El Ninio & post Roman Britain

[Conal]

I remember chatting to a guy maybe 10 years a go, at a fancy dress party, he was James Bond, and he was madly fond of Arthuriana!

Anyway having found this out and having recently read The Age of Arthur byJohn Morris I mentioned this to him and it was like I had mentioned a family black sheep ....anyway after lecture on the wrongs of the book we got chatting about the possibilty that much of southern England may have been subject to flooding and desease as a result, which chased a lot of the population out and that the fleeing nobility crept out to Brittany etc.

My questions are ;

(1) is this a serious postulation ?
(2) if so this lack leadership would make it easy for an incombant or incoming German elite to get a grip on any subject population left behind.
(3) it may also leave the way for a mass/sizeable influx into an empty(ish) land from both east and west.

[ambrosius]

I remember chatting to a guy maybe 10 years a go, at a fancy dress party, he was James Bond, and he was madly fond of Arthuriana!

Anyway having found this out and having recently read The Age of Arthur byJohn Morris I mentioned this to him and it was like I had mentioned a family black sheep ....anyway after lecture on the wrongs of the book we got chatting about the possibilty that much of southern England may have been subject to flooding and desease.

Conal, welcome to the Arthurian age!

Firstly, I think that the OO7 you were talking to was licenced to fib :lol:
He was probably a bit of a Celt if he didn't like John Morris, who leaves
room for a Roman survival in 5th c. Britain, and they don't like that.
Secondly, I don't know if it was him who suggested the flooding in
Britain to encourage a Saxon takeover, but we know that the reverse
was true. It was the flooding of the coastal areas of the Frisian/Anglian
homelands which caused them to come over here looking for
farmland. In addition to being pushed West by Attila the Hun, that is. 8)
Then you do get the British refugees from the East moving West,
according to Gildas etc (hardly surprising) and the fleeing of refugees
from Western Britain across to Brittany. But there had always been
cultural & trade links between the British West and Brittany (or Armorica,
as it was known) and we think Britons were recruited to form the
original garrisons of the Gallic 'Saxon Shore Forts'. It was only after
the 5th c. that Armorica changed its name to Brittany, which really only
means 'Little Britain' (nothing to do with Vicki Pollard, as far as I know)
due to all the British emigres living there. But don't worry, apparently
my namesake was so successful at duffing-up those naughty Saxon
assylum seekers that there was actually a reverse-migration of Saxons
back to the continent in the late 5th c. as a result of this temporary
British revival. But nothing lasts forever.

Ambrosius

aka Mike

[S SEVERUS]

Britain and the End of the Roman Empire
Dark, Ken
Tempus Publishing Ltd
ISBN: 0752425323

Maybe this could help you.

[Robert Vermaat]

the possibilty that much of southern England may have been subject to flooding and desease as a result, which chased a lot of the population out and that the fleeing nobility crept out to Brittany etc.
My questions are ;
(1) is this a serious postulation ?
(2) if so this lack leadership would make it easy for an incombant or incoming German elite to get a grip on any subject population left behind.
(3) it may also leave the way for a mass/sizeable influx into an empty(ish) land from both east and west.

(1) It so seems that most British that went to Brittany seem to come from Wales and not from the eastern Lowlands.
(2) We have no clue what kind of leadership existed and what remained. If the newcomers organised themselves around already present military commands (such as the later Bavarians started out from a Germanic force in Roman service of the Regensburg legionary fort.
(3) Since (1) does not seem to have applied, nor does (3).

I also keep reading about plagues that seem to hit only the British while the Anglo-Saxons seem to be immune for... :evil:

[Agraes]

Yes, "Bretons" mainly came from south Wales and even more from Dumnonia (Cornwall and Devon).

Seems like the strongest resistance of the Britons was in the areas where the romans were the less present:
http://www.roman-britain.org/maps/indus ... ap.htm#tic

Britons from the west and the north had probably some autonomy to defend themselves even under roman rule, or as foederati for the Selgovae and the Votadini. Some warlords may even have claimed lands in the midlands, such as Cynwydd of Cynwyddion.

In the south east, there was probably no strong leaders nor a "warrior culture", so it was easy for the Saxons to take the place. For the Romano British, it may have been only to choose between a Briton from the West or the North, sometime half Gael or half Pict, and a germanic warlord... both were probably equally violents.

I hope you got my point, I got troubles to explain my thoughts perfectly in english :wink:

[ambrosius]

So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8)

(1) It so seems that most British that went to Brittany seem to come from Wales and not from the eastern Lowlands.

