English survived the Norman conquest, why didn't Brythonic survive the Saxon conquest in England?

What's that?

An axe-age, a wolf-age when the hand of kin is turned against kin.
Brother war with brother and father fights son.
The Fenris wolf breaks his bonds and devours the moon, and bane-wounds the sun.
No day but only a white haze where the sun can barely be made out.
Biting cold winds blow snow from every direction,
Three such winters follow one after the other with no summer in between and the snow does not melt.
Most of mankind perish.

The Fimbulwinter marks the start of Ragnarok, the end of the world in the Norse beliefs. Lately, we've come to realize that this is actually a folk memory of the years 536-540, when the majority of the people in Scandinavia died and the society were violently transformed. It was fairly apocalyptic, as far as can be made out. 70-90 % of farms and settlements get abandoned, trees have no growth rings for four years, craft and specialization collapses. The only traces human activity that increases is sacrifices, the numbers go into overdrive. When it all settled down, the result was the Norse. Actually post-apocalyptic warriors.

Cite, needs google translate

Cite.

Britain is not far enough away from Scandinavia to be unaffected by something that can stop trees from growing for years over such a large area. Although if winds and climate did mean it got off lightly, and then got the plague, it would explain a lot about why the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were so set on getting there.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
An axe-age, a wolf-age when the hand of kin is turned against kin.
Brother war with brother and father fights son.
The Fenris wolf breaks his bonds and devours the moon, and bane-wounds the sun.
No day but only a white haze where the sun can barely be made out.
Biting cold winds blow snow from every direction,
Three such winters follow one after the other with no summer in between and the snow does not melt.
Most of mankind perish.

The Fimbulwinter marks the start of Ragnarok, the end of the world in the Norse beliefs. Lately, we've come to realize that this is actually a folk memory of the years 536-540, when the majority of the people in Scandinavia died and the society were violently transformed. It was fairly apocalyptic, as far as can be made out. 70-90 % of farms and settlements get abandoned, trees have no growth rings for four years, craft and specialization collapses. The only traces human activity that increases is sacrifices, the numbers go into overdrive. When it all settled down, the result was the Norse. Actually post-apocalyptic warriors.

Cite, needs google translate

Cite.

Britain is not far enough away from Scandinavia to be unaffected by something that can stop trees from growing for years over such a large area. Although if winds and climate did mean it got off lightly, and then got the plague, it would explain a lot about why the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were so set on getting there.

I read your whole post with Led Zeppelin’s immigrant song firmly in mind!
 
And remember, our earliest source, Gildas, clearly believes Saxons came from elsewhere and Celtic Britons were indigenous, and he was almost certainly alive at the same time as Vortigern*.

Pedant alert: Gildas says he was born in the same year as the Battle of Mt. Badon. It's unclear whether or not Vortigern was still alive at this point, although even if he was, he doesn't seem to have been in command any more. (Gildas makes Ambrosius Aurelianus the commander of the Britons in their initial fightback. According to Nennius, Ambrosius overthrew Vortigern and took power instead; although given that Nennius makes Ambrosius a fatherless boy who makes prophecies based on fighting dragons, his account of the period may not be entirely trustworthy.)
 
"post-apocalyptic Scandinavia"
While Late Antiquity Ice Age certainly had an impact, it was relatively diluted both in time and geographically : it was felt beyond Scandinavia climatically within and outside Europe. Note that Scandinavia was already significantly significantly damaged by the late Vth century.
The collapse of the Roman state in western Europe, and what it implied in matter of trade, exchanges and subsides; the general geopolitical balance, and very important repercussions : military fragmentation, low-tier weapons, mass slaughter...**

Basically, scandinavian societies already collapsed by the late Vth century ; anything that happened in the VIth most certainly added an increased pressure, of course; but it was already in ruins and this increased pressure likely followed migration patters established decades ago (hence why Danes/Gaetic peoples pressured proto-Anglo-Saxon peoples on the continental North Sea shores)
 
