The Nature of History

One thing I learnt in my studies of history is that where you have three historians you will find four opinions, and none of them can claim to be 'right'. All will enjoy arguing their case, but the ones who recognise the rights of others to put forward their own perspectives (and are willing to engage with them, rather than putting them down) are likely to be far more successful.

What I hadn’t appreciated was, that rather than invasion, the Anglo Saxons simply settled in the east and at first in their own groups, but of course gradually intermingled with the celts. So it was done peacefully, but in the west the celts retained their own culture and way of life. DNA shows how this is still markedly so even now.

The clash was largely between east and west.

growstuff

Whitewavemark2

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Which is why Cornwall had links with Brittany and the Welsh (especially on the west cost) to this day share DNA links with people from Iberia.

Mercia controlled all England for over a 100 years until the Norman invasion.

Yes I know.

Luckygirl3

I hated history at school as it was all about killing basically.

I wanted to know what people ate, when toilets came in, how they made their money, what they wore, what they thought, how they treated illnesses, what music they played and on what instruments. OK, tell me which king/queen was in power and how that impinged on people's lives; tell me about political movements - but I wanted to know how people lived.

Not a very good school then, poor teaching to ignore the social values of Thomas Crapper, Victorian philanthropy to help improve the lives of the poorest. Obviously learnt more at my little village school.

Whitewavemark2

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Which is why Cornwall had links with Brittany and the Welsh (especially on the west cost) to this day share DNA links with people from Iberia.

Mercia controlled all England for over a 100 years until the Norman invasion.

I like the anthropological side of history and was recently lucky enough to attend a U3A course in early British history where we looked at the housing, diets, illnesses and living conditions of that time. unbelievably awful conditions caused by lice, poor diet, damp, cold and internal worms which most people had to endure...

Tintagel was significant because there has been archeological digs there and this evidence was found.

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

MaizieD

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

How dismissive! My alleged eloquence is irrelevant.

British kings and queens haven't been patrons of the arts and sciences in the way European dukes were for centuries. Their influence on on politics and other matters is now almost nil and has been heading that way for centuries.

Anybody care to say who the monarch was when slavery in the Caribbean was abolished, when the spinning jenny was invented or the Napoleonic Wars were being fought? (Without Googling)

LRavenscroft And I have a right to my perspective! Moreover, I have a right to express it.

I think it's interesting to investigate why I have that right, whereas people in other countries and at other times don't/didn't have that right.

MaizieD

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

I think that the church also played a huge part in the cultural system, but most of all was the way (pre-industrial) people were tied to the land, particularly the labouring class.

In fact I think I would go so far as to say that pre- Tudor, the church was pre-eminent.

growstuff

But Glorianny iron had been smelted for hundreds of years before that. The fuel used was important, which was why small-scale smelting, which used wood/charcoal, was replaced by coal. Transport links were important too. Originally waterways and canals were used, but these were gradually replaced by better roads.

There had been workers long before 1691 and they were part of a rigid class system. French and Belgian engineers immigrated to Kent and Sussex in the 16th century and brought new techniques with them. At the time, Britain was a net importer of iron. It wasn't until the 19th century when new techniques were introduced to satisfy demand from the railways that the industrial revolution really took off.

The 19th century was a time of political turmoil in Europe and many of the ideas were exported to Britain. The growth of towns and cities meant that ideas were more easily shared. Non-conformist religious ideas also influenced politics ... and so it goes on.

PS. I think I'll go back to turnips! Another "European" idea, which led to the demise of the three crop rotation system and keeping livestock over winter rather than slaughtering them.

Don't be too dismissive of other people's perspectives. We all have, do, and will bring to an historical discussion our own personal heteroglossia, life world experience, beliefs and culture. Each one is valid in its own way and each one contributes to the great soup we call life. You do not specifically have the right to tell people what is and what isn't. You have your own perspective be it from the angle of a Phd or an amateur historian. What you write is very interesting but please keep your narrative to facts and don't demolish other people's contributions.

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

When I was at (state) school doing O level History the lower streams did political history (kings and queens, etc.,) and the A stream did social and economic history.

All true, but its bits like the window pole one recalls...

..however, to get more serious, as an English student I'm more familiar with the (biased) story as told by Shakespeare in Henry Fifth in the St Crispins Day speech

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Crispin%27s_Day_Speech#:~:text=On%20the%20eve%20of%20the,theirs%20if%20they%20are%20victorious.

"But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

Wyllow3

I think I learned as much from my parents about social and economic history....about empires, and slavery, about civil rights movements, about apartheid and our part in that, and workers struggles...

Part of who they were. so doing social and economic history at school was built on this. but not sure if teacher was a leftie, but the syllabus of O level social and Economic History in the mid 1960's was pretty radical now I look back. But before then we'd done he changes of ownership and use of the land and the different ways the UK was made by the different invaders and religious forces.

Had a wonderful teacher. I can picture him now enacting the battle of Agincourt. He grabbed the long window opener to become a soldier in the trenches repelling the French forces and we were entranced.

Agincourt is an example of a battle which achieved nothing because the English lost the 100 Years War and any claim to French lands. It cost an eye-watering amount of money, caused the death of many of the army from malnutrition and Henry V executed hundreds of French prisoners, contrary to chivalric code.

People have heard of it because it was an English victory and it was well-documented at the time. It's famous for the use of the longbow. Nevertheless, from an historic point of view, it really isn't that significant.

Glorianny

growstuff

I didn't claim it was "small stuff" Glorianny. What influence did the works have in a historical context? Did it influence others? Presumably it had an effect on the transport links in the area and the economy generally. How long-lasting was the effect?

