Why was Britain not Romanized?

[Nicole]

I'm wondering. The Celtic lands of Gaul assimilated into Latin-speaking areas relatively quickly, as did the Celtiberians of Hispania, and all these lands speak a Romance language. But in Britannia, Celtic language persisted to the points that the remnants of pre-Saxon Britain, Wales, speak a language that is most certainly not Romance.
Why is this? And, to add an AH element, what if Britain was more Romanized by the time of it's abandonment?

 

[Hermanubis]

I'm wondering. The Celtic lands of Gaul assimilated into Latin-speaking areas relatively quickly, as did the Celtiberians of Hispania, and all these lands speak a Romance language. But in Britannia, Celtic language persisted to the points that the remnants of pre-Saxon Britain, Wales, speak a language that is most certainly not Romance.
Why is this? And, to add an AH element, what if Britain was more Romanized by the time of it's abandonment?

I thought it was, just that it was Saxonized extensively afterwords…

 

[Faeelin]

I'm wondering. The Celtic lands of Gaul assimilated into Latin-speaking areas relatively quickly, as did the Celtiberians of Hispania, and all these lands speak a Romance language. But in Britannia, Celtic language persisted to the points that the remnants of pre-Saxon Britain, Wales, speak a language that is most certainly not Romance.
Why is this? And, to add an AH element, what if Britain was more Romanized by the time of it's abandonment?

Partly because the most Romanized areas were the ones that were wiped out by the Saxons.

 

[MrP]

Geographical isolation post abandonment? We need someone who speaks and understands Welsh. There are bits of Welsh that are classical in origin, e.g. eglwys = church, from Greek ekklesia. But I don't really know about the language in toto.

 

[Jason]

How long have you got mate?

Ok, first, unlike Gaul, Britain was primarily a military province (10% of the entire Roman military machine was based in Britain for most of the time Britain was part of the empire). This means that 'Romanisation' was a bit more of a coating rather than the deep level penetration that occurred in Gaul.

Second, the population of Britain was always more rural than the rest of the empire, so the idea of romanisation took longer to take hold, other than the use of pottery, etc.

Third, what became Welsh (I'll ignore the idea of 'celtic', very inaccurate), did borrow heavily from Latin and even to this day includes a lot of borrowed words.

In fact what Welsh is, for example, is nearer to what would have been spoken in 1st-5th Centuries in Britain outside the Latin-educated elite than the local version elsewhere in the empire. The 'romance' languages we are coming to realise are a more 'modern' invention.

A more romanised Britain would have included a great urban population but unless some form of central rule is stronger then it won't make much difference

 

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

According to CM Millward's A Biography of the English Language (NY: Holt-Rinehart, 1996), "England . . . was gradually but thoroughly Romanized" (76).

 

[Wendell]

Don't forget that Rome didn't hold Britain for the lengty of time that it held other areas.

 

[Tony Williams]

The main reason is that the Romans never conquered all of Britain. They didn't get into Scotland (except briefly); Hadrian's Wall, their northern boundary, is inside northern England. And they didn't have much effect on Wales. So the 'Celtic Fringe' of Britain was indeed not Romanised.

However, much of England was heavily Romanised, with the English adopting Roman dress and customs. There was plenty of time for this, as they were in charge for around 350 years - about a century longer than the USA has existed...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Rick Robinson]

However, much of England was heavily Romanised, with the English adopting Roman dress and customs. There was plenty of time for this, as they were in charge for around 350 years - about a century longer than the USA has existed...

Which leaves the core question of this thread. Why didn't the Saxons simply take over a going concern, as the Goths, Franks, Vandals, etc. did? Sure, it would have been pretty run down, as Merovingian Francia was, but why the nearly total discontinuity?

In fact what Welsh is, for example, is nearer to what would have been spoken in 1st-5th Centuries in Britain outside the Latin-educated elite than the local version elsewhere in the empire. The 'romance' languages we are coming to realise are a more 'modern' invention.

Can you go into this a bit more? So far as I know, the romance languages are descended from vernacular ("vulgar") Latin, presumably as spoken by ordinary people by c. 400 or so, though it wasn't till a few hundred years that people started to write in them. Note: I'm not saying that people in northern Gaul were already speaking "French" in c. 400, but presumably a local variant of Vulgar Latin or Galloromance that would eventually evolve into French.

-- Rick

 

[Norman]

Which leaves the core question of this thread. Why didn't the Saxons simply take over a going concern, as the Goths, Franks, Vandals, etc. did? Sure, it would have been pretty run down, as Merovingian Francia was, but why the nearly total discontinuity?

Genetic studies have shown that in fact most people in England are descended from the pre-Saxon inhabitants. This would seem to indicate that the Angles and the Saxons did overlay the people in their places, but for some reason the existing inhabitants changed their language rather than the other way around.

This suggests that the language of commerce, communication and governance was Proto-Anglo-Saxon after their arrival. Maybe, as was suggested, the surviving pre-saxon populations were spread too thin to keep their language continuous through most of England.

