News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: East and West Kent  (Read 22204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HERB COLLECTOR

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Appreciation 218
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2011, 23:15:04 »
The map is not clear whether the boundary north of Sittingbourne follows the Swale to its junction with the Medway, so I have not coloured it. If it does, it puts Sheppey in the Buffs recruiting area.
My grandfather, living in Sheerness, joined the RWK's, recruiting in Queenborough, in late 1914.

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2011, 22:59:21 »
Another division of Kent that was not centred on the River Medway was that between its infantry regiments. This map, from “Royal West Kent Regiment, 1920-1950” shows the recruiting boundary between the RWK and the Buffs:


The map is not clear whether the boundary north of Sittingbourne follows the Swale to its junction with the Medway, so I have not coloured it. If it does, it puts Sheppey in the Buffs recruiting area. In any case, I’m not sure how strictly the boundary was adhered to; could the RWK accept into its ranks someone living in Ashford, for example?

Does anyone know?
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2011, 20:35:23 »
Sorry for such a long post, but there were a lot of questions to answer there!
Leofwine, I addressed my post to you because I didn’t like the idea of you having nothing to do, and you have certainly satisfied me there :). To have answered in such detail in just 9 hours following my post this morning is a fantastic achievement.

Very many thanks, and I’m sure many of us are looking forward to your input on the White Horse and anything else you choose to tell us :)
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Sentinel S4

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Appreciation 165
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2011, 18:52:59 »
My dear Leofwine; that was fantastic. I could read that kind of writing all day. Full of info, full of interest. I understand that Cornwall was refered to as South Wales until the mid 19th Century, hence the state of New South Wales in Australia having been settled by a lot of displaced Cornish people (they paid to get there as I don't mean those who had 'free' transport. Any one got any clue as to where Horsa was supposed to be buried in Horsted? I am enjoying your posts here and hope that there is more, please? S4.
A day without learning something is a day lost and my brain is hungry. Feed me please.

Offline Leofwine

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Appreciation 355
  • Today is only yesterday's tomorrow
    • Brompton History Research Group
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2011, 18:09:13 »
As peterchall's post was directly addresses to me in part I better answer!  I will try not to be too verbose!

Here are some extracts from ‘History of Kent’ by F.W. Jessup, and I wonder how they fit in with Leofwine’s knowledge of the times.

Vortigern, king of Kent, sought the help of Hengist and Horsa in protecting his kingdom from attack, promising them the Isle of Thanet in return. While many details may be fictitious, it is certain that they were followed by their kinsfolk bringing their families with them, so evidently unopposed. It is believed they were driven from their European homelands, so were actually refugees who went on to take over the host territory.

1) In essence, it is a true story, though, as they say in some Hollywood films, certain details and names were changed for dramatic purposes! In other words, we can't be sure every detail is right, but in general it gives a good idea of what happened. We know from archaeological sources that north German and southern Danish mercenaries were employed by the Romano-British government to defend the coast from other north German, Danish and Pictish raiders (a fight fire with fire policy!) after the withdrawal of the Legions from Britain in the late 4th century.   These men probably garrisoned the so called 'Saxon Shore Forts' like Richborough, Reculver, etc, and were already here by about 380 AD, possibly a few decades earlier.  Between the raiders and the mercenaries Britain would have been well known across the North Sea. With Rome abandoning the defence province of Britannia, and telling the British leaders to look to their own defences in about 409 AD it seems the British leaders looked to more Germanic mercenaries for aid, but with the collapse of Roman government (and hence coinage production) the British leaders chose the late Roman method of using 'federati' to defend border areas. These were not only mercenaries, but their families too, given an area of land as their own in return for defending that land and surrounding areas. Both in Britain and Europe this method was employed. By the second quarter of the fifth century a number of factors such as rising sea levels (global warming?), famines and pressure from tribal migrations westward from central Europe and the Russian Steppes, led to upheavals in the relatively stable Germanic tribal lands, most notably with the migrations of the Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons.  It may well be that in such dark times, the news of the fertility and wealth of Britain led more tribes to think about crossing the North Sea, probably at first settling marginal lands relatively unopposed (the British may even have seen them as 'cheap' federati). Some scholars now suggest that famine and shortage of food may have led to struggles between the native Britons and their Germanic federates, which culminated in full scale war (the battle of Aylesford, etc?), and after that a full scale pattern of conquest by the Germanic tribes.

