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)
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.
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!
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.
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.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.
It's difficult! Though that's an SBO (statement of the bleedin' obvious).Well, what do you think on maintaining Romano-Briton dominance?
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."
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.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.
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.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?
The rest of the military fortifies and gets ready for the Anglo-Saxons.