AHC: Keep Britain Celtic up till 1100 A.D.

Ok, for anyone who doesn't get the joke, the Roman-Britons by this time aren't very Roman, but in-universe they don't have a reason to doubt their identity since they can't step outside their timeline (or even go into the past of their own)
 
Anyways, the OP seems to accept Romano-British. Just Magnus succeeding and his descendants getting assimilated like OTL Romano-Britions suits the bill, but I thought my stab was funny.
 

dcharleos

Donor
Gildas, who's generally pretty scathing of his contemporary (mid-sixth-century) Britons, makes no mention of paganism as a significant force among them; indeed, IIRC, he calls the Saxons "pagan" in a fair few places, implying that the Britons were sufficiently Christianised for this to be a clear distinguisher between the two peoples. Similarly, Bede, who's no fan of the native Britons, doesn't accuse them of adhering to pagan customs, although doing so would clearly back up his "The Britons were impious and immoral, so God gave the country to the English" viewpoint. Maybe if you counted the population of the islands as a whole, including the Picts, Anglo-Saxons, etc., pagans would be slightly in the majority, but the sub-Roman Britons were by all accounts pretty thoroughly Christianised by the sixth century.

Well, Glldas was writing a polemic, and had a clear bias. The authors mentioned above draw their conclusions from archaeological evidence, such as burial practices. There seems to be a fair amount of authority that agrees that pagans were the majority among the Britons until the 500s. Since that authority derives from objective evidence, I'm inclined to believe it over Gildas.
 
Yet somehow, the Romano-Briton descendants (who make up like 75% of the Island's population when the Anglo-Saxons came and 99% of those in the geographical area of Roman Britannia) were fairly Celtic. Somehow in OTL, the Celtic influences won out, despite even the Celtic-like Romano-Britons under Roman rule usually considered themselves Roman!

To be fair, it's not the only time something like that happened: the Byzantines considered themselves Romans, despite speaking Greek.

Well, Glldas was writing a polemic, and had a clear bias. The authors mentioned above draw their conclusions from archaeological evidence, such as burial practices. There seems to be a fair amount of authority that agrees that pagans were the majority among the Britons until the 500s. Since that authority derives from objective evidence, I'm inclined to believe it over Gildas.

Sure Gildas was writing a polemic, but the point is that accusing his contemporaries of paganism would have suited his polemical purpose, so he'd certainly have made that accusation had it been available to him. As for the "fair amount of authority", it goes against everything I've previously read on the subject; what evidence do they present for their conclusions?
 
I think it depends on what one considers contemporary. All Britons or the elite?
I can certainly see justification for the upper classes of postRoman Britain being predominantly Christian while the more numerous lower classes were predominantly celtic pagan.
However I doubt there was a clear cut division as that, the appropriation of pagan rituals into Christianity shows there was at least a need to provide a veneer of Christianity suggesting customs alone did not a pagan make.
 
I think it depends on what one considers contemporary. All Britons or the elite?
I can certainly see justification for the upper classes of postRoman Britain being predominantly Christian while the more numerous lower classes were predominantly celtic pagan.
However I doubt there was a clear cut division as that, the appropriation of pagan rituals into Christianity shows there was at least a need to provide a veneer of Christianity suggesting customs alone did not a pagan make.
Gildas may have been writing primarily about the upper classes but IF he considered the peasantry to be British he would probably have added paganism to the list of practices he deplored. But maybe "a veneer of Christianity" is what we find amongst the sins of cowardice, rebelliousness, being ruled by own lusts etc. He does state abandoning due reverence to God as one, so backsliding, continuation of pagan practices on the quiet might be happening.
 
Gildas may have been writing primarily about the upper classes but IF he considered the peasantry to be British he would probably have added paganism to the list of practices he deplored. But maybe "a veneer of Christianity" is what we find amongst the sins of cowardice, rebelliousness, being ruled by own lusts etc. He does state abandoning due reverence to God as one, so backsliding, continuation of pagan practices on the quiet might be happening.

Well, what do you think on maintaining Romano-Briton dominance?
 
Well, what do you think on maintaining Romano-Briton dominance?
It's difficult! Though that's an SBO (statement of the bleedin' obvious).

