How old is English?

 


 

 

[1] In fact, as the German-speaking east of Britain traditionally followed the north European way of doing things, Anglo-Saxon warriors had been engaged since the 3th century. They were few in numbers. We can consider them as some local policemen during that period. It's only after Honorius' letter that the hiring of Anglo-Saxons increased dramatically.

[2] Thanet : Nowadays it is hard to see that the Isle of Thanet used to be a real island, separated from Kent by the Wantsum Channel, through which ships heading to and from London would sail in order to avoid the difficult rounding of the end of Thanet.  A map of the ancient Thanet area based on the work of Cunliffe (2005) and others is reproduced by Even (2008).  Much of the Kent coast is surrounded by ever-shifting sandbanks and the Wantsum Channel seems to have silted up as much from seaward as down the Stour river from Canterbury.  No one appears to have claimed a Celtic root for Wantsum, but it has obvious cognates in Germanic languages, so that a likely proto-English form was something like want sich um, meaning literally ‘winds itself around’.
Thanet is said to be named from Celtic tan-arth, ‘bright island’ or ‘beacon’, for which there is no archaeological evidence.  Rivet and Smith (1979) discuss possible etymologies via Roman spellings, e.g. Tanatis.  Thanet has long been confused with the river Tanat in North Wales.  Around ad 833, the historian Nennius wrote that its British name was actually Ruoihm.  Variant spellings, such as Ruoichim, hint at modern English reach.  In fact, Thanet is very easy to explain as proto-English, something like modern Dutch ten ende, at the end, land's end.

[3] The word 'orientali parte' is important as it suggests also a western part. For me it's clear that Gildas mentioned the existence of 2 parts: east where the proto-English lived and west where the 'real Britons' (Welshmen) lived.

Who financed the
reserve unit ?

The reason why I believe that this 'reserve-unit' was financed by the British senate is the knowledge that in the first half of the 6th century the Anglo-Saxon east of Britain broke up into small kingdoms. This suggests that at that moment the senate had become obsolete. From then on (as I stated earlier: 510, the defeat at Mont Badon), the British central army ceased to exist, as the finances it needed also had vanished. The council in London had ceased to function. Some powerful English lords withdrew their financial support after the defeat.

 

next

 

sponsored by
brucom

Vortigern acts

 

What Vortigern did was to rubber-stamp officially the hiring of Anglo-Saxons, as they proved to be valid soldiers, but he added more organization and control. This was the Adventus Saxonum and it happened with the approval of omnes consiliarii, all consultants (=members of the council). The hiring of fully qualified warriors now became the official aim. The German candidates had to be approved, selected, trained, and only then appointed to their final destination. At the same time, a new, official message was sent to North-Germany: Britain needed the best and only the best. As a counterpart, higher wages were promised for whom would match the requirements. The coming of the Anglo-Saxons became well organized. This proves that Britain was still capable of organizing things centrally, on a national level. There is a possibility of an intention to form a new central army with Anglo-Saxons, but commanded by the British senate, as some sort of counterweight for the increasing power of some local lords [1].

In 428 a certain Hengest-the-Jute came with the 3 reported ‘keels’ of men, estimated at some 75 warriors. He probably landed in London. People must have remembered that Hengest was amidst the first to be welcomed officially. Hengest was at that moment an ex-officer from the guard of the late Hnaef the Dane (see the Finnesburgh fragment - Beowulf). He was probably in his early thirties. His former position made possible to appoint him as one of the officers of the new selection and training committee. It is unlikely that Hengest immediately obtained a top-ranking position. The isle (peninsula) of Thanet, today Ramsgate - Margate on the east Kentish coast, became the official place of reception for the new arrivals [2]. It must have been the first place in Britain where Hengest was sent to.

