Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[Robert Vermaat]

[size=150:1leiu8sn]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I quite buy that, Robert. What you actually said
before was this:

I don't know the article by heart, but I recall that the
author (looking at all the names for the British and Welsh in this article)
finds parallels with the Franks, who not only call their Gallo-Roman
subjects walas, but in law also treat them similarly as the
wealhas are treated in Ine of Wessex' laws.

I agree with Raedwald. For the Franks to treat the Gallo-Romans as
differently in law as the Laws of Ine treated the Welsh, then this most
definitely is treating Gallo-Romans differently to Franks and it
does amount to a form of apartheid, in everything but name.
It doesn't matter if the Franks call Gallo-Romans 'foreigners', 'Romans',
or 'Pilsbury doughboys'. If it's true, as you imply, that they are classified
in law as being of lesser value than Franks, then that would indeed be
apartheid and racist. Period.

Mike, apartheid suggests segregation in daily life, exclusion from your part of society and treatment as inferiors. Apartheid is the fornmer South-African system, not some new thingy that we can define on our own. Every nation has laws that treat non-citizens differently from citizens.

Romans treated Roman citizens different from non-cotizen Romans. Was that apartheid? Of course it wasn't.
The Frank treated Romans differently from Franks, sure. But not lesser - they made sure Franks fell under Frankish (Salian) law and Romans were judged by Roman law.
Was that apartheid? Far from it! I call that being very considerate. Gallo-Romans were never forced to move from areas where Franks lived. They could hold every job, right to the top. They could marry Franks without problems.
Apartheid? Never. Racist? To the contrary.[/size]

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, Richard Pryor was the American comedian
who appeared in Superman III. FrancisPryor is the archaeologist under discussion. :lol:

shock:

No, actually, that's a pretty accurate description. And I
think you'll find that most archaeologists agree with it. Francis Pryor is
a rather mediocre prehistoric archaeologist who is rather opinionated,
and who happens to be the President of the Council for British
Archaeology - probably because nobody else wanted the job. :roll:

Mike, that is also a derogatory remark. Who are you to decide that Pryor is mediocre or not? As to opinionated.. I know more of them.

Yes, the TV show was bad. And no, the book says exactly the same things

Nonsense, I've heard you say things about the show that are in no way represented in the book.

Oh, I see! So it's okay for you to criticise Pryor's book,
but not Paul... :twisted:

Mike, Paul was talking about Pryor himself. Everybodey is entitled to have a go at a book or a TV series for all I care, but i detest comments about a person. Hence my warning: discuss the subject, not the man! And yes, that's sudenly me as a moderator speaking.

Paul was criticising Pryor's attitude, not his right to speak.
And you have criticised Pryor's book whilst telling Paul he hasn't the
right to criticise the TV series

Mike you're confusing the issue here. My answer to Paul was about the apparent lacking right of Pryor (as an archaeologist specialising in prehistoric archaeology) to even speak about post-Roman times. Well, for all i know Pryor is not infallibel, but I never would deny him the right to speak about archaeology of other periuods. After all, a farmer around 100 BC and a farmer around 600 AD are not lightyears apart. The least ione could do is have a good look at his arguments and refute them if possible. But so far, all I'm hearing is stuff like 'he should keep his moth shut' and similar unscientific comments.

Frankly, Paul and I talked about this in a PM so as not to disrupt the discussion. I call on you to do the same if you want, or else email me, you know where to send it.

[Redwald]

Hi Vortigern,
I don't wish to ressurect an old problem but please be clear that I never questioned anyone's right to speak about anything! I certainly did not say, 'he should keep his moth shut'! (sic).
My only point was that, I believe, some are better informed than others.
Paul

[Felix]

Out of curiousity, is anyone here well versed in the cultural history of Ireland? It may be relevant here - the same issue of English speakers and Celtic-speakers, and of colonization. We know that there was definite racial/religious prejudice, not quite to the level of apartheid. We also know that there was no program of ethnic cleansing (the English response to the Potato Famine may have been incompetent and callous, but it was not deliberate extermination) and we may be quite sure that the English did not dominate by numbers of immigrant population or children.