According to later accounts the Britons fled to the west and eventually into Wales, or were exterminated by the Jutes; some of them were taken as slaves (the name of “Walmer” derives from the Jutish for 'coast of the slaves'). On the other hand, with the population density of the time, there was ample room for both races to live without conflict, especially if the Britons kept to the hills and the Jutes to the valleys, as has been suggested.

2) The pattern of settlement/conquest by the Anglo-Saxon tribes is a complex one, often complicated by people trying to make a blanket model to cover the whole country. It seems from a number of sources (place name evidence, linguistic evidence, archaeology, continental records, etc.) that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain really was a piecemeal affair, in some places (such as Kent) involving an almost total removal or subjugation of the native population to a new ruling elite ruling over a substantially unchanged native population. For example, in Kent almost no Roman/British place names survived, and the local dialect is entirely Germanic, whereas in Northumbria there are many surviving British place names and even the Northumbrian dialect contains a large number of British loan words (on figure I have seen suggests perhaps 25%). To further add to the confusion it seems that in some places the early 'federate' settlers may have seen these new waves of settlers as just as much of a threat as the native Britons did, and in some cases there were likely Germanic tribes fighting on both sides.  Ultimately, the Anglo-Saxon military elite won out, and Anglo-Saxon culture spread across the former province of Britannia, leaving the ear;ier British/Romano-British culture to surviveonly in Wales, Cornwall (although this was later conquered/absorbed too) and perhaps parts of Cumbria, and in some cases stretching beyond the old Roman province (for example, the capital of  Scotland, Edinburgh, was actually an Anglo-Saxon city/fortress founded by King Edwin of Northumbria, the name in both Old English and Scots Gaelic (Edwin's Burgh/Dun Eidin respectively) meaning 'the fortress of King Edwin').

And if that didn't cause enough problems, over the next couple of centuries, the 30-40 small independent kingdoms these various Germanic leaders carved out for themselves began warring with each other, gradually amalgamating into the even major kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy.

This map shows that place names ending in “ham” were mainly in the north, while those ending in “den” and “hurst” were mainly in the south – is there any significance in that?

3) The signifacance of that is simple and geographical in nature, not cultural. In old English denn meant valley and ham meant meadow or enclosed plot (sometimes taken as 'farm') so on the downs there were many farms on the open hills, in the south many settlements along the river valleys that crossed the weald. Incidentally, much of the wealf was a single vast forest, the Old English word for forest was weald with what we now sometimes refer to as the wealden forest than being known as Andredsweald (the forest of Andred). And to complete the major placename pattern you will find many of the old settlements within this area are 'hursts', the word hurst simply being Old English for 'forest clearing'.

Some thoughts:
With the Anglo-Saxon victory at Aylesford, is there any reason why they didn’t spread across the Medway then, rather than 50 years later?

4) It is quite possible a few may have moved across and settled there, but rivers (or other natural barriers - cliffs, swamps, etc) often formed the borders of the early kingdoms, so the power of the Kentish king would have ended at the Medway. The reason for the later expansion of his power may well have been because the pressure of Kentish Jutes/Saxons crossing the river and settling there brought things to a head with the local British population, and led to the battle that brought that part of Kent under Germanic rule.

If the use of the Medway to determine whether one was a Kentish Man or Man-of-Kent didn’t occur until after the Jutes occupied the whole of Kent, the distinction could not have been based on ethnic differences.

