Historical Map of the British Isles ~ 802

http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/british_isles_802.htm

I hate discussions which just end 'discuss'.

Days when at least twelve of the UK's currently most populous cities don't exist.
Bits of England belong to Scotland and Cornwall is West Wales.

Five Jeff towns have their names on the waiting list.

[ed to get this post back into the RU section where it belongs] And it seems that England and Scotland have ancient kingdoms upon which they could base Heineken Cup challenges.

Discuss...

This has to be the worst topic I have ever seen on a rugby forum

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Is it that the old Saxon Kingdoms could represent new rugby regions?

So what I think Portnoy is suggesting is that perhaps England (and Scotland) could follow the New Zealand example of setting up regional-based teams to contest the Heineken cup, while retaining their club sides in the Aviva and Pro12.

Looking at the borders of his map though I'd suggest that "Mercia" (Leicester, Gloucester, Worcester, Northampton) would be a pretty handy side, and "Wessex" (Bath, Exeter, Harlequins, London Irish) wouldn't be too bad either, while "Essex" (Sarries + Wasps) would be OK. I'm not so sure about "Sussex", "Kent" (unless you shifted Quins slightly) or "East Anglia"'s chances mind.

The mind boggles at combos of Sale/Glasgow and Falcons/Edinburgh though.

Kiwireddevil wrote:So what I think Portnoy is suggesting is that perhaps England (and Scotland) could follow the New Zealand example of setting up regional-based teams to contest the Heineken cup, while retaining their club sides in the Aviva and Pro12.

Looking at the borders of his map though I'd suggest that "Mercia" would be a pretty handy side, and "Wessex" wouldn't be too bad either, while "Essex" (Sarries + Wasps) would be OK. I'm not so sure about "Sussex", "Kent" or "East Anglia"'s chances mind.

Precisely Kiwi,

This is a rugby topic. Essex and EA could be combined, as could Kent, Sussex and Middlesex. Along with Wessex, Northumbria and Mercia, A new form of representative side could be concocted to provide representative sides from the kingdoms.

That would provide an opportunity for 'best of the rest' players to showpiece their talents (including from the Championship).

Say HEC representation from top six plus best kingdom.

Remaining kingdoms to the Amlin.

Like your historical take on possibilities, Portnoy... and the way you've attributed the modern teams into the old borders Kiwi.

I think a regional HEC model would be attractive for the fans. They could still have their club sides for those comps - then compete as 'super-regions' for the HEC.

A lot of bickering would ensue no doubt as to who would be the 40 or so players to be selected for the squad... and even more negotiations would be required to whittle it down to a final match day 22.

I don't see it working. The reason that Munster/ Leinster etc works is not simply due to the fact that they were historical regions. It is because Munster is a commonly used region in modern Irish sport not just rugby or in an old history book.

Historically there were 5 Irish provinces. However the midlands province of Meath isn't used. Now in theory they could start it up, play their matches in Athlone but they have no rugby experience and people wouldn't buy into it.

Slow down

Surely this map (as any) is just a snapshot in time.

So you could choose any timeline and look at those counties (kingdoms) to base it on.

If you want to go back before the Saxons arrived much of what is shown here as 'East Mercia' was actually part of the (then much larger) kingdoms of Powys and Gwent.

red_stag wrote:I don't see it working. The reason that Munster/ Leinster etc works is not simply due to the fact that they were historical regions. It is because Munster is a commonly used region in modern Irish sport not just rugby or in an old history book.

Historically there were 5 Irish provinces. However the midlands province of Meath isn't used. Now in theory they could start it up, play their matches in Athlone but they have no rugby experience and people wouldn't buy into it.

Many (I think all) of these ancient English kingdoms are reflected in current administrative regions like the emergency services, the military etc, Stag.

Yes Staggy - almost perfect demarcation on Eire. You don't need any more.

Is Meath wholly 'covered' by Leinster rugby or are parts of it in the Connacht 'rugby catchment area'?

Yep I reckon you should go further back to the tribes - Iceni, Belgae, Trimonvites, Briganties, Dumonovii

Get some real local colour in there

Linebreaker wrote:Yes Staggy - almost perfect demarcation on Eire. You don't need any more.

Is Meath wholly 'covered' by Leinster rugby or are parts of it in the Connacht 'rugby catchment area'?

It was mainly taken into Leinster but some of it was in modern Ulster.

London Romans...

(their emblem could be a very straight road going off in perspective - with bath-houses on each side)

I am sure some Briton would have eventually picked a round object up and run with it well before the english contaminated Briton's soil.

So local friendlys all around then.

Can we call the English National Team - Lloegr - the lost lands ?

This is a little confusing to me. Would there be 7 English regions then?

This model could of course work. Having some history behind it, however old, would make some link with identity. Not as fierce as the Irish connection with the provinces but maybe over time there could be. The three around the most heavily populated part of England look like perfect divisions.

If the RFU has so much cash then it could, bit by bit, buy clubs within one region and amalgamate them. But not all clubs would want to sell. So what then?

It's an interesting map. I'd never heard of Mercia. I wonder what languages were spoken in each.

Kingdom of Mercia was the main Angle stronghold. Giving the name Angleland or England. Also obviously the phrase Anglo Saxon.

The Angles and the Saxons cut most of the country up between them and the Angle/Saxon divide gives you the north south division of England (from a cultural point of view and also accent) to this day.

The Jutes in Kent and the remnants of the Celtic peoples in Wales and Cornwall account for the rest.

Not sure about Northumbrian history.

Meath (the 5th Irish province) was the "Royal" province where the high kings of Ireland sat. A bit like the ACT in Australia. Now 90% in Leinster. But a small bit is now in Cavan/Monaghan which are 2 counties of Ulster which are in the Republic of Ireland (The 3rd one being Donegal)

wow that;s really weird, Wales looks exactly the same shape! In fact it all looks the same shape!

Being serious though, from what Iv'e read Shrewsbury used to be the capital of Wales, then we moved it to Cardiff after the English took it off us.
And apparently all of us born in South Wales, but not Pembrokeshire and the west of Carmarthenshire are from the Silures tribe!

Northumbria was an Angle kingdom.

But this is all mainly a parcel of Victorian manufactured history - those kingdoms did exist, but to draw such precise demarcation lines is misleading, and in the main tells us more about the people who drew the map than the people its meant to potray.

Ask some sheepherder on the Northumbrian/Mercian border what 'nationality' he was and he'd probably not have a clue what you were going on about.

Similary today you have the 'Celtic' nations and the English 'Saxons' load of tosh. It's just modern marketing looking around trying to get an angle (or a saxon) to get us hooked into buying into their world - with the emphasis on 'buying'.

Coincidently I'm just finishing reading the Arthur Trilogy by Bernard Cornwall which features Saxons, Dumonians, Kernow (Cornwall) Gwent, Powys and Lloegr - the lands lost to the Saxons - England

TrailApe wrote:Northumbria was an Angle kingdom.

But this is all mainly a parcel of Victorian manufactured history - those kingdoms did exist, but to draw such precise demarcation lines is misleading, and in the main tells us more about the people who drew the map than the people its meant to potray.

Ask some sheepherder on the Northumbrian/Mercian border what 'nationality' he was and he'd probably not have a clue what you were going on about.

Similary today you have the 'Celtic' nations and the English 'Saxons' load of tosh. It's just modern marketing looking around trying to get an angle (or a saxon) to get us hooked into buying into their world - with the emphasis on 'buying'.

Isn't that the problem with all history. People can only view it through their own experience and upbringing. "Don't judge history by the standards of the present" is almost impossible to achieve, by anyone other than the most detached historian steeped in the period.

If you want to be accurate Ireland never really was a Celtic nation/place. Celts were subsumed into the native culture in the same way as the Norsemen etc etc were at later stages.

I think it would be quite cool to see teams called Mercia and Wessex etc. with anglo-saxon style crests and logo's.

However surely this idea would run into similar problems to the Welsh regions. Few people would be devoted to these newly invented rugby teams.

And anyway, I don't really think England needs regions. Their population is about ten times that of Ireland isn't it?

Feckless Rogue wrote:I think it would be quite cool to see teams called Mercia and Wessex etc. with anglo-saxon style crests and logo's.

However surely this idea would run into similar problems to the Welsh regions. Few people would be devoted to these newly invented rugby teams.

And anyway, I don't really think England needs regions. Their population is about ten times that of Ireland isn't it?

For Rugby purposes Ireland (32 counties) is about 6 million, and England (without the rest of the UK) is about 50 million. So not far off.

