(1) Hwæt! - thread on Hengest & Horsa because I feel like it. The information here will be mostly based on scholarship by J. R. R. Tolkien.
There's so much to discuss that I will necessarily only touch on a fraction of it here.
(2) The tale of Hengest & Horsa comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, where they are famously invited over by Wurtgern (Vortigern), in the Chronicle the king of the Britons, to serve as mercenaries.
They do so, only to turn on the Britons after seeing how weak they are.
(3) Many theories have been proposed as to the origins of the story. As both their names are words for "horse", the dominant explanation for years has been that they are a myth - a reflex of the Indo-European horse-twins also seen in the Greco-Roman Castor and Pollux.
(4) Though not unheard of, both "Hengest" and "Horsa" are also uncommon names, further feeding the idea that they may be legendary.
This fits a general historiographical trend of downplaying the reliability of ancient texts.
(5) *However*, there exists fascinating textual and philological evidence indicating that Hengest at the very least did actually exist. This comes to us from two perhaps surprising sources - the epic poem Beowulf and an incomplete poem called the Finnsburh Fragment.
(6) Both poems describe the same event - a fight at a place called Finnesburg, the seat of king Finn of the then-powerful Frisians. The evident context of the battle was a visit to Finn's realm by the Danish prince Hnæf, which for unclear reasons spiralled into violence
(7) Why is this relevant to our present subject? Because both texts, Beowulf and the Fragment, agree on the name of Prince Hnæf's chief retainer: Hengest.
When Hnæf is killed during the fighting, Hengest takes command. It is him who bargains with Finn and is focused on.
(8) Now some broader context: The date of the fight at Finnsburh is likely around 450, at a time of upheaval in the region. Jutland, hitherto inhabited by the free Jutes, is being subjugated by the Danes, and the Frisians too are starting to feel the pressure of these Sæ-dene
(9) It is in this general context that the story of Hengest & Horsa unfolds. The brothers were regarded as founders of the Jutish kingdom of Kent, and in Tolkien's reading, the very reason for the fight at Finnsburh was the presence of Jutes on both sides (with Hnæf and Finn)
(10)Essentially, Hengest and the other Jutes in Hnæf's retinue were people who, in response to the invasion of the Danes, joined their new masters.
The Jutes in Finn's household, meanwhile, were Jutes who fled the Danish invaders. There was bad blood between the two groups.
(11) In the light of this, the motive behind the British invasion becomes clear: After Hnæf's death, Hengest was without pay and master. Meanwhile, the Jutes and Frisians were increasingly exiled from their homelands. They needed a new home, & Hengest needed pay - enter Britain.
There is much more to be said here - I did not even discuss Hengest's son, the death of Horsa or the nature of the Half-Danes. Perhaps for another thread.
I suggest getting Tolkien’s book Finn and Hengest, by far the best work out there on the subject.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.