5) See above (2) & (4). It may well be that the population west of the river was 'mixed race', made up of recenent Germanic settlers and Britons who had lived there for generations but then under Germanic rule, and those east of the River being of much more Germanic stock, Doubtless many of the native British women (and perhaps some men) had married into the Germanic families of the first settlers, and this intermarriage is strongly suggested by the fact Hengest (the Jutish leader) is reputed to have married Rowena, the daughter of Vortigern (the British leader). Whilst the historical record of such a marriage may not exist, the survival in folklore may echo the fact that there was considerable intermarriage in the early years. By the time of the expansion west of the Medway, the eastern side had already established it's own cultural identity, so the mixed race inhabitants the other side of the river may have been considered somewhat 'foreign', hence the distinction.  Also, judging from Kieth's post, there had been a distinction between the two sides of the river for centuries before that, so that may have marked a logical division for the early Kindom of Kent following the Battle of Aylesford.

Am I correct in believing that ‘Horsted’, Chatham, is connected to Horsa – his home or burial place, for example?

Horsted is indeed said to take its name from being Horsa's burial place, and the folklore surrounding it is a very interesting example of how grains of historical truth may be preserved in folklore, but the full explanation of what I mean there would probably best be served in a new thread as it also covers the origin of the white horse as the symbol of Kent and other things.  I will try to get that done over the weekend.

Sorry for such a long post, but there were a lot of questions to answer there!
=========
Brompton History Research Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1891788967775575/

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2011, 09:02:57 »
Here are some extracts from ‘History of Kent’ by F.W. Jessup, and I wonder how they fit in with Leofwine’s knowledge of the times.

Vortigern, king of Kent, sought the help of Hengist and Horsa in protecting his kingdom from attack, promising them the Isle of Thanet in return. While many details may be fictitious, it is certain that they were followed by their kinsfolk bringing their families with them, so evidently unopposed. It is believed they were driven from their European homelands, so were actually refugees who went on to take over the host territory.

According to later accounts the Britons fled to the west and eventually into Wales, or were exterminated by the Jutes; some of them were taken as slaves (the name of “Walmer” derives from the Jutish for 'coast of the slaves'). On the other hand, with the population density of the time, there was ample room for both races to live without conflict, especially if the Britons kept to the hills and the Jutes to the valleys, as has been suggested.

This map shows that place names ending in “ham” were mainly in the north, while those ending in “den” and “hurst” were mainly in the south – is there any significance in that?


Some thoughts:
With the Anglo-Saxon victory at Aylesford, is there any reason why they didn’t spread across the Medway then, rather than 50 years later?

If the use of the Medway to determine whether one was a Kentish Man or Man-of-Kent didn’t occur until after the Jutes occupied the whole of Kent, the distinction could not have been based on ethnic differences.

Am I correct in believing that ‘Horsted’, Chatham, is connected to Horsa – his home or burial place, for example?
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2011, 20:52:13 »
All the divisions of Kent seem to have been on an East/West basis, yet one might imagine the direction of the North Downs, Vale of Maidstone (if that’s its right name) and the Weald would ‘force’ a North/South divide due to the difficulty of North/South travel.

The extreme west of the modern county was occupied by Iron Age tribes, known as the Regnenses. It is possible that another ethnic group occupied what is now called The Weald and East Kent. Was this the original East/West divide, as opposed to divisions between earlier nomadic tribes who probably occupied no fixed territory?

The modern name of Kent is derived from the Brythonic word Cantus meaning "rim" or "border". This describes the eastern part of the current county area as a border land or coastal district. Julius Caesar had described the area as Cantium, or home of the Cantiaci in 51 BC.

It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Keith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Appreciation 0
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2011, 19:47:30 »
Some interesting discussions here but this East - West divide is probably much, much older. Study of the pre-Roman Iron Age pottery types and coinage of these two regions indicates that they were different long before the Romans turned up.