Last edited:
While Late Antiquity Ice Age certainly had an impact, it was relatively diluted both in time and geographically : it was felt beyond Scandinavia climatically within and outside Europe. Note that Scandinavia was already significantly significantly damaged by the late Vth century.
The collapse of the Roman state in western Europe, and what it implied in matter of trade, exchanges and subsides; the general geopolitical balance, and very important repercussions : military fragmentation, low-tier weapons, mass slaughter...**

Scandinavian societies already collapsed by the late Vth century ; anything that happened in the VIth might have added an increased pressure, of course; but it was already in ruins and this increased pressure likely followed migration patters established decades ago (hence why Danes/Gaetic peoples pressured proto-Anglo-Saxon peoples on the continental North Sea shores)

Um... I know you know much more than me about this sort of thing. But are you sure your sources are up to date here? A friend of mine is doing a phD in archaeology specializing in the period here in Norway, and from what hes told me, since 2007 we've kept looking and it keeps looking worse and worse. This is not Rutger Sernanders stuff. A lot of the work has been later than 2007, when Graslund published Fimbulvintern, Ragnarök och klimatkrisen år 536–537 e. Kr.» which got people started researching the subject. He found that the number of farms in the areas he surveyed suddenly dropped by 70 % in the first half of the 500s. Archeological finds drop by 70-90 % in Norway.

Now this is outside my area of expertise, but one of the things these people do is analyse pollen deposits in peat and marsh and I think these are fairly accurate in terms of dates. And all across Scandinavia, they come up with a similar results. Pollen associated with agricultural activity vanish, and are replaced by tree pollen. Now, I say much the same because there are some regional variation. Basically, the further south you were, the easier things were.

Ljungqvist, one of the authors of that paper on the Late Antique Ice Age you linked to estimates that about 50 % of the population of southern Sweden perished in the period 536-546. (The Sandby attack is tentatively dated to the end of the fifth century while waiting for C-dating and could well be part of this.) It gets worse further north. Swedish researchers looking at "The 536 event" believe the northern half of Sweden show a total cessation of signs of human life in the period. Researchers from the University of Tromsø (who were first to first notice the pollen signal) report similar results from the inland areas in Norway although with some signs of activity at the coast.

In Norwegian history, the period 550-650 is called "The Silent Century" Not much happened. Iron working ceased, as did goldsmithing and ceramics production. When ironworking returns around 650, it is a completely technique. People stopped making iron weapons and apparently forgot how to.

I mean, I am sure the Vth century was no picnic. Collapse of trade, military fragmentation etc. But from everything I can see, what we are looking at in the VIth seem to be a population and habitation drop so sudden and severe that on the "apocalyptic" scale it actually surpasses the Black Death and in places may well have managed to reach the level of an extinction event.
 
Um... I know you know much more than me about this sort of thing. But are you sure your sources are up to date here?
Ingrid Ystgaard defended this thesis some years ago, and it seems to have passed as she obtained her PhD in 2014. That the transition to Roman Iron Age to Merovingian period in Norway was made trough a significant decline : it might have, and probably was ,worsened by climatic causes but to quote "by the IVth or Vth, the dice was already cast".
A friend of mine is doing a phD in archaeology specializing in the period here in Norway, and from what hes told me, since 2007 we've kept looking and it keeps looking worse and worse
It was worse and worse : but the first cause of decline can be tied to the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe in the Vth, before that the global climatic crisis or epidemic crisis of the VIth century which touched more or less everyone in Europe (while in different periods) worsened the situation.

He found that the number of farms in the areas he surveyed suddenly dropped by 70 % in the first half of the 500s. Archeological finds drop by 70-90 % in Norway.
Again, we're probably talking about a relatively long process : Scandinavian societies probably collapsed into smaller fragments, with the disappearance of coalitions/federations held together thanks to exchanges with Romania, which went the way of a generalization of warfare and disappearance of known chiefdom structures. Scandinavians communities probably still held as they could, before the Late Antiquity Ice Age and epidemics achieved them.
Without Roman Empire decline and collapse, and the appearance of migration patterns in North Sea, maybe Scandinavian chiefdoms would have an hard time not declining anyway, but the maintain of Roman-Barbaricum trade (especially grain trade) would have prevented significant parts of IOTL development.

