03/31/11

The Saxon Invasions

It is a matter of record that the ‘Saxons’ invaded England in the last years of the Roman occupation, and then in full force after the Romans left England in 410 AD. They marched away, seemingly without a backward glance, leaving the Britons–after 400 years of occupation–to fend for themselves.

From Gildas:

From Britain

http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/DECBps.html

These invaders, as the map to right shows, were not in fact all ‘Saxon’, but a combination of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks, and Frisians, each hailing from a different region of the western coast of Europe.

The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were Germanic peoples. From Wikipedia: They were “originally a small tribe living on the North Sea between the Elbe and Eider Rivers in the present Holstein. Their name, derived from their weapon called Seax, a knife, is first mentioned by the Roman author Ptolemy (about 130).

In 3rd and 4th century Germany, great tribal confederations of the Alamanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, Franks, Frisians, and Saxons arose. These took the place of the numerous petty tribes with their popular tribal form of government. With the exceptions of the Saxons all these confederations were ruled by kings; the Saxons were divided into a number of independent bodies under different chiefs, and in time of war these chieftains drew lots. This leader the other chiefs followed until the war ended.

In the third and fourth centuries the Saxons fought their way victoriously towards the west, and their name was given to the great tribal confederation that stretched towards the west exactly to the former boundary of the Roman Empire, consequently almost to the Rhine. Only a small strip of land on the right bank of the Rhine remained to the Frankish tribe. Towards the south the Saxons pushed as far as the Harz Mountains and the Eichsfeld, and in the succeeding centuries absorbed the greater part of Thuringia. In the east their power extended at first as far as the Elbe and Saale Rivers; in the later centuries it certainly extended much farther. All the coast of the German Ocean belonged to the Saxons except that west of the Weser, which the Frisians retained.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Saxony

From then on, there are differing views about how rampant the Saxon spread was. Certainly, it happened (language alone tells us that), but the exact timeline for the spread is not clear. The Battle of Mt. Badon (whether or not fought by Arthur) is said to have occurred around 500 AD, which held back the Saxon tide for a generation.

After that, however, it was unstoppable.

______________

I’d also like to do a brief plug for my friend, Keith Blackmore, on whose blog I posted the other day. He’s got a new heroic fantasy ebook The Troll Hunter:

A warrior with a secret.
A band of cutthroats.
And a monster of legend.

Battle rusty from the war infirmaries, a company of Sujins, the heavy infantry of Sunja, march north. They guard a mysterious koch destined for another land. Whipped by the murderous Rusk the Two Knife and led by the enigmatic Bloor, the only cavalier to survive the Field of Skulls, they will march into the unknown, and arrive at the teeth of hell.
And only one man will possess the skills to bring the survivors back.
A tale of heroic fantasy. Some graphic violence and language.

Sounds Saxon-like to me, huh

http://www.amazon.com/The-Troll-Hunter-ebook/dp/B0045JLQCS

03/29/11

Welsh Independence (part . . . 227?)

A reader of this blog, Joe, asked me a question the other day. He said: “I was recently listening to the audio version of “The Economist” and heard an article about the Welsh vote on devolution. One of the article’s lead sentences was (I’m paraphrasing) : “On a cold day in Cardiff, it’s hard to catch any talk of devolution, and even harder to find anyone who cares much about it”.

Do you agree with this assessment? And if so, do you think there’s a historical or cultural aspect to why some people in Wales feel they way they do? (I’m curious because, if I lived in Wales, I think I would be very likely to have a strong opinion on the matter.)

__________

I think that the perspective on Welsh devolution varies according to where an individual lives (including the US:). As you may have noted from my blog, southern Wales was ‘englishized’ from a very early period–very close to the conquest of 1066. Northwestern Wales, however, was conquered in 1282 and forcibly subdued. The English government moved English people into Wales in an attempt to dilute nationalist feeling–they had the most success in the south of Wales and the least in the north.

Thus, in Cardiff, the most anglicized city in Wales, I do believe (at times) you’d be hard pressed to find many votes for devolution. In Bangor, the story might be very different. And was, if the vote was any indication: “The biggest Yes vote came in the counties of Neath Port Talbot, Carmarthenshire, Gwynedd and Rhondda Cynon Taf where over 70% voted for greater devolved powers.” http://www.thefreshoutlook.com/index.php?action=newspaper&subaction=article&toDo=show&postID=4548

Welsh language surveys indicate that a higher percentage of Welsh speakers occurs in the north: “According to the 2001 census, 69% of Gwynedd residents are Welsh speakers. The number of Welsh speakers in areas across Gwynedd varies greatly, with the greatest percentage of Welsh speakers in the Caernarfon and Penygroes areas where the percentage is about 88%. The percentage decreases in the Bangor and coastal areas, especially along the Meirionnydd coastline, with the percentage of Welsh speakers in Tywyn as low as 40.8%.”