Keith

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 08:48:47 »
In the course of delving for this topic I'm finding some conflicting information, at least to my simple mind. So please bear in mind that what I write is often only my interpretation – any clarification is welcome.
I will shut up now, before I come even more of a bore on one of my most studied periods of history! :)
Please don't, Leofwine. You have come to my rescue :). As SentinelS4 says, that was great.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Leofwine

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Appreciation 355
  • Today is only yesterday's tomorrow
    • Brompton History Research Group
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 00:10:32 »
A quick note re the Jutes: The 'tribal' name Jute and the place name Jutland are linked, but not as simply as peterchall states. The original Jutish tribe probably originated in Jutland and gave their name to (or possibly took their name from) Jutland. However, the Jutes wo invaded/settled in England were probably not directly from Jutland, and not entiely 'Jutish' in the oroginal sense. Archaeological evidence both here and on the Continent show that the Jutes who came to England were from a group or groups in Frisia (modern Holland), a mixed group of native Frisians and Danish settlers (a kind of pre-Viking viking invasion of Holland!). These Danish settlers seem to have come primarily, but not exclusively, from the Jutland penninsula. They appear to have been settled in Frisia for several generations before crossing the North Sea to Britain. This also explains why a people who in the simplistic versions seem to have come from the most northerly parts of Angeln (Old Denmark) ended up in the southernmost portion of Britain (note I don't say England as England derives from "Angleland", and when the Jutish Frisians, probably the first wave of 'Anglo-Saxon' immigrants, arrived here England, i.e, Angleland, properly referred to Denmark!). Even the earliest dialects of Kentish Anglo-Saxon language contain a large number of Frisian as well as Danish words.

Interestingly in both Scandinavian and Frisian folklore are tales of a hero and war leader named Hengist (most notably the tale of Finn and Hengest recounted in part in the epic Anglo-Saxon poem 'Beowulf'), thought to be the same person Bede claimed as the first leader of Kent, along with his (probably fictitious) brother Horsa. Whether the historical Hengest ever truly led the first settlers, or if he was just a famous character Bede singled out to make his histories more appealing to his audience is uncertain.

I'm not going to go into it here but there is an ever growing amount of evidence to suggest that Bede's history of the first century or so of Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was as much folklore as real history, and that much of the supposed folklore contained in Beowulf was actually fairly accurate history (monsters not included) than was once thought. Even that date of 449 A.D. that every schoolchild used to learn as the arrival date for the first Anglo-Saxons was only Bede's best gues and was infact out my more than three decades, continental sources suggest that as early as 428 A.D. much of Britain was already under the control of the "Anglii et Iuatae" (Angles and Jutes), but given the fact he was having to work back over 200 years from only verbal history and lists of rulers in lands 'foreign' and distant to him, he did not do a bad estimate!

Also, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Kent seems to have gon in three phases, the first two being relatively close in date, but the third was much later, and this distinction in phases may be part of the origins of the Man of Kent/Kentish Man distinction. The earliest phases of Jutish/Anglo-Saxon settlement appear to have been on Thanet, but within a generation or two the border had been pushed to the River Medway, usually credited to the Anglo-Saxon victory at the battle of Aylesford (probably fought in the area between Kit's Coty and the modern village of Aylesford) in the middle if the 5th century (Bede gives a date of 456 A.D.). This seems to have remained the border of Kent for the next half century or so, until the English inhabitants of Kent expanded west once more, crossing the Medway and defeating another British force at the Battle of Cecganoford (now generally thought to be Crayford by most scholars) in about 500 A.D., when Kent expanded to include most or all of what is modern West Kent and parts of what is now South-east London, parts of Eastern Surrey, and some of the most easterly parts of what is now East Sussex (though later Kentish power may have extended as far west as modern Slough and Reading).  The use of the River Medway in determing whether some one was a Man of Kent or a Kentish man may, at least in part, owe its origin to the distinction of what by the beginning of the 6th century may have been thought of as 'old Kent' (east of the Medway) and 'new Kent' (West of the Medway).