Pollen associated with agricultural activity vanish, and are replaced by tree pollen. Now, I say much the same because there are some regional variation. Basically, the further south you were, the easier things were.
Which is not what I argued against : but I wanted to point that the situation in Scandinavia was already critical before the VIth century due to the geopolitical and geoeconomical consequences of Roman collapse in Western Europe. The tendency to overexplain ancient events by climatic/envi causes only (Hunnic migrations caused by drought, Final Bronze Age by climatic change, IIIrd century crisis by cold wheater, etc.) as a by-product of neo-evolutionist takes, is problematic and ignores historical causes, up to the point of quasi-falsification for some of Jared Diamond's takes.
Which is not the same than arguing of the importance of climatic/environmental causes, of course.

what we are looking at in the VIth seem to be a population and habitation drop so sudden and severe that on the "apocalyptic" scale it actually surpasses the Black Death and in places may well have managed to reach the level of an extinction event.
Epidemics in VIth century Romania (imperial and post-imperial) certainly reached a legality close to Black Death too this said. Scandinavia which was already significantly weakened, if not in ruins as England was, might have been even more touched due to a quite poor situation compared to other places, namely a societal collapse.
 

You know, Ingrid Ystgaard and I have friends in common. They passed this around on facebook back then, happy that she was getting so much attention. I really wanted to object to something she was saying at the time, but what would be the point? "Hey, Ingrid, I know you are happy about getting all the attention, but here is why I, a man with no knowledge of your field thinks you are wrong..."

Not the done thing at all.

But since I am already making a fool of myself here, by objecting to stuff outside my knowledge base, I don't see how its going to get worse. So here goes:

I am not an archeologist, but I have done dark ages battle reenactment. And Ystgaard is absolutely wrong that such axes are not used in battles. They're one of the main weapons. What you do is, you reach out and hook the axe over the rim of the opposing mans shield, then you pull hard as you can. As you do that they man on your right thrust forwards with a spear, with his weight behind. Should go strait into the opposing fellows gut if you do it right.

Axes like that are a sign that you are fighting in a shield wall against another shield wall, and that you have time to practice it.

Also, an axe is a far more versatile tool than a sword, which is pretty one-purpose. If they really were losing the art of iron production, that may be a better use of scarce iron.
 
Last edited:
It was worse and worse : but the first cause of decline can be tied to the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe in the Vth, before that the global climatic crisis or epidemic crisis of the VIth century which touched more or less everyone in Europe (while in different periods) worsened the situation.


Again, we're probably talking about a relatively long process : Scandinavian societies probably collapsed into smaller fragments, with the disappearance of coalitions/federations held together thanks to exchanges with Romania, which went the way of a generalization of warfare and disappearance of known chiefdom structures. Scandinavians communities probably still held as they could, before the Late Antiquity Ice Age and epidemics achieved them.
Without Roman Empire decline and collapse, and the appearance of migration patterns in North Sea, maybe Scandinavian chiefdoms would have an hard time not declining anyway, but the maintain of Roman-Barbaricum trade (especially grain trade) would have prevented significant parts of IOTL development.


Which is not what I argued against : but I wanted to point that the situation in Scandinavia was already critical before the VIth century due to the geopolitical and geoeconomical consequences of Roman collapse in Western Europe. The tendency to overexplain ancient events by climatic/envi causes only (Hunnic migrations caused by drought, Final Bronze Age by climatic change, IIIrd century crisis by cold wheater, etc.) as a by-product of neo-evolutionist takes, is problematic and ignores historical causes, up to the point of quasi-falsification for some of Jared Diamond's takes.
Which is not the same than arguing of the importance of climatic/environmental causes, of course.


Epidemics in VIth century Romania (imperial and post-imperial) certainly reached a legality close to Black Death too this said. Scandinavia which was already significantly weakened, if not in ruins as England was, might have been even more touched due to a quite poor situation compared to other places, namely a societal collapse.

Well. While it is always possible that we will find evidence that the plague of Justinian reached Scandinavia, I believe the northernmost cases we currently know of are Germany and possibly Wales. And the mortality patterns of the Event does not match an epidemic. The lowest death rates in the most densely populated areas in Southern Scandinavia, with the death rates climbing towards a 100 % as you move north into more and more sparsely populated territory? That is not what you'd call a normal epidemic.

But it is exactly what you'd expect with a climate cooling hitting an agricultural population in an environment that gets more and more marginal for it the further north you go.

Anyway, I shot my friend some questions about this. He said there were some signs of decline before 536, but nothing like the apocalypse that followed. 2,5 years without sun or summer (He was oddly specific there), total collapse of all agriculture, and complete crisis in all terrestrial ecosystems. Some regional differences, he was primarily referring to where he is working, the Rogaland area where food production was near 100 % corn. He noted that the very fertile coastal areas such as Lofoten would have been positive regional variations, fish as a food staple would have been far less disrupted.

He also said that the pollen dating is of the collapse of habitation is very accurate, much more so than carbon dating. I'll get to read his paper when it is closer to release, because this is very very interesting:)

EDIT: Of course I am being very difficult to talk to here, referring the unpublished work of someone no-one else knows as an authority:)
 
Last edited:
You know, Ingrid Ystgaard and I have friends in common. They passed this around on facebook back then, happy that she was getting so much attention. I really wanted to object to something she was saying at the time, but what would be the point? Hey, I know you are happy about getting all the attention, but here is why I, a man with no knowledge of your field thinks you are wrong...
I'd really want to answer politely to passive-agressive stuff like this. Since I can't,I prefer to give up on this exchange (that could have been interesting, especially on the societal vs. climatic causes).
 
I'd really want to answer politely to passive-agressive stuff like this. Since I can't,I prefer to give up on this exchange (that could have been interesting, especially on the societal vs. climatic causes).

...I really think you must have misunderstood me, I was saying that I did not want to object to Ystgaards point at the time her PhD thesis was first brought to my attention. Because why would I ? It was already written and getting lots of attention, so why barge in and say I thought stuff was wrong, when I have no qualifications in the field and she was happy with the attention she was getting?

Its not aimed at you. I was wittering about why I didnt advance any objections years ago.

Anyway, I tried to clarify it a bit.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I tried to clarify it a bit.
Really, you should try to put quotes marks, because it vastly changes the meaning of a post.

Anyway.

. And Ystgaard is absolutely wrong that such axes are not used in battles. They're one of the main weapons.
I may have got her point wrong, but I was under the impression that their presence was less about more inefficient warfare, but a dehiarchisation of warfare : swords weren't as much more efficient weapons, but more prestigious and socially hierarchised, and for Iron Age Germania/Scandinavia tied to exchange with Rome. With other clues about destructurations of Scandinavian societies relatively early on, I'm not confident on assuming a smooth evolution of warfare where axes only come prevalent due to a shortage of iron.

Also, an axe is a far more versatile tool than a sword, which is pretty one-purpose.
Not necessarily, altough we might have to broaden the definition of sword : seax and scramseax were used in the same period and were pretty much multi-purpose as well, when it come to non-warfare use. Now, Merovingian-era swords in the strictest sense have as well a non-warfare use with is a demonstration of social-status (especially for ring-swords). The reappearance of such equipment is to be tied, as far as I can tell, to a clear social stratification.
Silimarily, axes can be more or less sophisticated : fransicae served as much as a weapon as a identitarian feature (less social than ethno-political, Bruno Dumézil made an interesting point about it). Predominance of versatile axes, not socially but by destination, might well be interpreted as a social destructuration given the disappearance of "public" fortifications and big graves.

Well. While it is always possible that we will find evidence that the plague of Justinian reached Scandinavia, I believe the northernmost cases we currently know of are Germany and possibly Wales.
The more or less known exchanges between Western Europe and Northern Europe at this point is still likely to have carried the plague in Northern Europe : given the main sources are chronicles, the absence of mention of the situation in Scandinavia on this regard wouldn't be surprising even if, you're right, it wouldn't proove it did; and that only the epidemic of the 580's seems to have definitely reached northern Gaul and Germania (keeping in mind Europe was weakened by the possible first smallpox epidemic of its history). That it had an incidence or not in Scandinavia, and how much, is open to new discoveries of course.