Nonetheless, the modern Irish do show a great deal of English cultural influence. Gaelic is decidedly not dead, but it is no longer the dominant language; clothing and the like have been similar to England for several centuries at least.

Could such a thing have happened to the Romano-Britains?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Vortigern,
I don't wish to ressurect an old problem but please be clear that I never questioned anyone's right to speak about anything! I certainly did not say, 'he should keep his moth shut'! (sic).
My only point was that, I believe, some are better informed than others.
Paul

Hi Paul,
And you are completely right. Mike raised the point again, and I promise you that as far as I'm concerned, that subject is closed.

On with more fruitful discussions.

[Robert Vermaat]

The point of all this is to demonstrate that fairly large bodies of men, organised and well motivated were perfectly able to move across the sea to the British Isles, either to raid (Saxon Shore forts) or to invade if they felt like it.
A second point is; if there was an invasion and a displacement of a largely agricultural people what traces would be visible in the archaeological record?

Paul, I see your number and they could be correct. However, am i thinking right when I think that the assumption is that all of the finds represent one big army? I mean, instead of being thrown into the bog over some period of time?

But sure, as raids go, you would assume that those who are prepaire to raid assume they can outfight the local opposition, i.e. they should be able to put some numbers out to sea. Although I doubt that this would amount to fairly large armies.fleets of over 1500 men.

The second point is easily answered: the traces would be the discontinuity that at the moment is insufficiently found. Discontinuity meaning disruption of rural and settlement patterns. Re-forestatin, sand blown over fields, silted up ditches, changing settlement patterns.
And that of course is in areas that are disrupted for just a short period of time and then re-settled. Any settlement disrupted over a longer period of time vanishes or is re-esettled to a very different pattern. That's what we thought happened for a long time to several cities, until it was realised that the pattern of settlement in cities was already changing from the 3rd c. onwards.

[Redwald]

Vortigern,
I see your number and they could be correct. However, am i thinking right when I think that the assumption is that all of the finds represent one big army? I mean, instead of being thrown into the bog over some period of time?
They are not my numbers, they are the numbers of serious scholars -- see also: Illerup Adal, all 10 volumes (soon to be 12 by Jorgen Ilkjaer ( which I have). The deposits in Illerip A, were all deposited at one time. THose in Illerup B a bit later - but all at one time and Illerup C, later still but all at one time. Remarkable amount of standardisation in shields and spears, incidentally -- some evidence of mass production so that the warriors of the chieftain all had a basic weapon set -- just like the Roman Army!

Perhaps we should also refer to the deposits at Vimose, Thorsbjerg, Kragehul, etc.


But sure, as raids go, you would assume that those who are prepaire to raid assume they can outfight the local opposition, i.e. they should be able to put some numbers out to sea. Although I doubt that this would amount to fairly large armies.fleets of over 1500 men.


So you say, but that is not what the evidence seems to point to. Do have a look at the references that I have mentioned -- you may find them quite revealing. The work in finding boat houses in Denmark and North Germany has only just begun -- but as you have said, previously, there is evidence that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, etc, came from highly organised and sophisticated societies eminently capable of fielding large forces of men.

As for the abandonment of fields -- they were, probably never abandoned -- as Ambrosius has pointed out, the germanic people coming here, came from similar conditions and would have few problems picking up the pieces.
I do hope that you are not suggesting that the germanic people were not as good at farming as the Romano-British?

As for the evidence that you mention regarding abandoned farms, it would be impossible to say that that did not happen on some farms until all the areas have been excavated and England is a big country. I don't believe that you could notice, in the archaeological records problems that only lasted one season. Certainly, there is evidence that many villas were deserted, as you know.

As for cities, they did change and I agree that there may be many reasons for this but one of them may have been because of the influx of new groups of incomers.

However, the evidence that germanic incomers were able to field large numbers is a bit of a problem to just explain away. It is something that has not been satisfactorily dealt with by anyone who believes in the elite dominance idea (three men in a boat theory).


