"Anglo-Saxon genocide" contested again
- Thread starter Brian G Turner
- Start date
- Status
Monty Scott
Peripheral Visionary
I identify as a Celt because my ancestry runs from America to England to Wales to Ireland to Scotland. Before that I am not sure. This discussion is fascinating as I have not really kept up on the subject. I surely will do so now! Thanks!
Kilts are not actually Celtic. Orginally worn in the middle east Ancient Summerians and Phonecians. Also there have been found Celtic graves on what was the Old Silk Road out of China. For the vast majority of people living in England the Angles- Saxons just replaced the Romano Celt leadership and they had new masters. Similar to what happened in 1066 with the Norman invasion.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,711
There may have been a number of reasons for the ascendancy of the Anglo-Saxons other than the wholesale slaughter of the Celtic population. But I believe slaughter did occur. It is recorded in the The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle where it describes the capture of Anderita. It claims that none were left alive of the forts inhabitants, men, women and children. It is only one recorded incident but where there is one...
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Svalbard and I spend happy hours debating this sort of thing up in the Aspiring Writers forum.
My take is that there was slaughter, but there was arguably not ever an organised war of Celt versus Saxon. A number of the "Saxon" leaders mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle have suspiciously British sounding names, suggesting that the Saxons just joined in the jolly merry-go-round of internecine squabbling that was such a feature of post Roman Britain and which was so lamented by Gildas.
Another issue is the relative size of a Saxon army - we are talking in terms of hundreds, rather than thousands. Genocide is difficult enough with a modern army and 21st century technology at your back. If you've only got a handful of mates, some beer and a harvest to get back to, what is the point?
I think that Saxon success is down to two root causes - firstly, during the first Saxon revolt they were better armed than the British of lowland modern-day England, which was precisely why they were invited in in the first place. Secondly, I understand that their lands would devolve on one heir upon death, rather than being split equally between sons, as was the Celtic British custom. That allowed more organised kingdoms to develop and grow.
I also think that the Saxon invasion was really just a replacement of the Celtic British warrior elite with a Saxon English warrior elite. For the average turd-eater in the fields, it probably didn't make a jot of difference if you were being opppressed by someone called Cadwallon or someone called Ethelfrith.
Regards,
Peter
My take is that there was slaughter, but there was arguably not ever an organised war of Celt versus Saxon. A number of the "Saxon" leaders mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle have suspiciously British sounding names, suggesting that the Saxons just joined in the jolly merry-go-round of internecine squabbling that was such a feature of post Roman Britain and which was so lamented by Gildas.
Another issue is the relative size of a Saxon army - we are talking in terms of hundreds, rather than thousands. Genocide is difficult enough with a modern army and 21st century technology at your back. If you've only got a handful of mates, some beer and a harvest to get back to, what is the point?
I think that Saxon success is down to two root causes - firstly, during the first Saxon revolt they were better armed than the British of lowland modern-day England, which was precisely why they were invited in in the first place. Secondly, I understand that their lands would devolve on one heir upon death, rather than being split equally between sons, as was the Celtic British custom. That allowed more organised kingdoms to develop and grow.
I also think that the Saxon invasion was really just a replacement of the Celtic British warrior elite with a Saxon English warrior elite. For the average turd-eater in the fields, it probably didn't make a jot of difference if you were being opppressed by someone called Cadwallon or someone called Ethelfrith.
Regards,
Peter
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,711
Sorry about the late reply to this, but I have only revisited this thread today.
I have to disagree with you here, Peter. I think there is only one mention of Saxon leaders having British sounding names in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. That is Cerdic and his 'son' Cynric, if indeed he was his son. A few British names survive in the Wessex lineage for a couple of generations. Elswhere the British names and language are wiped out in the space of a hundred or so years.
Compare this to the Norman invasion, where Anglo-Saxon survived and mixed with the Norman-French of the ruling elite.
I have to disagree with you here, Peter. I think there is only one mention of Saxon leaders having British sounding names in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. That is Cerdic and his 'son' Cynric, if indeed he was his son. A few British names survive in the Wessex lineage for a couple of generations. Elswhere the British names and language are wiped out in the space of a hundred or so years.
Compare this to the Norman invasion, where Anglo-Saxon survived and mixed with the Norman-French of the ruling elite.
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Hi Svalbard,
You might be right, but I've always had my suspicions about "Ceawlin" being a British name. I'll have look through the chronicle and put a few more up for debate!
The King Lists of the Saxons also show the odd British name. Coedbad of Lindsey springs to mind. He's in the list the same as the rest, suggesting two possibilities. One is that the Celtic British aristocracy of Lindsey retained nominal control of the area (probably as a tribute state of Northumbria) but adopted English customs and names and then, probably via a slow process of intermarriage, basically became English.
Alternatively, as is probably more likely, the Britons lost Lindsey to the Angles, who for some reason remembered and retained the name of a previous British King. I see no reason why they would do that if they had been engaged in the wholesale extermination of the Lindsey Britons, but I can see why they might want to do it as a means of legitimising their own claims over an existing lumpen proletariat made up at least in part by those of British descent. Henry II did the same thing with King Arthur to help legitimise his claims over Wales.
And if the English did exterminate the Britons, why did they retain the existing British names for places - Lindsey, Lincoln and Kesteven (all still in use today and all referring to significant places - the county town and two of the three administrative areas of the county) are all pre-Saxon and/or Celtic in origin, as are some of the river names, like Glen and probably Bain. The villages of Glentham and Glentworth (for example) appear to show English place name elements attached to pre-exisiting Celtic names. Not to mention all of the Weltons, which might mean "farm/village of the welsh".
And there is also archaeological evidence - some very interesting stuff from early Deira seems to show that a decorative metalworking style that can be described as Romano-Saxon emerged in the fifth century, suggesting that native smiths were still producing metalwork, but were adopting the themes and motifs of their English rulers. And when written records begin to appear, there is clear evidence of British survival. Ine of Wessex introduced a legal code which set the amount of weregild payable on respect of murders of his subjects. You got less if you were British, but you stil got something. What is more, there was a separate "rate" for British landowners, showing that some of them at least were still men of property and standing.
And I'm not sure that it's fair to draw a link to the Normans. For one thing, written records are far more abundant for that later period of history. We don't actually know how long people spoke British for under Saxon rule or even if they did at all. But I wouldn't mind betting it was just the same as it was after the Norman conquest, when the proles spoke English and their masters spoke Norman French. English landowners were reduced in importance but still existed (albeit in reduced numbers), just as happened under Ine. The decision to speak English across the board was, as I understand it, a conscious political one made during the French Wars rather than something that happened over time as a result of intermarriage etc.
Over to you!
All the best,
Peter
You might be right, but I've always had my suspicions about "Ceawlin" being a British name. I'll have look through the chronicle and put a few more up for debate!
The King Lists of the Saxons also show the odd British name. Coedbad of Lindsey springs to mind. He's in the list the same as the rest, suggesting two possibilities. One is that the Celtic British aristocracy of Lindsey retained nominal control of the area (probably as a tribute state of Northumbria) but adopted English customs and names and then, probably via a slow process of intermarriage, basically became English.
Alternatively, as is probably more likely, the Britons lost Lindsey to the Angles, who for some reason remembered and retained the name of a previous British King. I see no reason why they would do that if they had been engaged in the wholesale extermination of the Lindsey Britons, but I can see why they might want to do it as a means of legitimising their own claims over an existing lumpen proletariat made up at least in part by those of British descent. Henry II did the same thing with King Arthur to help legitimise his claims over Wales.
And if the English did exterminate the Britons, why did they retain the existing British names for places - Lindsey, Lincoln and Kesteven (all still in use today and all referring to significant places - the county town and two of the three administrative areas of the county) are all pre-Saxon and/or Celtic in origin, as are some of the river names, like Glen and probably Bain. The villages of Glentham and Glentworth (for example) appear to show English place name elements attached to pre-exisiting Celtic names. Not to mention all of the Weltons, which might mean "farm/village of the welsh".
And there is also archaeological evidence - some very interesting stuff from early Deira seems to show that a decorative metalworking style that can be described as Romano-Saxon emerged in the fifth century, suggesting that native smiths were still producing metalwork, but were adopting the themes and motifs of their English rulers. And when written records begin to appear, there is clear evidence of British survival. Ine of Wessex introduced a legal code which set the amount of weregild payable on respect of murders of his subjects. You got less if you were British, but you stil got something. What is more, there was a separate "rate" for British landowners, showing that some of them at least were still men of property and standing.
And I'm not sure that it's fair to draw a link to the Normans. For one thing, written records are far more abundant for that later period of history. We don't actually know how long people spoke British for under Saxon rule or even if they did at all. But I wouldn't mind betting it was just the same as it was after the Norman conquest, when the proles spoke English and their masters spoke Norman French. English landowners were reduced in importance but still existed (albeit in reduced numbers), just as happened under Ine. The decision to speak English across the board was, as I understand it, a conscious political one made during the French Wars rather than something that happened over time as a result of intermarriage etc.
Over to you!
All the best,
Peter
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,711
Just briefly because I am still doing some research on this and I will not use Peter Beresford Ellis as a source as I know you have a few issues with his work. On the use of language. A reason that English became the official language of England was in no doubt due to political reasons and sound ones at that as well. I would argue that the Brythonic language was well and truly dead in England at the stage of the Norman conquest. How long it survived in England after the Saxon migrations is very questionable. I think this may show up a difference in the Norman conquest and the Saxon 'conquest'.
The Normans arrived in the main part with only the upper echelons of their society. Of course merchants and trades men followed in the proceeding months and years. But it was not a mass migration of a whole people and culture as was that of the Saxons. The Normans allowed the Saxon population to continue to farm the land, although in a state of serfdom. Whereas back in good old days, the Saxons took all the land that was available for themselves. Some Celtic names survived in isolation and I think that is the key word here.
I need to go and do some work on this.
Cheers,
Svalbard.
The Normans arrived in the main part with only the upper echelons of their society. Of course merchants and trades men followed in the proceeding months and years. But it was not a mass migration of a whole people and culture as was that of the Saxons. The Normans allowed the Saxon population to continue to farm the land, although in a state of serfdom. Whereas back in good old days, the Saxons took all the land that was available for themselves. Some Celtic names survived in isolation and I think that is the key word here.
I need to go and do some work on this.
Cheers,
Svalbard.
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Hi Svalbard,
You're right about PBE! I wouldn't be arrogant enough to argue that his stuff is without merit, but he clearly comes from the rather fashionable "Celts good, Saxons bad" camp. He makes lots of sweeping assertions and, although I couldn't pretend to comment on most of them, those I can comment on show him to be a master of spin at best, or pure invention at worst.
I'd have to take issue with your point about Brythonic. The last native speaker of (Brythonic) Cornish only died a few years ago. I accept that Cornwall was a fairly late addition to Wessex, but it was probably under English control for a good two hundred years before William of Normandy hove into view.
I don't dispute that whole Saxon tribes migrated wholesale after their warbands had carved out territories for them. But that still doesn't necessarily suggest genocide. The tribal lands of the Saxons etc were relatively small and almost certainly thinly populated, whilst Britain was a large, fertile ex-Roman province where you didn't always get your feet wet every time you stepped outside. Certain areas - notably Kent and East Anglia - probaby were swamped by huge numbers of Anglo-Saxons, in which case anyone already living there would almost certainly be obliged to start learning a new language straight away. But I doubt there were ever enough Saxons to repopulate the entire country from scratch.
In other areas, I'd suggest that the whole process of lingustic change was much more gradual. By way of an example at the other end of the scale, we speak (a version of) English in Cumbria, but Anglo-Saxon settlement would only ever have been minimal here, even after the fall of Rheged to Northumbria circa 620. The huge majority of place names are Brythonic or Norse, suggesting that people here were not widely speaking English at least until after the Norse had become integrated into English society - and that would be the 11th Century.
I'd argue that isolated British place names across most of England might be indicative of little pockets where the British for whatever reason (marriage, force, local conditions etc etc) still had some form of control or status. But that doesn't mean that the British weren't living everywhere else aswell, albeit under the control of English overlords.
Regards,
Peter
You're right about PBE! I wouldn't be arrogant enough to argue that his stuff is without merit, but he clearly comes from the rather fashionable "Celts good, Saxons bad" camp. He makes lots of sweeping assertions and, although I couldn't pretend to comment on most of them, those I can comment on show him to be a master of spin at best, or pure invention at worst.
I'd have to take issue with your point about Brythonic. The last native speaker of (Brythonic) Cornish only died a few years ago. I accept that Cornwall was a fairly late addition to Wessex, but it was probably under English control for a good two hundred years before William of Normandy hove into view.
I don't dispute that whole Saxon tribes migrated wholesale after their warbands had carved out territories for them. But that still doesn't necessarily suggest genocide. The tribal lands of the Saxons etc were relatively small and almost certainly thinly populated, whilst Britain was a large, fertile ex-Roman province where you didn't always get your feet wet every time you stepped outside. Certain areas - notably Kent and East Anglia - probaby were swamped by huge numbers of Anglo-Saxons, in which case anyone already living there would almost certainly be obliged to start learning a new language straight away. But I doubt there were ever enough Saxons to repopulate the entire country from scratch.
In other areas, I'd suggest that the whole process of lingustic change was much more gradual. By way of an example at the other end of the scale, we speak (a version of) English in Cumbria, but Anglo-Saxon settlement would only ever have been minimal here, even after the fall of Rheged to Northumbria circa 620. The huge majority of place names are Brythonic or Norse, suggesting that people here were not widely speaking English at least until after the Norse had become integrated into English society - and that would be the 11th Century.
I'd argue that isolated British place names across most of England might be indicative of little pockets where the British for whatever reason (marriage, force, local conditions etc etc) still had some form of control or status. But that doesn't mean that the British weren't living everywhere else aswell, albeit under the control of English overlords.
Regards,
Peter
Hi all - this thread made me join the site 
It's something I've been struggling with for five years now, trying to make some sense out of my local history. For what it's worth ...
There appears to be no evidence of substantial "Celtic" (whatever that might mean) migration into Britain. Certainly, the culture came - but people?
There is some DNA evidence that the number of Anglo-Saxon "invaders" was of the order of 5% of the total indigenous British population.
There is zero evidence that there was a common Brythonic language in these islands before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. It would appear more likely (given that the Belgae, for one example, had already migrated here and may have spoken a Germanic language) that Britain was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual place.
There is zero evidence that the Anglo-Saxon invaders (and that constitutes Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Franks and possibly a Swabian or two, amongst others) spoke a common language. The (I consider) overwhelming probability is that Old English was the mongrel which resulted from the mixing of all of those peoples and all of their languages.
Partible inheritance (already mentioned in this thread) is a much more logical and human reason for the ascendancy of the the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things than is genocide.
There is a village very near to where I live (at the northern extremes of Mercia) called Wales. Make of that what you will.
At which point I'm going to have to go back to the thread to remind myself why I'm posting this. In the meantime, there it is to be digested, shot down - whatever.
It's something I've been struggling with for five years now, trying to make some sense out of my local history. For what it's worth ...
There appears to be no evidence of substantial "Celtic" (whatever that might mean) migration into Britain. Certainly, the culture came - but people?
There is some DNA evidence that the number of Anglo-Saxon "invaders" was of the order of 5% of the total indigenous British population.
There is zero evidence that there was a common Brythonic language in these islands before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. It would appear more likely (given that the Belgae, for one example, had already migrated here and may have spoken a Germanic language) that Britain was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual place.
There is zero evidence that the Anglo-Saxon invaders (and that constitutes Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Franks and possibly a Swabian or two, amongst others) spoke a common language. The (I consider) overwhelming probability is that Old English was the mongrel which resulted from the mixing of all of those peoples and all of their languages.
Partible inheritance (already mentioned in this thread) is a much more logical and human reason for the ascendancy of the the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things than is genocide.
There is a village very near to where I live (at the northern extremes of Mercia) called Wales. Make of that what you will.
At which point I'm going to have to go back to the thread to remind myself why I'm posting this
. In the meantime, there it is to be digested, shot down - whatever.Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Hi MKG,
Haven't been down here in a while - compared to other sub-forums, the history threads move at an altogether more sedate pace.
I more or less agree with your take on this. I don't think that we can discount bloodshed and slaughter (Svalbard's Anderita example cannot be disregarded), but I think we can discount slaughter and bloodshed based solely on grounds of race and ethnicity.
