Catterick

[Rick Robinson]

I don't see this really stemming the Saxon's and the ilk from comming over to England. Sure it changes the power dynamics on teh island but wouldn't there need to be somthing ont he continent that would change immigration patterns? Maybe this would just increase brition-saxon conflict?

Changing the power dynamic, though, could change the final outcome, if - as seems to be the current view - England was created mainly by anglicization of the existing population, with actual immigration a relatively minor demographic factor.

Change the power dynamic, and perhaps far fewer Britons become anglicized. Conceivably assimilation even ends up going the other way, and you end up with a population speaking something like Welsh, though with a lot of Germanic words.

-- Rick

 

[LDoc]

Both groups in the ebate over how mny immigrate still believe that a considerable amount of Saxons, Angles, etc, immigrated, its just how many came over. I mean If there was only a relatively few number of immigrants comming over then wouldn't they be 'britionized' instead of the other way around?

Edit: Also I have tow onder how much of a difference the different cultures will be in the long run. Language and culture will certainly be different, but what else will be considerable different?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Question on Anglicization...

How exactly did the Romano-Celtic inhabitants of the land become "Anglicized"?

Was it just a matter of speaking their language, or did they adopt wholesale the Germanic way of living (incl. religion--the Britons were Christians and the Saxons were not)?

 

[LDoc]

well they diffenetly adopted Saxon warfare. At Hastings the proffesion body of Harold's army was huscurls, whcih were basicly the bodyguards/lords of a Saxon warchief/king. The reason the Saxon's lasted so long against the Norman calvary was the huscurls would form a wall with their large, almost tower shield, would interlock, with the levied soldiers stood behind to add depth. It was quit a formidable shield wall and it only failed against the Normans after one of harolds flanks broke rank to chase the fleeing calvary.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Question on Anglicization...

How exactly did the Romano-Celtic inhabitants of the land become "Anglicized"?

Was it just a matter of speaking their language, or did they adopt wholesale the Germanic way of living (incl. religion--the Britons were Christians and the Saxons were not)?

Good question, not easy to answer. Conventionally it is said that Christianity vnished from England until re-introduced from Rome. But the fact that there even was a Synod of Whitby (c. 670 or so), in which the English opted for Roman rather than Celtic practice implies that the Celtic church also had some presence, whether continual or re-introduced. I think new settlement patterns appeared, but that could be people adopting techniques they saw their neighbors using.

One complication is distinguishing between the culture of elites and the mass of the population. Certainly the Saxon warlords established themselves as the elite, and the British elites either were driven out or anglicized - possibly the latter in the case of the West Saxon royal line.

For an example in much more recent times, think of what happened in Mexico after the Spanish conquest. The Mexican population is predominantly of Indian ancestry, but it is now mainly Spanish-speaking and in most respects culturally Hispanic.

But there's yet a further complication that must have played a part in Britain. What is now England was a Roman province (or 3 provinces), while Wales remained a frontier zone, and north of Hadrian's Wall, approximately Scotland, remained largely outside the Roman sphere.

The elites in the heartland of Roman Britain were Latin-speaking, but how far down the social scale did romanization go? What did the peasants speak? A language that, left to itself, would have developed into "Brito-Romance," somewhat akin to French? Or were they still speaking Brythonic?

My guess - purely a guess - is that one factor that helped anglicization along was that the territories the Saxons took over in the 5th and early 6th centuries already fell between two stools, in both language and culture. Romanization was too thin on the ground for a Romance vernacular to survive as it did in northern Gaul (becoming French), but it was also not Celtic enough for a Celtic language and culture to survive as in Wales. That left a sort of vacuum into which anglicization moved more easily.

Worth what you paid for it!

-- Rick

 

[robertp6165]

Good question, not easy to answer. Conventionally it is said that Christianity vnished from England until re-introduced from Rome. But the fact that there even was a Synod of Whitby (c. 670 or so), in which the English opted for Roman rather than Celtic practice implies that the Celtic church also had some presence, whether continual or re-introduced.

The British Church certainly never died...indeed, Britain was the scene of a bitter dispute between followers of the Pelagian heresy and those who followed a more "conventional" form of Christianity in the years between the withdrawal of the Roman garrisons and the Synod of Whitby.

One complication is distinguishing between the culture of elites and the mass of the population. Certainly the Saxon warlords established themselves as the elite, and the British elites either were driven out or anglicized - possibly the latter in the case of the West Saxon royal line.

For an example in much more recent times, think of what happened in Mexico after the Spanish conquest. The Mexican population is predominantly of Indian ancestry, but it is now mainly Spanish-speaking and in most respects culturally Hispanic.

