3505 Shares

Were romans more cevilised than anglo saxons?

Were romans more cevilised than anglo saxons? Topic: Essay writing for hire
June 20, 2019 / By Anson
Question: i need to know the differents between the two tribes i have to write an essay so alot of information will greatly taken :)
Best Answer

Best Answers: Were romans more cevilised than anglo saxons?

Tracie Tracie | 5 days ago
The Anglo-Saxons were certainly far behind the Romans in many things however they were not without their own level of sopistication. For a start it is their legal system that we still use to this day (i.e a jury of your peers, and laws that benifit all, not just a few rich people) and their Language, that forms the basis for what we are reading and writing on this very question. They had a highly organised and stuctured sociality with kings, noble, lords, merchants, commoners and slaves. the remains of saxon goods have been found thoughout europe and the middle east showing the spread of their trade the thing the anglo-saxons were most well known for was the quality of their metalwork, example of saxon jewelry has been found across europe and the middle east and appeared to have been the 'bling' of its age, the other in demand items was their war gear by the 8th Century Saxon metal work was considered the best in the world, discovered saxon swords and armour from this period under examination were shown to be as complex and as well made as japanese samuari swords made 700 years later. In addition to that the Saxons during the dark ages were considered the leaders in Religous studies with many abbeys and churchs being built, the abbey at lindisfarm was considered only 2nd to Rome as a place of Religious learning and knowledge and monks travelled from as far as the middle east to study there, it was famous for it's library and books it kept and produced. Surviving saxon books from this period show an amazing level of artisty with some individual letters having over 10,000 individual brush strokes in them!!!! They also built impressive stone monestaries, abbeys and indeed one of the most famous Churches still standing in Europe (Westminster abbey) was built by Saxons long before any normans had turned up. As for their armies, firstly the romans used to hire them to fight for them. (indeed the first saxons in england were roman soliders) Secondly bear in mind they fought and beat, British, Irish, Scottish and Viking armies again and again over a 400 year period. in fact at the battle of chester they fought a combined Scottish/irish/viking army and won. Thirdly the Byzintine Emperors only hired saxon warriors for their personal bodyguards, young English men making the journey over every year to Constantinople (The Vangarian Guard)
👍 218 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Were romans more cevilised than anglo saxons? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Essay writing for hire


Tracie Originally Answered: Were romans more cevilised than anglo saxons?
The Anglo-Saxons were certainly far behind the Romans in many things however they were not without their own level of sopistication. For a start it is their legal system that we still use to this day (i.e a jury of your peers, and laws that benifit all, not just a few rich people) and their Language, that forms the basis for what we are reading and writing on this very question. They had a highly organised and stuctured sociality with kings, noble, lords, merchants, commoners and slaves. the remains of saxon goods have been found thoughout europe and the middle east showing the spread of their trade the thing the anglo-saxons were most well known for was the quality of their metalwork, example of saxon jewelry has been found across europe and the middle east and appeared to have been the 'bling' of its age, the other in demand items was their war gear by the 8th Century Saxon metal work was considered the best in the world, discovered saxon swords and armour from this period under examination were shown to be as complex and as well made as japanese samuari swords made 700 years later. In addition to that the Saxons during the dark ages were considered the leaders in Religous studies with many abbeys and churchs being built, the abbey at lindisfarm was considered only 2nd to Rome as a place of Religious learning and knowledge and monks travelled from as far as the middle east to study there, it was famous for it's library and books it kept and produced. Surviving saxon books from this period show an amazing level of artisty with some individual letters having over 10,000 individual brush strokes in them!!!! They also built impressive stone monestaries, abbeys and indeed one of the most famous Churches still standing in Europe (Westminster abbey) was built by Saxons long before any normans had turned up. As for their armies, firstly the romans used to hire them to fight for them. (indeed the first saxons in england were roman soliders) Secondly bear in mind they fought and beat, British, Irish, Scottish and Viking armies again and again over a 400 year period. in fact at the battle of chester they fought a combined Scottish/irish/viking army and won. Thirdly the Byzintine Emperors only hired saxon warriors for their personal bodyguards, young English men making the journey over every year to Constantinople (The Vangarian Guard)

Saffron Saffron
The poster "cp" had better read up on history. The Romans abandoned Britain around A.D. 400. The Anglo Saxons began their migration INTO Britain around the same time, which increased some 50 years later. The Anglo Saxons can hardly be said to have any "civilization" at all... they were brutal and dirty and knew little about anything one would consider "knowledge" other than war and staying alive. Even the Vikings, who turned up 300-400 years later were considered more civilized. The Vikings were mainly traders and were responsible for creating towns such as York. They also used combs... which the Anglo Saxon women were reported to have appreciated. The invasion by William the Conquerer in 1066 was in fact an invasion by the descendants of Vikings who had settled in France. (Certainly not by Anglo Saxons!) The Romans had built an extensive civilized network in Britain, including roads, villas, towns and bridges, but this began to slowly crumble after they left. See http://www.postroman.info/saxon1.html and http://www.britainexpress.com/History/La... (good starting point)
👍 90 | 👎 2