" primum in orientali parte insulae iubente infausto tyranno ...." They were at first ordered [to work, stay] in the eastern part of the island by the unlucky tyrant (who is: Vortigern) [3] according to Gildas. They were hired [to reinforce local east-British defenders. Don't tell me that there was nobody in arms at that moment. There were raids all over Britain! -and] to defend the homeland [in fact: to organize, lead and train more effectively the local home guards] .
The word 'mercenaries' should not be used here. 'Mercenaries' suppose that there is another 'legal' army in the country. Initially there wasn't. Only local home guards. The later Briton army, led by Ambrosius Aurelianus, was in fact a (Welsh) rebel army.
The mixed composition of the 'Saxon' led home guards would later (441, the rebellion) become a source of considerable troubles. Anyhow, in the beginning, the new soldiers soon proved, according to Gildas, to be effective in combating the annoying Picts and Scots (Irish) in the North and Northwest. Britain had temporarily dropped the classic central army idea in favour of the north German tradition of hiring skilled members of a warrior class.

Reserve unit

 

As societies often do during periods of war, east Britain over-equipped itself in men. Raids had diminished rapidly. Peace came back. This caused a number of Anglo-Saxons to become redundant, especially people of lower quality. A solution had to be found. The London council decided that the surplus of Anglo-Saxon warriors had to be rounded up into a new reserve unit that was probably stationed in Dorchester upon Thames (near London). Archeological findings there seem to suggest that. There, more training would be given. The reserve unit emerged probably around 430. In contrast to all other Anglo-Saxons units, who were paid by local lords, this reserve corps was financed directly by the senate. This move of the council could have been some kind of gesture towards their Welsh members who wanted 'Roman legions' and a compromise balancing 2 trends: the growing tendency towards a greater local autonomy in the east of Britain against the Welsh proposal of rebuilding a traditional 'Roman', central administration and army.

In the beginning, the corps just functioned as an overspill container, something temporary. The classic Roman army organization. was not applied. Officially, this was not the new official British army. But probably suggested was that it would be the core of a new central army. ‘Organizer’ Hengest was amongst them, and rose in rank. The new army corps was deliberately kept small: probably just a cohort. It would last longer than most people expected (probably up to ± 510, the battle of Mont Badon). The recruiting of soldiers in Germany dropped significantly or stopped completely at that moment.

Nearly all sources suggest that the Brito-Welsh fought some sort of major Anglo-Saxon force. On the other hand, nobody reports a classic conquest, what a central-led army is supposed to do. For instance, no conquest of North-England or the Midlands was mentioned. Only some skirmishes in southeast England. The contrast with the conquest of Gaul by the Franks can't be greater. Gaul was conquered in 3 important battles. The Frank army was hierarchical and had a strong leader: Clovis. Very classic. No so in Britain.
How Gildas reports the alleged take-over of Britain is very confusing. Leadership is at best vague. Nobody is sure who really was in charge. The enemy are simply bloodthirsty 'Saxons'. The suggested role of Vortigern is to say at least, ambiguous. It's clear that Gildas definitely wants to blame him, however, with not enough proof.
Such a take-over supposes a well coordinated action. It requires a well organized army, a hierarchy, a clear leadership. None of that is reported. In fact, we know that the Anglo-Saxons consisted out of people of various origins (Saxons, Angles, Fries, Jutes and maybe more..). The Finnsburgh fragment makes us clear that those 'tribes' were not always friendly with each other. This is not 1 tribe conquering a country, unlike what happened in Gaul, unlike the conquest of Britain by the Romans or by William the Conqueror. So, the most logical solution to the problem is that the Anglo-Saxons were very much spread, divided, hence later the appearance of many small kingdoms AND that there was some sort of small concentration of 'Saxon' soldiers in Britain during the 5th century. This force must have been too small to achieve a classic conquest of the whole country. It was most probably not meant to do so. Also striking is that at no given moment during the 6th century, the small Anglo-Saxon 'kingdoms' united to conquer the west of Britain. It was the opposite: they fought each other.

So, one can state that the Anglo-Saxon army, led by Hengest, was far more in accordance with the Roman tradition than one would expect at first sight, as long as the council in London functioned and maintained this tradition.