I will shut up now, before I come even more of a bore on one of my most studied periods of history! :)
=========
Brompton History Research Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1891788967775575/

Offline Riding With The Angels

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Appreciation 36
    • Ghost Connections
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2011, 16:56:54 »
I know the significance of Maidstone as the county town but funny how 'west of the Medway administered by Maidstone' seems a little contrary as the actual town of Maidstone is prediminantly on the east side. But then so was Rochester so where would you chose? Tonbridge?

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2011, 12:06:26 »
In the course of delving for this topic I’m finding some conflicting information, at least to my simple mind. So please bear in mind that what I write is often only my interpretation – any clarification is welcome.

Jutes were one of the 3 Germanic tribes to enter Britain after the Romans left, the others being the Angles and Saxons. They came from Jutland (modern day Denmark and NW Germany), and I had believed that they occupied East Kent by driving out the Britons, with the Anglo-Saxons driving the Britons from West Kent. But this map of SE England C575, casts doubt on that – it looks as if the Jutes occupied the whole of Kent, including parts that were eventually lost to London. So any theory that West Kent = Anglo-Saxon and East Kent = Jute, seems knocked on the head.

The green printed word diagonally across Kent is 'Cantwara'

As an aside, but to complete the picture, the Jutes in Hampshire and the Isle-of-Wight seemed to vanish. The Venerable Bede implies that the Jutish aristocracy was ‘ethnically cleansed’ in 686 by the Saxons, thus leaving the commoners leaderless and easily absorbed.
Source - internet
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2011, 23:08:04 »
A fascinating subject - I understood it to be where you are born not where you live?
I thought that too, until I went to the Association’s website and found this:
“The Association of Men-of-Kent and Kentish Men was formed in December 1887. This follows a long tradition of distinction between the two halves of Kent believed to have been established in pre-Saxon times. Kentish Men (or Maids) are those born to the west of the Medway, in an area traditionally administered from Maidstone. Men (or Maids) of Kent are those born to the east of the Medway, the area traditionally administered by Canterbury. There is very little evidence for the origins of this division and it is more a reflection of the Victorian interpretation of the history of the county than it is of historical fact. Nowadays, there is a more relaxed attitude to this with people relating more to their place of residence than place of birth”.

The map is a section of a larger one – the pink area at top right is the Lathe of St Augustine and the yellow at bottom right is the Lathe of Shepway. The full map is here: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/maps/speed.html

I’m finding the subject of the division of Kent to be more complex than I thought and have got some more info brewing.

It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Riding With The Angels

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Appreciation 36
    • Ghost Connections
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2011, 19:34:38 »
Peterchall,

 A fascinating subject - I understood it to be where you are born not where you live?

 I am having a little difficulty with the map as the easterly border of green links onto pink and also a further yellow area the same as that in the west?

RWTA

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: East and West Kent
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2011, 12:08:41 »
.....the division [of Kent] by the Medway may be too simplistic because other sources suggest the boundary corresponds to the Diocese of Rochester. There was once a boundary stone at Rainham Mark that marked the division of Kent as defined by the Dioceses of Rochester and Canterbury and/or the West and East Kent Quarter Sessions. Presumably there were other markers as the dividing line went south.
The West Kent Quarter Sessions were based in Maidstone and consisted of the Lathe of Aylesford, the Lathe of Sutton-at-Hone and the lower division of the Lathe of Scray.
The East Kent Quarter Sessions were based in Canterbury and corresponded to the Diocese of Canterbury, consisting of the Lathe of St Augustine, the Lathe of Shepway, and the upper division of the Lathe of Scray.
If the division between E & W Kent was defined by the border between the Quarter Sessions, then it was much further East than I thought, as this 17th Century map shows:
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines