Were there Anglo-Saxon invasions after the Romans left?

[agricola]

Thanks to Donna for opening my eyes to this thread. I should note that I havent read Pryor's book.

Firstly, our knowledge of these times is not limited to Gildas. We have important secondary sources in Bede (who while he uses Gildas does not use him exclusively) and the various Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which were written after (in some cases, long after) the events but which preserve local sources now lost to us. We also have early Welsh stuff like genealogies and poems (important, if not necessarily accurate, in that they reflect other times biases, for instance even Vortigern is not considered a bad ancestor in some genealogies of Welsh kings), as well as some texts from the early Church, mainly Lives of Saints, such as St Patrick and St Germanus.

These sources paint a fairly consistent, if somewhat vague, picture of what went on, and IMHO it would be very dangerous to start postulating, on the basis of meagre archaelogical evidence, a theory which directly challenges the written evidence. Gildas may have made wild, indeed in some historical aspects blatantly wrong observations, but he was writing for readers in his own time and he could hardly have made up an invasion and expect that his wider message be recognized. Also, Bede (as mentioned above) used Gildas, and given how he had access to Saxon tradition he would surely have pointed out any flaws in the general argument Gildas was making, if there were any.

For those who dont know, the history given is basically that the Roman forces leave or are paid off in either 407 or 410, when Honorius informs the Britons to look to their own defence. They struggle with various invasions and civil strife, beat one Pictish invasion off in 429 when St Germanus leads British forces at the Alleluia Battle, ask Flavius Aetius for help in 443 (the last great Western Roman general who later defeated Attila at the Catalaunian Plains), and finally some part of the country invites Saxon troops to assist them in around 449. The Saxons initially help a British tyrant called Vortigern (a name which itself may be a title) but, when they see the state of things, decide to invite more of their kinsmen over and an invasion begins, which is only stopped by British forces under Ambrosius Aurelianus. The Saxons are defeated at Mons Badonicus but not thrown out of the country, and remain cowed (albeit with minor fighting) until after Gildas was writing, settled and co-existing with British populations in the South-East and in the Vale of York, until after Gildas wrote De Excidio Britanniae, when they expanded to conquer most of what is now England.

This is, to an extent, confirmed (as much as it can be) by archaeology. There is a general trend of Roman sites, especially towns, declining from the late fourth century to a point where, at the end of the fifth century, they are apparently disused (such as St Albans). There is also the corresponding reuse and refortification of hilltop sites (such as South Cadbury, Castle Dore or Deganwy), which is actually mentioned (if obliquely) in Gildas when he talks about:

Others, committing the safeguard of their lives, which were in continual jeopardy, to the mountains, precipices, thickly wooded forests, and to the rocks of the seas (albeit with trembling hearts), remained still in their country.

You also then have the presence, in the areas identified by Gildas as having recieved the initial wave of Saxon invaders, "Germanic" grave goods and types, though Pryor (and others like Snyder in An Age of Tyrants) are right to suggest that its very difficult to "prove" an ethnic background based on jewellry and grave goods, especially when similar items are also found across the Western Empire in military contexts. However it is surely significant that these items are found in that area within that period of time.

One can then add to this the known practices of the day. The Roman Empire, almost exclusively in the fourth and fifth centuries, was in the habit of employing bands of "barbarians" as foederati (which is the same word Gildas uses to describe the Saxons' employment by Vortigern), even under their own commanders - Attila's ancestor Uldin had been employed in Italy by Honorius to fight other barbarians, and Aetius himself used Hunnish bands against various groups of Goths. Nor was it unusual for these hired bands to abandon, or even worse, actively turn on, their former paymasters - after all, Aetius ended up allied with Theodoric the Goth against his former allies at the Catalaunian Fields. There is nothing inherently incorrect or unusual about sub-Roman tyrants hiring barbarian forces in the manner that Gildas alleges happened.

Finally there is of course the reality of what did happen - by the time of Bede (when the written sources start to pick up again) the Saxons are in control of almost all of what is now England, and have been since at least 603:

For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune.

One must also recognize the trend identified by Bryan Ward-Perkins in excellent The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization of modern historians shying away from ideas of conquest, catastrophe and invasion, in favour of more political terms such as change, transformation or exchange. The facts, as they do for the Western Roman Empire as a whole, pretty clearly (to me at least) suggest that what happened was an invasion, if not initially then subsequently and with all the attendant pains that followed.

Gildas: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html
Bede: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html
Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: http://omacl.org/Anglo/
Vortigern's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortigern

"The Fall of Rome": http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-8589080-1380431

"An Age of Tyrants": http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...28374/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_2_6/026-8589080-1380431

Not having read Britain AD personally, but a fairly in-depth review of it can be found at the following link: http://dark-ages.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page5.html

 

[Donna Ferentes]

This is, to an extent, confirmed (as much as it can be) by archaeology.

This of course is what Pryor disputes: he tends to feel (and he make a strong case, even if I do not wholly agree) that in fact, the archaeological evidence tends, or tended, to be interpreted according to the traditional account. Hence the written and archaeological evidence supported one another, but only in a circular fashion. I'm not sure I'd want to summarise his argument further: best to read it!

Of course one question we need to ask ourselves is this: if there were invasions, what do we mean by that? Do we mean that tens or hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Saxons came into the territory and displaced the incumbent Britons, or do we mean that a smaller number invaded, defeated the incumbent rulers (and again, what do we mean by that?) and then replaced them, leaving some or all of the natives in place? This latter is essentially what happened in and after 1066, for instance.

 

[agricola]

This of course is what Pryor disputes: he tends to feel (and he make a strong case, even if I do not wholly agree) that in fact, the archaeological evidence tends, or tended, to be interpreted according to the traditional account. Hence the written and archaeological evidence supported one another, but only in a circular fashion. I'm not sure I'd want to summarise his argument further: best to read it!

Thats certainly as true now as when Schliemann first discovered "Troy". However that theory does tend to ignore the fact that we do have Gildas, and Bede, and the various other texts, all of which to an extent give the same story. To interpret the archaeological evidence without that framework results in either people not knowing what went on, or (as Pryor appears to have done) people assuming that nothing much went on, rather the same people just changed their habits and customs.

As an example, I dont think anyone would attempt to understand Roman campaign camps in northern England and Scotland without referring to the Agricola or Cassius Dio, at least in part, as it would be very difficult to interpret the archaelogy without knowing of times when the Romans were in the area.

Of course one question we need to ask ourselves is this: if there were invasions, what do we mean by that? Do we mean that tens or hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Saxons came into the territory and displaced the incumbent Britons, or do we mean that a smaller number invaded, defeated the incumbent rulers (and again, what do we mean by that?) and then replaced them, leaving some or all of the natives in place? This latter is essentially what happened in and after 1066, for instance.

As said above, I am pretty much in favour of the idea that there were invasions and that land was taken from the Britons by conquest - there are enough records of battles against the Britons by the Saxons (like Chester, Pevensey etc) in the sources.

One also has to note that (admittedly later) Anglo-Saxon law did make clear distinctions between Anglo-Saxons and Britons, with the former being regarded as "more valuable" (as the laws of the seventh-century Wessex king Ine show), though continuists would surely point out that those laws recognize that Welshmen could hold some status (though not equivalent to Saxons of the same status, and it may refer to being in charge of their own communities). The link below from Regia Anglorum suggests the different values ascribed to Welsh and Saxon:

http://www.regia.org/costs.htm

Finally there is the linguistic evidence. English itself takes very few words and none of its grammar (though there are some similarities, it is unclear which language influenced the other) from Brythonic, which - if there was a peaceful mixture of people, one would tend to expect. There are placenames in the "Saxon" areas that are believed to come from the indigenous speakers, but there are far more believed to come from Anglo-Saxon settlement, and the "indigenous" placenames are almost all large or important sites, such as London, York and Dover, which one would expect to keep their names. I find it hard to believe that, if there was not some element of compulsion, that Britons would have swapped Old Welsh for Old English over several generations.

It is a good idea to look at post-1066 because what one sees there (as you note) is an invasion, a dispossession of almost all the indigenous nobility and subjection of the indigenous population for at least a hundred and fifty years. However, Old English is not displaced as a language (albeit it is of course modified with some French words and structures), most places keep their names and in general there is continuity despite changes at the top.

Contrast that with post-Saxon invasions and one sees, as mentioned above, an entirely different set of outcomes.

 

[Stigmata]

Of course one question we need to ask ourselves is this: if there were invasions, what do we mean by that? Do we mean that tens or hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Saxons came into the territory and displaced the incumbent Britons, or do we mean that a smaller number invaded, defeated the incumbent rulers (and again, what do we mean by that?) and then replaced them, leaving some or all of the natives in place? This latter is essentially what happened in and after 1066, for instance.

The former also has a precedent of course, what with the mass migrations that seem to have been common in the early centuries AD.

I suppose I just have trouble believing that the ancient British would adopt so many Germanic practices and cultural identifiers through trade contact alone. Surely by inclination they would have formed a culture that reflected their Irish and Welsh neighbours, or even one that attempted some sort of continuity from Roman rule?

Also, surely they could do some tests of mitochondrial DNA and figure all this out?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The latter - no, I don't think so (see discussion above re: University of London study).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I find it hard to believe that, if there was not some element of compulsion, that Britons would have swapped Old Welsh for Old English over several generations.

