| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | My current position on Welsh history is
Year Dot to 400 AD Unknown |
What about the bit where there was a Welsh Roman Emperor?
Magnus Maximus.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
When I say 'my position' I mean what I accept, not whether there actually is. There is plenty of 'Welsh history' in, say, Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain.
PS Talking of which, Monmouth was flooded yesterday leading me to discover there actually is a River Mon. Actually 'Monnow' (Welsh: Afon Mynwy).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Mick Harper wrote: | My current position on Welsh history is
Year Dot to 400 AD Unknown |
What about the bit where there was a Welsh Roman Emperor?
Magnus Maximus. |
The Magnus legend is based on that of an Emperor of Rome (Magnus) dreaming of a beautiful maiden in a far-off land. He sends his men across the world to find her, they eventually locate her in a castle at Segontium in Wales, the daughter of a chieftain named Eudaf Hen (Octavian)..... Her name is Helen (Elen)
They married and the Emperor as a wedding gift built roads across Britain. Elen's causeway, Sarn Helen, are examples and of course multiple holy wells.
"Welsh King" lineages got traced back to this unlikely Roman - Welsh union.
Functionally she serves as the Helen of Constantinople type figure.
Or, as Wiki says, helpfully putting Wiley right.
| Elen was mother of five, including a boy named Custennin or Cystennin (Constantine). She lived about sixty years later than Helena of Constantinople, the mother of Constantine the Great, with whom she has often been confused. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin
In: Virginia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | "The field has been plowed hundreds of times, so it's incredible that neither coin has a mark on it from farm machinery," Hyde told Newsweek. |
It does seem incredible. A double-find (world record?) of individual coins.
|
Perhaps rare, but not unknown. A neighbouring farm (plowed hundred of times) just turned up a complete Bronze Age axe head. Even older and larger than a few coins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| a complete Bronze Age axe head |
This wouldn't count as an example. The chances of fakery are too great. Though having 'a neighbour' involved does mean you get a chance to join in the investigation. Unless you are involved etc etc.
In fact, now I come to think of it, i.e. remember visiting it, you may well live in an entire Potemkin village. You can generally identify these because the local B & B will be run by a mysterious couple with 'antiquarian interests'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Our currency was Roman in name.
Roman Libra = Pound (pound in weight lb.... ie libra)
Roman Solidus = Shilling (slice of a pound)
Roman Denarius= Pence. (Den=Pen)
The L morphed into the £ sign.......
You can forget the idea, the idea of early anglo saxon coinage. William hit on the neat idea of getting the natives, of paying Pope Alexander with St Peter Pence, in exchange for his go ahead to crusade ........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Maybe you can give us an idea of British coinage units through the ages. Presumably there were no British units in Roman times. Though I don't see why there should not be -- we used rupees in the British raj. The vast majority of transactions would be native-on-native.
Then Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman (either allegedly or actually). When was the pounds/ shilling/ pence system officially adopted? And what, when (and why) was the guinea? Not to mention the half-crown.
I know when our present system of pounds and pence came into being. 1971.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | -- we used rupees in the British raj. The vast majority of transactions would be native-on-native.. |
Its very difficult to impose a foreign currency.
Rupees were established before the East India Company, arrived, the Britsih carried on trading with what was a pre-established silver coinage. The Company got trade concessions later by agreeing to mint coin themselves' but in the name of Mughal emperors.
I think something similar happens after the Conquest, the Normans found that it was much easier for tax and trade to produce charters and mint coins in the name of fictional pre conquest christian kings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
No, no, this won't do. The Moghul Empire existed, it produced an excellent coinage. The locals used it, the British allowed them to carry on using it. After the demise of the Moghuls, the Brits presumably carried on issuing Moghul money because the local were used to it.
The Normans could not 'mint coins in the name of fictional pre conquest Christian kings' because people would have said, "Oy, who's this? Never 'eard of 'im. I'm not having no funny money, fank you very much." They would though have used Norman coinage in the same way we use any coinage issued by the national government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
OK can you help by telling me why more "Anglo Saxon" coins have been found and continue to be found in Sweden rather than Britain?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
