braveheart was a pretty good movie..neverthe less i prefered Hero or Hous of flying daggers  more cool fightscene's Lol

Erm... not to be picky or anything, but "Denmark" and "Saxons" have pretty well established etymologies that are alternative to the ones presented above...

Welcome back Tech.

Thias

  It is quite difficult to find two completely different racial types as Saxons/Angles/Jutes/Frisians and Hebrews.
  It's also interesting how the various tribes of Israel, that is to say, Semitic speakers, managed to master the arts of navigation to colonise and name so many widely scattered places; and then change not only their language, but the family that their language comes from.
  Sorry, Techstuf.  It just flies in the already windblown face of the majority of etymological/linguistic/anthropological fact to say that Europe is wholely made up of Jewish tribes.  The national symbol of Britain is the lion, not because of a Jewish connection, but because three lions were the symbol of Richard I, the Lionheart, who was not even British.
  Also: "Saacsons" does not make sense, because "son" is not the word for "son" in ancient Hebrew.  Similarly, it is not possible to use the words "Anglophile" and "Saxonophile" interchangeably.  Anglophile refers to a love of English culture, began by the first Germanic inhabitants, the Jutes and Frisians, continuing with the introduction of almost every single group of people in the world to contribute to our cultural melting pot, and extending to the Anglophone colonies and their cultures.   Saxonophile refers to a love/lover of the culture of Sachsen, in northern Germany, or of "Saxon" culture.  The word Saxon in fact comes from the seax, which historians know is the name for the characteristic Germanic "Saxon" tribal knife.
  It's a shame, because it's a very interesting theory, and one that shows how all humans are essentially one and the same, derived from the same.  We are, of course, all the same, and all sorts of nice evidence backs this up; but the time scales are so much longer than from the formation of the 12 Tribes of Israel as to discount entirely the theory.
  Sorry.

Yes, that too is what I thought.  Red is the colour, as we know, of communism.  The colour of the Russian royalty was white (hence, in the revolution, the Whites versus the Reds), and the Russian flag before the revolution was the same one it is now - white, then blue, and red at the bottom.  The flag represents the old Duchy of Moscow, and is based on the coat-of-arms; red for St George, wearing white armour and a blue cape.  Red, in fact, has very little to do with Russia.  The bear does, though - although it is also the symbol for Berlin, Bern, Warwickshire, and numerous other European locations.
  It is possible to draw any number of cultural comparisons to support a theory.  One could say that ancient Sumerians mastered the waves and became Austronesian - based on the use of the word "pana" for "bow" in Sumerian and almost all Austronesian languages; or that the old Hopewell society of native Americans in the eastern woodlands is descended from southern Indian groups, because both revered snakes.  These theories are just as strong - just as tenuous - as the ones presented.

Oh yes, it was about as accurate a representation of Scots-English relations in the middle ages as "Enter the Dragon" was an accurate depiction of Hong Kong in the 1970s, or James Bond movies are accurate in showing the life of a British secret agent.  Princess Isabelle, in the film played by Sophie Marceau, never met William Wallace; this is certain.  Therefore, the romance bit of the "historical-romance" genre can be discarded.
  What should also have been explained was that it was essentially a completely futile act, to fight for independence.  Scotland's economy suffered due to severance from England. In 1607, James I (VI) became King of England, making him king of Scotland and England, although this did not unite the countries wholely.  Throughout the 17th century, Scotland experienced severe economic problems again because of trying to finance England's wars on the continent, and in trying to join the race for empire in 1698 with the Darien venture, ruined themselves due again to incompetency.  The project destroyed the economy of Scotland.  Scotland was forced thereafter to wholeheartedly join with England, Ireland and the principality of Wales, in 1706, to form the United Kingdom.  Scottish freedom didn't last and was dangerous to its own country.  Celebrating it in cinematic form with an Australian playing the lead and using it to his own English hating ends is a similarly ridiculous idea.

William Wallce was essentially a glorified bandit. If I follow TS thinking correctly if Polish people are called Poles then people from Holland should be called Holes.

                   Hey Tech, what does that make Columbus?

Quote:
Then let's revisit the subject of the various sackings of York and all the border towns by Scots shall we?  At least on a par with anything England has done to Scotland.

  Quote:
Oh yes, of course there is.  Around 4,000,000,000 ya (years ago), some lovely amino acids got together and made some equally delightful proteins.  The proteins started shacking up, and you know what they made?  That's right - a really caring, sharing type of thing, a single celled lifeform!  This guy shared so much, he actually cut himself in half - no, seriously - and shared himself.  Wow.  And thus life was.  And each time these little guys divided, they changed a little.  Every so tiny changes.  This was caused by some great everyday spice, called DNA.  When that changes, so does everything else.  Amazing, huh?  Then, over billions of years - you actually physically can't imagine how long - there were produced, after going through too many changes, designs, prototypes and other whosits to mention, there came about the mammals.  Lovely guys, not quite so generous as the bacteria, but still pretty sweet.  They subdivided, as they gave birth (and these guys were some of the creatures that invented modern sex!), into all the different mammalian groups we see today - sea mammals, rodents, you name it.  And then there were primates.
 Now these things were no different from others, but they ended up, after around about 5,000,000 years, dividing into loads of different forms.  They started off in old Africa (and it was old) living in small groups, scavenging.  Some left Africa, some moved to Asia, some to old Europe, and at around 1,000,000 ya, there were groups of these primates living all over the shop.  About 250,000 years ago, homo sapiens sapiens was on the brink of arrival.  Mixed up chap, too bright for his own good sometimes, but nevertheless, pretty special.  Starts colonising everywhere, killing and quite often eating some of the other primate groups... Develops these things called "advanced societies".  They all try to work for the good of the group, Darwinism be damned.  They had moved on a lot from the early primates, not scavenging anymore, but hunting, and using lots of pretty tools.  At around 10,000 BCE, there came a thing called the "agricultural revolution".  They all started staying put, planting things, keeping other mammals in wooded enclosures.  Soon, they needed places to exchange their animals and plants - because their diets weren't now varied enough to provide all of what they needed, due to their now settled lives.  The first town was developed, Jericho, about 7,000BCE.  Although there are still hunter gatherers left out there, then and now, in modern societies, we tend not to give much of a crap about them, so let's concentrate on these few farmers.  People in other areas see these farmers and think wow, if only I had a plough.  They all start farming.  By now, of course, (in fact, around 70,000 years before now), these homo sapiens sapiens had all changed appearances, and all looked completely different.  There were yellow organisms and black organisms and pale, white organisms - and they all shared and made wars with each other.  And they developed some interesting societies from the far reaches of the globe to where they'd all begun, in Africa.  All were different, and nearly all started to create new things - "religion" and "philosophy" - in the years between about 900 and 200 BCE, the "axial age".  This is when most modern religions were born.
 In any case, being all of roughly equal intellect, these beings shared not only hatred and domesticated animals, but now ideas - sometimes written on bark, or parchment, or rock, or clay.  Their societies developed separate from, but also integrated with, other societies.  The tribes and towns of old had formed newer, glossier societies: They now had administration and codes of ethics.  They started motivating their "citizens", as they called them, and this idea - "nation states" - spread wherever there was no great physical impediment to it doing so.  Soon, everyone had a society - a "country" - and everyone was different, everyone was was afraid, and everyone wanted war.
 Over time, cultures moved, changed, killed each other off - creating the countries we can imagine today.
 No mandates were involved in the creation of societies.  No one society was better than another, although they all thought they were.