steel Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 I found your replies on this topic quite interesting, Goonerman, and I wouldn't really take serious issue with most of it, but would be interested to know what evidence you have to suppose that the kingdom of Strathclyde extended south of the Ribble. Also to say that "Warrington was never part of England until William the Conqueror" is somewhat contentious. As with everything I suppose it all depends on what you mean by England. However, linguistic and other evidence that the area between Ribble and Mersey for a long period formed part of the English kingdom of Mercia is very strong. It also seems fairly certain that the English kingdom of Northumbria held sway here for a time. I also refer you to Domesday when we find that before William, King Edward held Warrington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Thought the Mersey was the historic boundary between early Roman occupation and the Brigates, between Mercia and Northumbria, and later between Saxon and Danish control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Yes, observer, that's probably right. It's thought the Brigantes controlled north of the Mersey before the Romans pushed further north. I'm sure you're also right that at some point the Northumbrians took control of the lands between the Ribble and Mersey from Mercia, once Mercian power started to wane. Then, moving on a bit in the tenth century the Mersey did for a relatively short time become the boundary between Danish and "English" controlled territory. That's not to say that it was never part of "England" till William the Conqueror, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 There were several Romano-British Kingdoms prior to the Saxon arrival, Strathclyde, Goddodin etc; which were gradually displaced by the saxon expansion and their Kingdoms of Kent, Essex, Sussex, Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. Think it took them a few centuries to take over, but I still find it difficult to understand the demise of the Romano- Brits, at this time of Arthur and his round table (assuming any basis for the legend). There was one plausible explanation: that the Brits still retained contact by sea trade, with Byzantium, from whence they contracted plague, which severly depleted their population, and thus their military capacity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 There was a bad outbreak of plague during the 6th century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.