I tend to agree with this. It's not clear to me though why this is apparently not accepted by a large proportion of contemporary historians. It's for this reason that I'm interested in responses to Pryor, knowledge of the contemporary debate in historiography etc.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Meanwhile

 

[phildwyer]

Place names and archaeology in Wales suggest that there were Celtic villages existing two or three miles away from Saxon villages from at least the seventh century. That isn't really consistent with a full-scale invasion so much as a gradual displacement, no doubt marked by many local conflicts.

 

[tim]

1. I don't really believe that the Anglo-Saxon language (to use a clumsy phrase) would develop in Britain, or come to be adopted there, over a relatively short historical period, just because there were contacts with continental Europe.

It is a clumsy phrase and since the people who spoke it called it English or in the spelling of the time Englisc not Anglo-Saxon why not stick to calling it Old English.


The extensive, political but incorrect, use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" masks the fact that the dominant culture in England over the past 1500 years is an English culture, and that other groups (celts,Danes Normans) often given equal prominence alongside the so called "Anglo-Saxons" infact made a much more periferal contribution to the development of modern English culture, language and society.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

peripheral

That doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "equal prominence"? In what way, where and by whom? What also do you mean by "English", since the term itself dates from well after the beginning of your period and is in essence a geographical expression?

 

[tim]

That doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "equal prominence"? In what way, where and by whom? What also do you mean by "English", since the term itself dates from well after the beginning of your period and is in essence a geographical expression?

The term "English" was used by the speakers of the language otherwise known as "Anglo-Saxon" to define themselves and those with whom they felt they shared a common identity, long before the union of the Old English kingdoms they certainly never called themselves Anglo-Saxons. Modern English (the language). It was primarily a cultural expresion the concept of England as the country of the English is secondary.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The term "English" was used by the speakers of the language otherwise known as "Anglo-Saxon" to define themselves and those with whom they felt they shared a common identity

From when?

 

[Stigmata]

The term "English" was used by the speakers of the language otherwise known as "Anglo-Saxon" to define themselves and those with whom they felt they shared a common identity, long before the union of the Old English kingdoms they certainly never called themselves Anglo-Saxons. Modern English (the language). It was primarily a cultural expresion the concept of England as the country of the English is secondary.

I'm pretty sure the first reference to 'the English peoples' was by Bede, who was of course a late Anglo-Saxon (or early English) figure.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Interesting. I wouldn't mind a reference.

 

[Belushi]

My understanding was that the term and idea 'English' was first really popularised by the House of Wessex following the time of Alfred in order to justify their unification of the different Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and rally support against the Danes. I'll try and find some references for this.

 

[Stigmata]

Interesting. I wouldn't mind a reference.

Sorry, just going on what my Anglo-Saxon lecturer told me.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's OK: I looked for references myself last night. I'm very interested in the question as to when the term "English" was first used, by whom, and what it meant.

 

[Charlie Drake]

A couple of books by John Blair and Barbara Yorke suggest that quite a few Saxons were living in Britain before the Romans left as Mercenaries in the Roman army. I read somewhere that somewhere down the Thames around London there was a large billet camp/small town for Saxons set up by the Romans. Sorry I'm rubbish with sources!

 

[phildwyer]

It's OK: I looked for references myself last night. I'm very interested in the question as to when the term "English" was first used, by whom, and what it meant.

And furthermore, why is "English" derived from "Angle," while "saesneg" and "sassanach" are derived from "Saxon?"

 

[Stigmata]

A couple of books by John Blair and Barbara Yorke suggest that quite a few Saxons were living in Britain before the Romans left as Mercenaries in the Roman army. I read somewhere that somewhere down the Thames around London there was a large billet camp/small town for Saxons set up by the Romans. Sorry I'm rubbish with sources!

I'd heard that was possible, but that it was mostly conjecture and that even if they had lived in Britain they would have upped and left by 410 with the rest of the legions.

 

[agricola]

And furthermore, why is "English" derived from "Angle," while "saesneg" and "sassanach" are derived from "Saxon?"

Probably because "Angle" is something the English would have known (at least a part of) themselves as, wheras "saesneg" et al are names given to them by others, a name they had been known as since at least the fourth century (as the Comes litoris Saxonici or Count of the Saxon Shore demonstrates). The same phenomenon is seen between "Cymraeg" (or "Britons") and "Welsh".

I'd heard that was possible, but that it was mostly conjecture and that even if they had lived in Britain they would have upped and left by 410 with the rest of the legions.

Interestingly, they were probably left there (like the rest of the Roman troops) as they had bonded so much with the local inhabitants (by 410 most of the forts in Britain had become garrison-settlements) that to move them would probably have led to a refusal.

It's OK: I looked for references myself last night. I'm very interested in the question as to when the term "English" was first used, by whom, and what it meant.

A very difficult question, though if one had to guess Bede would be as good as any other.

 

[tim]

I'm pretty sure the first reference to 'the English peoples' was by Bede, who was of course a late Anglo-Saxon (or early English) figure.

Bede wrote in Latin - the full title of his history is: Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum. I think he was translated fairly quickly, an on line modern English translation can be found here.

Bede does make the distinction between Angle Saxon and Jute (the settlers of Kent and Hampshire always seem to get forgotten). But goes on to class them all as "gentis Anglorum". He was writing in the early eighth century so he was really a Middle rather than a late old English figure.

As to the earliest use of the term Englisc in Old English itself, it will be in the OED (I'm sure the world's most extensive dictionary compiled on "historical principles" will have the etymology of the name of the language it covers well researched) so anyone with a subscription will be able to tell us.

 

[tim]

duplicate post

 

[Donna Ferentes]

As to the earliest use of the term Englisc in Old English itself, it will be in the OED (I'm sure the world's most extensive dictionary compiled on "historical principles" will have the etymology of the name of the language it covers well researched) so anyone with a subscription will be able to tell us.

Yes, that had occurred to me but regrettably though I worked in a library up to the end of last year I no longer do so: and I no longer live in a country where the OED is necessarily on the library shelves. Anybody fancy toddling down to such an establishment and telling us?

 

[boskysquelch]

supposedly so-called because Angul, the land they inhabited on the Jutland coast, was shaped like a fish hook

 

[durruti02]

similar debate re the celtic 'invasions' .. many historians now believe it was a similar slow infiltration of culture and people rather than a large scale invasion from europe of la Tene type celts

but equally why the total displacement of the previous culture? .. what happenned to the pre celtic britons and their language??

and so some historians dispute the idea that the celts of ireland scotland and wales are celts at all but are actually remnants of british cultures who incorporated european celtic culture ..

 

[tim]

similar debate re the celtic 'invasions' .. many historians now believe it was a similar slow infiltration of culture and people rather than a large scale invasion from europe of la Tene type celts

but equally why the total displacement of the previous culture? .. what happenned to the pre celtic britons and their language??

and so some historians dispute the idea that the celts of ireland scotland and wales are celts at all but are actually remnants of british cultures who incorporated european celtic culture ..

Dominant cultures tend to displace less dominant ones that can be seen anywhere in the world. That's why although there are thousands of languages in the world, most people speak either English, Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, Spanish,Rusian or Portuguese as their first language.

As to what is a "celt" isn't asking this question to some extent buying into a belief that someones ethnicity (a term itself that mostly means skin/eye/hair colour occasionally combined with height and physical build) is linked to the language that they speak. A belief undermined by the fact that speakers of a languageare often ethnically very disimilar.

Surely Celt is a slightly abstract term to describe speakers of one of a number of related languages - Welsh, Breton, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic. Again would be interesting to know when the speakers of these languages began to be classed together as Celts (I assume the term was first used by the Romans to classify some of the tribal groupsthey were fighting); and at what point speakers of these languages began to create a sense of a shared Celtic identity. My guess that it is an 18th and 19th century phenomena - an aspect of the "Romantic" movement reflecting a similar similar developments amongst German speakers.

 

[phildwyer]

Probably because "Angle" is something the English would have known (at least a part of) themselves as, wheras "saesneg" et al are names given to them by others, a name they had been known as since at least the fourth century (as the Comes litoris Saxonici or Count of the Saxon Shore demonstrates). The same phenomenon is seen between "Cymraeg" (or "Britons") and "Welsh".

Not quite. "Welsh" simply means "foriegner," but "saesneg" identifies a particular race. And I don't see why the Celts would have misidentified Angles as Saxons. Surely it is more likely that the area that is now England was occupied by Angles, while the areas that are now Wales and Scotland were (partially) occupied by Saxons?

 

[Stigmata]

Interestingly, they were probably left there (like the rest of the Roman troops) as they had bonded so much with the local inhabitants (by 410 most of the forts in Britain had become garrison-settlements) that to move them would probably have led to a refusal.

See I was always under the impression that the legions just left, accompanied by the wealthier romanised civilians who could afford to travel with them (this was the basis for one of my best university essays in fact). After all, if they were still around why would the British kings need to send overseas for Germanic mercenaries to defend their lands?

 

[tim]

Not quite. "Welsh" simply means "foriegner," but "saesneg" identifies a particular race. And I don't see why the Celts would have misidentified Angles as Saxons. Surely it is more likely that the area that is now England was occupied by Angles, while the areas that are now Wales and Scotland were (partially) occupied by Saxons?

Areas of Saxon occupation are those bits with a bit of sex in them- sex is for Saxons. Wessex for the West Saxon kingdom, Sussex for South Saxon kingdom Essex for the East Saxon Kingdom. As Middlesex for us Middle-saxons unfortunately there is no actual evidence of a Middle Saxon kingdom ever existing.

The Angles got the North; and as I mentioned before the Jutes: Kent, bits of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.