Re: Why Don't the Welsh Speak Latin?



On 20/06/2010 03:40, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 04/06/2010 22:21, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 04/06/2010 18:44, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 03/06/2010 17:35, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 03/06/2010 07:17, Weland wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
On 02/06/2010 18:07, Pete Barrett wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:59:42 +0100, John Briggs
<john.briggs4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
Maximus),
which would be *before* any possible Anglo-Saxon incursions
into
Great
Britain.

Would it?

How early are you putting Anglo-Saxon invasions? Magnus Maximus
died
in the late 4th century. I would have thought that the
Anglo-Saxons
could hardly have arrived in Britain in numb ers enough to
displace
the native population (if they ever did) before the mid 5th
century.
This is what Wkipedia says:

<quote>
It has long been held that the Anglo-Saxons migrated to
Britain in
large numbers in the fifth and sixth centuries, substantially
displacing the British people. The Anglo-Saxon historian Frank
Stenton
in 1943, although making considerable allowance for British
survival,
essentially sums up this view, arguing "that the greater part of
southern England was overrun in the first phase of the war".
<end quote>

I've never heard anyone suggest they arrrived in large numbers
before
400. Bede dates the first invitation to ca. 450. What dates are
you
thinking of?

I'm not thinking of any dates: I'm just pointing out that a mass
emigration of Brythonic-speakers and a mass immigration of
English-speakers must be related in some way, regardless of the
order
of the events.

Except that there is no *must* about it. And that could be because
you're not thinking about dates.

Well, it's a hell of a coincidence, isn't it?

Well, no: if no invasions occurred, there's no coincidence. You're
being
circular. Moreover, you are also committing the post hoc propter hoc
fallacy.

Never mind invasions (we may get to them eventually),

Why? You brought them up, your original point being that the
results of
these purported invasions was an embarrassment to those holding that
there were no such invasions.

Well, actually Paul brought them up.

Ok, but so? It is your claim that is being discussed, and now of course
you wish to brush that under the rug.

I'm talking about
a mass emigration and a mass immigration. The former is not disputed,

But it is. What evidence is there of a *MASS* emigration?

It is not disputed that the population of Brittany is of British
origin.

*SOME* of the population of Brittany. Here's a shocker for you: people
have babies. Those babies grow up and have more babies. Shocking I know.
So you have no evidence of "mass emigration" and keep backpedaling
trying to find some firm ground to stand on. You haven't found it yet
though.

We know that
extensive contact between the peninsula and sw Britain had already
existed for millenia by the time the Romans show up for a look-see.

We don't know that.

We do, actually. At least we know as well as we know anything about the
distant past.

We
know that starting in the third century, Britain began to be
depopulated--not a mass emigration, but a slow drip that accelerated,
and it seems that most from the available archeology and linguistics
seem to have landed in what is now Brittany and many stayed there.

Go on. How many?

I'll tell you how many when you tell me how many constitute a "mass
emigration" and how you know that many left Britain for Brittany. I'll
wait for your census count.

In
the fifth century, four of the five so called "founder saints" of
Brittany were Welshman on peregrinatio for God...but in their wake
came
many not only religious, but lay who built towns around the sites
of the
saints.

I think that may need a bit of unpicking.

We have the previously mentioned migration under Maximus, whose
resettled soldiers with their wives, and all those who economically
benefitted from being around an army fort would move to where their
livelihood moved--so we're not talking about a few soldiers.

Do we know that? Or are they just "legends"?

When history, literature, and archeology all say the same thing from
multiple points of view, chances are we're looking at a very high
probability that such was the case, especially since it also makes
factual sense of later developments. Where do you think Maximus, in
Britain, elected by his troops as emperor, got his troops from? Spain?
Palestine?

The question is not where his troops came from - it is where they went.

And that was answered, confirmed by literature, history, and archeology.
If you care to present evidence that this is wrong, and I mean evidence,
please do so.

My understanding is that it it is confirmed by *legend*.

Evidence suggests rather strongly in fact that "migration" began in
the
late 3rd century, long before any "Saxon" invasions (if such ever
happened) and were done by about 500 (long before the end of such
"invasions" and nasty battles). Given the evidence of the migration
into
Brittany in the fifth and early sixth and into Gallicia is centered on
Christians and Christian saints and bishops, one might argue that the
later migrations may have had something to do with religion. It is
also
interesting to note, that the majority of these "migrations" from
Britain to Armorica and Gallicia come from Southwestern
Britain....

Actually, we don't know where they came from.

The sources and archaeology indicate SW Britain, not Northumbria, Kent,
or London.


Celtic kingdoms (of which the later Wessex was one: not that
the earliest names in the Wessex king lists are all Celtic and a
dynastic name change in the late 7th century from a seemingly Celtic
name to a "Saxon" one): Cornwall, Wales, parts of Devon: if they're
fleeing "invaders" why are fleeing from lands they control rather than
the lands that were supposedly invaded?

And which dynastic name are you referring to? I did note a dynastic
change from the sons of Woden...

I mentioned Wessex.....aren't you aware of the Celtic names in the
regnal list or that the kingdom was not always called Wessex? Or the
problem with the name Gewisse?

And what precisely is the problem with the name Gewisse? Yes, they
(much) later reinvented themselves as "West Saxons", but that is still
long before they acquired SW Britain.

The name. The early kings. The territory. And no, it isn't.
I believe you know the name Richard Coates.

I see your Richard Coates and raise you a Barbara Yorke :-)

Coates's conclusion is that the name Gewissae could easily be a nominalisation of an English adjective. Yes, the names Ceardic and Ceawlin are of Brittonic origin, and Ceardic was taken into English in the period 550-650, but the end of the range is just when the Gewissae were reinventing themselves as "West Saxons", so where precisely they adopted all their legendary origins from is open to conjecture: it could easily be from the new territories that they were starting to absorb to the west. (I had to blow the dust off my early volumes of "Nomina", and I am still looking for "Wessex in the Early Middle Ages"!)

I have never asked Richard for his views on Barbara Yorke's ideas (or vice versa, for that matter...) but I could try and ask him this week.
--
John Briggs
.