"We gonna build a wall the Picts are gonna pay for"

[IsadorBG]

Well the idea is the King came first. With a retinue of loyal men. And that the settlers came after. In a span of a century or so. Note that in this theory, there was little to no confiscation of lands of the Britons and that the germanics settlers mostly settled on lands left empty by the previous crisis. Not so disimilar to what happened in many other regions elsewhere in West Rome. The only difference is the numbers of migrants. Up to 40% of the new population according to some.

Which is why the Anglo-Saxon assimilated the Celts and not the reverse like elsewhere.

As for other examples, well that's the thing. We don't have any other point of comparison where a culture supplant another so fast.

 

[Magean]

Well the idea is the King came first. With a retinue of loyal men. And that the settlers came after. In a span of a century or so. Note that in this theory, there was little to no confiscation of lands of the Britons and that the germanics settlers mostly settled on lands left empty by the previous crisis. Not so disimilar to what happened in many other regions elsewhere in West Rome. The only difference is the numbers of migrants. Up to 40% of the new population according to some.

Which is why the Anglo-Saxon assimilated the Celts and not the reverse like elsewhere.

Alright... not convinced, still, that sounds more like a revisionist attempt to "legitimize" England being England and not Prytein.

In addition, Anglia is but a part of England, and other areas were thoroughly assimilated not long after that initial settlement.

As for other examples, well that's the thing. We don't have any other point of comparison where a culture supplant another so fast.

Well we do, but only where ethnic cleansings (extermination or displacement) was involved. Here there are hints the conquest was brutal (including Britons fleeing to the continent), but a full-scale cleansing seems unlikely.

Come to think of it, how long did it take for Armorica to turn actually into Brittany, with the western part fully adopting the invading refugees' language? That doesn't seem much documented either.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

and their gods had probably died and abandoned them as well

That wasn't that much of a problem tbh. They were all (well, not all, most) like ”oh you defeated us. Your gods must be better! Of course we will get rid of our statues and please tell us more about that hesus thing!”

 

[Grandpa Maur]

An interesting comparison you made with the Spanish conquest of America. And yet, despite the brutality of the conquests and the monumental loss in life and culture suffered by the natives... their languages and religion survived. Clearly heavily damaged by centuries of European oppression but they haven't vanished either which is interesting.

Well, it's huge area and you can find all kinds of scenarios there from complete replacement in Carribean (conquered swiftly) to basically survival of native culture up until today in Yucatan (two centuries until subjugation).

It's quite well documented as a bonus.

Mesoamerica was very densily populated - corn being the insanely productive crop that is is, particularly in its native environment - and even after losing 90% of its population, Mesoamerica still had a population in the lower millions, you would indeed expect areas where native languages survived. There just wouldn't be enough Spaniards to efficiently "dot" the entire countryside. Or Spanish-speaking Mestizos.

It was, but that 90% is almost the highest count (highest being 95%, lowest around 50%). It's very politicized topic tbh. The main problem here is that these percentages are pulled from guesswork, mostly (we know the final number and that's it, the initial is theorized and the percentage loss drawn from the difference, and attributed to whatever factors author prefers).

Hmm, Nahuatl is actually pretty alive even though very much marginalized. My impression was, well, not entirely accurate...

Bte, migration from Spain in XVIc was mere 100k people.

 

[Magean]

That wasn't that much of a problem tbh. They were all (well, not all, most) like ”oh you defeated us. Your gods must be better! Of course we will get rid of our statues and please tell us more about that hesus thing!”

There's a difference between an invasion and a complete apocalypse. It usually takes more and longer than one swift victory to convince people they should adopt a new religion.

It was, but that 90% is almost the highest count (highest being 95%, lowest around 50%). It's very politicized topic tbh. The main problem here is that these percentages are pulled from guesswork, mostly (we know the final number and that's it, the initial is theorized and the percentage loss drawn from the difference, and attributed to whatever factors author prefers).

The number war hardly matters to me, 50% is cataclysmic already. That means areas turning empty, social functions no longer being filled, trade being disrupted because there's no surplus to export...

Hmm, Nahuatl is actually pretty alive even though very much marginalized. My impression was, well, not entirely accurate...

As are other Mesoamerican languages, as well as Mayan tongues, and Andean ones (most notably, Quechua and Aymara).

 

[loup99]

1:4 ratio compared to what ? The pre-existing elite or the pre-existing population ? In the latter case, that would be absolutely massive.

The maximum is 1:4 of the total population, with 200 000 Anglo-Saxons and 800 000 Britons, so not just of the elite. It it is very significant if you compare to the Normans, but completely excludes the far-fetched mass killing theories that Maur was referring to. To be precise the figure comes from Bryan Ward-Perkins' article "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British" from 2000 in the The English Historical Review which Peter Heather quotes. By the way, I think the article is relevant and can provide further information for those interested in delving deeper. Although keep in mind that with regards to the historiographical schools Bryan Ward-Perkins is what you could describe as a "catastrophist" who puts the emphasis much more on civilisational collapse compared to other recent synthesises who insist much more on continuity.

Regarding linguistics however, in nearly every other situation, there's a modicum of "creolization" taking place. But in Britain, it looks more like someone did a ctrl+A over most of the island, pressed Del, then copy-pasted various German languages.

Ditto for religion. You could have expected some form of syncretism, but Celtic deities and myth left no influence over pagan England, nor did Christianity.

The extent of that change has fascinated me since I was a teenager, and I never found a satisfactory explanation other than Brythonic culture being actively repressed to the point of being fully wiped-out. Native elites merely aping newcomers is insufficient and unconvincing on its own.

I highlighted the difference between linguistics and history, and genetics and history. The reason for why I insist on the latter isn't only because of my specialisation in history (with another period and area), it is because I believe only a multi-factorial model can convincingly explain complex events such as the Roman withdrawal and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Languages change continously, and is very much a living source that reflects only the spoken moment, so let us not forget to periodise and date evolutions. In our example, we know the English modern place names came into use several centuries after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. It only happened after stabilisation of new modes of rural settlement, in the 8th to 11th century. We can presume that the spoken language evolved in a similar manner, just as slowly and progressively. If you only see the final result but not the process, you miss out on a lot of evidence. Simply put, you can't look at 11th century place names to understand a 5th century settlement.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

The number war hardly matters to me, 50% is cataclysmic already. That means areas turning empty, social functions no longer being filled, trade being disrupted because there's no surplus to export...

Tbh, it's huge difference. Both are disasters, but consequences are very different.

Though even in worst case society can continue similarily (well, that's the case of Mexico post conquest demographic shrinkage
), and places can be abandoned even without population reducing.

But yeah, in general even 20% would be huge in itself.

We can presume that the spoken language evolved in a similar manner, just as slowly and progressively.

Why would we? Place names are not the same, and are much more sticky. Especially hydronyms...

As are other Mesoamerican languages, as well as Mayan tongues, and Andean ones (most notably, Quechua and Aymara).

Hm, alive in a very much reduced state. I mean, to what, couple percent its extent, compared to Yucatan and Andes that's very different.

 

[loup99]

Why would we? Place names are not the same, and are much more sticky. Especially hydronyms...

It is the English place names that are used to say there was a linguistic change, so arguing that is the exception is strange, since it is the main evidence for the language change taking place. Unless you are talking about the Anglo-Saxons not adopting more of the Briton language, but then that ties into the debate about their number and acculturation.

 

[Magean]

The maximum is 1:4 of the total population, with 200 000 Anglo-Saxons and 800 000 Britons, so not just of the elite. It it is very significant if you compare to the Normans, but completely excludes the far-fetched mass killing theories that Maur was referring to. To be precise the figure comes from Bryan Ward-Perkins' article "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British" from 2000 in the The English Historical Review which Peter Heather quotes. By the way, I think the article is relevant and can provide further information for those interested in delving deeper. Although keep in mind that with regards to the historiographical schools Bryan Ward-Perkins is what you could describe as a "catastrophist" who puts the emphasis much more on civilisational collapse compared to other recent synthesises who insist much more on continuity.

So, those 20% are a lot indeed and, if we assume some reproductive / matrimonial advantage for Saxons over Britons, with mixed-ancestry children being educated as Saxons, then that could explain the extent of the shift.

I highlighted the difference between linguistics and history, and genetics and history. The reason for why I insist on the latter isn't only because of my specialisation in history (with another period and area), it is because I believe only a multi-factorial model can convincingly explain complex events such as the Roman withdrawal and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Languages change continously, and is very much a living source that reflects only the spoken moment, so let us not forget to periodise and date evolutions. In our example, we know the English modern place names came into use several centuries after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. It only happened after stabilisation of new modes of rural settlement, in the 8th to 11th century. We can presume that the spoken language evolved in a similar manner, just as slowly and progressively. If you only see the final result but not the process, you miss out on a lot of evidence. Simply put, you can't look at 11th century place names to understand a 5th century settlement.

But... is it just place names ? AFAIK there's just no evidence that people still spoke Brythonic in present-day England (outside of Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall of course) within one century of the conquest. Gildas or Bede could have mentioned such places but that wasn't the case. No one wrote anything in Brythonic either in England, when they did in Wales. If Brythonic had survived in places, then it had suffered a severe status downgrade.

Tbh, it's huge difference. Both are disasters, but consequences are very different.

Though even in worst case society can continue similarily (well, that's the case of Mexico post conquest demographic shrinkage
), and places can be abandoned even without population reducing.

Well, precisely, it didn't continue similarly. It was extensively reorganized.

EDIT: this video makes the case that there were surviving pockets of Britons throughout England centuries after the invasion, albeit seemingly reduced to a very low status: outcasts, bandits, swamp-dwellers...

 

[loup99]

So, those 20% are a lot indeed and, if we assume some reproductive / matrimonial advantage for Saxons over Britons, with mixed-ancestry children being educated as Saxons, then that could explain the extent of the shift.

Yes, that is the maximum number. A more moderate scenario would be a 1:10 ratio with only 100 000 Anglo Saxons compared to 1 million Britons. Irrespectively of that we know for sure there were peasants who migrated, which definitely excludes a scenario of purely elite transfer.

But... is it just place names ? AFAIK there's just no evidence that people still spoke Brythonic in present-day England (outside of Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall of course) within one century of the conquest. Gildas or Bede could have mentioned such places but that wasn't the case. No one wrote anything in Brythonic either in England, when they did in Wales. If Brythonic had survived in places, then it had suffered a severe status downgrade.

Let us be a bit more precise to get a better picture. If we set the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon settlement to the middle of the 5th century, then you are talking about the middle of the 6th century, Gildas' time. While it is difficult to map due to scarcity of sources, Briton realms were not limited to Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall in the 6th century. You have to add the rest of the West of England.

Exact control is impossible to determine and borders in the Early Middle Ages were in flux, more so than in Roman times. However, here is an approximative map that attempts to portray this period to better illustrate the point:

Now by the 7th century, Bede's time, two centuries after settlement, the picture is significantly different:

These maps are by no means authority, and the specific borders are bound to be both inaccurate and misleading since the colours suggest complete control in the modern sense, but they do show how we can cross material culture and written sources to see the evolution. Without nitpicking on specific years or decades given that we don't have the evidence for that, your claims drastically quicken Anglo-Saxon expansion. Since the Anglo-Saxons had not expanded that far in one century, there is no reason to believe language switch went much more quickly. Now strictly within the areas already conquered by the Anglo-Saxons we could discuss it, but not for England as a whole.

 

[Director]

Meanwhile celtic britons seems to have been supplemented in a span of one or two generations top. Which is mind bogglingly fast if true.

How does that compare to the Norman conquest of Britain? I believe William took the country in a whirlwind, installed his own lords and pretty-much supplanted the previous monarch in one or two generations.

 

[IsadorBG]

Well... you do not speak French, do you now?

 

[Magean]

How does that compare to the Norman conquest of Britain? I believe William took the country in a whirlwind, installed his own lords and pretty-much supplanted the previous monarch in one or two generations.

We are discussing cultural and linguistic changes. Elite replacements are fairly common and they can have pretty big cultural impacts - as Norman French had on English. The indigenous language quickly disappearing with barely any trace is the unusual thing with the Anglo-Saxon settlement however (and it involved more than just the elite being replaced).

 

[IsadorBG]

One interesting point that French did have an enormous influence on the English language for the relative short time the first language dominated the English courts. Had the Norman conquests been more than just a noble replacement; but included an actual migration from France, the British isles may very well have become French speaking or form their own French derivate Romance language.

Still he doesn't explain how Celtic Britons seemingly vanished from Anglo-Saxons Britain. You would expect Danish and Norman chroniclers to actually mention the odd Britons in... I don't know Deira or Mercia. Perhaps not a majority by them or even a significant minority, but y'know, exist. But nope. Nothing of the sort.

And it's not like the Britons did not possess a rich literary culture of their own so if not from the Anglo-Saxons or other interlopers, you expect them to find lost cousins in the new lands of the Angles, the Seaxes, and the Jutes.

 

[Barsoom]

Names, likewise; aside from Penda which sounds very Celtic (in Breton, penn=head, du=black, so Penda probably meant black of hair) and was around in Dark Age England, I don't see anything left from before the invasion.

Wessex starts with some likely Celtic names as well: Cerdic, Ceawlin, Cedda and Caedwalla. It's possible (though far from certain) that the kingdom started out British and assimilated over time.

But it doesn't explain the highly unusual depth of the linguistic, cultural and religious change in Britain, nor its highly unusual pace, as you do well to mention.

Agreed on the first part but the pace doesn't seem too unusual to me, it took about 200 to 250 years for the Angles, Saxons etc. to take over the lowland parts of Roman Britain.