Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
El Ninio & post Roman Britain
#16
Hi Agraes,

Quote: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.

Heyyyyyy! My man! Another fan of Riothamus! Big Grin D D
You probably know it was Leon Fleuriot who identified 'Riothamus' as
being a title - or honorific. Geoffrey Ashe identifies Riothamus as 'Arthur'
while the guys who wrote : The British Settlement of Brittany identify
him as Ambrosius Aurelianus.

And I especially liked that last part of your paragraph, above. Big Grin D D
(But don't mention it to ArVee... he might get upset... :lol: :lol: :lol: )


Quote: 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.

Sounds good!

Quote:=Agraes]
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.

I'm glad you see Riothamus as an insular Briton , by the way.
Some modern Welsh people try to write Riothamus-off as being just a
Breton, and living in Brittany all the time. They even try to pretend he
was the same as Riwall. But that's because they don't like the idea of a
British king sending 12,000 troops to Brittany to help the Roman Emperor
(Anthemius) as they hate everything Roman. They will say anything to
avoid seeing a Briton help a Roman. Cry


Quote: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.

Maybe that was so with the later migrations, and maybe
even for 450-500. But sailing from Dyfneint doesn't necessarily mean
they came from there. As I tried pointing-out to ArVee, they could
have been refugees from Eastern Britain looking for ships in the West
to take them to safety.


Quote: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.

Wow! I'd be interested if you could provide evidence for that.
It would make sense if he did, I've just never seen the proof. 8)

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#17
Hi Mike,

As to the origins of Brittany, I'm sure the authors of 'The British Settlement of Brittany: The First Bretons in Armorica' postulate that when Constantius Chlorus recaptured Britain, he may have transfered some of the Allectan units to the Tractus Armoricani. But, as you say, they postulate that. So far, I've seen no evidence of units being moved from Britain to Brittany.

I'm not sure what Andrew Pearson's quote from The Roman Shore Forts, p.63 has to do with this topic of British immigrants or units from Britain going to Germany. Could this perhaps refer to our Saxon Shore discussion?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
Hi Mike,

On to Gildas a s a source for the supposed move of refugees from the East of Britain to Brittany.

Quote: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. [..] 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.

Does Gildas really say that. I only found this (and please tell me if I missed something);

Quote:Gildas, de Excidio et conquestu Britanniae, 25:
alii transmarinas petebant regiones cum ululatu magno ceu celeumatis uice hoc modo sub uelorum sinibus cantantes: ‘dedisti nos tamquam oues escarum et in gentibus disperisti nos’: alii mantanis collibus minacibus praeruptis uallatis et densissimis saltibus marinisque rupibus uitam suspecta semper mente credentes, in patria licet trepidi persabant
Others repaired to parts beyond the sea, with strong lamentation, as if, instead of the oarsman's call, singing thus beneath the swelling sails:
Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for eating,
And among the gentiles hast thou scattered us.
Others, trusting their lives, always with apprehension of mind, to high hills, overhanging, precipitous, and fortified, and to dense forests and rocks of the sea, remained in their native land, though with fear.

I read nothing here about where they come from or where they are going. Sure, logically we can postulate that, but in this quote Gildas is not saying what you say he does. Sure, Gaul was most likely the 'parts beyond the sea', but was it Brittany? And with 'high hills', does he mean that all fled to Wales? Or is he using hyperbole, like when he claims that the Antonine Wall as well as Hadrian's Wall were built the early 5th c., or when he claimed that all cities were ruined and that the inhabitants were left destitute, fleeing to forests, hills and caves?

