El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Printable Version +- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat) +-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: El Ninio & post Roman Britain (/showthread.php?tid=6395) Pages:
1
2
|
El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Conal - 08-04-2006 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. Re: El Nincompoop & post Roman Britain - ambrosius - 08-07-2006 Quote: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! 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 Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - S SEVERUS - 08-07-2006 Britain and the End of the Roman Empire Dark, Ken Tempus Publishing Ltd ISBN: 0752425323 Maybe this could help you. Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Robert Vermaat - 08-10-2006 Quote: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.(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: Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Agraes - 08-11-2006 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: Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - ambrosius - 08-13-2006 So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8) Quote:(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: El Nino - ambrosius - 08-13-2006 Hi Agraes, Quote: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. Quote:Seems like the strongest resistance of the Britons was in the areas where the romans were the less present: 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? Quote: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. Quote: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. Quote: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: Quote: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 Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Robert Vermaat - 08-13-2006 So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8) Hi Mike. It seems you mistake me for someone else. I’m ArVee. Quote:(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….†Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Agraes - 08-15-2006 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. Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Robert Vermaat - 08-15-2006 Have you read this one: Giot Guigon : The British Settlement of Brittany: The First Bretons in Armorica.? How do you rate it? Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - Agraes - 08-15-2006 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: Quote: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 Origins of Brittany - ambrosius - 08-16-2006 Greetings, Obi-Wan, Quote:Have you read this one: 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 Re: The British Settlement of Brittany - ambrosius - 08-17-2006 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 Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - ambrosius - 08-17-2006 Hi ArVee, Quote: So, Obi-Wan... we meet again (on another thread) 8) Because it's unprovable and even more unlikely. Quote: 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). 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)." Quote: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 Re: El Ninio & post Roman Britain - ambrosius - 08-17-2006 Quote: – 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. Quote: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. Quote: 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. Quote: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. 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. Quote: 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) Quote: So, Obi-Wan, the pupil has become the master!" 8) 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] |