The main problem is the economy of Roman Britain collapsed between 400AD and 430AD. Use of coinage disappeared, large scale production of pottery ended and town life seems to have ceased. Though it's possible some towns were used to house refugees the general consensus is they were abandoned. Internal trade seems to have been much reduced and most areas reduced to self sufficiency. This may not have been due entirely to raiding by Saxons, Picts, Irish etc. Squabbles between the civitates may have been just as likely a cause.

The wider point is that it's almost certain that the political unity of Roman Britain disintegrated also. The likely "sovereign polity" would be the civitates and we don't know how well, if at all, they cooperated. It's possible that each hired different bands of mercenaries, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, whatever, to fight each other as much as or rather than fend off Pictish and Irish raiders.

The TL Cato's Cavalry shows what might have happened had the separate tribes/states do-operated. Indeed that's kind of the scenario for an Arthur figure who rolled back the Anglo-Saxons at Badon. Maintenance of unity might have prevented the late 6th century collapse of British rule in Lowland Britain. Though as that's also been attributed to the effects of a major volcanic eruption in the late 530s and a subsequent plague, perhaps not.

Other things that might have helped keep Romano-Britain intact could be having its own mint. So money could continue to circulate in the economy after the departure of most troops and the cessation of sustained contacts with the rest of the Empire. Not sure how to get that POD though. Maybe the Carausian separate Empire lasts longer and allows a feeling of distinction between Britain and the Empire to develop. This could then stop Magnus Maximus trying to conquer Rome. So more of the army stays in Britain, then and later, and the apparatus of Roman Britain can be sustained into the 5th and 6th centuries.

Not sure how easy it would be to generate such PODs though.
 
Gildas may have been writing primarily about the upper classes but IF he considered the peasantry to be British he would probably have added paganism to the list of practices he deplored. But maybe "a veneer of Christianity" is what we find amongst the sins of cowardice, rebelliousness, being ruled by own lusts etc. He does state abandoning due reverence to God as one, so backsliding, continuation of pagan practices on the quiet might be happening.

FWIW Gildas seems to specifically deny that the kings of his time were pagans (DEB 38):

Notandum ergo est quod dixit scelus idolatriae esse nolle Deo acquiescere. Non sibi scelerati isti, dum non gentium diis perspicue litant, supplaudant, siquidem conculcantes porcorum more pretiosissimas Christi margaritas, idolatriae.

We must, therefore, observe that he [Samuel] says that the refusal to obey God is the crime of idolatry. Let not, therefore, these wicked ones applaud themselves when they do not make public sacrifice to heathen gods, since like swine they tread underfoot the costliest pearls of Christ, and so commit idolatry.


Of course, it's possible that, whilst not making public sacrifices, the kings were making private sacrifices instead; but if this were the case, we'd expect Gildas to say something like "Let not these wicked ones applaud themselves when they don't make public sacrifice to heathen gods, since everybody knows that they sacrifice to them in private anyway."
 
FWIW Gildas seems to specifically deny that the kings of his time were pagans (DEB 38):

Notandum ergo est quod dixit scelus idolatriae esse nolle Deo acquiescere. Non sibi scelerati isti, dum non gentium diis perspicue litant, supplaudant, siquidem conculcantes porcorum more pretiosissimas Christi margaritas, idolatriae.

We must, therefore, observe that he [Samuel] says that the refusal to obey God is the crime of idolatry. Let not, therefore, these wicked ones applaud themselves when they do not make public sacrifice to heathen gods, since like swine they tread underfoot the costliest pearls of Christ, and so commit idolatry.


Of course, it's possible that, whilst not making public sacrifices, the kings were making private sacrifices instead; but if this were the case, we'd expect Gildas to say something like "Let not these wicked ones applaud themselves when they don't make public sacrifice to heathen gods, since everybody knows that they sacrifice to them in private anyway."

ETA: Also, it would apply that Christianity was dominant enough for any prominent pagan to keep their religion private, which in turn would imply that paganism wasn't widely followed any more.
 
ETA: Also, it would apply that Christianity was dominant enough for any prominent pagan to keep their religion private, which in turn would imply that paganism wasn't widely followed any more.
Yes, but with the caveat that this applied to the upper classes. The position of the peasantry may be less clear - perhaps they turned up on to church on Sundays and Holy days (assuming services approximated those of the later in the medieval period) but quietly followed traditional pagan practices also. Not the kind of sacrifices officiated by pagan priesthoods but putting titbits out for the house elves or fairy people. Which is what a poster above claim archaeologists have found evidence of through funeral rites.

This could explain why after the Romano-British elite was supplanted by pagan Germanic warlords there is little evidence of the Christian Church surviving as an organised body, unlike in Gaul and Spain etc. But it doesn't suggest a return to pre-Christian Celtic religion would be a unifying factor even if correct.
 
My understanding is that a few years ago there was an opinion that archaeological evidence suggested a "pagan revival" in late 4th century Britannia, but that this has since been questioned (see for example Ken Dark's Britain and the End of the Roman Empire). I think that Gildas not mentioning paganism as a fault of the British rulers he excoriates, rather than their general immorality and apostasy, is crucial. Also, and perhaps a century earlier than Gildas, St. Germanus seems to have been sent to Britain c. 430 specifically to combat the Pelagian heresy rather than any residual paganism (though arguably Christianity has always acted more strongly against its own heresies than against paganism).

Bede of course criticises the Britons for failing to try to convert the Anglo-Saxons (anachronistic term, but shorthand), but doesn't accuse them of remaining pagans. Given that he wanted to do down the British church at every opportunity, presumably he also would have picked up on surviving British paganism, though this is a good deal later. (I think he does criticise British Christians for allying with the pagan Mercian Penda against nominally Christian Northumbria, so would have lumped them with Penda as pagans if he could.)

The big puzzle for me is the lack of Celtic loanwords in English (~<10?). This suggests to me either a largely Latin-speaking population in eastern Britain, or even that there could have been a pre-existing Germanic-(or Belgic-, whatever that might have been)speaking substrate there, presumably as a lower class ruled by Celtic-speaking aristocracy before the Roman invasion?
 
Instead of talking about the possibly of early Germans, or the religion of the Britons/British, why don't we try to look at the OP's request?
 
Instead of talking about the possibly of early Germans, or the religion of the Britons/British, why don't we try to look at the OP's request?
I think part of the problem is whether you consider Christian Romano-Britons to be Celtic or not. The elite at least would have seen themselves as Romans living in the province of Brittania rather than Celts. The peasants may have been less conscious of being "Roman" but might not have been "British" either, rather "Trinovantes" or "Corveti" etc. So it's difficult to think of a "Celtic Britain" as a polity people would have cared much about.

The best POD ISTM is to keep some semblance of Roman administrative structures, a Diocesan Governor and the four/five provincial governors. Plus a tax system that's monetary based to allow for maintaining a professional force that's largely recruited from within Britannia rather than Germanic foederati or mercenaries. Even if that eventually breaks down the new warlords would be predominantly Christian and partially Romanised Celts rather than pagan Germans.

The POD might have to be Magnis Maximus being content to stay in Britain and build a mint. Keeping a larger British army into the early 5th century. But that require an ASB-inspired vision. Though since Constantine the Great seems to have had such, perhaps not ASB?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
The rest of the military fortifies and gets ready for the Anglo-Saxons.

You're a bit off, mate. The core reason why the Anglo-Saxons ended up in Britannia in the first place was as Mercenaries to fight the Picts. They were paid in land. If Britannia has a sizable military then there's little reason to hire the Anglo-Saxons.
 
Ok two things...

One is that by the time the Anglo-Saxxons turned on the Britons, the Britons were pretty Celtic. I don't know why the Roman influence was subdued, but it was.

Also, the Romans tended to hire mercs even when they had good numbers of Romans. Light melee infantry was never really their thing and Imperial commanders recognized the need for more than the legionary heavy infantry. It's why they hired mercs in Germania (and the mercs turned on them... whoops_
 
The best thing to do is probably to have Boudicca's revolt succeed in ousting the Romans. Britannia gets the same treatment as Germania where the Romans decide that the island isn't worth it to pacify. In so doing you keep keep out the Germanic mercenaries (Angles, Saxons, Iutes) who were hired by the Romans to fight off the Picts and Gaels.

The longer term affects this might have on Britannia would be interesting. So close to Roman Gaul, would southern Britain consolidate under a friendly tribe? It's easy to imagine a client-state situation developing in line with the Bosphoran Kingdom. This situation could prevent the Germanic migrations into Britain during the 5th & 6th centuries. However... you would likely see invasion and settlement from the peoples living in Scandinavia. Without the migrations of Angles, Saxons, and Iutes it is hard to say that these peoples would be the Danes and Norsemen we saw in the 8th-12th centuries. Ironically, you could see the Angles and Iutes being just as much a part of the Viking Age as the vikings.
 
Top