Of course, the 'welas' (=Indians) in their own country will have to become
civilised (speak English or a sort of Frisian), or otherwise they are
nothing more than savages and had not right to the land we have just taken
from them. (Actually, they may have ceded the land in exchange for goods?
Or got into a fight and made a treaty to "mearc" the boundaries of each
As the Saxon population grew, joined by more immigrants, more territorial
disputes occurred. The white man built forts (but is there any evidence of
Saxon and Welsh fortifications?) The Romano-Brits would live in fortified
towns. This would call for organised military action by the Saxon incursors
(with Welsh help?). But it would be easier and quicker to sail down the
English Channel or up the Thames, Trent, Severn than to make your way
through the Andredes weald (the Roman highways department has ceased, lack
of money again, and inflation.)
I expect it is all simplification.
For the point of view of the computer games, I would tend towards the
American way rather than apartheid. The only things about the "new"
research that I would tend to agree with is the likelihood of faster
breeding would contribute to the population increase compared to the Welsh
and that the number of immigrants could be much less than the linguistics
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:12:25 +0200, Robert Vermaat
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Recent work has disproved the long held notion that the settlement of
>> America occurred by mass migration of Europeans across the Atlantic
>> displacing the native inhabitants. Instead a model of small groups of
>> immigrants culturally transforming the native inhabitants is much more
>> plausible. Over time the inhabitants of North America adopted the
>> and language of the settlers and even European names and places of
>> The only ship we know of is the Mayflower which obviously incapable of
>> transporting more than a fraction of the known population of North
>> across the Atlantic.
>You forgot to mention that archaeological research showed that new York
>was a direct continuation from a native village and therefore it just
>had to be American Indian in origin.
>Well, you proved my point for me. With this in mind, to the scholars of
>the 18th and 19th century, how could the Anglo-Saxon migration be
>something else than a mass invasion?