|
Jaded Burnout posted:My vague (and possibly incorrect) understanding is that the invasions that pushed the celts out of England into Wales are similar to the ones that did so in Scotland. Why is it that Scotland retains more legal and perhaps cultural independence to England today? Because Scotland was an independent country entirely from England up until 1603, at which point a Scottish king became king of England (and Wales) by succession, as opposed to England flat out conquering the place, mostly. Also, it's bigger.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Because Scotland was an independent country entirely from England up until 1603, at which point a Scottish king became king of England (and Wales) by succession, as opposed to England flat out conquering the place, mostly. Also, it's bigger. So it's pretty much that Scotland held out longer and then James I's ascension made for a less homogenous union? Gotcha. I wonder why Wales remained a sort-of independent country if it was so much under England's thumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:So it's pretty much that Scotland held out longer and then James I's ascension made for a less homogenous union? Gotcha. I wonder why Wales remained a sort-of independent country if it was so much under England's thumb. It didn't? Wales didn't have any administrative distinction in the UK till 1997 from any other part of England. It's just that prior to the 19th century states made no effort to stamp out local cultures (see France/Spain), and welsh identity survived the 19th century when say Cornish didn't due to being larger to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
It’s because the welsh did not fight like warrior poets for their freedom. The welsh were never as rowdy as scots. Hadrian’s wall didn’t block off wales, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:It didn't? Wales didn't have any administrative distinction in the UK till 1997 from any other part of England. It's just that prior to the 19th century states made no effort to stamp out local cultures (see France/Spain), and welsh identity survived the 19th century when say Cornish didn't due to being larger to start. Huh. I didn't know that, thanks. Mr. Nice! posted:It’s because the welsh did not fight like warrior poets for their freedom. I'm going with this as the real answer. Inadequate supply of blue war paint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:It didn't? Wales didn't have any administrative distinction in the UK till 1997 from any other part of England. It's just that prior to the 19th century states made no effort to stamp out local cultures (see France/Spain), and welsh identity survived the 19th century when say Cornish didn't due to being larger to start. I remember reading something back in the early 90s that said much of Wales had its own local governance and laws, mostly still conducted in Gaelic, and London mostly shrugged so long as taxes were paid. I'm now curious if this was true
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I remember reading something back in the early 90s that said much of Wales had its own local governance and laws, mostly still conducted in Gaelic, and London mostly shrugged so long as taxes were paid. I'm now curious if this was true They don't speak Gaelic in Wales. Welsh is Brythonic, a different group of Celtic languages. ContinuityNewTimes fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Apr 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I remember reading something back in the early 90s that said much of Wales had its own local governance and laws, mostly still conducted in Gaelic, and London mostly shrugged so long as taxes were paid. I'm now curious if this was true ... Most Welsh people didn't then and don't now even speak Welsh. Are you sure you didn't mean the 1590s? Because if you're talking about the 1990s this is like hilariously off base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:It didn't? Wales didn't have any administrative distinction in the UK till 1997 from any other part of England. It's just that prior to the 19th century states made no effort to stamp out local cultures (see France/Spain), and welsh identity survived the 19th century when say Cornish didn't due to being larger to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:My vague (and possibly incorrect) understanding is that the invasions that pushed the celts out of England into Wales are similar to the ones that did so in Scotland. Why is it that Scotland retains more legal and perhaps cultural independence to England today? Very long story short, Scotland's political independence isn't really tied to the status of Celtic languages within the country, and the same centralising process that allowed Scotland to retain a unified political system distinct from England is aguably the same process that whittled away the use of Gaelic. Firstly it's important to state legal independence from England and the use of Gaelic are in no way overlapping issues. Scots (or at least a language derived from Old English) has been spoken in Scotland for as long as Gaelic was spoken (at least outside the far western fringes of the country). Both Scots and Gaelic gained ground from the 5th century onward, at the expense of other Brittonic languages, which are more closely related to modern Welsh. Gaelic became the dominant language in the 10th century, but the tide turned in the 11-12th century, as Anglo-Norman families moved in to serve, marry, and usurp Gaels. The Scottish royal family in particular becomes very Anglicised, as successive kings spend time in England as exiles from the constant factional warfare or as hostages, or marry into English royal and noble families. This doesn't mean they are politically sympathetic to the English, but they do start to speak predominantly Scots, which is increasingly a distinct language from English. Most of the main players in the Scottish war of independence have close family ties to England. Under the Stuarts Scots is increasingly the only language spoken at court, and no King after James IV can even speak Gaelic. At the same time, the centralisation of the Scottish state is whittling away the power of the prominent Gaelic families in the north and west who had stronger ties to Ireland, and in earlier centuries to Scandinavia. By the time of 1603, when Scotland comes into personal union with England (as a result of all that dynastic intermarriage) the political marginalisation of Gaelic has already been achieved, though it continues with English assistance through the wars of religion, the Jacobite rebellions, and the clearances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It’s because the welsh did not fight like warrior poets for their freedom. I remember reading once that most of the powerful Welsh families in the medieval claimed legitimacy and descent from family and positions granted to them by the Romans. Obviously such accounts are going to be very unreliable, but it makes me wonder about how the Romans politically managed Wales.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Because Scotland was an independent country entirely from England up until 1603, at which point a Scottish king became king of England (and Wales) by succession, as opposed to England flat out conquering the place, mostly. Also, it's bigger. Didn't it continue to be an independent country for another century until the Acts of Union in 1706 and 1707? In what ways were the two not independent? Aside from sharing a monarch. Iirc the two kingdoms had different succession rules so this could in theory have changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Weka posted:Didn't it continue to be an independent country for another century until the Acts of Union in 1706 and 1707? In what ways were the two not independent? Aside from sharing a monarch. Iirc the two kingdoms had different succession rules so this could in theory have changed. It's the 'entirely' part. Having the same ruler does actually matter quite a bit. Also I suggest you look up the Rule of the Major-Generals...
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It’s because the welsh did not fight like warrior poets for their freedom. Offa's dyke blocked off Wales.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I remember reading once that most of the powerful Welsh families in the medieval claimed legitimacy and descent from family and positions granted to them by the Romans. Obviously such accounts are going to be very unreliable, but it makes me wonder about how the Romans politically managed Wales. I thought that it was less that there was something particularly roman-y about Wales and just that Romans were all over the southern half of Britain, but Anglo immigration wound up not going that far east. Without any period with some kind of major replacement, it's no surprise for the powerful families to claim to be descended from the dudes who were in charge of the whole area just a few centuries earlier. That's not even necessarily a claim that they're descended from Italians, is it? The whole area was Roman. Possibly the most Roman of successor states to the Western Empire; I think it was the last of the areas to be taken over by Germans. They also had a weird colonial expansion period that people don't talk much about except when trying to convince France to stop seducing Quebec away from Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
The distinction between Wales and England is a totally post-Roman one -- on top of the obvious fact that England is named for those who moved in after the Romans left, Wales is itself named for the fact that that was where all the wealas ("Romans", i.e. Brittonic elites) of the rest of Britain supposedly ended up after the Anglo-Saxons were done moving in elsewhere. The Romans made no distinction between the two (probably; evidence for the boundaries of the late imperial subdivisions of the British diocese is patchy). They would have thought of Wales simply as the western hinterlands of Britain, barely settled but rich in minerals. The distinction between England and Scotland is also post-Roman, but has an obvious root in the attempts by the Romans to set a northern limit to the province of Britain. SlothfulCobra posted:I thought that it was less that there was something particularly roman-y about Wales and just that Romans were all over the southern half of Britain, but Anglo immigration wound up not going that far east. Without any period with some kind of major replacement, it's no surprise for the powerful families to claim to be descended from the dudes who were in charge of the whole area just a few centuries earlier. That's not even necessarily a claim that they're descended from Italians, is it? The whole area was Roman. Some medieval Welsh elites were almost certainly in the same lines of descent with the people who had been elites in Wales before and during Roman rule. Literary tradition also claims that a lot of Welsh nobility were from the Hen Ogledd, essentially the old Roman frontier zone, and had relocated to Wales as the Northumbrians pushed them out. The kings of Gwynedd explicitly claimed that they were descended from the Roman officer, Padarn Redcloak, that Magnus Maximus had left in charge of this frontier when he departed for the continent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
I don't doubt that their lineages could've easily predated Roman control; I'm just under the impression that after a couple centuries of Roman rule, most people didn't care to distinguish themselves via their pre-Roman heritage, and that after Roman rule, people preferred to play up their connection to the massive empire rather than to small independent regional powers. Probably helped that Rome had some religious significance. At least until the birth of nationalism when people were looking for reasons that they were different from eachother and unique as a culture, then whatever periods of regional independence started to seem more important than their relation to any massive continent-spanning empires. But only a certain amount of regional independence, because nationalists usually don't want to split countries into tribes and city-states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
