What do you think?
Rate this book
Celt and Saxon: The Struggle for Britain, AD 410-937
Peter Berresford Ellis charts the struggle for the supremacy of Britain between the invading ancestors of the English and the British Celts.
308 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
3 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
About the author
Peter Berresford Ellis
52 books154 followersPeter Berresford Ellis is a historian, literary biographer, and novelist who has published over 90 books to date either under his own name or his pseudonyms Peter Tremayne and Peter MacAlan. He has also published 95 short stories. His non-fiction books, articles and academic papers have made him acknowledged as an authority on Celtic history and culture. Under Peter Tremayne, he is the author of the international bestselling Sister Fidelma mystery series. His work has appeared in 25 languages.
He began his career as a junior reporter on an English south coast weekly, becoming deputy editor of an Irish weekly newspaper and was then editor of a weekly trade journal in London. He first went as a feature writer to Northern Ireland in 1964 for a London daily newspaper which had a profound effect on him. His first book was published in 1968: Wales: a Nation Again, on the Welsh struggle for political independence, with a foreword by Gwynfor Evans, Plaid Cymru's first Member of Parliament. In 1975 he became a full-time writer. He used his academic background to produce many popular titles in the field of Celtic Studies and he has written numerous academic articles and papers in the field for journals ranging from The Linguist (London) to The Irish Sword: Journal of the Irish Military History Society (UCD). He is highly regarded by academics in his own field and was described by The Times Higher Education Supplement, London, (June, 1999) as one of the leading authorities on the Celts then writing. He has been International Chairman of the Celtic League 1988–1990; chairman of Scrif-Celt (The Celtic Languages Book Fair in 1985 and in 1986); chairman and vice-president of the London Association for Celtic Education 1989–1995, and now is an Hon. Life Member); He was also chairman of his local ward Labour Party in London, England, and was editorial advisor on Labour and Ireland magazine in the early 1990s. He is a member of the Society of Authors.
Apart from his Celtic Studies interests, Ellis has always been fascinated by aspects of popular literature and has written full-length biographies on H. Rider Haggard, W. E. Johns, Talbot Mundy as well as critical essays on many more popular fiction authors. His own output in the fictional field, writing in the genre of horror fantasy and heroic fantasy, began in 1977 when the first "Peter Tremayne" book appeared. Between 1983 and 1993 he also wrote eight adventure thrillers under the name "Peter MacAlan". Ellis has published (as of January, 2009) a total of 91 books, 95 short stories, several pamphlets, and numerous academic papers and signed journalistic articles. Under his own name he wrote two long running columns: 'Anonn is Anall' (Here and There) from 1987–2008 for the Irish Democrat, and, "Anois agus Arís" (Now and Again) from 2000–2008 for The Irish Post. His books break down into 34 titles under his own name; 8 titles under the pseudonym of Peter MacAlan and 49 titles under his pseudonym of Peter Tremayne. He has lectured widely at universities in several countries, including the UK, Ireland, American, Canada, France and Italy. He has also broadcast on television and radio since 1968. With the great popularity of his 7th Century set Sister Fidelma Mysteries, in January, 2001, an International Sister Fidelma Society was formed in Charleston, South Carolina, with a website and producing a print magazine three times a year called The Brehon. In 2006 the Cashel Arts Fest established the first three-day international gathering of fans of the series which is now held bi-annually and receives the full support of the Society
He began his career as a junior reporter on an English south coast weekly, becoming deputy editor of an Irish weekly newspaper and was then editor of a weekly trade journal in London. He first went as a feature writer to Northern Ireland in 1964 for a London daily newspaper which had a profound effect on him. His first book was published in 1968: Wales: a Nation Again, on the Welsh struggle for political independence, with a foreword by Gwynfor Evans, Plaid Cymru's first Member of Parliament. In 1975 he became a full-time writer. He used his academic background to produce many popular titles in the field of Celtic Studies and he has written numerous academic articles and papers in the field for journals ranging from The Linguist (London) to The Irish Sword: Journal of the Irish Military History Society (UCD). He is highly regarded by academics in his own field and was described by The Times Higher Education Supplement, London, (June, 1999) as one of the leading authorities on the Celts then writing. He has been International Chairman of the Celtic League 1988–1990; chairman of Scrif-Celt (The Celtic Languages Book Fair in 1985 and in 1986); chairman and vice-president of the London Association for Celtic Education 1989–1995, and now is an Hon. Life Member); He was also chairman of his local ward Labour Party in London, England, and was editorial advisor on Labour and Ireland magazine in the early 1990s. He is a member of the Society of Authors.