Can you go into this a bit more? So far as I know, the romance languages are descended from vernacular ("vulgar") Latin, presumably as spoken by ordinary people by c. 400 or so, though it wasn't till a few hundred years that people started to write in them. Note: I'm not saying that people in northern Gaul were already speaking "French" in c. 400, but presumably a local variant of Vulgar Latin or Galloromance that would eventually evolve into French.

-- Rick

I have the same question. Although Welsh is pretty close to what wqas being spoken in England under Rome, I'll bet the relationship is about the same as Italian and Spanish is to the Vulgar Latin of the same period. (French is a bit different because of some pretty significant sound shifts.)

 

[Rick Robinson]

Genetic studies have shown that in fact most people in England are descended from the pre-Saxon inhabitants. This would seem to indicate that the Angles and the Saxons did overlay the people in their places, but for some reason the existing inhabitants changed their language rather than the other way around.

This suggests that the language of commerce, communication and governance was Proto-Anglo-Saxon after their arrival. Maybe, as was suggested, the surviving pre-saxon populations were spread too thin to keep their language continuous through most of England.

Here's one possibility: Post-Roman Britain "fell between stools."

After the legions pulled out, the political situation went to hell, with no one able to exert consistant central authority. Some substantial fraction of the Romanized upper class decamped westward. They evidently retained some romanitas through much of the 5th century - hence Aurelius Ambrosianus - but over 2-3 generations they "went native," i.e., proto-Welsh, speaking the language of the people now around them, who had never been Romanized.

In the southeast, the peasantry may have spoken a Vulgar Latin or Proto-Romance dialect, but most of the Latin-speaking elite had bailed out, and the new elite - the Saxons - spoke dialects ancestral to English. They had no reason to pick up Latin, because the provincial administration had already fallen to pieces, so there was no "going concern" to take over as there was in Gaul, and the language of the peasants certainly had no prestige. Any remaining Romano-British landowners assimilated to the Saxons, instead of vice-versa, and Proto-English became the prestige language, gradually working its way downward.

-- Rick

 

[Tony Williams]

I think Rick is right. There is clear evidence of a gap of a century or so between the collapse of Roman Britain and the effective takeover by the Saxons. In the gap, the peasants just got on with their lives and minded their own business - no-one was in overall charge.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Cockroach]

Which leaves the core question of this thread. Why didn't the Saxons simply take over a going concern, as the Goths, Franks, Vandals, etc. did? Sure, it would have been pretty run down, as Merovingian Francia was, but why the nearly total discontinuity?

Well one reason at least was that the Franks, Goths, etc. had generally already been in extensive contact with the Romans for some time before the fall of Rome and so had a greater degree of respect for/understanding of the roman ways than the Anglo-Saxons.

 

[Jason]

I think Rick is right. There is clear evidence of a gap of a century or so between the collapse of Roman Britain and the effective takeover by the Saxons. In the gap, the peasants just got on with their lives and minded their own business - no-one was in overall charge.

Hi Tony, fairly accurate except it wasn't the 'peasants' who just got on, it was the Romano-British elite who took over the running of the country. Strangely the archaeological evidence seems to indicate a lot of the elite moved back to old hillfort sites, last occupied at the Roman Conquest.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Hi Tony, fairly accurate except it wasn't the 'peasants' who just got on, it was the Romano-British elite who took over the running of the country. Strangely the archaeological evidence seems to indicate a lot of the elite moved back to old hillfort sites, last occupied at the Roman Conquest.

Which argues for political fragmentation and pervasive insecurity. What seems unknown (at least to me) is how and why the provincial administration fell so completely apart, which seems to have happened before the really large-scale Saxon incursions. Perhaps the explanation, as offered upthread, is that there was not a revenue base to sustain it.

-- Rick

 

[Jason]

Which argues for political fragmentation and pervasive insecurity. What seems unknown (at least to me) is how and why the provincial administration fell so completely apart, which seems to have happened before the really large-scale Saxon incursions. Perhaps the explanation, as offered upthread, is that there was not a revenue base to sustain it.

-- Rick

How long have you got Rick? the whole thing is currently being rethought and there are arguments that the falling apart didn't happen. There is a small but increasing body of evidence that aftre the supposed end of Roman rule things carried on very much as before and the falling apart was slow. The idea that it was a rapid falling apart seems to be more based on the few records of the time. Archaeology shows that a lot of towns that seem to have been deserted shortly after 410 were in decline for a long time before and quite a few were very well populated and well off for a long time after. Interestingly the old argument that 'dark earth' showed abandonment is being challanged-'dark earth' is found in London in 2nd century AD when the city was not in depression or emptying.
The re-emergence of hillforts has been used as a sign of increased instability but also the idea of the re-emergence of the older elite who returned to hillforts to show they weren't Roman. Another idea is that hillforts were reoccuiped as they were more visable, villas were usually in the lower areas and not as visable; as the local lord was now more powerful (in the past the emperor was all powerful) he needed to be seen and so the hillfort came back. Most were not well defended (Cadbury is an exception), so strengthening the idea of show over substance.