On my quarantine rewatch of Rome I've just gotten to my favorite part, the death of Cicero. I don't know why I'm using the tags, just being cautious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Continuity RCP posted:They don't speak Gaelic in Wales. Welsh is Brythonic, a different group of Celtic languages. feedmegin posted:... Thanks! Now I'm a slightly less ignorant American!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:On my quarantine rewatch of Rome I've just gotten to my favorite part, the death of Cicero. I don't know why I'm using the tags, just being cautious. Spoilers: the republic falls SlothfulCobra posted:I don't doubt that their lineages could've easily predated Roman control; I'm just under the impression that after a couple centuries of Roman rule, most people didn't care to distinguish themselves via their pre-Roman heritage, and that after Roman rule, people preferred to play up their connection to the massive empire rather than to small independent regional powers. Probably helped that Rome had some religious significance. It was not unheard of for Roman Britons (or any flavor of Roman) to identify themselves by local group identities. Example: The very nice and eminently Roman tombstone of Regina, “of the Catuvellaunian nation”, freedwoman and wife of Barates the Palmyrene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
skasion posted:Spoilers: the republic falls What?? The Republic ends up stronger than ever! Of course, a lot of different government functions end up in the hands of one guy but he's sort of like your regular local Patron, except the whole country is his Client! There's still a Senate and Consuls and everything else!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:On my quarantine rewatch of Rome I've just gotten to my favorite part, the death of Cicero. I don't know why I'm using the tags, just being cautious. I've got bad news for you about Julius Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I've got bad news for you about Julius Caesar. contract negotiations broke down after his actor wanted too much money so they killed his character off
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I've got bad news for you about Julius Caesar. It'll be fine, that guy Brutus seems like a stand up dude. Maybe even Caesar's secret kid? Anyway I'm sure he'll keep his good ol buddy Gaius safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I've got bad news for you about Julius Caesar. All mockery of posters in this thread and their no God will be kept to an appropriate minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:All mockery of posters in this thread and their no God will be kept to an appropriate minimum. Mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Maybe even Caesar's secret kid? This idea comes almost entirely from taking "kai su, teknon" too literally. If Caesar said it at all (and it's highly questionable), the intended sense of it was probably closer to "The same to you, kid!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This idea comes almost entirely from taking "kai su, teknon" too literally. If Caesar said it at all (and it's highly questionable), the intended sense of it was probably closer to "The same to you, kid!" Also, he did gently caress his mom
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
skasion posted:Also, he did gently caress his mom He hosed a lot of people's moms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
skasion posted:Also, he did gently caress his mom Well, yes, but that would have been much later. Caesar was only 15 when Brutus was born! Not biologically impossible, obviously, but reason for skepticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 04:05
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:He hosed a lot of people's moms. And dads
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
You know the dikes of the Yellow River have been intentionally breached several times in history to defend China from foreign invasion. This has never, to my knowledge, worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You know the dikes of the Yellow River have been intentionally breached several times in history to defend China from foreign invasion. This has never, to my knowledge, worked. taking "land war in asia" littorally
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You know the dikes of the Yellow River have been intentionally breached several times in history to defend China from foreign invasion. This has never, to my knowledge, worked. It worked at killing a whole lot of Chinese peasants though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:taking "land war in asia" littorally 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:It's the 'entirely' part. Having the same ruler does actually matter quite a bit. Also I suggest you look up the Rule of the Major-Generals... I read the wiki article and it suggested Scotland was not part of the scheme and administratively seperate. What about the two year period are you referring to, because if I'm certain of one thing on the matter it's that you know considerably more than me about it. Obviously having the same ruler matters but no one is saying New Zealand is part of the UK and I presume the same is true for Gibraltar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 08:16
|
|
|
Weka posted:I read the wiki article and it suggested Scotland was not part of the scheme and administratively seperate. Yes, Scotland was under de facto military rule by Monck all the way through the protectorate, though they tried to dress it up by unifying the Scottish and English parliament. Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Apr 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It'll be fine, that guy Brutus seems like a stand up dude. Maybe even Caesar's secret kid? Anyway I'm sure he'll keep his good ol buddy Gaius safe. That punk Octavian on the other hand probably won’t ever amount to anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:That punk Octavian on the other hand probably won’t ever amount to anything. Eh he's got good mentors in Antony and Lepidus
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
That’s assuming he doesn’t get a knife in the back from Agrippa. Bound to happen — it’s the Roman way!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 18:05
|
|