Apart from his Celtic Studies interests, Ellis has always been fascinated by aspects of popular literature and has written full-length biographies on H. Rider Haggard, W. E. Johns, Talbot Mundy as well as critical essays on many more popular fiction authors. His own output in the fictional field, writing in the genre of horror fantasy and heroic fantasy, began in 1977 when the first "Peter Tremayne" book appeared. Between 1983 and 1993 he also wrote eight adventure thrillers under the name "Peter MacAlan". Ellis has published (as of January, 2009) a total of 91 books, 95 short stories, several pamphlets, and numerous academic papers and signed journalistic articles. Under his own name he wrote two long running columns: 'Anonn is Anall' (Here and There) from 1987–2008 for the Irish Democrat, and, "Anois agus Arís" (Now and Again) from 2000–2008 for The Irish Post. His books break down into 34 titles under his own name; 8 titles under the pseudonym of Peter MacAlan and 49 titles under his pseudonym of Peter Tremayne. He has lectured widely at universities in several countries, including the UK, Ireland, American, Canada, France and Italy. He has also broadcast on television and radio since 1968. With the great popularity of his 7th Century set Sister Fidelma Mysteries, in January, 2001, an International Sister Fidelma Society was formed in Charleston, South Carolina, with a website and producing a print magazine three times a year called The Brehon. In 2006 the Cashel Arts Fest established the first three-day international gathering of fans of the series which is now held bi-annually and receives the full support of the Society
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 3, 2013
The author states in his introductory chapter that he does not claim to be objective, that he has a line to follow. When I first read the book in the earlier 1990s, the IRA were doing big bombings in England's cities. Berresford Ellis was a self-promoted marxist IRA supporter, so I was hostile to his writing. Reading it again without all that in the background, or foreground, I could evaluate the book.
Much of his research and emphasis is groundbreaking for the non-specialist reader. But he puts a somewhat slanted emphasis on those matters. For example, he mentions how King Oswald of Northumbria spoke fluent Irish with Bishop Aidan, described originally by Bede. He adds that three Saxon princes are mentioned in a famous Irish epic, one of them as Osalt. This in itself shows a different relationship between Celts and Saxons as usually portrayed, but Berresford Ellis is only interested in showing an intellectual superiority of Celts, in that the most powerful Anglian king was personally advised by St. Aidan.
His general comparison between Celtic and Anglo-Saxon society is inaccurate. He states that Celtic women had more rights in social executive roles, which is historically true. But he takes this so far as to say there was no such role barred to Celtic women. That has to be incorrect, as the two highest positions High King and High Druid are recorded historically as masculine. His reference to Saxons liking music and sport sounded a bit like old descriptions of blacks.
Not extensively annotated in the text by modern standards. An interesting read overall.
Much of his research and emphasis is groundbreaking for the non-specialist reader. But he puts a somewhat slanted emphasis on those matters. For example, he mentions how King Oswald of Northumbria spoke fluent Irish with Bishop Aidan, described originally by Bede. He adds that three Saxon princes are mentioned in a famous Irish epic, one of them as Osalt. This in itself shows a different relationship between Celts and Saxons as usually portrayed, but Berresford Ellis is only interested in showing an intellectual superiority of Celts, in that the most powerful Anglian king was personally advised by St. Aidan.
His general comparison between Celtic and Anglo-Saxon society is inaccurate. He states that Celtic women had more rights in social executive roles, which is historically true. But he takes this so far as to say there was no such role barred to Celtic women. That has to be incorrect, as the two highest positions High King and High Druid are recorded historically as masculine. His reference to Saxons liking music and sport sounded a bit like old descriptions of blacks.
Not extensively annotated in the text by modern standards. An interesting read overall.
July 24, 2019
I respect PBE but disagree with his conclusions as he leans far too heavily on textual sources which have proved unreliable and are obviously biased. He forms some astonishing conclusions and assumes Saxon kings with names of Brythonic origin like Caedwalla are imported Gaulish mercenaries rather than Saxonised Britons! Recent development of our knowledge of the "dark ages" has been led by archaeology and science which has: 1) failed to find any mass graves of native Britons; and 2) show a compound genetic makeup of the English without a loss of pre-Saxon markers. The hard evidence therefore disproves the “Celtic Wipeout” theory.
My personal belief is the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what became England was a complex series of political, religious and cultural struggles which was kick-started by a deployment of Germanic warbands taking advantage of a crumbling Roman Empire. Don't forget this was not unique to Britain as the Franks, Goths, Lombards and others changed the face of Europe. A small, highly trained warband could subdue disorganised city-states with crumbling infrastructures quite easily and a comparatively tiny army of Normans did something very similar many centuries later. Cultural change does not need to be spread by the sword point, people wear baseball caps and jeans in Britain without America formally invading!
PBE's political ideology (which I agree with) has therefore sadly distorted the history. I would say however that he does set the record straight during the so-called "dark ages" as it was a time of huge cultural development and learning in the Celtic world which actually "civilised" the incomers rather than being the inferiors. Worth reading alone for his chapter on “King” Arthur showing how Welsh and Irish mythology attached itself to a shadowy historical figure only to emerge years later as a cultural icon used by the very people Arthur was fighting against!
My personal belief is the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what became England was a complex series of political, religious and cultural struggles which was kick-started by a deployment of Germanic warbands taking advantage of a crumbling Roman Empire. Don't forget this was not unique to Britain as the Franks, Goths, Lombards and others changed the face of Europe. A small, highly trained warband could subdue disorganised city-states with crumbling infrastructures quite easily and a comparatively tiny army of Normans did something very similar many centuries later. Cultural change does not need to be spread by the sword point, people wear baseball caps and jeans in Britain without America formally invading!
PBE's political ideology (which I agree with) has therefore sadly distorted the history. I would say however that he does set the record straight during the so-called "dark ages" as it was a time of huge cultural development and learning in the Celtic world which actually "civilised" the incomers rather than being the inferiors. Worth reading alone for his chapter on “King” Arthur showing how Welsh and Irish mythology attached itself to a shadowy historical figure only to emerge years later as a cultural icon used by the very people Arthur was fighting against!
May 6, 2019
Interesting read and extensive bibliography. I question his notion of the Christian Celts as being culturally superior to the pagan Saxons. I wonder how much culture the pagan Celts lost with the advent of Christianity.
June 3, 2012
Having recently read the Rosemary Sutcliff's Eagle of the ninth series, I wanted to understand what happened when the Romans left England. This Book clearly and convincingly explains the events of this period, and their relavence today. I finally understand why Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, would want to be independant from England.
I would have followed to historical battles and events better if there had been some maps included, as the places and peoples names are so unfamiliar, and this ment that at times I lost track of which person was being described. Nevertheless I thouroughly enjoyed this book, and would consider it fairly essential to understanding the history of England.
I would have followed to historical battles and events better if there had been some maps included, as the places and peoples names are so unfamiliar, and this ment that at times I lost track of which person was being described. Nevertheless I thouroughly enjoyed this book, and would consider it fairly essential to understanding the history of England.
February 12, 2020
Oh dear. Where do you start with a book this bad?
The bibliography could be one place to begin. This book was originally published in 1993, but only a handful of the works listed here were written within 20 years of that date. A few weren't even published in the same century. Old scholarship isn't necessarily without value, but it has its limitations. Of those that are there, I can't help but wonder how many on the Anglo-Saxon 'side' he actually read or paid any attention to. In particular, Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, says some very fundamental things regarding the early history of Wessex and its relationship to the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but if PBE ever read it, he's attached no importance to it. There are a lot of works that you'd expect to see in the bibliography that are simply not there, such as Bassett (ed) Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, which is the key book on the early period.