I find it ironic that I was made to edit my OP to substantiate its Rugby credentials yet most posts just bang on about the history of Britain.



All of these ancient kingdoms are still in existence administratively to some extent.

But they do provide a possible mechanism to assist the promotion of English national rugby.

Portnoy wrote:I find it ironic that I was made to edit my OP to substantiate its Rugby credentials yet most posts just bang on about the history of Britain.



All of these ancient kingdoms are still in existence administratively to some extent.

But they do provide a possible mechanism to assist the promotion of English national rugby.

With an OP like that you were bound to attract history buffs

Isn't that the problem with all history. People can only view it through their own experience and upbringing.

Jenifer – I totally agree with you. As a youth I used to take that Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy stuff quite seriously, books like the 'The Sword Of Northumbria' and others psuedo-historical fiction were my main reading.

The Northumbrians being the good guys, mainly fighting an evil alliance of the Mercians and the Welsh. However, as you get a bit older you realise that its really just about the ordinary people being used by the ruling elite, The Romans, then the Angles, then the Danes followed by the Normans – reminds me of the line in the Who song ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ – “Meet the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss”.

If you want to be accurate Ireland never really was a Celtic nation/place. Celts were subsumed into the native culture in the same way as the Norsemen etc etc were at later stages.

That’s an interesting view – I had read somewhere that the main museum in Dublin, in the interests of historical accuracy has taken down all references to ‘Celtic’ in relation to early Irish history.

I suppose that it because that while everybody spoke a ‘Celtic’ language, it doesn’t make you a Celt, any more than speaking a Germanic language makes you a German – although I must admit to a tingling in the blood as we drove through Belgium during those NATO REFORGER exercises in the 80’s, so perhaps the language ties is stronger than you think.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:If you want to be accurate Ireland never really was a Celtic nation/place. Celts were subsumed into the native culture in the same way as the Norsemen etc etc were at later stages.

Jen, just wondering how accurate that really is? After all the Norseman were largely victorious in battle and established a number of fiefdoms/kingdoms in Ireland? Might the subsuming not have gone the other way partly? Just curious/trying to improve on my general level of ignorance

The Irish also had little kingdoms and settlements along the west coast of Britian.

Ironically, although Ireland was never invaded by the Romans, it was the religion brought to Britain by Rome - Christianity that changed Ireland forever - mainly spread by a Welshman - sorry about that !

From the entry on Brian Boru, on wikipedia

Brian did not free Ireland from a Norse (Viking) occupation simply because it was never conquered by the Vikings. In the last decade of the 8th century, Norse raiders began attacking targets in Ireland and, beginning in the mid-9th century, these raiders established the fortified camps that later grew into Ireland's first cities: Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, and Cork. Within only a few generations, the Norse citizens of these cities had converted to Christianity, inter-married with the Irish, and often adopted the Irish language, dress and customs; thus becoming what historians refer to as the 'Hiberno-Norse'. Such Hiberno-Norse cities were fully integrated into the political scene in Ireland, long before the birth of Brian. They often suffered attacks from Irish rulers, and made alliances with others. Rather than conquering Ireland, the Vikings, who initially attacked and subsequently settled in Ireland were, in fact, assimilated by the Irish.[9]

Similarly the Norman invaders were assimilated and adopted the Irish language and culture. For this reason the original conquest of Ireland from (Norman) Britain unraveled about a century after it occured. The island had to be re-conquered later by the tudors in the 16th century. So some Irish peoples claim to have suffered "800 years of oppression" isn't actually that accurate. I love history. Although it's amazing how much of it is propaganda and half-truths.

Sorry for talking nonsense on your thread Portnoy.

Brilliant, Feckless, thanks

If you can't beat them, join them:
Vikings have a lot to answer for. They invaded northern France and after a brief (in historical terms) of Cuddle in a bad way*, sack and pillage, the imbued themselves into society and adopted their language, built cathedrals and whilst swamping and subduing the bordering principalities became social Normans.

Or Norsemen if you like...

*What if I'd been talking about Cuddle in a bad way-seed oil? Or Cuddle in a bad way-and-pillage. I am one [Enter] away from finding out.

p.s. 'bugger' is allowed innit?

