dog to take only the nipples, and why would you do that?
            Sorry, way OT. Shutting up now.
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:14 PM
            Subject: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the
            Anglo-Danes?
             
             
            >
            > Could be, although it's hard to tell how closely the killers' idea of who
            > was Danish enough to be massacred would have matched the views on
            > ethnicity of people in general, let alone their victims. Massacrers are
            > notorious simplifiers and lumpers-together... But then you'd think they'd
            > have needed at least some perceived distinction to exploit.
            >
            > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Ruarigh Dale" <ruarigh@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> The entry for the St Brice's Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon
            >> Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests
            >> that the English peoples understood there to be a difference, unless you
            >> think it only refers to visiting Danes, which is one possible
            >> interpretation. A charter of Aethelred from two years later ordering
            >> restitution to St Frideswide's minster in Oxford refers to a decree "to
            >> the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting
            >> like weeds amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just
            >> extermination". This charter is the only real evidence of the massacre
            >> actually occurring, but the terminology suggests that there were clear
            >> divisions of identity between the English and the Danes living in
            >> England, so there may not have been an Anglo-Danish identity per se,
            >> previous discussion on this forum notwithstanding.
            >>   ----- Original Message -----
            >>   From: Michael
            >>   Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:56 PM
            >>   Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically
            >> to the Anglo-Danes?
            >>
            >>         True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an
            >> Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066.  The
            >> latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon
            >> neighbors than someone north of the Humber.
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
            >
            >
            > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
             
             
             
            ------------------------------------
             
            A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
             
             
            To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
             
             
            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
             
            <*> Your email settings:
                Individual Email | Traditional
             
            <*> To change settings online go to:
                (Yahoo! ID required)
             
            <*> To change settings via email:
             
            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
             
            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
             
          • Ruarigh Dale
            Fair point. My original post was really about the idea of an Anglo-Danish identity; whether the contemporary Anglo-Saxon, rather than later Old Norse, evidence
            Message 5 of 14 , May 7 12:57 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Fair point. My original post was really about the idea of an Anglo-Danish identity; whether the contemporary Anglo-Saxon, rather than later Old Norse, evidence supports this concept or not. I have certainly not encountered the notion of a separate Anglo-Danish identity in my reading of the sagas, which does not mean it is not there since I have not read all of them (working on that), so I thought I would throw in some alternative evidence.
               
              As for the St Brice's Day massacre, the one sentence in the Chronicle is open  to interpretation in a number of ways, and the only evidence for it actually happening is the St Frideswide's charter, so we cannot be sure of the nature or extent of it. The later commentaries on it are usually used to justify events such as the Norman invasion, providing a point of moral high ground for the invaders. They are also considerably more lurid, as the examples I quoted show, but they are not reliable evidence for the actual events of that day. Still, they are fascinating in their own right.
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:30 AM
              Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?

              You are taking the discussion way back to a time when as
               I remember reading -  a battle was won because the attackers
               attacked the strangers on Friday/Saturday night because
              they all would be bathing and washing their clothes .
              I really wish I could remember the actual circumstances.
              BUT the folk who were in their baths were taken totally by
              surprise, sad !!
              Kveðja
              Patricia
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              Date: 07/05/2009 05:51:13
              Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?
               
              Well, if you believe some of the later commentaries on this, then the Danes
              will be the ones that are clean and smell less bad than the English; one
              commentator suggested that the Danes needed to be got rid of because they
              washed, combed their hair and were getting all the ladies as a result!
              Clearly the English men wanted to be allowed to be slobs and still be able
              to find wives. :-) I have been entertained by descriptions of this
              particular massacre since attending a conference on it in 2002 at Nottingham
              University. I was also fascinated by the commentator, who stated that the
              English women that had married Danes were punished by being buried up to
              their waists and then dogs were set on them to tear their nipples off. How
              do you train a dog to take only the nipples, and why would you do that?
              Sorry, way OT. Shutting up now.
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
              Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:14 PM
              Subject: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the
              Anglo-Danes?
               
               
              >
              > Could be, although it's hard to tell how closely the killers' idea of who
              > was Danish enough to be massacred would have matched the views on
              > ethnicity of people in general, let alone their victims. Massacrers are
              > notorious simplifiers and lumpers-together... But then you'd think they'd
              > have needed at least some perceived distinction to exploit.
              >
              > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Ruarigh Dale" <ruarigh@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> The entry for the St Brice's Day massacre (1002) in the Anglo-Saxon
              >> Chronicle refers to the Danes or Danish people in England. This suggests
              >> that the English peoples understood there to be a difference, unless you
              >> think it only refers to visiting Danes, which is one possible
              >> interpretation. A charter of Aethelred from two years later ordering
              >> restitution to St Frideswide's minster in Oxford refers to a decree "to
              >> the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting
              >> like weeds amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just
              >> extermination". This charter is the only real evidence of the massacre
              >> actually occurring, but the terminology suggests that there were clear
              >> divisions of identity between the English and the Danes living in
              >> England, so there may not have been an Anglo-Danish identity per se,
              >> previous discussion on this forum notwithstanding.
              >>   ----- Original Message -----
              >>   From: Michael
              >>   Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:56 PM
              >>   Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically
              >> to the Anglo-Danes?
              >>
              >>         True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an
              >> Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066.  The
              >> latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon
              >> neighbors than someone north of the Humber.
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
              >
              >
              > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
               
               
               
              ------------------------------------
               
              A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
               
               
              To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
               
               
              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               
              <*> Your email settings:
                  Individual Email | Traditional
               
              <*> To change settings online go to:
                  (Yahoo! ID required)
               
              <*> To change settings via email:
               
              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               
              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.