Earlier I mentioned the Anglo-Saxon 'side' and I used that word advisedly. PBE sees it as very much a case of Celts good, Saxons bad, very bad, terribly bad. There is no moderation, objectivity, or even detachment. He takes a very rosy view of all things Celt, ascribing to them some elysian existence, with a post Roman democracy made up of 300 representatives, a benign criminal code and even something akin to a welfare state. Naturally those dastardly Saxons (he doesn't distinguish much between Angles, Saxons, Jutes and so on) are the opposite, their sole purpose seems to be to cause the bloodshed amongst the Celts. Everything untoward is blamed on the Saxons. The economy suffering after the Romans left – Saxon pirates. Skeletons found in the remains of a wooden building that burnt down – those pesky Saxons. PBE is a fervent believer in the Saxons exterminating the Celts. He seems to believe that all of the Celts were massacred or driven out, even in places like Elmet, which he thinks stretched from Shropshire to the Humber.
This bias is taken to silly lengths. When discussing the work of various people, if they are on the Celtic 'side' he gives them their full title, such as professor, or doctor, but if someone disagrees with him, then it's Mrs or just their surname and no recognition of their actual status. Hence Dr John Morris and his work is treated with a lot of attention (far more than many people would give The Age of Arthur), but he labels Professor Nick Higham, as 'Higham, who's an archaeologist', as if knowing what a trowel looks like devalues his work as a very respected historian.
This isn't a nuanced work. PBE takes the fact that the ASC and Nennius agree on a few things as witness to the essential truth of what two different sources report. Most scholars would instead point out that Nennius used English source material. The tale of Hengist and Horsa comes from an English original as it gives English place-names before the Welsh translation and the command to draw their seaxes is given in English, etc. PBE uses quotes out of context to show how bad or good each 'side' was. For example, he uses a standard admonition of Alcuin's to show that the Saxon elite was living it up whilst the poor starved, completely missing the fact that such complaints were part of a clerics' repertoire.
The bias and questionable research is one thing, but what exacerbates it is the use PBE puts it to. He is a firm believer in the historicity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Nennius, etc. He's managed to overlook a generation of scholarship that has demonstrated that these sources are not straight forward accounts of events. To PBE, the Saxons in Kent were there to fight the Picts, the years of silence in the ASC are because the Saxons were licking their wounds (instead of just a gap in the sources), the West Saxons landed in Hampshire (instead of coalesced in the Thames Valley) Portsmouth is named for Port, 5,000 Celtic warriors were killed at Natanleod, etc, etc. He takes all of this literally with no thoughts of nuance, purpose, or the construction behind these sources.
This book contains what can only be described as howlers. PBE attributes the ending of Aelle's supremacy as being due to him being defeated by King Arthur. London possibly fell to the Saxons after Arthur was killed at Camlann. The British names in the West Saxon king list not evidence of assimilation and good relations, but of the West Saxons having a Celtic continental ancestor.
I got as far as 100 pages or so and decided not to waste my time further on this book.
The bibliography could be one place to begin. This book was originally published in 1993, but only a handful of the works listed here were written within 20 years of that date. A few weren't even published in the same century. Old scholarship isn't necessarily without value, but it has its limitations. Of those that are there, I can't help but wonder how many on the Anglo-Saxon 'side' he actually read or paid any attention to. In particular, Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, says some very fundamental things regarding the early history of Wessex and its relationship to the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but if PBE ever read it, he's attached no importance to it. There are a lot of works that you'd expect to see in the bibliography that are simply not there, such as Bassett (ed) Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, which is the key book on the early period.
Earlier I mentioned the Anglo-Saxon 'side' and I used that word advisedly. PBE sees it as very much a case of Celts good, Saxons bad, very bad, terribly bad. There is no moderation, objectivity, or even detachment. He takes a very rosy view of all things Celt, ascribing to them some elysian existence, with a post Roman democracy made up of 300 representatives, a benign criminal code and even something akin to a welfare state. Naturally those dastardly Saxons (he doesn't distinguish much between Angles, Saxons, Jutes and so on) are the opposite, their sole purpose seems to be to cause the bloodshed amongst the Celts. Everything untoward is blamed on the Saxons. The economy suffering after the Romans left – Saxon pirates. Skeletons found in the remains of a wooden building that burnt down – those pesky Saxons. PBE is a fervent believer in the Saxons exterminating the Celts. He seems to believe that all of the Celts were massacred or driven out, even in places like Elmet, which he thinks stretched from Shropshire to the Humber.
