Many years ago I stumbled across an article about an alternate theory about how the Anglo-Saxons came to Britain. The gist of it was that when studying the linguistics of British place names, there is a peculiar lack of Celtic-origin names in Eastern Britain and an overabundance of the same in Western Britain. The author derived from that the hypothesis that Britain was settled by Germanic and Celtic tribes from the same time as the Germanic settlement of mainland Europe, in roughly the same distribution as was found by William I.

The author further calculated that an invasion force as proclaimed by the more traditional theory was not feasible during the 4th-6th century CE, so what the chronicles described as an invasion was more likely an usurpation of power by resident Germanics / mercenaries. Lastly the author claimed that our traditional version of the Anglo-Saxon invasion is mostly derived from a single source, a Celtic priest based in Western Britain, who may have coloured his chronicles under the impression of a defeat in a local border war against his Germanic-British neighbours.

Unfortunately I cannot find the article anymore, it was rather elaborate with maps and lots of linguistic examples, I specifically remember the placename suffix "-ter" to be derived from "tree", which is an ancient Germanic word.

So, is there actually any serious debate about this type of theory? What is the accepted proof for a large-scale invasion of a densely populated country by bands of warriors from a sparsely populated region?

Is this just a money-making scheme? Or was there ever a practical purpose for throwing coinage in wells? Has it always been coins people toss in or did they previously use rocks/sticks/etc.?

Why did the us revolt against Britain?

I've always read that it was about "taxation without representation", but the more research I'm doing it seems like people in Britain were taxed as well (like for tea). Weren't americans given a lot of protection from the red coats?

Hi all,

Recently I have been researching the origins of Christianity and discovered that there some historians doubt that Jesus actually existed.

Richard Carrier argues that Jesus was in the old testament and that a number of stories are revelations only. He also highlights the importance of the acesnsion of Isaiah as inspiration for the Bible. However, I have seen varying dates to when this was written and the gospels as well for that matter. Is this age of these texts so ambiguous due to influence from the church or is this due to general disagreement?

Thanks.

I know very little about the roles of ancient Egyptian deities, the influence of their numerous cults, or how much they varied over the enormous timespan of "Ancient Egypt." In fact I know very little about Neith at all and really have no clue about how relevant she was to Ancient Egyptian religion, and during which periods.

But it did strike me that she seems to have an exceptionally busy cabinet portfolio, so to speak, which made me curious about how common it was for Egyptian deities and their cults to have influence over such a wide range of topics.

Moreover, is thinking of these deities as having strictly defined roles, with each being responsible for certain aspects of life and death, actually a particularly useful framework? I could imagine that in reality there would be enormous overlap between the roles of various cults and deities depending on who, where, and when you were in Ancient Egypt.

So lately I've been educating myself in history on my free time, and I went through some material that sparked thoughts in me that I never had before. Sorry if those things are basic and well-known by this community, but it's a whole new world to me.

So I realized that people across different cultures didn't necessary always identified as said cultures, and that nationalism (as a crystallized form of that self-identification) is a relatively fresh (even if less relevant in 2020) historical concept. And that medieval wars that were fought primarily by hastily conscripted serf levees were not necessarily a Nation vs Nation conflicts, but a Lord vs Lord instead.

So, my question is - at what point in time common folk in European towns and villages realized that they are not just pity serfs from village X which belongs to lord Y, but are in fact a part of much bigger nations?

When England fought France in 100YW, did English levee troops antagonize French people in the same way soldiers antagonized their enemies in 19th-20th century nationalistic wars? Or there was some sort of universal peasant\serf mutual understanding that came before national identity?

If latter is the case and nationality was not important to medieval folk, isn't it a significant "degradation" when compared to ancient world? When free Romans, even not nobles, clearly identified themselves as Roman citizen?

I'd really like to hear someone explain to me when the idea of being a part of a national state visited our minds for the first time, and how it changed through time.

Thanks for your attention, and excuse me for clunky writing - English is not my native language.

