The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[authun]

I think the use of the term 'eccles' itself suggests people rather than simply a building held holy by Britons. How would the germanics otherwise know of this non germanic term?

Bede states that Britons who were willing to pay tribute, in Northumbria at least, stayed.

"AT this time, Ethelfrid, a most worthy king, and ambitious of glory, governed the kingdom of the Northumbrians ... For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, ..."

It's not unreasonable to think that the Jutes of Kent had a similarly pragmatic attitude to british Christians.

best

Harry Amphlett

[ambrosius]

You assume that the population crash takes place before the Anglo-Saxon arrival.

Not at all. I see no population crash at, never have.

Okay. I guess you were paraphrasing Autun, paraphrasing Harke (or
something) instead.

I see a decline that set in during Late Roman times, as in much of the West, causing all kinds of trouble to the Roman tax-gatherers. It’s very difficult to see how fast or slow this decline actually was, so I don’t presume to say anything about ‘population crashes’ or things like that. But there were for sure a good deal less Britons by 600 AD than there were in 300 AD, for all kinds of reasons, war, climate, plague being surely among them.

Well we can agree on that.

Indeedy! Harke thinks that's why the Anglo-Saxons came here in such large numbers - deluging of their coastal farmlands. And although some may claim that not as many as 1-2 million could have come here in the 5th & 6th centuries, if you include all the coastal farmland in a zone from the Pas de Calais up through Holland and Denmark and include Sweden and Norway as being likely origins of some migrants, that is an enormous area.

I find it odd that all those who see these folks taking to their ships when their fields get wet, never even assume that these folks would look for higher ground first, instead of seeking out a hostile island that was even more prone to flooding! :lol:
After all, we see the first traces of these migrants all along the coast – not just British, but also Gallic shores. Strange, if you’re fleeing from the flood. Aren’t we just looking at migrants who seek out new shores for altogether different reasons, as the Vikings did later?

It's a question of evidence, though, Robert, not assumptions. Nobody
should be assuming anything. The evidence shows a depopulation of the
coastal regions of Holland, Germany, Denmark etc. There is no
corresponding evidence for migration inland - towards the migrating
Huns and Franks (and nor should that surprise us). There IS
evidence for English speakers arriving here, though. A lot of them.
In such numbers as to be the majority speakers. Also, what is your
evidence for Britain being even more liable to flooding? That's a new
one to me. :lol:

And I see you go on then to admit that we see the first traces of these
migrants on the British and Gallic shores. Thanks for the admission. 8)
And why should it surprise you that their first landfall is on the coastline?
If their travelling by boat, then how would you suggest they reach their
next landfall - by flying inland 100 miles to the nearest mountain? :lol:
As to your comparrison between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings... that sounds
like what I've been saying for years: that they were the virtual
prototypes of the Vikings, in many, many ways. 8)

As Harke, himself points out: We know that these regions became depopulated at this time. If they weren't all coming to Britain, then there must be many thousands of longboats lying at the bottom of the North sea! :lol:

“There must beâ€

[ambrosius]

Hi Harry,

Härke doesn't argue for empty landscapes throughout the east, just in some areas.

Von Kalben makes the point that the two eccles sites in Kent indicate a continued presence during the AS period. However, christian burials suggest that it was more heavily christianised during the roman period. The question is, what happened to the others?

Ah well, there we go. The name may indicate a continued presence
(of Britons living in the area of the 'Eccles' name) but the archaeology
disproves it. As I say, the adoption by the invading Anglo-Saxons of
the name 'Eccles' for a Christian church only proves that they recognized
the architectural features characteristic of a Roman church. They may
have been quite familiar with the basic design from churches they had
either seen or simply heard about in the Roman territory West of the
Rhine. That's all. As I also pointed-out before to Robert, nobody ever
makes the assumption that all the walled-towns or Saxon Shore Forts
in the East of England were still occupied or even garrisoned by Romano
Christian Brits (even though we have written evidence to suggest that
they were, from the ASC, eg Pevensey Castle, Carisbrooke Castle, and
from the very name of Walton Castle). Yet most of them bear the
unmistakeable generic Old English loan-word for a Roman Fortress
(Castra/Castrum > Chester/Caster/Caister). Rochester, Chichester,
Colchester, Brancaster, Caister, Portchester, Andredscaster were all
given the 'Fortress' suffix by the invading Anglo-Saxons. Yet we don't
assume they were still occupied by Britons (even though the archaeology
suggests they were - the 5th c. burials outside Chichester & Colchester
and the general absence of any Germanic archaeology in a wide area around Chichester, Silchester & St. Albans indeed do indicate a still
extant British population. Yet some people want to assume that the
use of a generic Latin loan-word into Old English describing a Roman
Church building is evidence of an extant British population :!: :?: :!:
Simply by virtue of the legacy of its name? :lol: As you point-out,
the archaeology does not indicate a continuation of Christian burials...

If the church moved, many Britons in Kent may have just ceased to remain christian, without the guiding hand of the church. Some obviously did remain practicing christians, and were noted as such, hence the name, but there could have still been lapsed christians around.

Doubt it, Harry. Look, the name is only evidence of the Anglo-Saxons
recognising the architecture. The shape of the building. And perhaps
that the last Britons seen in the area (before being killed or running-off)
were noted to be Christians. It proves nothing about continued occupation
by Christians. The church didn't move anywhere. It was throughout the
West as well as the East from the 4th c. onwards. The CHURCH
didn't move - the CONGEREGATION moved. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]

[authun]

Look, the name is only evidence of the Anglo-Saxons recognising the architecture.

What did these holy places devoid of worshipers actually look like?

best

Harry Amphlett

[Robert Vermaat]

It's a question of evidence, though, Robert, not assumptions. Nobody should be assuming anything. The evidence shows a depopulation of the coastal regions of Holland, Germany, Denmark etc. There is no corresponding evidence for migration inland - towards the migrating Huns and Franks (and nor should that surprise us). There IS evidence for English speakers arriving here, though. A lot of them.
In such numbers as to be the majority speakers. Also, what is your
evidence for Britain being even more liable to flooding? That's a new
one to me. :lol:

Assumptions Mike, not evidence.
There is no evidence of large numbers of Anglo-Saxon migrants entering Britain. Nor of the opposite. we don't have sources of people who stood on the beaches and counted the newcomers.
If there was, there would hardly have been an academic debate about that very assumption, right? Or are you calling those academics blind to the evidence that you claim is there? it's all models, based on assumptions, and neither academic party, nor you and I, nor Härke and dark, can present evidence of large or little numbers of migrants. it's assumptions, so far.

Your remark about the number of English-speakers becoming the majority due to their massive numbers is the subject of this thread, and I've seen nothing to prove the correctness of that claim, so far.

Why do you say that Anglo-saxons who migrated inland would have encountered Huns and Franks? these lived hundreds or thousands of miles away - the notion is a bit odd. Besides, although the coastal reagion did see a decreasing population, the population never left the region in such numbers that it became depopulated. Holland, Saxony, Denmark, all retained the majority of the population, those who did leave lived along the coastal plains. And no, we don't know how many left for Gaul or Britain, or how many simply went on to live a few miles further inland. But it's clear they never depopulated the whole area.

Britain was even more prone to flooding than large parts of the areas which apparently saw their inhabitants migrate to Britain. The coastal areas of Essex, East Anglia and Norfolk, presumably the prime areas for early Anglo-Saxon settlement, saw their fair share of rising sea-levels, similar or worse (the Fens) than Holland, Saxony and Denmark. Not a good prime reason to move from the one to the other.

As to your comparrison between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings... that sounds like what I've been saying for years: that they were the virtual prototypes of the Vikings, in many, many ways. 8)

Were they? So the Vikings pushed all the Anglo-saxons out, occupying England from shore to wales, havingg no interaction with the English so that just 3 words of English found their way into Danish, the current language of Daneland?

And perhaps that the last Britons seen in the area (before being killed or running-off) were noted to be Christians.

Of course! I can see it before me, running Britons on their way to Heathrow with their suitcases and a ticket to the Riviera, shouting to the persuing Germans: "Yo sirs! We're Christians and that burning building was our church!" After which, of course, the Anglo-saxons (who never had the chance to speak with a briton ever since) vowed to use the Latin or British word for that very place for ever more.
Like I said Mike, I do admire your sense of humour!

[authun]

The evidence shows a depopulation of the coastal regions of Holland, Germany, Denmark etc. There is no corresponding evidence for migration inland - towards the migrating Huns and Franks.

Hi Ambrosius,

That is not correct. The lex Anglorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum may suggest that some component of the Angles, along with the Warnians, joined the Thuringians and it is also held that the Sali, having come under the dominion of the Saxons broke away and joined the Franks.

best

Harry A

[Ron Andrea]

Robert wrote, "Why do you say that Anglo-Saxons who migrated inland would have encountered Huns and Franks? These lived hundreds or thousands of miles away."

Several sources I have record armed conflict between the Franks and the Saxons during the sixth through ninth centuries. In fact, one admittedly dated source (Geoffry Ashe's The Quest for Arthur's Britain, Academy Chicago reprint edition, 1994, p.55) quotes "Procopius, writing in Constantinople toward the middle of the sixth century, describes Britain as inhabited by Britons, Angles and Frisians, the last evidently Saxons named for their previous home. All three races multiply fast, he says, and the surplus goes over to the continent [from Britain? reverse migration?], where the Frankish rulers permit settlement."

Don't know how reliable Procopius was, but he sounds like a contemporary source confirming contact between the Franks and Saxons, not to mention the tantalizing possibility that Angles and Saxons for some reason were moving out of Britain.

Ashe also quotes (p. 56) a ninth century chronicler at Fulda mentioning Saxons as descendants of those "forced out of Britain by the need for new land." That certainly varies from the common picture of both Anglo-Saxon genocide of the Celtic Briton and the assumption of the Anglo-Saxons totally victorious.

Ashe's motive in digging these sources up, of course, was to establish the possibility, if not the probability or certainly, that someone like the mythic King Arthur lived and slowed the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain sometime in the fifth or sixth century.

Robert is much better versed than me on the whole Vortigern/Ambrosius Aurelinus/Arthur business. Don't get him started. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert wrote, "Why do you say that Anglo-Saxons who migrated inland would have encountered Huns and Franks? These lived hundreds or thousands of miles away."

Several sources I have record armed conflict between the Franks and the Saxons during the sixth through ninth centuries. In fact, one admittedly dated source (Geoffry Ashe's The Quest for Arthur's Britain, Academy Chicago reprint edition, 1994, p.55) quotes "Procopius, writing in Constantinople toward the middle of the sixth century, describes Britain as inhabited by Britons, Angles and Frisians, the last evidently Saxons named for their previous home. All three races multiply fast, he says, and the surplus goes over to the continent [from Britain? reverse migration?], where the Frankish rulers permit settlement."

Well, yes on both.

Saxons only came into conflict with the Franks when the Franks consolidated their 'regnum' northwards, and the Saxons southwards.
That clearly signals that
a) there were no Franks to hinder any Saxon that wanted to move his family to a higher spot close to his home, instead of migrating to Britain, and
b) there were enough Saxons to create a 'regnum', one that botrhered the Franks enough until Charlemagne exterminated them and baptised the survivors (or the other way around).
Which clearly shows that not all of them took ship for Britain when their feet got wet, as some academics seem to indicate.

We can safely say that Procopius is not the most enlightened source on 6th-c. Britain (he seems to think that there were two Britains), but he seems to have received his information from a Frankish delegation.

[Ron Andrea]

Yes, isn't that the problem with most ancient sources? Brings to mind the unreliability of our friend Gildas. It isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing.

To be fair, they didn't know they were writing records people would be pouring ovewr for hints of what was going on fourteen centuries later. Gildas was penning a Jeremiad on the sins and corruption of his fellow Britons, having no idea he would be quoted as supporting evidence for the existence of someone he never mentions (Arthur).

What about the "forced out of Britain" comment by the Fulda monastic? While it seems more likely that Saxons merely expanded into northern Francia concurrent with their migration/conquest of Britain, that source implies a two-step process. Which further suggests a large and (at least temporarily) robust Briton population.

[authun]

What about the "forced out of Britain" comment by the Fulda monastic? While it seems more likely that Saxons merely expanded into northern Francia concurrent with their migration/conquest of Britain, that source implies a two-step process. Which further suggests a large and (at least temporarily) robust Briton population.

Hi Ron,

We have to be careful with early sources referring to 'saxons'. They often mean any north sea germanic speaker who is not a Frank. The Saxon settlements in the Pas de Calais and Britanny may have nothing to do with the continental, or old saxons, in an ethnic sense. Theudebert talks of jutish saxons for example.

Even the Salian franks may have been referred to as Saxons by some writers, because they came from the north and not from the east across the Rhine.

It's also important to distinguish between settlers and raiders. The latter might over winter and then depart in search of new pickings. It's typical of the Great Danish Army and of individuals like Skarthi who 'campaigned in the west (england) but who met his death at Hedeby'. Frances Stonor Saunders writes of an army of 100,000 english mercenaries fighting both for and against the papal states in the 14th cent., but we never write about England invading Italy at this time.

Do you have any refs. or dates for the Fulda monk? He's obviously writing at a date much later than the migration period but it would be nice to learn more about it. Is it from the Life of St Leofgyth? Fulda was very much to do with consolidating christianity amongst the continental saxons but has it's origins with the anglo saxon missionaries to the continent. He could be referring to pagans forced from England by the newly converted Anglo Saxons. Either way, I'd like to read it if you have a reference. The monk may be Rudolf.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Ron Andrea]

Greetings, Harry,

No name. The entire citation (p. 56 of the above cited book) reads as follows:

A ninth-century chronicler at the German monestary of Fulda give another aspect of this same story [Saxons migrating out of Britain]. Speaking of 'Saxons' living north of Unstrut, he explains that they are descended from Angles forced out of Britain by the need for new land. They joined the Frankish king Theuderich in a war fought in 531 and he gave them a conquered area to live in. The area which the monk has in mind is [was?] still known as Engilin.

That help?

I had understood that the Salian Franks were just those who remained east of the Rhine when Clovis et al. moved west and set up housekeeping in what became France. Is that incorrect? They were two distinct groups?

I suspect that tribal grouping and identification was not so rigid in those days as we try to make national identification today, hence all the discussions elsewhere on RAT.com about who are or are not Celts, Romans, etc.

[Robert Vermaat]

Do you have any refs. or dates for the Fulda monk? He's obviously writing at a date much later than the migration period but it would be nice to learn more about it. Is it from the Life of St Leofgyth?

Hi harry,
I forgot I wrote about this myself until I looked for the quote in Google :oops:

Rudolf of Fulda, writing before AD 865, wrote in his Translatio sancti Alexandri about Saxons migrating from Britain to the continent in AD 531. Though the information is very vague, it seems to find an echo with Procopius (ca. AD 550), who reported accounts from a Frankish mission to Constantinople in AD 553, who told of all kinds of people migrating from Britain to the continent. Though the distance and language would account for the strangeness of the reports, it might signify British migrations and Saxon re-migration to Gaul in the late 520s and early 530s.
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gildwhen.htm

[Robert Vermaat]

I had understood that the Salian Franks were just those who remained east of the Rhine when Clovis et al. moved west and set up housekeeping in what became France. Is that incorrect? They were two distinct groups?

Hi Ron,

By the late 5th c., there were three main Frankish groups, although all were a mixed bunch with kings and sub-kings, without a tight control by an overking. Most started out in a very Roman context, as Roman citizens or federates, with Roman functions.

The Salian Franks were Roman federates who had been settled by Julian in Belgium and northern France, a region called Toxandria, hence them also being called Toxandrian Franks. Clovis originated in this group, and he had to deal with several smaller kings inside the group to gain the upper hand. Inbetween, these Franks were still loyal to Rome, and eventully to Aegidius and Syagrius.
The Rhine Franks were also Roman federates, with a structure we don't know a lot about. they were a fairly strong group, and it took Clovis years to conquer them. before that, they had bested the Alamanni in a struggle for power of the Upper Rhine.
The Franks of Arbogast lived east of the Salian Franks in Lotharingia, or rather the province Belgica II. We don't know a lot about them either, other than that they, too, had probably originally been settled there by the Romans. Arbogast was wise enough not to challenge Clovis, so he handed his province over to Clovis, in a move which would legally (in a Roman context) have seemed like a normal changeover of one provincial ruler to the next.. Of course, it wasn't.

'Salian Saxons' ight be saxons who had gained control of the Salian homeland, the modern Dutch province Overijssel.

[Ron Andrea]

Outstanding, Robert.

I've just read the entire entry at the link you posted above. Masterfully done and persuasive.

Now, unfortunately, I have to redate the historical novels I have in draft which follow three fictitious characters (one each Frank, Briton and Angle) through the period of Arthur's death and the growing Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. C'est le Guerre.

Thank you.

[authun]

That help?

Yes Ron, thanks. Something to follow up on.

The area which the monk has in mind is [was?] still known as Engilin.

I think it still does. I've seen it referenced several times. now all I need to do is make sure it's the same place.

The Fordham translation of Gildas doesn't mention it but I have seen one of the translations on the web where Gildas mentions Saxons returning to the homes. It's not clear whether he means back to their homes in the east or back to their homes on the continent. He of course is full of regret that the gospel was not taught to them before their return. Sounds pretty much like modern day english invading the costas but bringing nothing of spanish culture back on their return.

best

Harry Amphlett