This bias is taken to silly lengths. When discussing the work of various people, if they are on the Celtic 'side' he gives them their full title, such as professor, or doctor, but if someone disagrees with him, then it's Mrs or just their surname and no recognition of their actual status. Hence Dr John Morris and his work is treated with a lot of attention (far more than many people would give The Age of Arthur), but he labels Professor Nick Higham, as 'Higham, who's an archaeologist', as if knowing what a trowel looks like devalues his work as a very respected historian.
This isn't a nuanced work. PBE takes the fact that the ASC and Nennius agree on a few things as witness to the essential truth of what two different sources report. Most scholars would instead point out that Nennius used English source material. The tale of Hengist and Horsa comes from an English original as it gives English place-names before the Welsh translation and the command to draw their seaxes is given in English, etc. PBE uses quotes out of context to show how bad or good each 'side' was. For example, he uses a standard admonition of Alcuin's to show that the Saxon elite was living it up whilst the poor starved, completely missing the fact that such complaints were part of a clerics' repertoire.
The bias and questionable research is one thing, but what exacerbates it is the use PBE puts it to. He is a firm believer in the historicity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Nennius, etc. He's managed to overlook a generation of scholarship that has demonstrated that these sources are not straight forward accounts of events. To PBE, the Saxons in Kent were there to fight the Picts, the years of silence in the ASC are because the Saxons were licking their wounds (instead of just a gap in the sources), the West Saxons landed in Hampshire (instead of coalesced in the Thames Valley) Portsmouth is named for Port, 5,000 Celtic warriors were killed at Natanleod, etc, etc. He takes all of this literally with no thoughts of nuance, purpose, or the construction behind these sources.
This book contains what can only be described as howlers. PBE attributes the ending of Aelle's supremacy as being due to him being defeated by King Arthur. London possibly fell to the Saxons after Arthur was killed at Camlann. The British names in the West Saxon king list not evidence of assimilation and good relations, but of the West Saxons having a Celtic continental ancestor.
I got as far as 100 pages or so and decided not to waste my time further on this book.
July 20, 2021
Quite a difficult book for someone like me who knows very little of this period of history. The author does give a compelling argument for his ideas and conclusions and the one pertaining to the fact that the 'British' empire can be considered 'English' seems to be fairly strong in my eyes, Ellis points to the fact that English equals British is a fairly common thing around the world.
The authors politics is on display here but he does state this in the introduction so I can't be too taken aback when he puts forward certain parts of his arguments. Overall, I think it was well done but I would need to read several other perspectives on this period of time.
The authors politics is on display here but he does state this in the introduction so I can't be too taken aback when he puts forward certain parts of his arguments. Overall, I think it was well done but I would need to read several other perspectives on this period of time.
January 28, 2024
A 2.5 star rating, dropping off towards the end of the book at it gets s bit “ranty”. I did learn things though and there is a lot of history and information in this book.
November 21, 2013
Mr. Berresford Ellis is one of the best Celtic historians out there. Unfortunately, his blatant bias against the Anglo Saxons/English mars what could have been an excellent review of the relationships between the two peoples.
Basically, his thesis could be summarized simply as this: Anglo Saxon bad, Celt good. This is no more more obvious than in his treatment of two of the great minds in Anglo Saxon history - Bede (an Anglo-Saxon)- who the author treats as a two bit hack - and Asser (Welsh)- who the author clearly admires greatly. I usually like Mr. Berresford Ellis' books but I cannot recommend this one at all.
Basically, his thesis could be summarized simply as this: Anglo Saxon bad, Celt good. This is no more more obvious than in his treatment of two of the great minds in Anglo Saxon history - Bede (an Anglo-Saxon)- who the author treats as a two bit hack - and Asser (Welsh)- who the author clearly admires greatly. I usually like Mr. Berresford Ellis' books but I cannot recommend this one at all.
March 22, 2013
This was the book that taught me to really question conventional views on history (and other subjects too), therefore it has had a huge impact on my life. It is one of only five books I would keep if I was told that I was being exiled to an island and could only take that number with me.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews