How old is English? |
[3] "Origins of the British" (2006) [4] Gildas: a Welsh abbott or bishop who published what is in fact a sermon. He wrote about the events of the 5th century around 544 AD, some 100 years later. He is the most important direct source for what happened during the 5th century. But he never intended to write history, so he gave no dates. His text in Latin is very tendentious anti-Anglo-Saxon and vague .
[5] Most raiders were probably as desperate.
[6] Some regions upon the language border like Wessex were apparently ruled by a Welsh family. This meant that they too applied 'Saxon rule' => civil power + military power. Use left sidebar or
click on this arrow to move to the next chapter |
||
|
|
Summary
The Anglo-Saxons never imported English
The currently prevailing interpretation of events in the 5th century creates more problems than it solves. Where is the proof that: Celtic culture is linked with Celtic language? In reality, none of those statements have been ever proved. They are all assumptions. Continental sources confirmed that 'Angles' took power in Britain around the early 440's AD. But there is a major difference between obtaining power and a full scale conquest. The conquest or takeover of eastern Britain by Anglo-Saxons is a modern assumption, which sounds logical, but the reality was different. Remarkably, even early British sources (Gildas, Bede), although condemning the Anglo-Saxons (especially Gildas), never spoke of a classic conquest. Something else happened. The linked assumption (that the whole of Britain spoke a 'Celtic' language before, and that the population in the east was forced to learn English) is even worse: it is completely false. After the last Ice Age ended (about 8000 BC) , there were two language families in Britain: primordial Germanic east of the Pennines and primordial Brythonic in the west [1]. When agriculture arrived (about 4500 BC) both languages were developed into the ancestors of proto-English and proto-Welsh respectively . The proto-English zone was split into two regions: the Midlands and the Northeast were one zone, the South and Southeast were another. Both initially spoke a different variant of the Germanic idiom. The proto-Welsh language family zone gradually became divided into Cornwall (up to Wiltshire), Wales (including the valley of the Severn) and Scotland (+ Cumbria). The Germanic speaking population was genetically slightly different from the proto-Welsh speaking people. The reason is the relative isolation of both populations in their refuges on the Continent (Ice Age refuges) during the Ice Age, before they separately migrated into Britain. (more ...)
According to Stephen Oppenheimer [3], there is almost no genetic proof for an Anglo-Saxon presence or immigration in Britain. In fact, what was found is insignificant. There is certainly no genetic proof of a widespread wipe-out or genocide. Everything points in the opposite direction: continuation. Archaeological findings support that. The language of the Anglo-Saxons was similar to the language of the eastern Britons. That's why Gildas [4] wrote: "The first order they received was to stay in the eastern part of the isle." (more ...) The Anglo-Saxons soldiers never had any difficulties to integrate themselves. They were merely catalysts, instruments of power for the local politicians and rich land owners. They never changed the local language. But their presence changed the local political system. Even before the fall of the Roman Empire, Britain had been in turmoil. Gildas reported that the Romans came several times to restore law and order. Civil power and military power were strictly kept separate during the Roman Empire. Britain had legions during the Empire, but used them on two occasions to fulfil Continental imperial ambitions (Maximus Clemens Magnus in AD 383 and Constantine III in AD 406). Those adventures failed and each time Britain lost its legal army. The island remained unprotected and raids and internal rebellions caused havoc each time. (more ... ) The reaction of the east-British (land)lords was to form their own guards illegally with local people. This happened occasionally in the 4th century. When Britain was declared 'independent' by emperor Honorius (AD 410), the trend increased dramatically. Eventually, many eastern British lords had their own small personal armies. To lead those guardsmen, a limited number of professional and experienced Anglo-Saxon soldiers were called in. Anglo-Saxons were chosen because they had an excellent reputation for absolute loyalty towards their lord. Today, we would say that they came as military advisors. They were gradually appointed as senior officers, a buffer between the rich landowners and the native Britons within the guard, some sort of bodyguards. In 428, Vortigern, the chairman of the British senate, legalized the 'guard system'. Having Anglo-Saxons at your service had become highly fashionable. Soon, those loyal security servants would help to realize the personal ambitions of their lords. Most likely they were never more than a few thousand (German) Anglo-Saxons present in Britain. (more ... ) When landless British people rebelled (probably as a reaction to a food crisis which was worsened by raids [5] ), around AD 441, it became clear that the local lords with Anglo-Saxons at their service had the real power. The rebellion was eventually crushed and the Anglo-Saxons were absorbed within the eastern upper class. This was the beginning of the aristocratic age: civil and military power were now firmly linked. Eastern England was reorganized after the rebellion into military provinces (such as Kent). This was in fact a copy of the old Roman system but often redrawn along ancient tribal boundaries. Influential and prestigious Anglo-Saxon captains were appointed by local British upper class representatives as military governors or managers of those provinces (like Hengest 'the Jute' in Kent). Their task was to coordinate the local guards in order (a) to preserve law and order and (b) to protect the social status and power of the landowners. From those regions would later emerge the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Only a part of those military provinces were ruled by genuine Anglo-Saxons. Some regions were in fact ruled by local and powerful British families, although they too claimed to be Anglo-Saxons [6]. There never was a brutal takeover of eastern Britain. The conservative Welsh lords in the West rebuffed this 'Anglo-Saxon system' or 'Saxon rule'. The very different language, mentality and traditions hindered the acceptance. The Welsh also feared rightfully that the Anglo-Saxons would conquer their land. They eventually rebelled against the London senate. A civil war broke out around 450. The Welsh managed to stall the expansionist ambitions of the proto-English lords for almost a century. |
||
| as | |||
