Could've the Romano-British survived in at least a small corner of the former Roman province? The Isle of Wight, perhaps? In OTL, the Romans didn't build anything on the island other than rural villas, but if they'd built an actual settlement maybe the island - that would retain its old name of Vecta, that could become Vetta if the local Romano-British dialect will evolve in a way similar to the other Romance languages - could become a Romance counterpart to the Isle of Man.
Romano-Britains repulse the Saxon invasions
- Thread starter Pellaeon
- Start date
I think that you mean Cymru, Wales is the name given by us Anglo-Saxon-Viking-Norman descendants (at least culturally
)Interestingly the word Wales has the same root as Wallonia, and Wallachia. Namely a Celtic tribe the Volcae, pronounced Wolkigh, in English, which the Romans used to refer to all Celts, and then got into Germanic.I think that you mean Cymru, Wales is the name given by us Anglo-Saxon-Viking-Norman descendants (at least culturally
Interestingly the Germanic tribes used it specifically for Romanised Celts and later for all Romans in general.
Indeed, the German-speaking Swiss refer to the Romands (Swiss francophones) as Welsches.
Last edited:
Today's Trentino region in Italy used to be called Welsch-Tirol by the Austrians, too.
Indeed, the term was exclusively used for Romance-speakers, which points to some variant of Latin remaining in use amongst Britons for quite some time. Interestingly, the Saxons also had a second term for Britons, Cumber, which appears not exclusively in the North but also in the border regions to the earliest Saxon settlements. I've read some theories that this refers to non-romanized Britons from beyond the wall who were military settlers (most writings point to the provincial Romano-British having little to no military tradition) in disputed regions and who later took over when the older order collapsed either due to Saxon conquest or to instability created by the influx of refugees from the east.
Brunaburh
Banned
Thanks for that one. To me those look like accusations of stealing land from the church or perhaps sacking monasteries of other territories. It's clear from the last quote that there was Christianity in Cuneglas's kingdom. I feel Gildas would have been more explicit had Cuneglas been an honest to goodness pagan. There is some evidence from Welsh annals of paganism among Northern Britons, specifically referring to the battle of Arderydd and the shadowy figure of Myrddin. But these are very late.
It's more that it was used for those who appeared Roman regardless of the language so it's not a good indicator of Latin speaking among the commons.
I know the Angle groups called those in the NW Cumber, borrowing from Brittonic Combrogi that became Cymru in Modern Welsh, but I'm not aware of any reference by Saxon groups naming Britons in the SW as Cumber also.
Combrogi(s) basically means countryman or compatriot so isn't exclusively military.
Brunaburh
Banned
There's an article by Schrijver which sets out a convincing case for large scale use of British Latin in the Southeastern corner of Britain at the time of the Saxon advent. He suggests that contact between Saxons and Romano-Britons would have been conducted in Vulgar Latin, which would already be a second language for many Anglo-Saxons. This would explain the low level of Celtic borrowing in Old English.
Interestingly, he also points at a large scale adoption of Brittonic by Latin speakers leading to phonological and lexical borrowing from Latin in Brittonic, which spurred massive grammatical changes. Your theory about Cumbers v Wealhas in early AS England would fit with that, though the key division was probably not the wall, but Britannia Prima/Britannia Segunda. The Welsh word for England "Lloegr" was already in use before the AS arrival, so there was obviously some point of difference between the Cumbers and the people living in part of England.
I'd be very careful, btw, of falling into the trap of reading too much into genetics. Genetics and languages don't go together, and we have no idea of what the genetics of Britain were at any point in history. All we can say for certain is that until 500AD every single recorded indigenous individual and placename in Britain is Celtic or pre-Celtic. There is not a single indication of Germanic presence in the British Isles prior to the arrival of small numbers of German Roman auxiliaries in the second century, who were not likely to be permanent residents. A certain geneticist published a very silly book on this topic, which unfortunately gained a lot of popular attention and popularised the notion of an early Germanic settlement of eastern Britain, based solely on modern genetic patterns. This was largely ignored by historians, because it was literally too stupid for words, unfortunately the press loved it and it sold a bundle. Academics really ought to try and respond to this kind of thing, but I suppose there is no news in "things largely as we thought because previous generations of scholars (and Julius Caesar) were not total idiots".
The Troops in the Notitia Orbat will be available for you:
3. The troops enumerated in Not. Occ. vii represent the field
forces of the west as they were at this period (428-437), not, as is
generally assumed, at the end of the fourth century.
http://rbedrosian.com/Bury/Bury_1920_JRS_Notitia_Dignitatum.pdf
3. The troops enumerated in Not. Occ. vii represent the field
forces of the west as they were at this period (428-437), not, as is
generally assumed, at the end of the fourth century.
http://rbedrosian.com/Bury/Bury_1920_JRS_Notitia_Dignitatum.pdf
Robert Vermaat in http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artwho/name.htm develops the argument that a dude from Gloucester, Vitalinus, who was Arch-Bishop of London, was made into an emergency supreme commander (a Vortigern). For clarity I changed the references in the Chronology below by adding the name of the Vortigern, that is Vitalinus' after the commanders' title.
Also from http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestpat.htm by Patrick Constable,
Discordia - Towards a Chronology for 5th century Britain PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY
My take is that the Roman Forces listed in the Notitia Dignitatum are valid to 446. That the destruction of such as listed above occur against the southern and central forces (while the last major professional British military force on the island is effectively destroyed. [Stafford1069 emphasis]), the forces on the Wall are unaffected, numbering some 30x (400men) cohorts/ala (worth three old pre-Diocletion Legions - after all Britannia was secured under Imperator Claudius with four Old sized Legions). If you are going to repulse the English you need to use this as a cadre to train and expand your army.
-
Also from http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestpat.htm by Patrick Constable,
Discordia - Towards a Chronology for 5th century Britain PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY
- 421 - Roman forces assigned to control the Straits of Dover and other areas of Britain are withdrawn at the death of the newly-crowned emperor Constantius. (Please see footnote [43])
- 429 - Saint Germanus participates in the defense of Lowland Britain, opposing Saxons probably already settled in Britain.
- 441 - Saxons gain control of areas in Britain closest to Gaul. London falls.
- 446 - The British elite unsuccessfully petitions for aid from Aetius.
- 447 - Vortigern[-Vitalinus Arch-Bishop of London] is chosen to lead British resistance.
- 450-452 - Peace is made with the Saxons, who also agree/ to assume federate status.
- 458 - Ambrosius Aurelianus wins a battle against insurgents, made up for the most part of Saxons led by Hengist.
- 459 - Hengist defeats Ambrosius at Noviomagus, threatening London; Vortigern[-Vitalinus] grants concessions to the Saxons, bringing ten more year of peace.
- 469 - Vortigern[-Vitalinus] leads a costly joint British-Saxon expedition to Gaul, transported in Saxon ships. The force is defeated. Most of the British elements are marooned in Gaul.
- Saxons return in their ships to a country unwilling or unable to feed its federates. Ambrosius leads the remainder of British Lowland levies against a force made up of Saxons and loyal Britons, headed by Vortigern [-Vitalinus]. The latter is slain, while the last major professional British military force on the island is effectively destroyed. [Stafford1069 emphasis]
- The Saxons make an unopposed rampage through much of Lowland Britain, displacing most of the British elite.
- 476 - Ambrosius leads a successful counterattack that temporarily displaces many Saxons from Kent. He dies soon afterward.
My take is that the Roman Forces listed in the Notitia Dignitatum are valid to 446. That the destruction of such as listed above occur against the southern and central forces (while the last major professional British military force on the island is effectively destroyed. [Stafford1069 emphasis]), the forces on the Wall are unaffected, numbering some 30x (400men) cohorts/ala (worth three old pre-Diocletion Legions - after all Britannia was secured under Imperator Claudius with four Old sized Legions). If you are going to repulse the English you need to use this as a cadre to train and expand your army.
-
The key seems to be creating a unified Romano-British state. I'd suggest a POD around the time of the withdrawal, or slightly earlier.
The most likely possibility I can come up with is an ambitious and capable figure to unite Britain. Perhaps the commander of one of the legions decides to defy orders and not leave? He realizes that a power vacuum is about to appear in Britain, and he has a loyal military force at his disposal. He co-opts some of the local nobility, kills a few problematic ones (replacing them with his own officers), and the rest fall in line behind the new Rex Britannia.
The most likely possibility I can come up with is an ambitious and capable figure to unite Britain. Perhaps the commander of one of the legions decides to defy orders and not leave? He realizes that a power vacuum is about to appear in Britain, and he has a loyal military force at his disposal. He co-opts some of the local nobility, kills a few problematic ones (replacing them with his own officers), and the rest fall in line behind the new Rex Britannia.
it's cliche, but a King Arthur-type figure is probably the best theoretical figure to lead in this scenario
I wonder,
Would a surviving Romano-british culture use a Romance or a more purely Celtic language?
Would a surviving Romano-british culture use a Romance or a more purely Celtic language?
Pretty much.
My other idea (which really requires some sort of united government) is the Romano-Britons getting mercenaries to counter the Saxons. I'm imagining a war council in Londinium, someone grumbling about these Saxon barbarians, then someone else suggests siccing their own barbarians on the Saxons. How about making a deal with some Irish or Pictish chief? Probably Irish - they would have been Christianized at this point, which would make dealing with them more palatable. Of course, this might just lead to an Irish takeover instead of a Saxon one, but I'm still counting that as an improvement.
Romance with tons of Celtic influence most likely. Think how Romanian has tons of Slavic influence. Sortof like that.
Why? Romanian's survival was only due to the one-two punch of its isolated geography and HEAVY Roman military presence in Dacia which reinforced use of Latin/Vulgar Latin (and influenced things like vocabulary towards a more "legionary-friendly" nature compared to other Romance dialects).
Britain never had that level of Roman societal involvement; Roman-based society didn't just recede, but as others have pointed out, it COLLAPSED. Utterly. That combined with a lack of any proof of a developed (or developing) British Vulgar Latin dialect can only mean that linguistic influence from the Romans was superficial at best. While I don't necessarily think a Romano-British state is impossible, it does have the odds stacked against it. And even IF it were to stay afloat, there'd be a linguistic tradition pointing towards expanded Brythonic use, not Romance. Could it be Latinized in vocabulary? Sure, but it would be Norman-on-English style window dressing at most.
Could a Romance-speaking Britain arise? Also possible, but it'd take an earlier POD that in all likelihood would butterfly away both the abandonment of Brittania as per OTL, as well as Anglo-Saxon immigration to the island.
Last edited:
Brunaburh
Banned
I'm not sure that's entirely true. There is rather strong evidence that Vulgar Latin was spoken in Britain, incontrovertible evidence actually. It can't be proven that there were regions where there was no rural British spoken, but it has been theorised by Schrijver that the South East was almost entirely Latin-speaking, and had large numbers of Vulgar Latin monolinguals.
Nor is it entirely clear that Romanian is actually descended from the Latin colonies implanted briefly in Dacia. It seems equally plausible that it developed from the Latin spoken further south and West in the Balkans, where it first appears historically, tied to a nomadic pastoral culture.
Whatever the case, there was a far greater degree of Romanisation in Britain than in Dacia, lasting 3 times as long as part of the empire and leaving a far greater material and cultural legacy.
Last edited: