Very thought provoking. Would be intrigued to hear your opinion concerning wyrd, and any other topics that you didn't manage to cover in the video above.

Remarkable, your podcasts are simply remarkable. A subject like this, so easily sensationalized (and has been to its detriment) in your hands is refreshing - I can’t wait to listen to your entire series!

I really enjoyed this, great survey. Currently reading Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon, a great overview of paganism, neopaganism and folklore in the UK.

People criticise rational and reserved views like this mainly because it doesn't line up with the image they have made in their head of what they early Anglo-Saxons believed in. I will say, I personally take a more open attitude when it comes to filling in the gaps that the archaeological and written record leaves us with, but I find the view given here to be totally sensible and actually quite refreshing, as it shows what we almost universally understand to be true about Anglo-Saxon paganism without much guessing as filler.

Great clear approach of Anglo-Saxon History !

Early medieval Christians weren't crypto pagans as many neopagans like to suggest, Christianity was a revelation which changed their understanding of what their folklore was. Your insight here is great and all too misunderstood. An interesting example of this is when Alfred the Great in his translation of Boethius inserts his own explanation of how the Greek mythology's titans were actually the giants referenced in the bible.

@heathenhammer2344

8 ай бұрын

However, they weren't.

@heathenhammer2344

6 ай бұрын

Your argument is baseless. Christianity was no revelation of anything. It was grafted onto what was there in native English belief. It is absurd and ridiculous using semetic bible mythology to explain or replace native beliefs. It is idiotic actually.

Great teachings about a beautiful and mysterious heritage. Thank you for your work.

This is rather good and I'd suggest checking out other episodes of Anglo-Saxon England Podcast

I have to comment again, this is superb, I love your work.

Thank you. Very interesting and thought provoking. You are quenching the thirst of academics, both professional and non-professional. I am the fascinated latter.

Very good and scholarly approach, thanks!

Fantastic, thank you.

Ancients matter to become beings of light...inner peace for the gods ..feed both wolves correct...saxon/man/crow/wolf..and I speak Welsh...peace and blessings

It is more than doubtful, that the people you call Anglo-Saxon, called themselves by that name. After all, they were two distinct tribes, with their own leadership and history. Also, they were from different areas of today's Germany and with somwhat different dialects of the Germanic language. No, there never were any Anglo-Saxons at the time we're talking about.

@rustybayonette6641

7 ай бұрын

There were more than two tribes. We know specifically of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians settling in England. And so what if Anglo-Saxon is a modern term? These cultures were incredibly closely related and we find very little reason to think otherwise. Furthermore, Anglo-Saxon is NOT a modern term, nor is it a term only used by contemporary people who were not Anglo-Saxons. Alfred the Great styled himself as "Rex Angul-Saxonum", King of the Anglo-Saxons. So yes, they did see themselves as "Anglo-Saxons"

@DerekDerekDerekDerekDerekDerek

5 ай бұрын

​@@rustybayonette6641Also they weren't just from what is now Germany but Denmark and Netherlands/Frisian

@rustybayonette6641

5 ай бұрын

@@DerekDerekDerekDerekDerekDerek indeed

Just want to point out, that I think you are doing yourself what you say shouldnt be done as far as seeing things in a binary Christian/or/Pagan frame. Syncretism can work both ways, preserving Pagan concepts and characters under the thinnest of Christian veneers. Yet you dismiss anything with any Christian influence whatsoever. If syncretism is happening and elements of the old are being carried over we should be able to learn SOMETHING about the old, even if we have to carefully pick it out from the superimposed layers. But it can be done without rejecting this evidence whole cloth.

Hail Woden!

this started out sounding interesting, but then you went ahead and discarded all evidence we have, which to be honest is quite a lot. just a very cynical approach if you ask me.

@anglo-saxonenglandpodcast9965

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your feedback, I will try to learn from it going forward. I don’t think my approach was cynical, I was merely attempting to be honest about the nature of the evidence. Everything that is wheeled out as evidence for Anglo-Saxon paganism can be interpreted in many different ways and I often paganism is the most tenuous interpretation. My aim was to point out that the evidence is far from conclusive on its own terms. I accept that this required more discussion and nuance, and I am working on something that will provide that, but my approach is not cynical and I did not try to discard any evidence out of hand.

@PeasantByTheSouthernSea

Жыл бұрын

it's like taking a frog, chopping it into nine pieces, then explaining that each piece on its own cannot tell us anything about the nature of the frog as a whole, and that therefore we know nothing about the frog. thank you all for coming to learn that nothing can be learned on the topic.

@anglo-saxonenglandpodcast9965

Жыл бұрын

@@PeasantByTheSouthernSea I don't agree. At least if you divide up a frog you have some concept of what a frog is. Historically pre-Christian religions were incredibly diverse, uniform practices and ideas only came with Christianity, and therefore it's basically impossible to say with any confidence that this or that is 'pagan' since we don't actually know what authentic historical paganism looked like in Anglo-Saxon England and there is no reason to think it was any one thing. So we can look at the pieces and fragments of the 'frog' but we don't have any firm understanding of what the 'frog' was at all like to begin with so any conclusions about its nature are going to be speculative. We also need to add in that Christianity is not a static thing either, despite what apologists claim, and it has changed a lot too so some practices like charms which seems odd and 'pagan' to us now do make some sense in their context as expressions of Christianity. Thus if we were to uncritically build our view of paganism from them we would just be importing Christianity into it unknowingly and making something that historical pagans would not recognise.

@bethwilliams4903

Жыл бұрын

Ignore the criticism if you can, I understand the tightrope you were walking, modern ‘paganism’ cannot speak for what was thought or taught or believed in the 5th, 6th or 7th centuries and very likely one group (clan) did not and would not have recognized the beliefs that another clan or tribe held, sadly I think that was one of the problems, ‘we’ see them in a lump - homogenous invaders/ settlers from Northern Europe whereas they saw themselves as distinct from each other with nominal overlapping. You struck the right tone of caution here, and I value someone who errs on the side of caution - as you said, anyone with a metal detector can find a buried horde and upset every written word!