Re: Why Don't the Welsh Speak Latin?

On 02/06/2010 18:31, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 02/06/2010 06:15, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 01/06/2010 20:40, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 01/06/2010 15:37, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 01/06/2010 09:28, Pete Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:19:20 +0100, John Briggs
<john.briggs4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh, it's solid - and something of an embarrassment to those who
believe in Anglo-Saxon invasions.

Why should it be an embarrassment? The settling of British
people in
Armorica could surely have happened independently of Anglo-Saxon
invasions, if any? Indeed, the legends say that the first wave of
settlement was by British soldiers of Macsen Wledig (Magnus
which would be *before* any possible Anglo-Saxon incursions into

Would it?


<hint> Saxon Shore.

Indeed, you should probably read up on it.

You tell me: does it pre-date Magnus Maximus, or post-date him?

Wrong question. You have to first ask and answer with evidence whether
the "Saxon shore" was a defense against the Saxons or a defense manned
by the Saxons for the Romans or not a defense per se at all but an
economic center (assuming we can treat all the forts as if they all had
a unified and identical function).

To answer the last point first, the British forts had a unified and
identical function in the 5th century - the Notitia Dignitatum says so.

No it doesn't. It says they were under the command of the same person.
That doesn't mean they were all fulfilling the same function.

They were under a unified command. As we don't know what their function was, it would be unwise to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Whether they were constructed for such a unified and identical
function in the 3rd century is another matter. But in any event,
"Saxons" were there for some reason in the 4th.

Yep. But your comment above to Pete Barret suggests the Saxons of the
Saxon Shore as the cause of the migration to Armorica that later sources
says began under Magnus Maximus. But obviously didn't since Magnus
wasn't known for battling Saxons, but rather trying to rule the Western
Empire. Archeology and Breton traditions and sources also support the
settlement of Magnus' men in Armorica.

I wasn't the one who introduced Magnus Maximus! I don't know what role he may have played in any mass emigration. But it must have had some connection to mass immigration.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your implication, but considering that your
comment to Pete also comes on the coattails of your claim that the
settlement of Armorica by British folk is an embarrassment to those who
argue that there were no or few Anglo-Saxon invasions, I rather doubt
that I have so misunderstood. Pete's comment, in fact, is in response to
your suggestion that the Saxons had something to do with the settling of
Brittany (a well-worn and hoary view I know). So while Pete's claim that
Maximus pre-dated the presence of Saxons in England is in error, Maximus
did pre-date any purported Saxon invasions; and the Saxon Shore based on
the current evidence were likely not defenses against Saxon invasion.

If there was continuity, if everyone stayed where they were, there would be no mass emigration, and hence no Brythonic speakers in Brittany. At the very least, it undermines the "Atlantic Celts" hypothesis.
John Briggs