Firstly, that's a rather misleading statement. Here's why:
Yes, the original Britons who formed a British 'enclave' in Armorica
in the 3rd c. were probably recruits to the Tractus Armoricani (the
equivalent of the Saxon Shore Forts in Britain). But they could have
been recruited from anywhere in Roman Britain. Many British recruits
to the army were surplus to the requirements in Britain, and had been
siphoned-off to the continent for some time. No, the refugees mentioned
by Gildas in the mid 6th c. as having escaped the Anglo-Saxons by
sailing to Gaul (Brittany/Armorica) between 450 and 500AD were not
necessarily all from Wales. For a start, we're told that refugees from the
East moved West and that refugees crossed the sea to Gaul. There is
no way to prove a scenario where the Eastern refugees simply took
the places in the West vacated by the Western refugees who went to
Gaul. In fact, if the refugees are coming from the East, then it is far
more likely, surely, that these are the ones sailing to Brittany from ports
in the West, and that the Western Britons remained where they were.
After all, if their own land was not yet threatened by Anglo-Saxons,
then why would they give-it-up to be taken-over by Eastern refugees?
So we need to be specific about which Britons were sailing across
to Brittany in which century, for a start.

Secondly, modern Bretons are associated with modern Welsh because
their languages share a common ancestor - Brythonic - which would
actually have been spoken by everyone in lowland Britain in the
5th c. whether in Wales or the East. So, judging by the language link,
alone, it's again impossible to differentiate between Eastern and Western
5th c. Britons as being the ancestors of the Bretons.

So it seems, rather, that most Bretons would have been descended
from British refugees escaping the East of Britain. :wink: And to
finish with, here's another quote from Darth Vader in the climactic
light-sabre duel at the end of Star Wars I:

"So, Obi-Wan, the pupil has become the master!" 8)

Cheers,

Darth (I mean... Ambrosius - I mean... Mike) :lol:

[ambrosius]

Hi Agraes,

Yes, "Bretons" mainly came from south Wales and even more from Dumnonia (Cornwall and Devon).

See my reply to Robert for why the evidence for that
can so easily be misunderstood. Though at least you recognise that
Brythonic was also spoken in Dumnonia, as well as 'Wales'. :wink:
The truth is, of course, it was spoken by all 5th c. Britons.

Seems like the strongest resistance of the Britons was in the areas where the romans were the less present:
http://www.roman-britain.org/maps/indus ... ap.htm#tic

But yet again, that's a msileading statement. If we accept
that all 5th c. 'Britons' are fairly well Romanized (Romano-British) then
they're going to be 'Roman citizens' throughout the territory of modern
England and Wales. The assumption always has been that Western
Britain and Wales were less 'Romanized' than Eastern Britain - because
there are less 'towns' in the west than the East. But then, there are more
villas in the west than the East. And in the 5th & 6th c. we find all the
evidence for Gallo-Roman and Byzantine imports of wine, ceramics,
coins, etc in the West. And all the Christian burials. So, you tell me:
Who was more Romanized in the 5th c.... East or West?

Britons from the west and the north had probably some autonomy to defend themselves even under roman rule, or as foederati for the Selgovae and the Votadini.

True. The Votadini seem to be a client kingdom/buffer state
between Hadrian's Wall and the Picts.

In the south east, there was probably no strong leaders nor a "warrior culture", so it was easy for the Saxons to take the place.

You get the picture. 8) Except for the possibility that many
of the Saxon Shore Forts were still garrisoned (by native troops) who
could have held them-up for a few decades (as Robert says, the Anglo-
Saxon Kingdoms don't get formed straight away, but only after a few
decades of being here). And then there is the possibility of a form of
field-army (consisting of the units of cavalry based in the North) who
could easily have come South to keep the East free for a while.

For the Romano British, it may have been only to choose between a Briton from the West or the North, sometime half Gael or half Pict, and a germanic warlord... both were probably equally violents.

I know which I'd chose. :lol:

I hope you got my point, I got troubles to explain my thoughts perfectly in english :wink:

Don't worry, I understood you perfectly. You wouldn't like
my Breton - it's awful! :lol:

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[Robert Vermaat]

So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8)
Hi Mike. It seems you mistake me for someone else. I’m ArVee.

(1) It so seems that most British that went to Brittany seem to come from Wales and not from the eastern Lowlands.

Firstly, that's a rather misleading statement.
How can it be a misleading statement? I said: “It so seems….â€

[Agraes]

I guess the book to read about its subject is Les Origines de la Bretagne by Léon Fleuriot. But no longer edited (Im still searching it) and french only.

BTW, Cornish is nearer of Breton than Welsh of Breton. There was still inter comprehension between Bretons and Cornish pretty late in the history - untill this language died in XIXth century.

[Robert Vermaat]

Have you read this one:
Giot Guigon : The British Settlement of Brittany: The First Bretons in Armorica.? How do you rate it?

[Agraes]

No. I read two other good books on Brittany:
- Les Royaumes Brittoniques au Très Haut Moyen Age by Christian YM Kerboul, basically the sequel of the study of Fleuriot who died in 1982
- Conomor, entre Histoire et Légende, by Christianne Kerboul-Vilhon, a study on Marcus Conomorus

Just want to add this in the discussion, about the "3 waves of settlements" and the establishement of the Breton kingdoms in Western Armorica. Its the description for Llydaw, for my mod. You may disagree with several points and I may agree with you even if I wrote this :wink:

Brittany has a very rich history. It is well-known for it's megalithic sites such as Carnac, and it was very wealthy during the Bronze Age, thanks to the bronze trade. Then Celts came with iron, and several tribes settled in what would become Brittany. All the North West coast of Gaul, along the English Channel, was known as 'Armorica'. Future Brittany is far smaller than Armorica, but it was there that one of the most important tribes in Armorica - if not the whole of Gaul - was installed, the Veneti. The Veneti had a very strong navy, and found much wealth in trade on the Atlantic, especially with the British Isles. Their neighbours were the Ossismi, at the extreme West of Armorica, the Curiosoliti just North of them, and the Namneti and Riedones in the East. During the Gallic Wars, the Veneti were defeated by Caesar's fleet. During the battle, the wind fell and the Veneti couldn't move their heavy ships anymore. Most of the tribe was reduced to slavery. Other Armorican tribes tried to rescue Vercingetorix in Alesia, but this rescue army was defeated as well.

The Romans divided Western Armorica into 5 civitas, corresponding to the ancient tribal territories: the civitas Veneti, Curiosoliti, Ossismi, Riedones and Nemneti.

Briton migration to what would soon become Brittany only began in the IVth century AD. In this great period of troubles, Roman authorities settled Briton soldiers all around Northern Gaul to fill the holes caused by the Bagaudes' unrest, and by barbarian attacks. The true first wave of Briton settlement in Western Armorica occured in the late IVth century, after the passage through Gaul of Maximus Magnus with his British legions. Maximus killed the Western Emperor, Gratian, and he was crowned emperor at Arles. He wanted to conquer Rome, but Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, didn't agree with that, and Maximus was defeated and executed. However, Theodosius didn't punish Maximus' troops. Instead he ordered them to defend Northern Gaul. Many of them settled in Western Armorica, and legend tells that Conan Meriadoc, the brother-in-law of Maximus Magnus and one of his generals, became the first king of Brittany.

The second wave of settlement later in the Vth century. Ambrosius Aurelianus - also known as Emrys Gwledig - fleeing Vortigern in Britain, helped the Roman powers in Gaul against the Visigoth expansion, known here as "Riothamus". He was beaten by Euric, but he escaped alive, and after that he came back to Britain and defeat Vortigern, becoming the High King. He invited many Britons to migrate to Brittany, and it was probably he who installed the dynasty of Budic in what the Britons called Llydaw, or Letavia, later Kernev or Cornouailles, covering the ancient civitas Ossismi and Veneti. Budic was probably a prince from Dyfed, and the alliance between Llydaw and Dyfed realised a true thalassocracy: the heir to Roman naval power, the Classis Armoricana, which defended the coasts and civilian shipping from Irish, Saxon and Frisian pirates.

Around 497 AD, a foedus, or treaty was conclued with Clovis's Franks. Clovis confirmed the autonomy of the Britons on the ancient civitas Veneti and Ossismi - Llydaw - and gave them the civita Curiosoliti. It was Riwall, or Riwallon, a prince from Dumnonia (Domnonia or Dyfneint), who took this territory. He drove out the Frisians and Goths installed there, and his new kingdom was also known as Domnonia, or Domnonée. Some even clamed that Riwall ruled both continental and insular Domnonia. This was the third wave of colonization.

It's estimated that around 100,000 Britons crossed the channel to settle Brittany, most of them from Dyfneint, but rulers and monks were often from South Wales. In Brittany, seven saints are recorded as the seven founders: Paulus Aurelianus, Brioc, Malo, Samson... Indeed St Gildas came to Brittany, at Rhuys, and it was there that he wrote his De Excidio Britanniae.