But it is exactly what you'd expect with a climate cooling hitting an agricultural population in an environment that gets more and more marginal for it the further north you go.
Again, I did not say that it was caused by epidemics alone : but that a catastrophic climatic even befallen to an already significantly weakened Scandinavia, and that its migratory consequences (I'm sure you're right about local demographical consequences) followed already established patterns and that the harsher part of the Little Ice Age of Late Antiquity did not as much caused the Germanisation of Britain by demographical weight, than increased it; not about the validity of climatic consequences in 530's overall.

EDIT: Of course I am being very difficult to talk to here, referring the unpublished work of someone no-one else knows as an authority:)
There's no much possibility to refer to a non-published work, is there? And authority is less interesting than sources eventually.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Pedant alert: Gildas says he was born in the same year as the Battle of Mt. Badon. It's unclear whether or not Vortigern was still alive at this point, although even if he was, he doesn't seem to have been in command any more. (Gildas makes Ambrosius Aurelianus the commander of the Britons in their initial fightback. According to Nennius, Ambrosius overthrew Vortigern and took power instead; although given that Nennius makes Ambrosius a fatherless boy who makes prophecies based on fighting dragons, his account of the period may not be entirely trustworthy.)

Fair points, but if any of the traditions we have about him are true, we might expect him to be a Saxon client by this point. I personally favour an early Gildas and a latish Vortigern, so I'd say that my personal preferences are influencing my opinion. It's actually possible that Vortigern represents someone born in the 380's, and the Saxons were invited in the 420's, which would mean he is nowhere near Gildas.
 
Last edited:

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Hm. Interesting. Is the chestnut about there being less Celtic place names than we'd expect in England false as well, or is there strong evidence both for a solid Celtic England AND a relative poverty in Celtic derived place-names in modern England?

There are comparatively few Celtic placenames in Eastern England, but there are more than people generally acknowledge. Nobody really mentions that 70+% of the -caster/-chester/-cester names have a Celtic element as their base, for example. There are also outright Celtic names in every English county (except Rutland, I think), but it's true there is a phenomenon that needs explaining.

The most logical explanation is that of changing settlement patterns emerging after the collapse of Roman Britain. We have evidence of the collapse of villa economies and the occupation of hillforts. New settlements were created, and it seems that it was very important to Anglo-Saxons to attach the name of a dynastic founder to a place. Interestingly, we have various examples of Britons' names being used to Create Anglo-Saxon placenames, Dewsbury, for example, comes from "Dewi". We can also include names containing walh, bret and cumbra which indicate the presence of Britons, albeit in English names. There is also evidence of a process of replacement of Celtic names continuing through several hundred years, Bede knew celtic placenames now lost to us, although one "Maelmin" was translated literally into English as Millfield. If Bede had not mentioned this Welsh name, there is no way we would know the place's origin lies in Welsh, there must be many other places where this happened but no evidence survived.

This was not just an English phenomenon, the ubiquitous "llan-" names of Wales all date from the 6th century or later, and most Breton toponymy dates to a similar period. So it is true few placenames survived in many areas, but this is neither as extreme nor improbable as some think.
 
Really, you should try to put quotes marks, because it vastly changes the meaning of a post.

I did when I clarified it. Sorry, I was dashing off a post between tasks, and sort of aimed for a conversational style.

I may have got her point wrong, but I was under the impression that their presence was less about more inefficient warfare, but a dehiarchisation of warfare : swords weren't as much more efficient weapons, but more prestigious and socially hierarchised, and for Iron Age Germania/Scandinavia tied to exchange with Rome. With other clues about destructurations of Scandinavian societies relatively early on, I'm not confident on assuming a smooth evolution of warfare where axes only come prevalent due to a shortage of iron.