Warrior elites would be my guess. You take over from the existing political authority and impose your will. This is exactly what the Romans did. Within a couple of generations, the masses will be speaking your language and adopting your customs and modes of dress. There is simply nothing to be gained by exterminating the locals and repopulating huge swathes of countryside from scratch.
That sounds about right, especially if you look at the relative sizes of fertile Britain and the boggy Saxon homelands.
Possibly, but I'd guess that there were significant similarities at the very least. Goidelic and Brythonic Celtic appear to be relatively distinct, but within the Brythonic group, I'd be surprised if a Welsh Silurian could not have understood most of what a northern Brigantian was saying to him. After all, the Saxons and the Norse could more or less understand each other (shatter/scatter, shirt/skirt) and their respective languages come from different branches of the Germanic linguistic group - they are probably further apart than Goidelic and Brythonic are.
I agree, but I wouldn't see English as an early version of Esperanto which was created as a means of enabling communication. I'd wager that Old English arose from the doubtless significant similarities between the various Germanic tongues and then filled in the gaps as it went on.
That's certainly my guess!
Regards,
Peterfrith
Haven't been down here in a while - compared to other sub-forums, the history threads move at an altogether more sedate pace.
I more or less agree with your take on this. I don't think that we can discount bloodshed and slaughter (Svalbard's Anderita example cannot be disregarded), but I think we can discount slaughter and bloodshed based solely on grounds of race and ethnicity.
Warrior elites would be my guess. You take over from the existing political authority and impose your will. This is exactly what the Romans did. Within a couple of generations, the masses will be speaking your language and adopting your customs and modes of dress. There is simply nothing to be gained by exterminating the locals and repopulating huge swathes of countryside from scratch.
That sounds about right, especially if you look at the relative sizes of fertile Britain and the boggy Saxon homelands.
Possibly, but I'd guess that there were significant similarities at the very least. Goidelic and Brythonic Celtic appear to be relatively distinct, but within the Brythonic group, I'd be surprised if a Welsh Silurian could not have understood most of what a northern Brigantian was saying to him. After all, the Saxons and the Norse could more or less understand each other (shatter/scatter, shirt/skirt) and their respective languages come from different branches of the Germanic linguistic group - they are probably further apart than Goidelic and Brythonic are.
I agree, but I wouldn't see English as an early version of Esperanto which was created as a means of enabling communication. I'd wager that Old English arose from the doubtless significant similarities between the various Germanic tongues and then filled in the gaps as it went on.
That's certainly my guess!
Regards,
Peterfrith
The Bretons were Celts. The henge builders who were earlier were more agricultural as opposed to the slightly more agresive Bretons. I consider them to be the longest standing "native" people of the islands. Any invasion after them I put in a negative context.
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Hi Tiailds,
Welcome to our slow-moving debate!
Might I ask why you feel that the post-Celtic "invasions" were negative or that the Celts weren't as aggressive as those who came after them? I know that it is fashionable to see the ancient Celts as somehow being early hippies who were at one with nature and beauty, but there's no real evidence for that contention.
A cursory glance of the surviving canon of British poems of the period makes it pretty clear that the Celtic kingdoms (largely based on the pre-Roman Celtic tribal areas) which came into being after the collapse of centralised Roman administration were a fairly bloodthirsty bunch, who spent easily as much time fighting one another as they did the Saxons. The poems generally concern slaughter, gift-giving (an important part of keeping your warband happy!) and noble deaths in battle. Their kings gave themselves names like Gwallawc the Battle Horseman, Peredur Steel Arms, Selyf the Battle Serpent and Eliffer of the Great Army. Between them, they managed to withstand a Germanic onslaught which totally destroyed Roman Western Europe, only to throw most of it away in the seventh century in violent, internecine squabbling. They didn't manage all that by skipping through the daisies and talking to the flowers!
Regards,
Peter
I concede that the Bretons were warlike during the post-Roman era. They had to be after the chaos of the Roman structure leaving and then defending against several nations and dozens of tribes all wanting the island. Their biggest mistake is inviting the Saxons to help defend them thereby inviting their soon to be conquerors. If the Bretons could have held off the invaders on their own and united and organized under something similar to what they had during the Roman occupation, they would probably have been fine for the next few centuries. But a few major mistakes early on essentially doomed then in the end.
I realize that overall they are Celts and therefore primarily warlike, but I believe that they resort to war only when necessary and the rest of their society is rather peaceful and long lasting.
I realize that overall they are Celts and therefore primarily warlike, but I believe that they resort to war only when necessary and the rest of their society is rather peaceful and long lasting.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
You believe this based on what? The original druid religion was a bloody one (and that's putting it mildly). Their religion and their literature bespeaks a culture that valued blood sacrifice and war. What evidence is their to suggest that the Celts were "mostly peace loving" that only warred as a "last resort?"
I think in the end all of you Brits are just gonna have to face it; its not natural to live on that cold wet island of yours. Everyone's been an invader at some point history.
MTF
I think in the end all of you Brits are just gonna have to face it; its not natural to live on that cold wet island of yours
. Everyone's been an invader at some point history.MTF
Urlik
Noise Warrior
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 789
the only evidence that they practiced human sacrifice is Roman propaganda designed to show that the Celts and Gauls were uncivilised barbarians who needed to be conquered.
the archaeological finds could just as easily have been criminals who were sentenced to death for their crimes (even though the method was ritualistic this doesn't mean it was religious as all death sentences follow some form of ritual, even today)
later stories of druidic sacrifice were written by Christian monks who had a vested interest in making their predecessors look as bad as possible
the Druids were the priest class of Celtic polytheism, but as they used an oral tradition for passing on their knowledge and there is no written record of their practices, there is absolutely nothing really known about them except that they revered the Moon, the oak, mistletoe and white bulls
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only evidence full stop! As Urlik says, it might be wrong, but there is precious little to substantiate the opposing view.
From which tiny clues a whole pseudo-religion has sprung, fully formed like warriors from dragon's teeth!
But by the later Celtic period, most of the Celts were at least nominally Christian.
As MTF suggests, there is not a shred of evidence to support this view. It's a fashionable view, I grant you, but what evidence there really is paints the Celts (like the Saxons) as first and foremost a warrior aristocracy who (like the Saxons) effectively took over the upper strata of British society. In "Gallic Wars", old Julius Caesar states that one of their principle exports was slaves - hardly the mark of a peaceful society.
But let us look at these "dozens of tribes". Some were Germanic - Saxons, Angles, Jutes et al, but the pressing threat of the post Roman period came from the Picts (who were Celts) and the Irish (who were Celts). So, once again, not much evidence of the Celts being peace-loving there!
In all fairness, Vortigern was just following accepted late Roman military practice of paying one lot of thugs to defeat another, but even if not, what choice did he have? For whatever reason, it appears that the North did not come and help him and there is evidence (in the form of Coel Hen), that the British still held enough power at York and along the Wall to keep effective control of what is now northern England and Southern Scotland for nearly 200 years after the Saxon rebellion.
I agree. This is the real nub of the problem. The Saxons didn't win Britain - the Celts threw it away. They couldn't (or wouldn't) unite behind one leader.
Too true. We'd all much rather live in Disneyland or exotic places with names like Big Flat Desert, Kansas, or Hot Burrito, Oklahoma.
Regards,
Peter
I have trouble seeing the Picts as Celts, but ignoring that. The Bretons should have just "kept it in the family" so to speak and hired other Celts (such as the Irish) to help protect from invaders. They being related closer than Saxons and being closer geographically would aid in preventing a rebellion (chances are there still would be a rebellion, but I think it could have been handled better).
Even if they couldn't totally unite, even with a loose confederation of Celts from two islands, they would have intimidated and/or repelled most Saxons or other miscellaneous invaders for quite a long time. I still believe that over an extended period of stability and peace (with the help of somewhat loyal hired mercenaries), eventually, some form of unification would have taken place that could hold till the Scots began establishing themselves and even then loosly ally with them as well.
Over half of the island seems to be surrounded by would be invaders just waiting for an opportunity. The Bretons and other neighboring Celts could hold them off, even several at a time, if they could remain organized following the Roman military organization and taking advantage of the infrastructure.
Mmmmm, Hot Burrito.
- Status
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Short Intro. Alternate reality fantasy setting Anglo-Saxon Britain and Viking Invader- Started by Grimbear
- Replies: 13