It was the place in the NE where the Chartist movement had its biggest base. But after the 1830s the site fell into disuse as iron and steel production moved. The company changed hands a good few times and eventually only small organisations were left. The site is now largely rural with some very nice walks and where the Red kite is found.
They do credit Crowley with the technology and production ways he developed being the basis of steel production.
It is said to be the first example of working class employees, as distinct from serfs.

Glorianny a huge mosaic mural depicting a march of Chartists was demolished by a Welsh Council in an act of what can only be called vandalism not many years ago.

Deedaa

I think my history teacher was fairly left wing as she concentrated on social history and the lives of the workers. We did a lot about the Poor Laws, The Chartists, The Peterloo Massacre, all seen from the point of view of the workers (I'm sure my parents would have been horrified if they'd realised) We seem to have covered a fair bit about the monarchy, I can still work back to at least Edward IV without leaving anyone out. I'm a lot hazier when it comes to Prime Ministers.

We learnt about all those things too, Deedaa, including endless Acts which we had to know by heart for exams, Acts which affected ordinary people, especially the poorest.

The thing about monarchs is that we can put all these events into timescales which does make it all easier to learn.
And, of course, monarchs had more power centuries ago, they declared wars, led their troops into battle but were far less knowledgeable about how the ordinary people, the peasants, were affected by their decisions.

I thought everyone of my age learnt all this in school history lessons.

MaizieD

growstuff

Yes, I think everybody learnt about the three field system Monica. Did you know that turnips were a big influence in its replacement? The humble turnip is quite fascinating!

At the risk of turning this into a discussion of land use and enclosures I'd suggest that the replacement of open fields caused by those turnips is a bit of a generalisation. In the area where I live the 'open fields' were long gone by the time of the local Enclosure Awards. Evidence from the 17th century onwards (and probably earlier but I haven't seen any) shows the land already parceled into 'farms' by way of 'closes' and by the late 18th century all that was left unenclosed was moorland with commoners rights attached. That was mopped up in the space of a couple of decades from the 1760s on.

I'm sure that turnips played their part somewhere, though. The Durham Ox was rather a well known beast...

Turnips were part of the Norfolk four year system. My point is that turnips were more important in the development of farming over the years than any king or queen.

BTW the four year system, which involved livestock all year round, was used an excuse/reason for enclosure because it was claimed livestock would graze on the turnips if the fields were open.

M0nica

*growstuff*, precisely. To say that history, as taught in schools, was all battles and monarchs, is wrong. It covered a far wider range of topics than the OP realised or mentioned.

All the tipics mentioned by Deedaa were on the A level syllabus, and, yes, we too had a socialist teacher, one of the nuns in the order that ran the school. Our other History teacher, also a nun, but from a different order discussed with us the importance of mistresses in the behaviour of their lovers, with special reference to a much earlier Duke of York whose mistress had a good businesses in selling commissions to people who bribed her to get her lover to grant them, and that was just the start.

I don't think anybody has claimed that MOnica. However, there are plenty of people who think that's what history is all about. Some use history as a way of reinforcing some kind of patriotism. There's an article in the Telegraph (today?) by Lord Frost who tries to do exactly that.

This is all much more interesting than kings/queens, the lives of famous people and battles.

I think I learned as much from my parents about social and economic history....about empires, and slavery, about civil rights movements, about apartheid and our part in that, and workers struggles...

Part of who they were. so doing social and economic history at school was built on this. but not sure if teacher was a leftie, but the syllabus of O level social and Economic History in the mid 1960's was pretty radical now I look back. But before then we'd done he changes of ownership and use of the land and the different ways the UK was made by the different invaders and religious forces.

Had a wonderful teacher. I can picture him now enacting the battle of Agincourt. He grabbed the long window opener to become a soldier in the trenches repelling the French forces and we were entranced.

growstuff

I didn't claim it was "small stuff" Glorianny. What influence did the works have in a historical context? Did it influence others? Presumably it had an effect on the transport links in the area and the economy generally. How long-lasting was the effect?

It was the place in the NE where the Chartist movement had its biggest base. But after the 1830s the site fell into disuse as iron and steel production moved. The company changed hands a good few times and eventually only small organisations were left. The site is now largely rural with some very nice walks and where the Red kite is found.
They do credit Crowley with the technology and production ways he developed being the basis of steel production.
It is said to be the first example of working class employees, as distinct from serfs.

growstuff, precisely. To say that history, as taught in schools, was all battles and monarchs, is wrong. It covered a far wider range of topics than the OP realised or mentioned.

All the tipics mentioned by Deedaa were on the A level syllabus, and, yes, we too had a socialist teacher, one of the nuns in the order that ran the school. Our other History teacher, also a nun, but from a different order discussed with us the importance of mistresses in the behaviour of their lovers, with special reference to a much earlier Duke of York whose mistress had a good businesses in selling commissions to people who bribed her to get her lover to grant them, and that was just the start.

growstuff

Yes, I think everybody learnt about the three field system Monica. Did you know that turnips were a big influence in its replacement? The humble turnip is quite fascinating!

At the risk of turning this into a discussion of land use and enclosures I'd suggest that the replacement of open fields caused by those turnips is a bit of a generalisation. In the area where I live the 'open fields' were long gone by the time of the local Enclosure Awards. Evidence from the 17th century onwards (and probably earlier but I haven't seen any) shows the land already parceled into 'farms' by way of 'closes' and by the late 18th century all that was left unenclosed was moorland with commoners rights attached. That was mopped up in the space of a couple of decades from the 1760s on.

I'm sure that turnips played their part somewhere, though. The Durham Ox was rather a well known beast...