http://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/gwy_doc.asp?cat=5672&doc=19969&Language=1

The Welsh Language – 2001
	Poopulation aged 3 and over	Understands spoken Welsh		Speaks Welsh		Reads Welsh		Writes Welsh		Either speaks, reads or writes Welsh
		Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Gwynedd	112,800	77,966	69.1	77,846	69.0	72,276	64.1	69,264	61.4	79,184	70.2
Wales	2,805,701	661,526	23.6	582,368	20.8	567,152	20.2	495,519	17.7	659,301	23.5

http://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/gwy_doc.asp?docid=20008&catid=5698

Surveys in the past had showed that 20-35% of the present-day population of Wales was in favor of increased independence.

However . . .

http://tinyurl.com/4n8feza

As it turns out, devolution (giving Wales the same status as Scotland and Northern Ireland) passed with 63% of the vote, a huge increase from 15 years ago.

03/27/11

Women In Ancient Rome–Guest Post by Suzanne Tyrpak

Today I have a guest post by author, Suzanne Tyrpak. Welcome, Suzanne!

________________

About seven years ago (before my divorce, when I had some expendable income) I traveled to Rome with a group of writers. I fell in love with Italy, Rome in particular. A travel book I read contained a short blurb about vestal virgins; it mentioned they were sworn to thirty years of chastity and, if that vow were broken, they would be entombed alive. That got me going! Plus, on a tour of the Coliseum, a guide pointed out the seats designated to the vestal virgins—the six priestess of Vesta were educated, and therefore powerful, at a time when most women weren’t even taught to read.

Vestals were in charge of legal documents. They not only wrote these documents, in triplicate, but kept them secure within the House of the Vestals. The vestals were closely connected with the Collegiate of Pontiffs, the priests of Rome. Consequently, the vestals were often included in gatherings of state.

But there realm extended well beyond the political arena. As priestesses of Vesta, they performed religious rituals, and their prayers were believed to hold great power. Their purity of spirit and body had mystical significance, and vestals were charged with tending the sacred fire representing the heart of Rome. If the fire died, Rome risked destruction and the wrath of the gods. Once a year, the flame was ritually extinguished, then reignited using a crystal and the rays of the sun.

Vestals were wealthy, paid a stipend, and, unlike other Roman women, they could own property.

While the upper classes of Rome lived a life of decadence, Roman matrons of good family were supposed to be reclusive. Their lives centered around their households. Of course, there were exceptions—but generally, wealthy men enjoyed much more freedom than wealthy women. These households were dependent upon slaves, many of them foreigners. Sometimes, but not often, a slave might be freed, otherwise a slave’s circumstance was completely dependent on the good (or bad) will of her masters.

The plebs, commoners, lived hard lives. Fire ran rampant through overcrowded apartments. While wealthy Romans enjoyed steam heat and running water (granted, it ran through poisonous lead pipes, which led to infertility and madness), the poor had to haul their water, often up five flights of stairs. Many women worked outside of their homes, so, to some degree, they might have more freedom than a wealthier woman, who might be cloistered within her home.

Writing Vestal Virgin required a lot of research. I traveled to Rome twice, and on my second trip I hired a scholar who specialized in the year I’m writing about, A.D. 63-64, to give me a tour of the Forum. One of the most useful books I found was History of the Vestal Virgins of Rome, published in 1934 by T. Cato Worsfold. I also wrote to Colleen McCullough, and she was kind enough to write back. She gave me the name of an out-of-print book that I’ve used a lot, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, by H.H. Scullard. I have shelves of books about Roman history and Paul of Tarsus—hardly anything is written about vestal virgins—but that gives me quite a bit of leeway. After all, I’m writing fiction.

Vestel Virgin, is available at Amazon.com

Vestal Virgin–suspense in ancient Rome

Elissa Rubria Honoria is a Vestal Virgin–priestess of the sacred flame, a visionary, and one of the most powerful women in Rome. Vestals are sacrosanct, sworn to chastity on penalty of death, but the emperor, Nero, holds himself above the law. He pursues Elissa, engaging her in a deadly game of wits and sexuality. Or is Elissa really the pursuer? She stumbles on dark secrets. No longer trusting Roman gods, she follows a new god, Jesus of Nazareth, jeopardizing her life and the future of The Roman Empire.

03/20/11

Gruffydd ap Cynan, King of Gwynedd

One of the greatest kings of Gwynedd was Owain Gwynedd, but his father Gruffydd ap Cynan can equally lay stake to such a claim. His rule was certainly eventful.

Gruffydd ruled in Wales on and off since he was a young man, in between his flights to Ireland when the English—or other Welsh barons—ousted him from Gwynedd. Gruffydd’s grandfather had been the King of Gwynedd once upon a time, and Gruffydd had claimed the throne as its lawful heir.

But staking his claim hadn’t been easy. That first time, Gruffydd landed on Anglesey with an Irish and Danish, not Welsh, force. After he defeated Trahaearn, the man who’d usurped his throne, Gruffydd led his army eastwards to reclaim territories the Normans had taken over during the unrest. Despite the prior assistance given to him by the Norman, Robert of Rhuddlan, Gruffydd attacked and destroyed Rhuddlan castle.

Unfortunately for Gruffydd’s tenure on the throne, tensions between Gruffydd’s Danish-Irish bodyguard and the local Welsh led to a rebellion not long afterwards in Ll?n. Trahaearn, the previously ousted King of Gwynedd, took the opportunity to counter attack—with a helpful Norman force—defeating Gruffydd at the battle of Bron yr Erw.

Not giving up, six years later in 1081, Gruffydd allied himself with Rhys ap Tudur, Anarawd’s grandfather, and tried again. This time with a combined Dane, Irish, and Welsh force, he and Rhys marched north from Deheubarth to seek Trahaearn and his allies from Powys. The armies of the two confederacies met, Gruffydd and Rhys emerged victorious, and Trahaearn and his allied kings were killed. Gruffydd was thus able to seize power in Gwynedd for the second time.

But then the Normans counter-attacked, lured Gruffydd into a meeting near Corwen, and captured him. They imprisoned him for sixteen years. He finally escaped in 1197 and led a third invasion from Ireland. After some ups and downs, and with the timely intervention of King Magnus of Norway, Gruffydd stumbled to victory, came to terms with the Norman Earl of Chester, and began to consolidate his power. By the time his three sons were of age, he’d been King of Gwynedd for twenty years and had negotiated a peace with King Henry of England, who’d tried twice to conquer Gwynedd and failed.

This was the kingdom Owain Gwynedd inherited and the one he strived to defend and expand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruffydd_ap_Cynan http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/gruffcgd.html

03/18/11

Bonus post #3: Interview at Hylander Diner

Interviewing over at http://www.marypathyland.com/thehylander/2011/03/18/coffee-break-sarah-woodbury/ today about Footsteps in Time! Have a look

03/17/11

Scotland and Its War for Existence

Today I have a guest post on a parallel subject to my interest in Wales: JR Tomlin on the Scottish quest for independence. Her book, Freedom’s Sword, is available from Amazon or Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/46734. Welcome!

____________________

Because I write about Scotland, I felt it would be a good idea to briefly discuss Scotland’s history, and in particular, its invasion by England, as well as the eventual loss of its independence. I won’t do so with an emphasis on academics. For that, I suggest reading the work of G. W. S. Barrow, Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh and probably the pre-eminent medievalist of the last century. In particular, I recommend reading both his Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland and his Kingship and Unity: Scotland, 1000–1306, that is if you have a deep interest in the subject.

Otherwise, just read my rather lighter, if somewhat educated, ramblings on the topic.

Most people begin their interest in the topic with what is generally referred to as the Scottish War of Independence. More properly, it is the First Scottish War of Independence.

Many people have the impression from Mel Gibson’s un-researched and historically inaccurate movie, Braveheart, that Scotland had long been conquered by England. This is not true. In fact, it is an outright lie–as is most of “that movie”, except for the fact that William Wallace was brutally and unjustly executed in 1305.

So what did happen?

In the year 1286, Scotland had been at peace since defeating a Norwegian incursion at the Battle of Largs twenty-five years earlier. This occurred under Scotland’s strong and able King Alexander III. However, King Alexander’s untimely death from a fall while riding up a steep cliff on his way to visit his bride in 1286 left only his 4-year-old granddaughter, Margaret, as his heir.

Margaret was the daughter of the King Alexander’s daughter and King Eric II of Norway and is generally referred to as the Maid of Norway. Scotland would be ruled by Guardians of the Realm during her minority. Disastrously, the Maid of Norway died on her way to her kingdom in 1290.

There was now no clear heir to the throne of Scotland. However, there were two men with very strong claims through the female line. They were Robert the Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale, grandfather of the future King Robert the Bruce, and John Balliol, Lord of Galloway. Both families were powerful, noble and had a strong following. Scotland was on the brink of a civil war.

In order to prevent civil war, the Guardians of the Realm made a mistake. It was a mistake that would lead to untold suffering and bloodshed.

They asked Edward I of England, as ruler of a supposedly friendly realm, to arbitrate between the contenders. They believed his oath not to interfere in the affairs of Scotland after the arbitration. They thought this would avoid a war. Instead, this dreadful mistake cost decades of years of warfare. [Sarah's note . . . after what happened in Wales, you'd think they would have known better!]

After several years of dispute, Edward I decided in the favor of John Balliol. Later Scots were convinced he did so because he believed that Balliol would be the easier to manipulate. There is no doubt he was the less capable of the two men.

There is also no doubt that once Balliol was crowned, Edward I broke every oath he had made to the Scots. He began to interfere in the affairs of Scotland, even demanding that the King of the Scots come to England to appear before an English court and demanding that major castles bordering England be given over to him, thus leaving Scotland vulnerable to invasion.

Balliol at first caved in to the English king; however, at the insistence of the Scottish nobility, he eventually refused to accede to King Edward’s demands for power over Scotland. They insisted that King John Balliol summon all able-bodied Scotsmen to arms. An English army sat on their border.

Edward I had spent his life at war, especially the terrible war of conquest of Wales and long wars in France. He was a powerful and skilled warrior-king. Now he thought to conquer Scotland.

Thus, in 1296, began a bloody war in which Scotland would lose her independence only to regain it under her own warrior-king, Robert the Bruce.

03/13/11

Medieval Forensics

People murdered each other in the Middle Ages. How did a medieval detective go about finding the murderer? Many authors have written medieval murder mysteries and if the Brother Cadfael mysteries are anything to go by, medieval forensics were a primitive, but burgeoning science.

Some things that a medieval detective could determine:

Time of death: “Rigor mortis—literally, “death stiffness,” happens very methodically—from the face downward about 2 hours after death. It takes another 8-12 hours for the body to become completely stiff and fixed into position. Fixed for another 18 hours is called the Rigid State. Then it reverses in the same order it appeared for another 12 hours—(Flaccid state). What is rigor? When the blood stops flowing from the heart, the natural bacteria in the body can no longer be fought off and they go to town, creating chemical reactions that prevent the muscles from contracting, which makes the body stiff. Heat quickens the process and cold slows it.

The Greeks and Egyptians had their own system: Warm and not stiff: Not dead more than a couple hours. Warm and stiff: Dead between a couple hours and a half day. Cold and stiff: Dead between a half day and two days. Cold and not stiff: Dead more than two days.

Livor mortis or lividity or post mortem hypostasis (literally “after death state”) is the state of being blue, or colored blue. What is this? Blood stops flowing and pools in the vessels in the lowest point due to gravity. Wherever the body is in contact with, say, a floor, the skin becomes pale ringed by lividity. It shows up 30 minutes to a couple of hours and stays fixed after 8 hours. The detective would know if a body had been moved if lividity had set in on the wrong part of the body.” http://workingstiffs.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-medieval-forensics-part-two.html

Poisons: Thanks to Brother Cadfael, we have many, many medieval poisons, most of which leave some kind of trace. The four most common were Belladonna, Hemlock, Monkshood/Wolfbane, and Foxglove. I discuss their attributes here: http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/?p=1241 Poison was generally considered a ‘woman’s’ weapon, as compared to brute force or bludgeoning anyway which scales 80-20 men to women instead of poison’s 50-50. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125502336

Blood spatter: Certain aspect of medieval forensics involve close observation of the remains. Did the dead man die where he lay? Which way did the blood flow? Was he stabbed in the heart, meaning he knew his victim, or was he killed from behind with a garrote or a blade?

More commonly even then now (and now it is very common), deaths are caused by people who know the victim. In small communities in the Middle Ages, individuals close to the dead person would come under immediate suspicion, and unless the person was killed by an arrow, a murderer would have had to have close contact with the victim in order to kill him.

This article suggests that the murder rate in Europe (Germany in this case) was very high in the Middle Ages, 20-100 per 100,000 as opposed to 1 in a 100,000 now: http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2007/04/german_murder_r.html

“The murder rate was far higher in those days than it is today. It’s hard to know the true homicide rate because reporting wasn’t as accurate in those days and crime-solving was basic and often unreliable. But we do know that violent crime was a far bigger problem in Medieval times than it is now.

For example, the number of murders per 100,000 people in 1995 to 1997 in London was 2.1. But according to one historian, it would have been about 12 murders per 100,000 people in Fourteenth Century England. [The National Archives]“ http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/Cambridgeshire/1534.html

03/12/11

Bonus post #2! Interview with me at Cozy Corner Reading Room

Interview with me today over at The Cozy Corner Reading Room! Check it out http://thecozycornerreadingroom.blogspot.com/p/chair-to-chair-author-interviews.html

03/11/11

Bonus Post! Interview with me at Five Question Friday

Interviewing over at Five Question Friday today here: http://www.aaronpolson.net/ Go check it out!

03/8/11

Ebook Sale at Smashwords!

Between now and March 12th, all my books are discounted at Smashwords!

Footsteps in Time is free . . . http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38722

Prince of Time is 25% off (coupon code RAE25 at checkout) . . . http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38723

The Last Pendragon is 25% off (coupon code RAE25 at checkout) . . . http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/25340

Sarah Woodbury

Writing Historical Fiction and Fantasy

Monthly Archives: March 2011