Paul

[Robert Vermaat]

I see your number and they could be correct. However, am i thinking right when I think that the assumption is that all of the finds represent one big army? I mean, instead of being thrown into the bog over some period of time?[/color]
They are not my numbers, they are the numbers of serious scholars

Hey, if you start arguing with me even when I agree with you this will become as short discussion after all!

The deposits in Illerip A, as iN Illerup B and C were all deposited at one time. Remarkable amount of standardisation in shields and spears, incidentally -- some evidence of mass production so that the warriors of the chieftain all had a basic weapon set -- just like the Roman Army!

Indeed remarkable. Any idea why they were deposited?
Ah, there has been much discussion about standardisation in the Roman army and I'm sure that there's not going to much agreement with that idea. So far, there seems not to have been any standardisation in the Roman army, contrary to Hollywood image.

So how about this: the weapons were indeed mass-produced by a small group of artisans, but not for an army, but for sacrifice purposes only?
Mind you, this would argue against standardisation in Germanic armies, but would still agree with your ideas about army numbers.

But sure, as raids go, you would assume that those who are prepaire to raid assume they can outfight the local opposition, i.e. they should be able to put some numbers out to sea. Although I doubt that this would amount to fairly large armies/fleets of over 1500 men.
So you say, but that is not what the evidence seems to point to. Do have a look at the references that I have mentioned -- you may find them quite revealing. The work in finding boat houses in Denmark and North Germany has only just begun -- but as you have said, previously, there is evidence that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, etc, came from highly organised and sophisticated societies eminently capable of fielding large forces of men.

I don't doubt your evidence, but would that evidence really say that all these boats were indeed put to sea all at once?
OK, food for thought. Like I said, I can imagine the need for local supreriority for a raiding party.

As for the abandonment of fields -- they were, probably never abandoned -- as Ambrosius has pointed out, the germanic people coming here, came from similar conditions and would have few problems picking up the pieces.

Well, I'm not saying that, archaeologists do.
For one, there's still no sign of that first wave, but more of a sign of a continuous flow of people.

I do hope that you are not suggesting that the germanic people were not as good at farming as the Romano-British?

Oh c'mon Paul, stop that nagging or I'll stop playing with you.

As for the evidence that you mention regarding abandoned farms, it would be impossible to say that that did not happen on some farms until all the areas have been excavated and England is a big country. I don't believe that you could notice, in the archaeological records problems that only lasted one season. Certainly, there is evidence that many villas were deserted, as you know.

Check Peter Murphy's study on landscape changes: The Anglo-Saxon landscape and rural economy : some results from sites in East Anglia and Essex (pp 23-39), in: Rackham, James (1994): Environment and economy in Anglo-Saxon England: A review of recent work on the environmental archaeology of rural and urban Anglo-Saxon settlements in England Report No. 89, at: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/cba/rr89.cfm
Murphy shows a diverity of land-use that would have been impossible to adapt to by complete newcomers with no knowledge or experience of the local conditions. Also, when fields are no longer maintained, secondary woodland emerges rapidly - withing a year, hawthorn and sloe bushes start growing. However, pollen analysis shows an abscense of this process in the East Anglian landscape. The Anglo-Saxons did not clear the new forests, because they never developed. In fact nothing changed on the ground, as pollen analysis shows. (Petra Dark: The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD).

So, we have two choices: either go with the traditional theory of mass migrations in the 5th century, and explain why newcomers could take over a new landscape so thoroughly that it did not even show when they arrived, or thát they arrived, or accept that this would be a problem and look for other options.
Look, I would even accept a growing presence of immigrants from the 4th c. onwards! You'd still have a large group of immigrants in Britain by the end of the 5th c., all speaking Early English of course, but without the need of them running up the beaches, brandishing seaxes and driving off the natives!

As for cities, they did change and I agree that there may be many reasons for this but one of them may have been because of the influx of new groups of incomers.

So far I go with Richard Reece and his ideas of the changing function of the towns, in which they degraded as local markets and governing centres (their public buildings sometimes being given up as early as the 3rd c.). This has nothing to do with new immigrants but with a changing Romano-British society. But of course such newcomers would not have halted the process.

However, the evidence that germanic incomers were able to field large numbers is a bit of a problem to just explain away. It is something that has not been satisfactorily dealt with by anyone who believes in the elite dominance idea (three men in a boat theory).

Those large numbers exist only in theory. because even though the later English kingdoms all produced stories of their ancestors landing at beach A, defeating some Brits and moving inland to point B, no evidence exists that any of these kingdoms really existed before the mid-6th century. The first being Kent and Wessex, both going back on the same legends (Hengist) but neither claiming him as founder. Kent may have started out as a foedus turning independent and may show parallels with the origins of Francia and Bavaria, where essentially soldiers in Roman service found at some point that their generals were in fact left alone, free to rule as leading class. Wessex even starts with 4 British-named kings.

If as you say the immigrants started with such large forces, it's odd they did not found kingdoms upon landing at the beach, but had to wait for decades.

[Felix]

Those large numbers exist only in theory. because even though the later English kingdoms all produced stories of their ancestors landing at beach A, defeating some Brits and moving inland to point B, no evidence exists that any of these kingdoms really existed before the mid-6th century. The first being Kent and Wessex, both going back on the same legends (Hengist) but neither claiming him as founder. Kent may have started out as a foedus turning independent and may show parallels with the origins of Francia and Bavaria, where essentially soldiers in Roman service found at some point that their generals were in fact left alone, free to rule as leading class. Wessex even starts with 4 British-named kings.

This idea converges with the Romano-British sources which are normally cited in the study of King Arthur - Gildas and Nennius. They assert the English initially came as a few mercenaries, were settled by Romano-British rulers, and only gradually increased in strength. Their rise to power happens partly due to their military power, and partly due to the weakness and instability of the rulers who employ them. These sources do not describe a massive onslaught of invaders who wipe out every living soul in the countryside.

[ambrosius]

Hi Robert

I think you've answered your own question, here, Robert 8)
The British, Iron-Age Celt and the Anglo-Saxon graves you describe are
centuries apart, separated by 4/500 years of Romanised burial culture.
That is why it cannot be a continuation. And what the grave goods
do show is that you have a similar 'warrior-culture' at both ends of Roman
Britain, in the form of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, respectively.

Hi Mike, best read all the posts. On August 3 I refuted that:

Now Robert, you know perfectly well that I studiously read
all the posts so that nobody - not even you - gets misquoted. It might be
best if you were to read all the posts. 8) The one you have just
replied to was not disputing 'mound burials' but 'weapons burials'. But
I'll quote what you said on July 29th again, if you like:

"If the one is a British Celt and the other an Anglo-
Saxon, the way of burial and the gravegoods are chillingly equal.
Why can't this be continuation and does it have to be a new imigrant?"

To which, I answered with the above. I take it you don't
deny pointing-out elsewhere on this list that for 400 years of Roman
Britain, civilian ownership of weapons (and, as a consequence, weapons
burials) were illegal? :lol: So no, there was no continuity in 'grave-goods'
between Iron-Age Celtic and early Anglo-Saxon burials. How could there possibly be?

Cheers,

Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]

[ambrosius]

There is always going to be some continuation. But that is
not to ignore the changes. As they say: 'The Devil is in the details!'
Raedwald is right. And Dr. Heinrich Harke (whom I know you know of)
puts it very succinctly: We know that the coastal lands were abandoned
in Frisia, Anglia & Jutland at this time. If the migrants did not arrive in
Britain, then there must be many thousands of longships at the bottom
of the North Sea :lol:

Again, Mike, I answered this to Redwald before, July 28:

settlements were abandoned, sure, but where in the past it was automatically assumed that the folks took ship to Britain, nowadays we are more careful. Maybe they built new houses at another spot, close by or some distance away> It is very common for settlements to 'move' that way. But in the past it was the chicken and the egg: the folks went so they had to join the invasion, and the invasions happened because the folks seemed to be gone.

Which would be a safe place where you would be safe from proving where the went. But so far, no massive waves of 5th-c. Germanic immigrants have been attested. Those who come into the island, seem to have done so at leisure, not in massive waves. The West Hestlerton case nicely shows that. Härke assumes, as so many did earlier, that the settlements were emptied by folks who took ship for Britain. But they did not leave notes about their whereabouts, did they? It’s a fact that no research was done about continuation of settlements nearby, maybe on higher ground.

Okay Robert. You live in Holland. So please tell me what
'higher ground' you see out of your window right now. :lol:

Right. We have Frisians, Angles, Jutes, having their coastal farmland
flooded by the sea. Up until the 450s, they are also feeling the push of
refugees being forced West by Attila the Hun. Yet you are suggesting
that they might have migrated South East, inland, into the teeth of the
Huns and the flood of refugees trying to escape them. I doubt it.

Can you not simply accept that perfectly respected Germanic
(for want of a better word) migration-period scholars like Heinrich Harke
and Michael Gebuhr have no problem with seeing the only logical route
of migration for Frisians, Angles & Jutes as being across the North Sea
and to Britain? As for the migrants arriving at their leisure, that's not
a problem. You know I think that there was an attenuated migration over
maybe 150-200 years. But that doesn't mean it wasn't hostile

It's not 'racist' to prefer your own material culture to that
of an invader/migrant. That's simply a matter of personal preference.
It's especially not racist to resent being invaded :roll: As for preferring
quality over lack of quality, would it also be 'racist' for you to prefer a high quality BMW to a Lada?

Not at all, but it is racist to assume that Britons could not possibly have wanted to prefer Anglo-Saxon culture over their own, which is what is implied by those who maintain that everywhere remains of that culture are found, an immigrant must be assumed.

It's certainly illogical to assume that when the first Anglo-
Saxon weapons burials appear in Kent c. 450 that 400 years of Romano-
British burial culture goes out the window and Romanized, Christianised
Britons suddenly swap all their jewellery and clothing for Anglo-Saxon
styles, and revert to pagan weapons burials. You are always exhorting
people to use Occam's Razor. Well, please try it yourself, now. What's
the simplest and most logical explanation for these weapons burials
suddenly appearing? That they are Anglo-Saxon imigrants, or that they
are Romanized Britons pretending to be Anglo-Saxons, just to fool us?
It's the same question palaeontologists put to creationists. What is the
most logical reason for the occurrence of fossil animals, dating back
hundreds of millions of years, in the Earth's crust? Is it because the
God who created the World 6,000 years ago wants to confuse us all,
by causing us to doubt the Creation story? Or is it that life actually took
eons to evolve, and that what we see in the ground is genuine evidence?

As for any culture, of whatever type, it would be a very strange thing
for them to prefer someone else's culture to their own so completely
and so immediately. The Britons took decades - if not centuries - to
become Romanized (so people keep telling us). Why would they take
to Anglo-Saxon culture so much more readily?

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

If what you say holds water, then why did the Anglo-Saxons not immediately drop their culture for the apparently superior Romano-British culture?

Obviously because, to them, it wasn't superior. Perhaps,
(dare I say it) because they had a racist disdain for Romanized Britons.
But I think we could drop the term racist, as applied to either our fellow
listmembers, native Britons or Anglo-Saxons, don't you?

Because the Roman soldiers adopting 'Germanic style' buckles
in the 4th/5th c. were doing so out of choice or practicality. They were
not being forced to adopt them by invading Germanic peoples. Whilst
at the same time, they still retained established 'Roman' equipment or
fashions, such as crossbow-brooches.

Exactly! Free choice and practicality! Exactly what is advocated in the 'acculturisation' model - no Saxon forced anyone to do anything

Well no Saxon forced the Roman Army in Gaul to start
wearing chip-carved buckles, I'll grant you that. And probably no Saxon
forced British women to drop their native clothing (okay, actually, they
may well have done that :oops: ) and start wearing the latest Saxon
fashions to come off the Paris catwalk, either. The simplest explanation
is that if it walks like a Saxon and quacks like a Saxon, then it's a Saxon.

But for British women to suddenly drop all their old cultural modes of dress/jewellery does not sound realistic. If they weren't actually Saxon women, but British, then why not retain some of their own 'Celtic' or Roman styles of dress alongside the 'adoptive'
Saxon ones?

No-one says anything about suddenly.

But graves containing exclusively Anglo-Saxon grave-goods
do appear suddenly c. 450 onwards in Kent

But these new weapons being brought in by Germanic traders - how are these supposed to get past the 'customs officials'?
Are traders in Roman Britain allowed to import arms into the country?
And are civilians allowed to buy them? I don't think so.

Mike, we're talking about a timeframe when those customs officials had all long gone home to Rome.

Now Robert. That's definitely not what you said before,
and it's not what I was replying to. But don't worry, old man. If you
need reminding of what you said to cause me to reply as I did, then
I can quote you, once again:

"I'm not sure what you mean. I guess you are referring
to Roman weapons. Well, Romans did not allow their citizens to carry
arms, and for the better part of a century before we call Britain 'post-
Roman', the state had a weapon monopoly. So any new weapon would
very easily be brought in by Germanic traders, long before 400."

Now to be honest, I thought, at the time, that you were
contradicting yourself, rather. But I didn't like to point it out to you,
in case you called me racist, or something :lol: So my question, above,
about customs control of importation of Germanic weapons in the century
before 400 still stands. Unless you wish to revise what you said. :wink:

Highly unlikely, Robert. Gildas criticises the Britons for many things in the mid-6th c. but paganism isn't one of them. 8) As for the paganism of the Saxons, they all seem to have shared the same gods (especially Woden) from placename evidence. And we know that they weren't converted to Christianity till 597 onwards, and even then it was a slow and fitful process.

Gildas wrote at a time when a reversion to paganism would still be in it’s early stages, don’t you think?

Absolutely. So why did you suggest, in the post I replied to,
that Britons might have been tempted to convert to Anglo-Saxon paganism
a century earlier, c. 450? 8)

Besides, if he indeed wrote in the North or the West of Britain, that would put him far away from the regions in the Southeast that we’re talking about.

He's mentioned as visiting the monastery at
Glastonbury, which, it would follow, had been raided by Anglo-Saxons.
That's in the South West, and would be on the frontline between the
Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, if he was writing near to the mid 6th c.
which was when the A/S penetrated to the Bristol Channel.

And of course, by far not all Britons changed their faith - not all were Christian (at least more than nominally)

As spock would say: 'Fascinating'. Do you have any
evidence for that? 8)

and as Ken Dark advocated, many Christians were still to be found in ‘Anglo-Saxon lands’ before 597.

Well of course they were. Judging from the placename and
archaeological evidence, there were British enclaves from Walton Castle
on the East coast to London, Silchester, Chichester etc till c.500. There
is no evidence that any of these British enclaves had converted to
paganism, nor that any Anglo-Saxons had converted to Christianity.
In fact, the Byzantine, Christian silverware in mound 1 at Sutton Hoo
looks like it was made in the reign of Anastasius (c.500) for Romanized
Britons in the West, and was possibly pilaged from British sites to be
buried in Raedwald's (no offence, Paul 8) ) grave a century later. That's
probably the closest the Anglians got to Christianity before lapsing,
again, after Augustine had tried converting them after 597.[/quote]

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Pryor insisted that the end of Roman administration in the 5th c. would have had all the British farmers shouting 'Whoopee! - No more taxes!' To which Harke replied: "Hmmm... very much a farmer's view, I think."

So what is your point? Is Härke disagreeing with Pryor? I seems not, from what I read there.

That was to demonstrate both that Pryor is a farmer and
that - although his initial reaction, like all farmers, might be 'Whoopee!',
at the thought of not more taxes - he can only say 'Whoopee' in the
privileged position he is in as a farmer in early 21st c. Britain. He does
not live in the 5th c. and clearly has no conception of what threats faced
British farmers at that time. Heinrich Harke does.

The point being, of course, Pryor has no conception of the context of
what he is saying. Since the late 2nd c. Anglo-Saxon pirates had been
a threat to British farmers and grain shipments to the continent. We
know this because the earliest Saxon Shore Forts (Reculver, Caistor,
Brancaster) have been dated to before 200 AD in initial construction.
The taxes of British farmers of course paid for the construction and
garrisoning of these forts, in order to protect these same British farmers.
Therefore, come the end of 'Official' Roman administration in the 5thc.
the British farmers would certainly have wanted that taxation system
to have continued, so as to fund the continuing protection of their land
from Anglo-Saxon pirates. The very last thing any British farmer
in the 5th c. would be shouting was 'whoopee!' at the thought of that
taxation/military protection system being removed. 8)

What sources tell us that British grain shipments were actually threatened by Saxon pirates? Of course it seem logical to assume, but was the threat bad enough to warrant a scheme of fort-building on such a scale? A scheme, however, that never seems to have existed at all.

Actually, it did, but it was phased, over the course of a century, in progressive scale and architectural style. Didn't you have
a similar scheme on the continent called the Tractus Armoricani and
the Tractus Nervii?

The Saxon Shore forts were not an answer to a threat from the sea. We know this because they are built over a 200-year period, and when the last were built some of the oldest had already been abandoned.

Actually, the first (Reculver) began construction just before
200AD, the last (Pevensey) just before 300AD. I make that 100 years.
And they could each have taken 5-10 years to build. I would love to see
your evidence for the oldest forts being abandoned before the latest
were built. Caistor dates c.200, and it was later twinned with Burgh Castle,
which was more modern in design. Both would be needed to span the
'Great Estuary' (the Yar River) with their balista-bolts. And from the N.D.
we cannot tell if the Burgh Castle garrison was based exclusively there
or split between the two forts. The latter would make sense. 8)

Cheers,

Ambrosius/Mike

[Redwald]

Hi Vortigern,
Just a quick reply before I leave these shores for a brief moment.

Thanks for the reference.

In your opinion, how long would land need to be left before it was noticeable?
As I pointed out, previously, the new folk would need to eat. Personally, I suspect that they were perfectly capable of taking over very quickly.

The practice of leaving fields fallow for a year, does that leave archaeological traces?

Cheers,

Paul

[Agraes]

Hello, Im new here but Robert knows me as he helped me working on a project, Arthurian: Total War, a mod for Rome: Total War.


That's said, I would like to bring new elements in the debate. Sorry if I sometime lack to post my references.

Christianity
There was clearly a lack of motivation from brythonic monks and priests to try to convert the Anglo-Saxons. This work will be done by frankish priests in the VIIth century, the "Celtic" church of Iona did however helped convert the Northumbrians. Augustine will met 2 times the "welsh" bishops, wanting them to help him in his work but both times they send him to roses, saying they don't want to do anything with the Saxons.

The Justinian Plague
For what I have read, the plague affected Britons, Gaels and Picts but much more less the Saxons, because there wasn't trade and contacts between the Britons and the Saxons.

My question is, if the Britons under germanic rule were in a kind of equallity with the Saxons, won't the other Britons had maintened contact with them? Because a part of them would probably still be christians, etc.

From another point of view, Saxons (I take this as a generic term) appeared more opened to Christianism in the VIIth century - by the time their great kingdoms have been founded, and a big part of the Brythonic kingdoms have been defeated: Ebrauc around 580, Elmet around 610, midlands kingdoms such as Calfychenedd or Pengwern, Bryneich, Rheged and Gododdin around 640. Kingdoms like Northumbria or Wessex probably had a very large brythonic population.

Origins of the various kingdoms really appear linked to the Foederati like you pointed out: in Kent Jutish foederati, in Bernicia and Deira Angles, in Wessex Saxons.