Around 520 AD, Llydaw was split into 2 parts. The Western part became Kernev, Cornouailles, and stayed under the control of Budic's dynasty. The eastern part soon took the name of Bro-Erec, or Bro-Waroch, after the name of its founder, Waroch I. Bro-Erec was more or less correspondent with the ancient civita Veneti, except that the Romano-Gallics kept the control of Darioritum, its capital. Waroch I had 5 sons, and the custom was to split the kingdom between brothers when the king died. Conoo, Waroch's eldest son, didn't really agree with this custom and killed 3 of his brothers. His remaining brother, Macliau, escaped to the court of Conomore, the tiern (lord) of Legionensis and Pou-Caer. Conomore told Conoo's men that Macliau was dead, and he showed them a tumulus where Macliau was supposedly buried. They stopped the pursuit, and after that Macliau become bishop. But Conoo was killed in battle, helping Chramme against his father Clotaire, king of the Franks. Macliau returned to his old life and became the king of Bro-Erec. He made an agreement with Budic that each of them would raise the other's son. But when Budic died (around 556 AD), Macliau invaded Kernev and Tewdrig map Budic had no choice but to flee to Dyfed, at Caer Myrddyn. He married Urien Rheged's sister, and he came back to Brittany with an army. Macliau was killed in battle. Tewdrig, despite winning the war, allowed Waroch II to take power in Bro-Erec. This proved to be a lethal error, as Waroch II attacked Kernev and killed Tewdrig. Meurig, Tewdrig's second son, fled to Glywysing and became it's king. Budic II finally succeeded to the rulership of Kernev.

One of the most legendary figures of VIth century Brittany is Conomore. Conomore was also known as Marc, the King Marc of the Tristan and Iseult romance. In his younger years he probably served under Aircol Lawhir of Dyfed, fighting the Irish pirates, and it seems that he was the son of a prince of Glywysing or Brycheiniog. He was given the protection of an area of Dyfneint, around Castle Dore, and then he was send to Brittany, probably at Caer Ahès. He ruled both Legionensis and Poher, and was as strong, if not stronger, than the kings of Llydaw and of Domnonée. Conomore tried to establish himself as the ruler of a united Brittany. He seized Domonée after the death of its king, Iona, becoming the regent until Judual map Iona was of an age to rule. But when this time came, Conomore tried to kill Judual, and Judual had to escape to Clotaire's court. Conomore probably had numerous wives, and legend tells that he killed them when they became pregnant. An excommunation was pronounced on him by St Samson, after Conomore tried to kill his wife Tryfyn, the daughter of Waroch I, and this proved to be the beginning of his end. Conomore was finally killed by Judual and his Frankish allies at the battle of Brank Aleg, in 560 AD.

In 578 AD, Waroch II took control of Darioritum. The Franks tried several times to retake it, but were always defeated by Waroch and his son Conoo. Waroch also launched attacks around Nantes. Peace finally came by way of an alliance between Iudicael of Domnonée and Dagobert, king of the Franks.

[ambrosius]

Greetings, Obi-Wan,

Have you read this one:
Giot Guigon : The British Settlement of Brittany: The First Bretons in Armorica.? How do you rate it?

Yes, I have. And to answer your other question, that's
where you can find the information in my previous post. 8)

Darth/Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Oh, and it's worth reading. Though I have always
wished somebody would explain to me just why & when it was
that the spelling of Britannia (with the single 't' and
double 'n') got altered to its derivative Brittany (with
the double 't' and single 'n'). It's very annoying not knowing.

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hi ArVee,

So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8)
Hi Mike. It seems you mistake me for someone else. I’m ArVee.

Don't tell me; let me guess. Your full name is:
ArVeeTwoThree - programmed for protocol and multiple languages. :lol:

(1) It so seems that most British that went to Brittany seem to come from Wales and not from the eastern Lowlands.

Firstly, that's a rather misleading statement.
How can it be a misleading statement?

Because it's unprovable and even more unlikely.

Yes, the original Britons who formed a British 'enclave' in Armorica in the 3rd c. were probably recruits to the Tractus Armoricani (the equivalent of the Saxon Shore Forts in Britain).
I would very much like to hear your references for that. So far, I’ve never heard that a) there were British in Armorica during the 3rd c., or b) that the units that manned the forts of the Tractus Armoricani et Nervicani were recruited from Britain at such an early state.

