More and more research points out that vikings had very good governance structures and left local population alone.

That's my understanding too. Several years ago I read a book about English History, and it does mention that after the Vikings invaded and settled in some regions, they displaced many tyrannical rulers and said regions enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity unbeknownst to their inhabitants till then.

It was also a similar thing down here. In Mexico the Aztecs stole, murdered and subjugated all of the neighboring tribes, until the Spaniards came and disrupted the entire region. Most history books won't tell you that the Aztecs and almost every other tribe were cannibals and performed human sacrifices, because Hollywood loves to make the Spaniards the bad guys, and has been selling a "noble savage" image of the natives. And that is also the way history is being taught in Europe. To me, what is not mentioned in the official history books says a lot about a culture and its policies. Heck, they even blame the Spaniards for the downfall of the Maya empire, which diminished and waned many centuries before they even arrived in the continent!

 

I recently read the history of the Roman occupation of Britain 2000+ years ago.
They did bring a little stability and 'civilized' rule having to contend with tribes such as led by Boudica (Boudicca) etc.
One main object of course, was they sought after source of metals where such as tin mines were already in operation.
I think the Vikings came just after they left.
Max.

 

I did the DNA thingy. My last name is Belgian and a lot of my ancestors were Scot. So it was no surprise that I am mostly Scot with some English, Irish, French, and a touch of Scandanavian. All of the major invaders of the British Iles at one time or another except for the Romans. The wife's family claimed a remote link to the Creek Indians of Alabama (where her family is from). Not so. The usual English background except for some remote links to Iberia and eastern and central Europe.

 

I recently read the history of the Roman occupation of Britain 2000+ years ago.
They did bring a little stability and 'civilized' rule having to contend with tribes such as led by Boudica (Boudicca) etc.
One main object of course, was the sought after source of metals where such as tin mines were already in operation.
I think the Vikings came just after they left.
Max.

You would be correct but I think the first flood of Europeans came as Saxons, which not to much different to the English in their minds.


kv

 

Here is a time line, mainly showing the progression to English.
https://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/timeline.html
Max.

 

I did the DNA thingy. My last name is Belgian and a lot of my ancestors were Scot. So it was no surprise that I am mostly Scot with some English, Irish, French, and a touch of Scandanavian. All of the major invaders of the British Iles at one time or another except for the Romans. The wife's family claimed a remote link to the Creek Indians of Alabama (where her family is from). Not so. The usual English background except for some remote links to Iberia and eastern and central Europe.

I think Max has done one, I’ve done 2 Ancestry and Family Tree DNA. The first one ancestry said I was 92% English but since more and more people have done testing the results reduced to 51% European and no English, Family Tree always had me and the family as 70% Swiss, 15 Iberian Jew, Syrian, greek and Roman.

kv

 

I did the Ancestry DNA and they pretty well got it right. They traced the diaspora from the Old to New world. It was spot on. Not only to America but where they went after that. Came into Virginia and Georgia with a lot of them going to S Carolina (mostly the Virginia folks who came into Jamestown and moved down to Sumpter County in the Charleston area). Then a few lost souls headed off to remote TX and IND for some reason. One thing about doing it, I now have far more "cousins" than I care to keep up with and they have moved all over the US.

 

Ancestry and Family Tree DNA.

I did as well. Bulletproof documentation going back five generations. Apparently I come from a long line of murders swindlers and women of less repute. Early in my professional career I've been a part of a team of engineers who has continued the research of four generations of scientists. I have contributed in changing the world twice for the benefit of humanity. What must a man of conscience do to make up for the sins of his ancestors?

 

I was born and grew up not far from Glastonbury where Joseph of Arimathea is reportedly buried, in spite of being a jew, evidently because of his wide knowledge he was given the title head of tin mines by the Romans and often visited England where he eventually died.
I always wonder if he had a companion that had to get out of dodge!
Max.

 

I did as well. Bulletproof documentation going back five generations. Apparently I come from a long line of murders swindlers and women of less repute. Early in my professional career I've been a part of a team of engineers who has continued the research of four generations of scientists. I have contributed in changing the world twice for the benefit of humanity. What must a man of conscience do to make up for the sins of his ancestors?

Don't worry about it, you are in a very large company !
My Grandfather was a professional poacher!
Max.

 

My dad always said people from Mass. like to brag about their relatives coming over on the Mayflower but people from Georgia don't say much about their folks coming to Georgia on prison ships. The McIntosh side of my family came here to escape what was going on in Scotland at the time. Brought in by Gen. James Oglethorpe to man the southern border of his Georgia Colony and protect it against the Spanish marauders coming up from Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine Florida. Quite a few battles/skirmishes around here and even an expedition to rout the Spanish from St. Augustine. That didn't go so well and one relative spent a few years as a prisoner in Toledo, Spain before being ransomed home. Oglethorpe brought the scots in because they were a "hardy and militantly inclined people" and put them on the southern border of his colony to protect Savannah and it's port. And fight they did.

 

Here is a time line, mainly showing the progression to English.
https://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/timeline.html
Max.

I like time lines and, if in parallel with related others, much better!!

 

I did as well. Bulletproof documentation going back five generations. Apparently I come from a long line of murders swindlers and women of less repute. Early in my professional career I've been a part of a team of engineers who has continued the research of four generations of scientists. I have contributed in changing the world twice for the benefit of humanity. What must a man of conscience do to make up for the sins of his ancestors?

The English did a great job in my family, as well as churches birth and deaths going back to 1566, all of them just plane boring farmers, but more like Spartans they could fight like Romans and began to be hired by kings to help fight in their wars or for protection. They came to England in the year 1000 and protected northern roads cross roots built by the Romans during occupation.

kv

 

The McIntosh side of my family came here to escape what was going on in Scotland at the time. Brought in by Gen. James Oglethorpe

This Historical web site made a bit of a faux-pas, they describe the people as Scotch, which is a drink, not a race!
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25080212
Max.

 

They came to England in the year 1000 and protected northern roads cross roots built by the Romans during occupation.
kv

The Romans built about 2000miles of roads in Britania, when growing up before the onset of motorways in the UK, you could always tell when you were traveling on a road that had Roman origins. you could go 50 miles in a straight line!
Which was totally unusual for those of non-Roman origin.
Max.

 

The Romans built about 2000miles of roads in Britania, when growing up before the onset of motorways in the UK, you could always tell when you were traveling on a road that had Roman origins. you could go 50 miles in a straight line!
Which was totally unusual for those of non-Roman origin.
Max.

The key question is, why did they build them so straight? .... because the Romans did not know the land, and the roads lead nowhere when they were built, and their purpose was solely expansionist?

 

I have always thought because it is the most efficient way of traveling long distance by marching legionnaires.
They linked either existing towns which Romans used for garrison towns, and some which the Romans created during their rule.
Max.

 

I have always thought because it is the most efficient way of traveling long distance by marching legionnaires.
They linked either existing towns which Romans used for garrison towns, and some which the Romans created during their rule.
Max.

Also maybe because the terrain lent itself to efficient, straight roads ... something that is all but impossible down here where I live, for instance.

 

Also maybe because the terrain lent itself to efficient, straight roads ... something that is all but impossible down here where I live, for instance.

I think it was more about the typical existing meandering country roads which generally wandered all over the countryside from one small hamlet to another.
Max.

 

why did they build them so straight?

To move troops more rapidly. Same reason that President Eisenhower pushed for a network of controlled-access highways in the US. The National Defense Hiway Network which eventually became the Interstate Hiway System. Which gets all fouled up every summer when the National Guard uses it to move troops and materiel to summer training camps in large and slow convoys. The real army moves by air.