The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[ambrosius]

Hi Authun,

The Anglo-Saxons evidently did not adopt Brittonic as Franks adopted Gallic.

How do you know that the Franks spoke Gallic?

I mean that Anglo-Saxons did not adopt Brittonic vocabulary to the
extent which Franks adopted Gallic vocabulary (3 words:120 words).

And as a consequence, when discussing the period around the year 500AD, that comment is 400 years out of date! :lol:

So you see, that Vindolanda Tablet - when read with a little background knowledge - actually reinforces the Germanic attitude towards Celts which we see expressed 400 years later in Britain.

Firstly, I did write if that comment is typical.

Oh quite. The problem is, everyone assumes not only that it is
typical, but that it's typical of the ethnically Italian soldiers (which
the Roman army in Britain are also assumed to consist exclusively of)
and that this attitude must have remained the same for 400 years. :lol:
Those are the three assumptions of anyone who hasn't studied the
Roman army to any great extent (for which, read: 'Joe Public').

The truth is, though, that none of those three assumptions is true.
Firstly, we don't even know which Britons this comment refers to,
whether the hostile ones to the North or the pacified recruits to the
South. Secondly, the units based at Vindolanda at the time this tablet
was written weren't Italians at all, but Germans (only the four legions
which came to Britain necessarily had to be ethnically Italian, and even
that restriction no longer applied in the late-Roman army). And
thirdly, the public will always assume that: 'Romans in the 5th c. were
identical to Romans in the 1st c.'. Of course, the fact that everyone
freeborn within the Empire was 'Roman' by 500 is an unknown fact to
the man-in-the-street. Nor would he understand that, by 400, the
'Roman' units based here for the defence of Britain would undoubtedly
consist mainly of local, British recruits. (With all the implications
which that entails for the withdrawal or non-withdrawal of 'Roman'
troops in the 5th c.!) 8)

However, I don't understand your reasoning when you firstly argue that it probably does not apply because it is too early and then follow this by claiming that it is applicable but attributable to germanic troops. Or have I missed something?

Well, Harry, it's like this: :lol:

Firstly, the attitude of ethnic Italians in the administration of
Roman Britain was completely different from c.100 to c.500. For the
reasons above (and many more) Britain was no longer being conquered
by the Roman army, nor did they regard us as being anything other
than Roman ourselves (as we, too, were citizens, just as much as
anyone in Rome - or Ravenna - or probably Byzantium). Thus, if the
comments in the Vindolanda tablet had been atributable to ethnic
Italians, then this attitude would not have been representative of any
ethnic Italians 400 years hence.

Secondly, the attitude of newly recruited Germanic troops (from
outside the Empire) in c.100 towards Celtic peoples in general may
indeed have remained the same from c.100 to c.500. Certainly, the
linguistic evidence you've given us still has Celtic peoples being called:
Volcae/Welsh by Germanic peoples (especially Romanized Celtic ones).

Cheers,

Ambrosius / Mike