The genetic evidence indicates otherwise. There are genetic markers found in the populations of the "British fringe" (Wales and Cornwall, predominantly) that are not found in the general population of England, but which are shared with the Bretons. The general population of England shares genetic characteristics which can be identified in populations in Frisia and adjoining lands...where most of the Anglo Saxons came from...and these are not found in the population of Wales. This would indicate that the Celtic population of the majority of Britain was either exterminated or forced to flee westward and northward when the Anglo-Saxons came in.

 

[robertp6165]

well they diffenetly adopted Saxon warfare. At Hastings the proffesion body of Harold's army was huscurls, whcih were basicly the bodyguards/lords of a Saxon warchief/king.

The Huscarls were actually a Danish innovation which entered the Anglo-Saxon military during the reign of King Canute. There was a pre-existing professional body of soldiers in the Saxon army, the Thegns, which also still existed at the time of Hastings. But the Huscarls did not exist in England before the reign of King Canute.

The reason the Saxon's lasted so long against the Norman calvary was the huscurls would form a wall with their large, almost tower shield, would interlock, with the levied soldiers stood behind to add depth. It was quit a formidable shield wall and it only failed against the Normans after one of harolds flanks broke rank to chase the fleeing calvary.

There is little direct evidence that the Huscarls used the "tower" or "Kite" shields which were shown on the Bayeaux Tapestry. The tapestry was embroidered years after the Battle of Hastings, and many of the details are not correct. Most of the warriors shown on the Tapestry...regardless of whether they are Norman or Saxon...are dressed in standard Norman warkit, which is natural, since the ladies who embroidered it were Normans and had never seen Anglo Saxon gear.

Given that the Huscarls were a holdover from the Danish Kings, and that they were an infantry force (the tower/kite shields shown were cavalry shields), it is far more likely that they used the standard Saxon round shield rather than the tower/kite shield shown on the Tapestry. Experiments have shown that a shield wall composed of men with interlocked round shields is fully capable of repelling onrushing cavalry, given sufficient depth to the formation (at least four ranks deep).

 

[robertp6165]

A more likely POD to get a dramatically different Britain might be if Arthur wins at Camlann, sometime around 530-540.

Yes, Arthur may be a purely legendary figure, and Camlann a legendary battle - but the earlier British victory at Badon, c. 500-510, is attested by Gildas in De Excidio Brittanniae, though the British commander may have been Ambrosius Aurelianus, or someone who's name has been lost. Archeological evidence seems to indicate that a Saxon advance was stalled for some years around this time.

-- Rick

A timeline along these lines...

 

[JHPier]

A more likely POD to get a dramatically different Britain might be if Arthur wins at Camlann, sometime around 530-540.

Considering that it is generally held that Camlann was between two British armies I rather doubt this.
Arthur (or whoever you think won Badon) had been around for 40 yrs, so was nearing the end of his lifespan anyway, and he'd had 20-odd yrs since Badon to institutionally strengthen his overlordship. Since British unity came crashing down at his death, it appears that it was too much bound to his person to endure, regardless of the outcome of Camlann.

Yes, Gildas doen't mention the name of the winner of Badon, but he was writing a sermon for his contemporaries who hardly needed to be told that, not a history for posterity.

 

[JHPier]

The British Church certainly never died...indeed, Britain was the scene of a bitter dispute between followers of the Pelagian heresy and those who followed a more "conventional" form of Christianity in the years between the withdrawal of the Roman garrisons and the Synod of Whitby. .

Well. for the generation following the end of Roman rule.

But Gildas has been detected to quote from Pelagian and orthodox writings both without showing any sense of these being at opposite sides of the theological fence.

The genetic evidence indicates otherwise. There are genetic markers found in the populations of the "British fringe" (Wales and Cornwall, predominantly) that are not found in the general population of England, but which are shared with the Bretons. The general population of England shares genetic characteristics which can be identified in populations in Frisia and adjoining lands...where most of the Anglo Saxons came from...and these are not found in the population of Wales. This would indicate that the Celtic population of the majority of Britain was either exterminated or forced to flee westward and northward when the Anglo-Saxons came in.

There are other explanations for this. Like: the genetic markers found in the western fringe are the residue of the original neolithic population which fled/were pushed west by the various invaders that followed like the Beaker-folk, the Celts and lastly the Saxons.
The Romans already noted that the inhabitants of Wales were physically different from the general run of Celtic Britons.

The study you refer to also deals with Y-chromosomes only. A similar study done in Colombia revealed that modern Colombians had virtually only European forefathers and practically no Native American ones. I find it very hard to believe that this is true of their foremothers also.

 

[Rick Robinson]

The British Church certainly never died...indeed, Britain was the scene of a bitter dispute between followers of the Pelagian heresy and those who followed a more "conventional" form of Christianity in the years between the withdrawal of the Roman garrisons and the Synod of Whitby.

Certainly the British Church didn't die out, or Whitby would have been an awfully one-sided debate.

What I meant is that the conventional view (from what I've gathered) is that British Christianity pretty much vanished from "England" - i.e., the regions that had been anglicized - so that it had to be re-introduced to the English from Rome. It continued unabated in Wales and Ireland.

It wouldn't be a surprise, per se, if it vanished from anglicized regions - whatever happened to the mass of the native population, the British elites were presumably mostly expelled, or so anglicized that they lost touch with any prior heritage.

On the other hand, the fact that Whitby did happen implies that the English at that time were open to influence from the British church as well as from Rome. Otherwise the question of which way the English church should go would not have arisen.

The time line you linked looks interesting - I've only given it a glance, but am off to look it over more closely!

-- Rick

 

[robertp6165]

Certainly the British Church didn't die out, or Whitby would have been an awfully one-sided debate.

What I meant is that the conventional view (from what I've gathered) is that British Christianity pretty much vanished from "England" - i.e., the regions that had been anglicized - so that it had to be re-introduced to the English from Rome. It continued unabated in Wales and Ireland.

It wouldn't be a surprise, per se, if it vanished from anglicized regions - whatever happened to the mass of the native population, the British elites were presumably mostly expelled, or so anglicized that they lost touch with any prior heritage.

I agree with that...it almost certainly disappeared in the areas the pagan Anglo-Saxons conquered.

On the other hand, the fact that Whitby did happen implies that the English at that time were open to influence from the British church as well as from Rome. Otherwise the question of which way the English church should go would not have arisen.

Oddly, the British church never made much effort to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. Rome's main competition for the hearts and minds of the Anglo-Saxons came from the so-called "Celtic" Church (I say, so-called, because most people today use that term to refer to the Church founded by St. Patrick in Ireland, which then evangelized in Scotland and other areas of northern Britain, and those people tend to distinguish the Irish Church...which they refer to as "Celtic,"...from the Welsh/British Church. But in reality, the Irish Church was an offshoot of the British Church...Patrick, after all, was British himself), especially the missionaries sent out from St. Columba's monastery on Iona.

The time line you linked looks interesting - I've only given it a glance, but am off to look it over more closely!

-- Rick

Thank you.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Oddly, the British church never made much effort to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. Rome's main competition for the hearts and minds of the Anglo-Saxons came from the so-called "Celtic" Church ...which they refer to as "Celtic,"...from the Welsh/British Church. But in reality, the Irish Church was an offshoot of the British Church...Patrick, after all, was British himself), especially the missionaries sent out from St. Columba's monastery on Iona.

Was there much substantive difference between the Welsh and Irish branches? I take it that it was Irish representatives who showed up at Whitby.


I took a better look at your timeline, and will hijack the thread slightly to comment. (It is after all related subject matter!)

Presumably the first century - up to Camlann - is not so much alt-hist as "reconstructed" history, i.e., filling in the extremely sketchy record in a way that is not inconsistant with OTL, had Camlann gone the other way. The cavalry force is (AFIAK) purely speculative, but not implausible, and on a literary level evokes the Knights of the Round Table.

Nice little twist of making the heir to the throne a (kinda sorta) Prince of Wales!

On a personal level this is intriguing because of some similarities to the background of my novel Catherine of Lyonesse. (Don't rush to the bookstore quite yet - I just got an agent for it.) The novel is "parallel history," not alt-hist; Lyonesse is not a separate (or sunken) island, but a counterpart to Britain. In this doppelganger world, Arthur still loses at Camlann, but has such prior impact that the high kingship survives, the end result in the 16th century being a Saxon Pale (a smaller "England") and several Celtic duchies.

-- Rick

 

[robertp6165]

Was there much substantive difference between the Welsh and Irish branches? I take it that it was Irish representatives who showed up at Whitby.

There was not much difference between Irish and Welsh Christianity. They both figured Easter the same way, for example, and used the same method of baptism (the major differences between them and the Roman Church). They were also both largely monastic and loosely organized, in contrast to the structured, Roman church. There were both Irish and Welsh representatives at Whitby, but the Irish were definitely the dominant group.

I took a better look at your timeline, and will hijack the thread slightly to comment. (It is after all related subject matter!)

Presumably the first century - up to Camlann - is not so much alt-hist as "reconstructed" history, i.e., filling in the extremely sketchy record in a way that is not inconsistant with OTL, had Camlann gone the other way.
The cavalry force is (AFIAK) purely speculative, but not implausible, and on a literary level evokes the Knights of the Round Table.