My semi-practical experience is that swords are badly suited for fighting in shield walls. Long swords are not very maneuverable, and a hazard to everyone around you. Short swords lack a bit of reach to be fully effective in that kind of scrum. I know the Romans used them to great effect though. They may have fought different clashes from the small-group fights of the shieldwalls. Or maybe shields changed at some point.

Anyway, the point of hers that I was disagreeing with was that axes were not used or needed in the "two lots of people with shields clashing" type of warfare. Absolutely is. I wonder if the number of spears increased in the period, they are the paired weapon with the axe for that technique.

Not necessarily, altough we might have to broaden the definition of sword : seax and scramseax were used in the same period and were pretty much multi-purpose as well, when it come to non-warfare use. Now, Merovingian-era swords in the strictest sense have as well a non-warfare use with is a demonstration of social-status (especially for ring-swords). The reappearance of such equipment is to be tied, as far as I can tell, to a clear social stratification.
Silimarily, axes can be more or less sophisticated : fransicae served as much as a weapon as a identitarian feature (less social than ethno-political, Bruno Dumézil made an interesting point about it). Predominance of versatile axes, not socially but by destination, might well be interpreted as a social destructuration given the disappearance of "public" fortifications and big graves.

Seax and scamseax are sort of knifes shading over to swords for the larger specimens, no? I can absolutely see the social-status point of swords, especially the ones larger than a Gladius. The fact that you are carrying a weapon unsuited for fighting in a shieldwall means you are someone who fights in other settings. A champion or leader. Also carrying a tool specialized for fighting sends its own message, I expect.

The more or less known exchanges between Western Europe and Northern Europe at this point is still likely to have carried the plague in Northern Europe : given the main sources are chronicles, the absence of mention of the situation in Scandinavia on this regard wouldn't be surprising even if, you're right, it wouldn't proove it did; and that only the epidemic of the 580's seems to have definitely reached northern Gaul and Germania (keeping in mind Europe was weakened by the possible first smallpox epidemic of its history). That it had an incidence or not in Scandinavia, and how much, is open to new discoveries of course.

I am unsure. Under normal circumstances, I don't see anything that would stop the spread of the plague. Rats in the grain etc. But circumstances were highly abnormal. Trade links had already broken down, sufficiently cold weather would seem to be bad for the fleas that carried the plague, and the Plague of Justinian started in 541. I think it is quite possible that the population density by 541 were so reduced that the plague would have great difficulty spreading. University of Tromsø is looking for evidence of plague, on the theory that the far north would preserve bodies and bacteria better.

Again, I did not say that it was caused by epidemics alone : but that a catastrophic climatic even befallen to an already significantly weakened Scandinavia, and that its migratory consequences (I'm sure you're right about local demographical consequences) followed already established patterns and that the harsher part of the Little Ice Age of Late Antiquity did not as much caused the Germanisation of Britain by demographical weight, than increased it; not about the validity of climatic consequences in 530's overall.

I quite agree. I do speculate that if Britain appeared more fertile, it could go some ways to explain the attractiveness to the Germans and maybe the reports of their own lands being near deserted.

Anyway, my general point is that from what I've read, I don't believe the collapse of the Vth can have been anywhere near as severe as what happened in the VIth. Scandinavia in the Vth lost customers for their grain, and suffered what seems to have been a deterioration into a warlord setup. Still a food surplus producer. Maybe a situation roughly equivalent to the collapse of Somalia or the Warlords period in China. Whereas the VI featured populations drops equivalent to the Black Death, plus the seeming extinction of human life over vast areas. In its severity, it may well have exceeded the Black Death, with fundamental knowledge's lost.

It just... it seems to be an entirely different degree of magnitude.

There's no much possibility to refer to a non-published work, is there? And authority is less interesting than sources eventually.

I'll try to remember to shoot you a link when he publishes:) I've gotten the impression that it will be spectacular.
 
My semi-practical experience is that swords are badly suited for fighting in shield walls. Long swords are not very maneuverable, and a hazard to everyone around you. Short swords lack a bit of reach to be fully effective in that kind of scrum.
It depends from the type of shield wall we're talking, arguably : from what I understood (but not experienced) a cuneus-like formation allows after breaking part of the adversary's formation trough fire saturation, to use swords to further the hole.