Nevaeh Nevaeh
I can support. They seem (virtually) precisely like men and women dwelling in the ones locations do now. The best caveats are the locations under no circumstances settled through a few of these companies of outsiders whose seem extra just like the Celtic Britons. The Welsh had been under no circumstances conquered/settled through the Anglo-Saxons. The identical holds precise for the Normans. The Cornish had been most likely left on my own through the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons bought to them past due and did not keep in any numbers. The Normans simply set lords over them. They, too, did not so much settle. The Irish had been under no circumstances settled/conquered through the Romans. They additionally had been slightly suffering from the Normans. The 'vikings' nevertheless did settle there however best in wallet (they centered dublin). The English colonized the irish and in order that mixture of Briton (the celts of that field; england and so forth), Anglo-Saxons, Norman or even Roman ( i suppose the romans didn't settle so much at the isles, however they placed of their facet) all got here to emerge as drops in that sea of Celtic and (just a little) Scandinavian ocean. All of Ireland excepting the some distance West. This remained thoroughly Celtic. Off subject, I can hint my ancestry to County Clare, a facet of the Gaeltacht and most likely 'uncontaminated' through different peoples. What else can I suppose of... The Welsh had been famous for having darkish hair and light epidermis. Of path all people at the british isles had been reasonable skinned. It is the black hair that's stated. The Welsh had been additionally identified for his or her track and poetry. Also identified for the very. very, very essential lengthy bow. That longbow that originated with the Welsh is what allowed the English to overcome french armies in many instances their dimension within the one hundred Years War. It additionally slaughtered the Scots in the ones wars b/t the English and the Scots. (intriguing be aware, it sort of feels the irish wore their hair in 'mullets!' - no less than whilst the English had been first colonizing them-the english grumbled approximately the English settlers fitting irish-ized and that used to be a BIG criticism. that is how we all know ) The Anglo-Saxons (as had been the Normans, even though through 1066AD that they had been entirely mingled with the Celtic peoples of N. France) had been Germanic. They had been identified to be a enormous, furry men and women. Of path, this comes from Roman assets and Romans presently had been brief - as had been such a lot Mediterranean peoples. So we do not recognise their exact dimension, simply that they had been vastly greater than Romans. A be aware in your ancestry. Britain used to be a Celtic territory. Despite the Anglo-Saxon, Roman and Norman invasions and settlements their appears could have remained so much the identical. These invaders and conqueror's 'blood' used to be a drop in an ocean of a Celtic 'blood.' Hope this is helping your intellectual snapshot! I'd advocate studying at the discipline. There is truthfully a booklet at the discipline. I possess it, simply cannot uncover it (my books are in packing containers, shelf area for this nerd ran out looong in the past). Ugh. I simply appeared on Amazon to take a look at to uncover it. For half-hour. No good fortune. It exists, and its no longer a type of $50+ buck ones you brain uncover lodge your looking. It's a typical sized, typical priced booklet. LUCK!
👍 86 | 👎 -1

Lyda Lyda
two completely different time lines- since the Anglo Saxons and the Romans lived almost 1000 years apart! It depends how you define "civilisation" but the Anglo Saxons had a tribe based society with poor administration and weak military hardly able to defend themselves (vide Norman invasion made by a few hundred specialised warriors) By contrast the Romans had a working Empire, law, literature, art, an able administration spanning practically the whole of Europe. Of course in late Empire they spent too much on "social projects" (bread and circuses) and underfunded the military- which caused their downfall
👍 82 | 👎 -4

Lyda Originally Answered: Why does the NWT translate Romans 10:13 as: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"?
You are 100% on target. The Watchtower teaches that Jehovah is God’s true name but that "Superstitious Jewish Scribes removed it from the Bible". They make the claim that their New World Translation has "faithfully restored" it to the OT & inserted it in the NT "where it made sense to do so". These are direct quotes from their literature. Now, they have gone a step further in forcing the name into Romans 10:13, thereby, making the use of the name as essential to salvation. Here is the TRUTH about the matter: * OT Scribes used the Hebrew consonants YHWH. Later these were combined with the vowels from “Adonai” (Lord). The result was “Yahowah”, later translated “Jehovah”—A Man-Made Term! * As the word has Hebrew origins, it cannot be forced into the Greek NT. You are absolutely correct in stating that In all of the Greek manuscripts we have, “Kurios” (Lord) or “Theos” (God) is used—Never Jehovah—not even when quoting the OT. Absolutely! This is irrevocable FACT. However, I will state that I do not have a problem with the name itself. I will even use it when conversing with JWs, as they prefer it. What I do take huge issue with, however, is how the WT uses it to skew theology! This verse is a perfect case in point, as they have won many converts to their cause by claiming that the only way one can be saved is to use the name. Not only is this complete heresy but it completely legalistic as well. Do you REALLY think that God is going to determine your fate by whether or not you call Him by Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, etc.? Completely and patently ridiculous! EDIT: First of all, the WT is assuming that it is correct to translate Joel 2:32 to include "Jehovah" in the first place. Yet The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia states under the heading for Tetragrammaton: "Term generally used to designate the Divine Name (YHVH) traditionally not pronounced by Jews and formerly misread Jehovah by Christians". See, that?? MISREAD. From a Jewish source! Yes, we will concede that Paul is directly quoting from Joel. However, this only proves that Yehweh and Jesus are one in the same, as the whole of the NT testifies that it is by the name of JESUS that we are saved. The WT proves the diety of Christ all of the time in such arguments yet staunchly refuses to admit it! Jolie: "Remarkable" you say? That is fascinating when not ONE NWT "translator" could speak, read, nor write a lick of Hebrew or Kurios Greek. In fact, the leader of the "translation" team was completely made a fool of in a court of law when he could not read a passage from Genesis that any 1st semester Hebrew student could easily have read. Proof in the pudding. Jason W: You are right on target--and from what I have heard, you actually used to be a JW. Praise God that you have now come to realize the true source of your salvation!

If you have your own answer to the question essay writing for hire, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.