Basically correct. Although I did add some to it...for example, Arthur having a son, the laws which Arthur forced the Ruling Council to pass in the aftermath of Badon Hill, and other aspects.

A lot of the theory behind the military aspects of the timeline is based on the book KING ARTHUR: A MILITARY HISTORY, by Michael Holmes. It is from here that I got the ideas about the cavalry force, for which Holmes persuasively argues. Holmes also is the origin of the part about Ambrosius Aurelianus raising military units called "Ambrosiaci," the recruiting camps for which later became towns scattered around southern England with names beginning with "Amb" or "Emb". And Holmes also makes an intriguing argument about Medraut being located at Walton Castle, where he would have been well-placed to intrigue with the Angles against Arthur, leading to the battle at Camlann. It is quite an interesting book, if you can find a copy.

Nice little twist of making the heir to the throne a (kinda sorta) Prince of Wales!

Thanks.

On a personal level this is intriguing because of some similarities to the background of my novel Catherine of Lyonesse. (Don't rush to the bookstore quite yet - I just got an agent for it.) The novel is "parallel history," not alt-hist; Lyonesse is not a separate (or sunken) island, but a counterpart to Britain. In this doppelganger world, Arthur still loses at Camlann, but has such prior impact that the high kingship survives, the end result in the 16th century being a Saxon Pale (a smaller "England") and several Celtic duchies.

-- Rick

Sounds interesting. I will look forward to reading it when you get it published.

 

[MerryPrankster]

There was not much difference between Irish and Welsh Christianity. They both figured Easter the same way, for example, and used the same method of baptism (the major differences between them and the Roman Church). They were also both largely monastic and loosely organized, in contrast to the structured, Roman church. There were both Irish and Welsh representatives at Whitby, but the Irish were definitely the dominant group.

What method of Baptism did they use? I came across a web-site claiming St. Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic (it was from an ultra-conservative, anti-Catholic Baptist POV), b/c he baptized his new converts via immersion.

 

[Jason]

At the time St Patrick would not have considered himself a Baptist, the term would have been meaningless to him. Over the years there have been many attempts to amke out that the 'British' church was not really 'Catholic' but somehow proto-Protestant, Baptist, Methodist or just about any other version of Christainity. Really all these are, area ttempts by the various different sects to prove they are infact just as ancient as the 'Catholic' church and in some cases even, shock horror, they are the true church because the 'British' church was somehow a purer form of Christianity and/or had some secret beliefs that went back to the time of Christ and they alone still knew...

What method of Baptism did they use? I came across a web-site claiming St. Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic (it was from an ultra-conservative, anti-Catholic Baptist POV), b/c he baptized his new converts via immersion.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Over the years there have been many attempts to amke out that the 'British' church was not really 'Catholic' but somehow proto-Protestant, Baptist, Methodist or just about any other version of Christainity. Really all these are, area ttempts by the various different sects to prove they are infact just as ancient as the 'Catholic' church and in some cases even, shock horror, they are the true church because the 'British' church was somehow a purer form of Christianity and/or had some secret beliefs that went back to the time of Christ and they alone still knew...

Curiously, though, "semi-Pelagianism" is a charge that has sometimes been made against the Church of England, or tendencies within the C of E.

The C of E has no connection with the Celtic British church, beyond being on the same island a thousand years later. But perhaps there is something in the water, so to speak, absorbed by the English (but lost by the Irish!) that favors a latitudinarian outlook. The English Reformation was exceedingly peaceful by continental standards; even Bloody Mary only burned about 300 heretics, making her a piker by standards of the time.

-- Rick

 

[Jason]

I think these days non religious is the charge

You're right Rick, in that the CoE has no links to the 'British' church but it didn't stop writers at the time of the Reformation making the claim. I think the idea was '"we're older/purer than you"

Curiously, though, "semi-Pelagianism" is a charge that has sometimes been made against the Church of England, or tendencies within the C of E.

The C of E has no connection with the Celtic British church, beyond being on the same island a thousand years later. But perhaps there is something in the water, so to speak, absorbed by the English (but lost by the Irish!) that favors a latitudinarian outlook. The English Reformation was exceedingly peaceful by continental standards; even Bloody Mary only burned about 300 heretics, making her a piker by standards of the time.

-- Rick

 

[patrick]

battle location

Hi all, when doing some research I came across two battles that I didn't even no about on my door step, one being the battle of Catterick and the other battle of Scotch Corner AD 71. What I am asking is, is it still possible to visit these locations and if so where they are. Can you help?

Cheers Patrick