Well if you read the book you asked about, then all will be revealed. The authors postulate that when constantius chlorus recaptured Britain, he may have transfered some of the Allectan units to the Tractus
Armoricani. Or, alternatively, he may have sent some barbarian units
(such as Atacotti?) there (but that's their idea, not mine).

Also see Andrew Pearson's: The Roman Shore Forts, p.63:

"On the continental coast, there was a significant programme of
fortification between the Rhine frontier and the River Loire. Some of
the sites were defended towns (eg Nantes, Rouen, Avranches, Coutances)
while others were dedicated military complexes (eg Oudenburg and the
fortlet on Alderney)... The archaeological evidence for these sites is variable in quality... The evidence for construction date is rather scant,
but is sufficient to show that most of the sites were built during the late
3rd or early 4th centuries... The analogy of the Gallic town defences as
a whole, to the sites on the continental atlantic coast, would perhaps
suggest that construction took place over a fairly lengthy period, probably
from the time of Probus (276-82)."

I see that you agree with me there –

Geez. I guess I slipped-up again. :roll: :lol:


Feel the power of the Force!
Darth/Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

– in fact, Hoffmann traces several of the unit of the ‘Tractus’ to the Rhine area.

Aw shucks... everything has to be Germanic, for you, now
doesn't it, ArVee? :lol:

No, the refugees mentioned
by Gildas in the mid 6th c. as having escaped the Anglo-Saxons by
sailing to Gaul (Brittany/Armorica) between 450 and 500AD were not
necessarily all from Wales. For a start, we're told that refugees from the
East moved West and that refugees crossed the sea to Gaul. There is
no way to prove a scenario where the Eastern refugees simply took
the places in the West vacated by the Western refugees who went to
Gaul.

Eeehhm. Who is telling us where that refugees from the East moved West? What scenario is that? Who is painting it? Not me, I’m sure.

No, it was the same bloke; Gildas. :wink: He says that the
Britons in the East flee West and some Britons flee to Gaul (by which he
means Brittany). There's no way of quantifying the number of Britons going to Gaul who came from East or west. But the logical thing would be that it was the Eastern Britons escaping West who kept on going across the Channel, once they'd found a friendly port (ie one beyond the reach
of the Saxon pirates they had just escaped from.

So we need to be specific about which Britons were sailing across to Brittany in which century, for a start. Indeed we must? So, who is saying what about the origins of Brittany?

Well we can't say that all the British refugees arriving in 5th
c. Brittany came only from Wales (or even, mostly so) and as Agraes
points out, there were several (three?) waves of migration, so we need
to be clear about which one and when.

Then there’s the saints. So far, they form the reason for the supposed links of Brittany to Wales. Most of the saints of Brittany come from Wales. Then, there’s the kings. The pedigrees of most early Breton kingdoms claim heritage from Southern Welsh kings.

Sure, that has no bearing on 5th-6th c. refugees, but it has bearing on the origins of Brittany. Most British seem to have come later rather than earlier, but what we can trace points to Wales and the southwest, not the East.

Yes, but the point is, these cultural links involvong saints and
kings are from the 5th c. onwards. And from the 5th c. onwards, the only
part of Britain still 'British' was Wales & Cornwall. So of course the
only appearance of contact between Brittany and Britain will be with
Wales & Cornwall from then on. But that masks any migrations which
took place previous to the 5th c. And linguists can say what they like
about no contact before the 5th c. (which we know is wrong, due
to the 3rd c. and 5 th c. migrations) but I can think of at least one
linguist on Arthurnet who would disagree.

So it seems, rather, that most Bretons would have been descended from British refugees escaping the East of Britain. I still have read nothing whatsoever about any refugees from the East going to Brittany and settling there, apart from what you say must have happened. :wink:

Gildas says it. Refugees from Eastern Britain moving West
aren't going to displace the Britons in the West. They'e going to be the
ones who carry-on and sail to Brittany. The western Britons aren't going
to up-and-leave when they're not under threat, yet, and give up their
own land to the refugees from the East. Would you? 8)

So, Obi-Wan, the pupil has become the master!" 8)
?? Master of what? And why? Nice of you to style yourself as my pupil, but so far your grades have not really improved!

Master of the sword, of course. I was your pupil once,
ArVee, once, but not any more. And if you look down and see how
you've just been sliced in half by my lightsabre (or was it a spatha...?)
that's surely worth at least a B+ :lol:

Feel the power of the Force

Darth/Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]