Supports notion that things rather more complicated than Angles, Saxons+Jutes in post-Roman period... Franks in South, Suevi in East Anglia>
-
-
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> Elvecones possibly at Elm, and Bede of course mentions Huns in 'Anglo-Saxon England' in Bk 5! Latter esp interesting as Priscus in 5thC >
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> says Attila claimed domain over islands in the Ocean ;) Taifali add to this sense of a more complicated post-Roman situation, esp as >
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> often described as an "Asiatic", nomadic people....
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
Have to say, do find Bede's claim that the Huns were involved especially intriguing...!
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
Re: the Huns as ancestors of the 8thC Anglo-Saxons, has been argued that Bede clearly intended it read this way and he lists the Huns >
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> in his second list (HE V.9) immediately before the Saxons, and in this context the Priscus comment that Attila ruled to the islands in >
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> the ocean is most intriguing... On the other hand, has been suggested that perhaps Bede using Huns as general shorthand for non-Germanic,>
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> "Asiatic" peoples who played a part in the adventus? If so, has been suggested Alans may be meant, altho' Taifali is another option too!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
@caitlinrgreen Isn't Attila/Etzel as an ancestor/hero popular across Germanic world? cf Caesar and Woden?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@davidgmwilson Yes, but feel fairly sure this isn't what Bede, a very careful historian, is referring to in this passage!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.