Feckless Rogue wrote:From the entry on Brian Boru, on wikipedia

Brian did not free Ireland from a Norse (Viking) occupation simply because it was never conquered by the Vikings. In the last decade of the 8th century, Norse raiders began attacking targets in Ireland and, beginning in the mid-9th century, these raiders established the fortified camps that later grew into Ireland's first cities: Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, and Cork. Within only a few generations, the Norse citizens of these cities had converted to Christianity, inter-married with the Irish, and often adopted the Irish language, dress and customs; thus becoming what historians refer to as the 'Hiberno-Norse'. Such Hiberno-Norse cities were fully integrated into the political scene in Ireland, long before the birth of Brian. They often suffered attacks from Irish rulers, and made alliances with others. Rather than conquering Ireland, the Vikings, who initially attacked and subsequently settled in Ireland were, in fact, assimilated by the Irish.[9]

Similarly the Norman invaders were assimilated and adopted the Irish language and culture. For this reason the original conquest of Ireland from (Norman) Britain unraveled about a century after it occured. The island had to be re-conquered later by the tudors in the 16th century. So some Irish peoples claim to have suffered "800 years of oppression" isn't actually that accurate. I love history. Although it's amazing how much of it is propaganda and half-truths.

Sorry for talking nonsense on your thread Portnoy.

Also Brian Boru was the king of Munster, lest we forget.......

There is a great phrase that recurs in Irish history. "more Irish than the Irish themselves"

The poor aul Brits (ie. Normans, Tudors etc.) couldn't trust their invaders, because they would settle here and then side with us v the next wave of invasion.

One of my ancestors for example, came over with Cromwell, and within a few generations had married into the "native" population and produced several catholic priests and a founder member of the Fenian movement.

Another good example is a German guy who lived in the west of Ireland. When he first arrived he was always complaining that everything was inefficient, and people promised you something "tomorrow" and it never arrived. Met the same guy a few years later and he had "gone native" and was chilled out saying stuff like "ah sure it'll be grand" and "whenever you get a chance".

The Tudors did start what would become a fairly thorough job on Ulster though. Creating the beginnings of...........well, you know.

Previously Ulster had been one of the Strongest and hardest to subdue parts of the country. In fact, if you look at the Kingdom of the Dal Riada (on the map at the beginning of the thread) in the west of Scotland, this was created by an invasion from Ulster at roughly the same time (exit of the Romans) the Angles and Saxons were invading from the east.

Map of Ireland looks about right to me.

Three provinces - shift Ravenhill down to Armagh on the hill. Leinster can still be in D4, and Munster shift east with Thomond to Waterford.

Getting to matches in those days must have been quite a urine-up.

Leave on Monday, arrive on Friday - after a few pit-stops at local hostelries - and get your barn and pitch of hay sorted for the weekend. Head out into the night at Ye Temple Bar, avoid the cackling witches with a ready eye, a steady squint, and a hint of ankle at each corner and join your mates for a few beers and a punch-up. Head home, avoiding the cackling witches with steady ankles and shapely squints, sleep for about an hour, get up, and head to Donnybrook Fair for another few beers, another punch-up and then over the road for the match. Have a few more beers, another punch-up, more beers, meet a cracking witch with lovely steady eyes and two shapely ankles showing, and hit the hay.

Wake up the next morning with an scratchy throat and an itchy crotch, and set out for the home base. Get home on Friday in time for the weekend, have a few beers, start a punch-up, etc, etc.

I think this is a sneaky plot by the Welsh. They have snuck into Portnoy's house, drugged him, and made him the instrument of their nefarious scheme to conquer Cornwall (West Wales on the map). After that they plan to cross the DaneLaw and take over the RFU.

Alfred, stop baking those feckin cakes and defend us!

perhaps this would be a more appropriate place to discuss...


http://historyisnow.forumotion.co.uk/forum

Thanks for the tip on the forum.

I disagree about the Vikings going native. At least entirely. The laws in these cities was not brehon law and they allied themselves with Vikings from kingdoms across Scandinavia and England to fight against Brian Boru so they must have still had strong cultural connections as well as political with these people.

So getting back to my question. Can anyone see a way that the RFU could go regional? It could be cool.

For the sake of the Heineken cup I hope not because they would utterly dominate it if they did. As was mentioned above a combined Leicester/Northampton team would be formidable.