I know ale and wine was safer to drink than water but did it have any effects on the fetus as we now know drinking alcohol during pregnancy can have ill effects on the fetus.

Specific to the US in examples but it a universal question: How would a regime “erase history”

So if you’re at all plugged into the news you’ll recognize this phrase. People will say your “erasing history” by taking down a confederate statue or removing someone’s name from a building. Obviously this isn’t erasing squat but it got me thinking about actual attempts to erase the history of a people by a dominating force, be they a ruling class or a invader.

All I could think of was genocides or ancient empires using forced integration/slavery and razing cities (which I think we could use as a pretty good stand in for genocide).

I do know of a Egyptian attempt to erase a Pharaoh from their records ... but I know about that so I guess it didn’t really work. Native American history was deeply impacted by the genocide they suffered in because much of their history was oral. So in this way it truly does “erase history” to exterminate a village. The knowledge quite literally dies with them.

Wondering if any other history junkies have an opinion.

I know the answer is essentially "not very", but would it be a truly random assortment of weapons? How common would shields be? It seems like the shield wall was a fairly common strategy and that would require a significant chunk to actually have shields, but who's supplying them?

What was the reason for them not targeting the capital of Japan? If they took out Tokyo, Japan would have been crippled and more likely to surrender after the first one was dropped.

So what was the reason for the US Army to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Tokyo?

I'm reading Thomas Asbridge's "The Crusades" and in it there is a passage about Almaric, the king of Jerusalem in the mid 1100s having to renounce his marriage with his wife before he could assume the crown for probably political reasons. This stuck out at me because it has always been my understanding that the church didn't allow divorce. Isn't that what led to the formation of the church of England? Is this because at the time the church was less centralized with local clergy making these decisions, or was it that divorce wasn't seen as a theological problem at the time necessarily?

Thank you in advance!

Seeing as what I 'know' is limited to state propaganda

There was a question asked about Italian POWs a few years back, but it only pertained to those POWs captured by the German armed forces after the Armistice of Cassabile. What happened to those that had already been captured by Allied forces in the years leading up to the Armistice?

I recently noticed that people don't have body hair in medieval and renaissance pieces of art (painting, sculpture, engraving, drawing...) . Was there a taboo about body hair at the time as there is today? Was it too hard to draw?

I find it hard to believe some artists painted very detailed scenes but omitted an obvious part of human anatomy. Look at Michelangelo's paintings, or type "nude renaissance painting" in Google to see what I mean. None of them have body hair. Why is that?

From what I can see of the four primary gospels, only the Gospel of John written around the turn of the 2nd century actually mentions using a nail during the crucifixion whereas the other earlier gospels do not.

What is the likelihood that the use of a nail in the Gospel of John could have been influenced by the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. or the work done on it by the historian Josephus whom mentions that the Romans mostly nailed Jews to crosses during it?

Essentially what is the likelihood of the historical Jesus being nailed to the cross against the seemingly more common tying and did Josephus influence later accounts?

Turkey started its modernization efforts as a state in the 1920s. But despite the headstart and proximity to the Western world why Turkey didn't emerge as a Japan, South Korea, Taiwan?

I know it's a against Rule 3 so maybe I get removed I just wanted to ask what all the things are a Historian is doing because I was thinking about studying History and I realized I don't even know what you are doing.

So are you making up Theories about where ancient Artifacts could be and is everyone of you participating in Archeological Excavations?

Are there any other variations in Historian Jobs than making up Theories of how life was and where Artifacts are buried and being History Teacher?

And by whom/how your work gets funded? Are there any private companies funding you or just university's and Museums?

Would interest me especially because I am thinking about getting a profession as a Historian or something similar I hope I don't get removed for violating Rule 3.

I think the question is pretty self-explanatory. In many ways medieval medicine just seems crazy with nearly everything they are doing being either useless or even harmful. But I am sure there must be a few things they were good at? (Obliviously not in comparison to modern medicine) Maybe even more than I would think?