Note that it could/should be a wider placement after the first shock, to really get to use swords there/

I know the Romans used them to great effect though. They may have fought different clashes from the small-group fights of the shieldwalls. Or maybe shields changed at some point.
Probably the former : Late Romans and Barbarians generally opposed more important, numerically-wise, formations.

I wonder if the number of spears increased in the period, they are the paired weapon with the axe for that technique.
It certainly did in late Romania and among Barbarian armies, such as the famous angon. But they were associated with swords as well AFAIK in these regions.

Seax and scamseax are sort of knifes shading over to swords for the larger specimens, no?
Essentially : they were quite widespread up to the late Early Medieval era among Barbarians

I can absolutely see the social-status point of swords, especially the ones larger than a Gladius. The fact that you are carrying a weapon unsuited for fighting in a shieldwall means you are someone who fights in other settings. A champion or leader. Also carrying a tool specialized for fighting sends its own message, I expect.
That being said, I saw use of swords against cuneus and other shield wall reenactements : you're right that the size of the battle might have played in Scandinavia (hinting at the demographical depression of the IVth and Vth century, IMO, altough it's open to debate)

I quite agree. I do speculate that if Britain appeared more fertile, it could go some ways to explain the attractiveness to the Germans and maybe the reports of their own lands being near deserted.
And giving that most of Channel and North Sea shores either were already under the pressure of Danes, or a big "Here's lies Frankish Gaul. Don't even try" it mostly lets Frisia and England.

Anyway, my general point is that from what I've read, I don't believe the collapse of the Vth can have been anywhere near as severe as what happened in the VIth.
But would the crisis of the VIth century would have been this catastrophic without the crisis of the Vth? This is an open question, of course and I don't doubt it would have been objectively insanely harsh : but the difference between having a whole geopolitical and geoeconomical balance in Scandinavia either collapsing or surviving isn't small talk. How much a surviving Roman state, if weakened, would influence the situation in VIth Scandinavia before the 530's...

It just... it seems to be an entirely different degree of magnitude.
Point taken.

I'll try to remember to shoot you a link when he publishes:) I've gotten the impression that it will be spectacular.
Well, giving that Ystgaard's thesis made its way into a vulgarizing history magazine there, I guess this one will too :D
 
Last edited:
About 500 years later, after conquest by the French speaking Normans, French replaced English as the prestige language for a few centuries. Old English was heavily affected and altered by its encounter with French, as is apparent in Middle English and Modern.

However, French did not permanently replace English, which remained in general use among the populace and made a comeback as the dominant language of the ruling class.

If not because of ethnic cleansing, why was Brythonic so thoroughly eliminated from England?

Is there a plausible manner in which Brythonic, even in a much altered form, could have made a comeback as the dominant speech of the population of England, even if most royal lineages claimed Anglo-Saxon heritage?

The answer is very simple. The number of invaders.
French normans - about 3-5 % of total population (only elite)
Saxons - 15-20% (elite + peasants)


The same situarion was on Balkanes
Vi century - elite and free men made Balkanes Slavic
XVI century - turkish elite did not made Balkanes Turkish (but together with free men they made it in the Asia the Minor)
 
Cerdic and Cynric, the founders of the Kingdom of Wessex, also had Celtic names.
And it's pretty much agreed on that early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms essentially entered the geo-territorial mold of Britto-Romans communities they intermixed with : it's pretty much obvious with Cantium (whom Anglo-Saxon rulers never really named otherwise) and Bernicia or Lindsey which were Britto-Romans kingdoms literraly inherited by Germanic auxiliaries.
On the other hand, while Normans did took the mantle of Anglo-Saxon England, they really did a number on several institutional aspects as soon their conquest was done : not just trough the decimation of Saxon upper and middle nobility, but trough reinterpreting what they kept along their customary lines. The transition was much more sudden and radical than between Britto-Romans/Britto-Germans and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
 
Top