England used to have regional rugby - was it not the North that beat the AB's way back when?

All disapeared with professionalism I think.

mckay1402 wrote:For the sake of the Heineken cup I hope not because they would utterly dominate it if they did. As was mentioned above a combined Leicester/Northampton team would be formidable.

My proposal would be to put forward the top six sides from the Jeff as units and supplement the English contingent in the HEC and all of the Amlin by combined sides.

As someone noted recently, The RFU does have established divisions - North, Midlands, London and East and South-West.

Just that I prefer the less soul-less names of the ancient kingdoms.

But like I said earlier, there's no need for regions in England. For one thing they have a population density which, in theory suggests they can support a multiple of the top flight teams Ireland and Wales can field. On top of that the club culture is very strong and it would be a shame to lose it. Plus we saw how imposing regions on a nation with a popular club game worked in Wales. It was all a bit messy.

So Portnoy,

Correct me if I’ve got this wrong but you’re suggesting that the league remain the same as it is, but the teams that compete in Europe combine into regions?

Surely you’d have no chance of winning the HC with 6 scratch teams in it?!

Trouble is who are you top 6

Saints, Tigers, Gloucester, Saracens I assume

2 from Quins, Sale, Irish and Bath perhaps

So ignoring Newcastle, Worcester, Exeter, Wasps

Who decides

FR,

I never suggested breaking up the club system - just stiffening the English challenge at our lower echelons of Europe and perhaps highlighting the talents of players in the Jeff basement and the Championship.

And a lower number in the playing base could be argued to be an advantage.

Pot Hale wrote:Map of Ireland looks about right to me.

Three provinces - shift Ravenhill down to Armagh on the hill. Leinster can still be in D4, and Munster shift east with Thomond to Waterford.

Getting to matches in those days must have been quite a urine-up.

Leave on Monday, arrive on Friday - after a few pit-stops at local hostelries - and get your barn and pitch of hay sorted for the weekend. Head out into the night at Ye Temple Bar, avoid the cackling witches with a ready eye, a steady squint, and a hint of ankle at each corner and join your mates for a few beers and a punch-up. Head home, avoiding the cackling witches with steady ankles and shapely squints, sleep for about an hour, get up, and head to Donnybrook Fair for another few beers, another punch-up and then over the road for the match. Have a few more beers, another punch-up, more beers, meet a cracking witch with lovely steady eyes and two shapely ankles showing, and hit the hay.

Wake up the next morning with an scratchy throat and an itchy crotch, and set out for the home base. Get home on Friday in time for the weekend, have a few beers, start a punch-up, etc, etc.

I would love it, if it was still possible, if you could still get a group of mates together, get in a long boat and go out and loot and pillage. I think it'd be great craic, cos i'm sure they were drunk most of the time, it'll just be like a lads weekend away, but you come back with more valuables than you left, brill

geoff998rugby wrote:Trouble is who are you top 6

Saints, Tigers, Gloucester, Saracens I assume

2 from Quins, Sale, Irish and Bath perhaps

So ignoring Newcastle, Worcester, Exeter, Wasps

Who decides

The table decides - just like now.

Are you saying one years table decides for the forseeable future ?

i.e If Exeter, Quins and Sale are in the top 6 and Saints, Gloucester and Bath aren't - thats it forever more.

Mickado's right. Scratch teams who aren't used to playing with each other, with the players leaving their club for a week to train for a new team under new coaches for the HEC? Would they even have any supporters? I can't see them doing well.

This can't happen as long as the Premiership and Heineken Cup run concurrently. It could only work if the season was more like the southern hemisphere, with the Heineken Cup happening after the domestic leagues.

Maybe if the rumoured European League ever happens, England could decide to keep running the Premiership as it is and enter these "kingdoms" into a euro-league, picking the best players from the clubs in their kingdom, like the Irish provinces.

I have to ask though Portnoy, were you thinking of English regions when Martin Johnson was lifting the Heineken Cup above his head for Leicester Tigers? Or has this been brought on by some post defeat depression?

Feckless Rogue wrote:I have to ask though Portnoy, were you thinking of English regions when Martin Johnson was lifting the Heineken Cup above his head for Leicester Tigers? Or has this been brought on by some post defeat depression?

Just musing possibilities.

Post-defeat depression? No. I'm too long in the tooth for such childish emotions (I think).