OK, back to those influences from Wales. You say that
Quote: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.
From the 5th c. onwards? So Britain outside Cornwall & Wales was conquered from 400 AD? That would be rich even for someone who staunchly supports the idea of an early massive Anglo-Saxon migration! Come now Mike, I thought I was the one making silly typos! Big Grin Surely you mean the 6th c. ?
And yes, I agree that some earlier traces might be erased by later activity, but whole migrations? When we are talking about the Anglo-Saxon migrations we don't seem to use that argument at all, even though we agree that Anglo-Saxon migration went on over a longer period of time. And since later Anglo-Saxon migration patterns do not seem to have erased the traces of earlier migrations (or so I’m lead to believe Big Grin ), I don’t swallow the argument that this happened in Brittany either.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#19
Yes, most of Britain including the Northern kingdoms only fall to the Anglo-Saxons in the late VI and VIIth centuries.

Ill try to seek references for Gildas :wink:
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"By the strenght of Ambrosius, king of the Franks and the Armorican Bretons."
Lebor Bretnach, Irish manuscript of the Historia Brittonum.
[Image: 955d308995.jpg]
Agraes / Morcant map Conmail / Benjamin Franckaert
Reply
#20
Quote:Hi Mike,
I'm not sure what Andrew Pearson's quote from The Roman Shore Forts, p.63 has to do with this topic of British immigrants or units from Britain going to Germany. Could this perhaps refer to our Saxon Shore discussion?

Erm... nor do I, frankly. When did you turn this
discussion into one about British units going to Germany?!? Confusedhock:
I quoted Pearson listing the Gallic version of the Saxon Shore
Forts - The Tractus Armoricani etc , which ran between the Rhine
and the Loire. As far as I know, that doesn't extend into Germany.
I rather thought it might have been to keep German pirates out
of Gaul. But then, no doubt that would be far too hard to prove to
someone as demanding as yourself. :lol:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#21
Quote:Hi Mike,

OK, back to those influences from Wales. You say that
Quote:"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. "

From the 5th c. onwards? So Britain outside Cornwall & Wales was conquered from 400 AD? That would be rich even for someone who staunchly supports the idea of an early massive Anglo-Saxon migration!

Oooh, that's a little naughty... Vorty! :lol: You've tried to
scramble what I said, but I think I can still unpick it for you:

Firstly, the 5th c. runs from 400-500, okay. You can take the year 500
as the starting-point for what I described as being the shrinkage of
British political dominion (apart from isolated enclaves) to just Wales
and Cornwall (Cumbria too, though they had less direct maritime
contact with Brittany - which was the point I was replying to). Secondly,
I think you'll find that Gildas implies this. He lists the only 'British'
kings remaining as being in Cornwall (& Devon) and Wales by the time
he is writing. Some take that as being c. 550, but I know you think
that should be earlier. But then, pushing it back nearer to 500 only goes
to support what I said, above, don't it? Tongue Thirdly, you leap back to
400, trying to make it look as if I claimed the Anglo-Saxon conquest
began then. Of course it didn't, and nor would I claim that. It began
c. 449 - everyone knows that! 8) Tongue

When I go on to talk about British migrations to Brittany before the
5th c. (N.B. not Anglo-Saxon invasions) this is talking about the first
wave of British migrants from the late 3rd c. onwards, who could have
originated from ANYWHERE in Britain. But because access by sea to
Brittany from the 5th c. onwards was restricted to ports in Wales &
Cornwall (& Devon) due to Anglo-Saxon invasions further East, then
this makes it look as if Britons are only leaving Britain from Wales &
Cornwall - even though most of them are probably refugees from
the East of England. There. I dare you you to misquote me on that! Tongue


Quote: Come now Mike, I thought I was the one making silly typos! Big Grin

I agree. You are. :lol:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#22
Quote:Hi Mike,

And yes, I agree that some earlier traces might be erased by later activity, but whole migrations? When we are talking about the Anglo-Saxon migrations we don't seem to use that argument at all, even though we agree that Anglo-Saxon migration went on over a longer period of time. And since later Anglo-Saxon migration patterns do not seem to have erased the traces of earlier migrations (or so I’m lead to believe Big Grin ), I don’t swallow the argument that this happened in Brittany either.

Hey, ArVee, I'm not asking you to swallow anything...
(I don't know what kind of list you think this is) :oops: :lol:


Nor do I understand why you're talking about 'erasing' earlier migrations.
I said 'masking' earlier migrations. I've made it clear that the earlier
migrations from Britain to Brittany could have come from anywhere in
pre-Anglo-Saxon/post-Roman Britain, as we all spoke Brythonic at that
time, not just the Welsh and Cornish. You'd find it very hard to tell if
these 3rd c. onwards migrants were from the West or the East. But
that's got nothing to do with the political and trade contacts subsequently
established between Brittany and Wales/Cornwall from the 5th c. onward.
You just can't say the original refugees/migrants were only from
Wales simply because Wales/Cornwall were the only 'Non-Saxon' parts
of Britain from then on and the only parts of Britain still to have some
contact with Brittany. That's all I'm saying. It just seems a very
elementary mistake for scholars to make - assuming that all the British migrants to Brittany - from all periods - only came from Wales/Cornwall,
when there's no way of distinguishing between them and the Eastern
Britons (who had far more of a reason to be refugees, after all).

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#23
Hi ArVee,

Quote:Hi Mike,
As to the origins of Brittany, I'm sure the authors of 'The British Settlement of Brittany: The First Bretons in Armorica' postulate that when Constantius Chlorus recaptured Britain, he may have transfered some of the Allectan units to the Tractus Armoricani.

I found something interesting today. The once forested
inland region of Brittany is still called 'Argoed' (from Brittonic 'coed'
meaning 'tree'). Which contrasts with the coastal zone, which was
known as 'Armor' (meaning 'the tract by the sea). Hence, in the
original name of Brittany (little Britain :lol: ) that is, Armorica, we
have a description of the 'coastal tract'. And so the Tractus Armoricani
becomes 'The tract of the coastal tract'. A little tautological, perhaps,
but it reinforces that Armorica primarily refers to the coastal zone
of Brittany, that is, the part guarded by the late-Roman Shore Forts
that may have been garrisoned by Britons. :wink:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#24
What is ArVee?

"Hey, ArVee, I'm not asking you to swallow anything...
(I don't know what kind of list you think this is) Embarassed Laughing"

This does not seem appropriate for this group of family friendly forums. We have rules about being rude, attacking other posters and using provocative language....
Please go and re-read the rules for posting for Ambrosius/Mike
Caius Fabius Maior
Charles Foxtrot
moderator, Roman Army Talk
link to the rules for posting
[url:2zv11pbx]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=22853[/url]
Reply
#25
Armorica and Brittany are two different concepts. Armorica also included Normandy, the shore stretching to the Belgian tribes. Britons apparently first settled along all the Tractus Armoricani, to the Loire, but when the Franks came they were then restricted to a small part of Armorica - also the part when there was the most settlers: the Civitas Ossismi, Veneti, plus the Civita Curiosoliti.

Onto the Saxon conquest, the area with the cities of Glevum, Corninium and Aquae Sulis do not fell to the Saxons before 577 AD, when their kings were killed at Dyrham. Pengwern, east of Powys and probably once a part of it, don't fall to Mercia before the middle of the VIIth century, when its king Cynddylan was slain. It has been also argued that London didn't fall to the Saxons before circa 570 AD. Cynwyddion, around the Chiltern hills, fall unto the Saxons in the VIIth century too.

And the first northern kingdom to fall was Ebrauc (York), circa 580 AD.

So, in the first part of the VIth century, only south-east Britain was controlled by Anglo-Saxons, remaining territories includes more than Cornwall, Wales and Cumbria :wink:
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"By the strenght of Ambrosius, king of the Franks and the Armorican Bretons."
Lebor Bretnach, Irish manuscript of the Historia Brittonum.
[Image: 955d308995.jpg]
Agraes / Morcant map Conmail / Benjamin Franckaert
Reply
#26
Quote:Onto the Saxon conquest, the area with the cities of Glevum, Corninium and Aquae Sulis do not fell to the Saxons before 577 AD, when their kings were killed at Dyrham. Pengwern, east of Powys and probably once a part of it, don't fall to Mercia before the middle of the VIIth century, when its king Cynddylan was slain. It has been also argued that London didn't fall to the Saxons before circa 570 AD. Cynwyddion, around the Chiltern hills, fall unto the Saxons in the VIIth century too.

That's right. Though Beranbirg was 20 years before Dyrham.
This was as far West as Corinium (though to the south of it). Corinium
is the conjectured capital of the province of Britannia Prima - the remains
of which became Wales and Dumnonia. So between Beranbirg and
Dyrham, Dumnonia is virtually separated by land from Wales, and both
have lost their capital.

London is indeed one of many British enclaves which apparently survived
through the 5th c. The ASC mentions that, after the battle of Crayford
in Kent, in 457, the Britons retreated back to London. And Byzantine
pottery was found in the billingsgate excavations, dating to c.470-80.
(Excavations at Billingsgate buildings, David Jones, 1974)

In going beyond that, we have to rely on Sir Mortimer Wheeler's
hypothetical 'Sub-Roman Triangle' - an area devoid of early Anglo-Saxon
settlement in the 5th & 6th c. This includes London, but just how long it
lasted, is a matter of conjecture. All we can safely say is that London was
still held by Romanized Britons till about 500, at least.
(London and the Anglo-Saxons, R.E.M. Wheeler, 1935)

The Chilterns are another British enclave, defined, like above, due to
the absence of early Anglo-Saxon settlement. It's not realistic that they would have kept to the heavy clay soils surounding it, avoiding the
fertile high-ground within, unless a British enclave still defended it. This
region is bordered by the Romano-British cities of St. Albans & Silchester,
both of which show archaeology for a British survival till c.500.
(Britons and Saxons, Ken Rutherford-Davis, 1982)



Quote:And the first northern kingdom to fall was Ebrauc (York), circa 580 AD.

So, in the first part of the VIth century, only south-east Britain was controlled by Anglo-Saxons, remaining territories includes more than Cornwall, Wales and Cumbria :wink:

Yes, but with the greatest respect, I don't think you understood the point I was making before. The Anglo-Saxons controlled the coastal region from East Anglia right around to Dumnonia. It really
doesn't matter that Britons survived further North, or that enclaves
survived in the East. The point I was trying to make is that the only
parts of the coast still held by the Britons in the South - and the only
parts near enough to have maritime links with Brittany - were now Wales
and Dumnonia. Thus we may get the false impression that all British
refugees only came from this region (even though it was still 'British
free territory', and unlikely to have any refugees of its own). But the
truth is that the 'Brythonic' speaking refugees going to Brittany could
have come from anywhere in the South. and they'd be far more likely
to be escaping to the West from all those lovely Romano-British enclaves
we've just established as still existing in the South-East. And the reason they would need to escape through the West, instead of going straight across the Channel directly, is that they no longer had access to their
own ports in the East. As you point-out, the Anglo-Saxons now
controlled all these. :wink:

Ambrosius/Mike
[/quote]
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#27
Ok Smile

Thus something need clarification. The princes of the Breton kingdoms originated from Wales and Dumnonia, the monks too, and it appears that at least the name of the continental Domnonia originated from Dumnonia (the question of Cornwall and Cornouailles is debated). It has also been argued that the Britons crossing the channel were also flying the irish raids.

The Cornic is very near from the Breton, and there was a kind of intercomprehension between Bretons and Cornish pretty late.

So if part of the Britons settling in Brittany were coming from east Britain, at least this migration was organised by the powers of Dumnonia and Dyfed.
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"By the strenght of Ambrosius, king of the Franks and the Armorican Bretons."
Lebor Bretnach, Irish manuscript of the Historia Brittonum.
[Image: 955d308995.jpg]
Agraes / Morcant map Conmail / Benjamin Franckaert
Reply


Forum Jump: