English survived the Norman conquest, why didn't Brythonic survive the Saxon conquest in England?

[catalfalque]

But it DID survive - Elmet, Rheged, Hwicce, and others. While there were political entities in which the Celtic element played a significant, or dominant role, it survived.

And beyond that, obvioiusly, it got forced to the margins - Dumnonia, Cumbria, Cambria etc

Once the political entities were subdued, at what point are we positing the language died out? If Rheged as a political entity ceased to exist in the early 8th century, not only is this giving us 300 years or so of survival, but it is also asking what then?

 

[Tanydwr]

Bearing in mind I'm a total amateur...

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is dialects. In some medieval periods, the inhabitants of one valley village would barely be able to understand those of a valley in the neighbouring county, despite both speaking 'English.' Just think of the modern variations between British, American, and Australian English, let alone comparing Scouse, Manc and Geordie! As languages were written down, they became more codified - spellings were determined, even if pronunciations shifted (which is why some modern words are not spelt as they sound, and some of Shakespeare's rhymes seem dodgy - in his day, they did rhyme). (The fact that Italian and Spanish speakers can usually understand the other language is another unusual linguistic fact, given that France and Germany are in the way between them, but not the point.)

It might be logical, then, that the Brythonic languages - because it was unlikely to be merely one language - gradually got swamped or infiltrated with loan-words until Germanic languages replaced them. In addition, parts of northern England, especially in the east, gained a strong Norse influence, with the Danelaw and such (parts of Scotland too - anyone looking at Scots will sometimes notice Norse influence, and Manx surnames are fascinating in this respect).

There's also the current belief that the Celts were not a people as much as a group of peoples with similar languages and cultural elements, which may or may not have anything to do with it.

I'd argue that the biggest difference is probably in the actual people doing the 'invading' - most of the Germanic people were probably of a similar rank to the Celts, merging into family lines and interacting at a similar level. If my understanding of the Norman invasion is correct, most of what they did was replacing the local nobility - French became the language of the court, but the common people weren't expected to know that. So while there was a great deal of influence on the language, it was more of a merger with English remaining dominant than outright replacement. Which is probably why English has the most words of any given language, and the common Internet memes about English being three languages stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat and that English didn't develop as a language - it lurked around dark corners and attacked other languages and routed through their pockets for loose vocabulary came from!

 

[JennyB]

Bearing in mind I'm a total amateur...

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is dialects. In some medieval periods, the inhabitants of one valley village would barely be able to understand those of a valley in the neighbouring county, despite both speaking 'English.' Just think of the modern variations between British, American, and Australian English, let alone comparing Scouse, Manc and Geordie! As languages were written down, they became more codified - spellings were determined, even if pronunciations shifted (which is why some modern words are not spelt as they sound, and some of Shakespeare's rhymes seem dodgy - in his day, they did rhyme). (The fact that Italian and Spanish speakers can usually understand the other language is another unusual linguistic fact, given that France and Germany are in the way between them, but not the point.)

It might be logical, then, that the Brythonic languages - because it was unlikely to be merely one language - gradually got swamped or infiltrated with loan-words until Germanic languages replaced them. In addition, parts of northern England, especially in the east, gained a strong Norse influence, with the Danelaw and such (parts of Scotland too - anyone looking at Scots will sometimes notice Norse influence, and Manx surnames are fascinating in this respect).

There's also the current belief that the Celts were not a people as much as a group of peoples with similar languages and cultural elements, which may or may not have anything to do with it.

I'd argue that the biggest difference is probably in the actual people doing the 'invading' - most of the Germanic people were probably of a similar rank to the Celts, merging into family lines and interacting at a similar level. If my understanding of the Norman invasion is correct, most of what they did was replacing the local nobility - French became the language of the court, but the common people weren't expected to know that. So while there was a great deal of influence on the language, it was more of a merger with English remaining dominant than outright replacement. Which is probably why English has the most words of any given language, and the common Internet memes about English being three languages stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat and that English didn't develop as a language - it lurked around dark corners and attacked other languages and routed through their pockets for loose vocabulary came from!

In a no Roman/Norman invasion timeline, what might a Brythonic/Germanic hybrid "English" look like?

 

[Umbral]

The Normans seem to have been mostly an intrusive aristocracy inserting itself at the top of society. The Anglosaxons ppears to have been far more like a migration event, replacing every level of society. Genetic studies seem to show considerable replacement of Celtoromanic genes. Fairly speculative, but still.

Also, the Anglosaxons arrived in a land weakened and depopulated by the Fimbulwinter and the Plague. The Normans invaded a place with presumably considerably higher population density.

Finally, I am not sure how closely wedded the Normans were to French at the time. I could see them swear by Saint Balder. I would speculate that some may still have spoken Norse at home, which they probably shared with the Norse in the north of England at the time.

 

[LSCatilina]

Also, the Anglosaxons arrived in a land weakened and depopulated by the Fimbulwinter and the Plague. .

This were happening either in a same time, or actually after a first wave of mainlands migrants from the late Vth and early VIth century : Britto-Roman society was already in ruins at this point, which helped relatively achephalic Germanic societies to get the upper hand (not in small part due to favorable connections to the mainland, in matter of presidency over trade roads to England)

Finally, I am not sure how closely wedded the Normans were to French at the time.

Essentially considering themselves as part of a French ensemble. It's literally written down on the Bayeux Tapestry ("Franci"). Thing is Norman nobility was a mix of Anglo-Dane, Hiberno-Norse and critically Neustrian nobility (which not only dominated outside the Rouen and Contentin area, but was what tied it together even before 911.

I would speculate that some may still have spoken Norse at home, which they probably shared with the Norse in the north of England at the time.

Probably not, at least since the early XIth century at latest in noble houses. It's possible that you had a rural remnant along some Norman coast in the XIIIth, but that's far from obvious.

The, real, ties between Norse and Normand courts in the XIth were less built on cultural and linguistical closeness, than a relation from the late Xth and XIth century that might have led to a Norman influence into christianisation of Norway. From this point onward, the initiative from these links came mostly from Norway, virtually never from Normandy which was disinterested on Scandinavian matters in the XIth onwards (it's possible than you had a Norman/Norse rear alliance against Saxons, but it's really hard to tell who had the initiative).
https://www.persee.fr/doc/annor_0003-4134_2005_num_55_3_1533

 

[Brunaburh]

So Gaulish was dominant up to the left-southern side of the Rhine at the eve of the Gallic wars?

There is a hell of a lot of special pleading that the easternmost Belgae, like the Condrusi, Treveri and Eburones, were Germanic speakers, despite their leaders all having Celtic names and their tribal names often having completely transparent Celtic etymologies. I don't know where this comes from, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the politics of Germany and Belgium in the 20th century.

 

[LSCatilina]

There is a hell of a lot of special pleading that the easternmost Belgae, like the Condrusi, Treveri and Eburones, were Germanic speakers, despite their leaders all having Celtic names and their tribal names often having completely transparent Celtic etymologies. I don't know where this comes from, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the politics of Germany and Belgium in the 20th century.

It's worth noting that these linguistical evidence doesn't really stop at the Rhine either, and while growingly mixed with Germanic from the Ist century onward, are pretty much obvious up to Middle Danube (where is, maybe, to be searched part of the populations that became Belgians). Basically Celtic groups taking on Celtic peoples, like in the early Latenian period.

 

[Brunaburh]

(re. Norse speakers among Normans in 1066)

Probably not, at least since the early XIth century at latest in noble houses. It's possible that you had a rural remnant along some Norman coast in the XIIIth, but that's far from obvious.

Just about spot on, we know Norse was still spoken in Normandy in the 1020's, as the Duke received a skald from Norway as his guest at that time. But the Duke in question was at that time very old, and it may well be the case that the younger members of the court had no Norse at this time. I have found no evidence at all of Norse in Normandy during the reign of William the Bastard's father (1027-1035), so I'd put a conservative language death for Norse among the nobility as 1050.

Though I would be very interested to know what language Harold and William spoke during the former's captivity. I suspect it was Danish, though probably William was not a native speaker.

 

[LSCatilina]

Though I would be very interested to know what language Harold and William spoke during the former's captivity. I suspect it was Danish, though probably William was not a native speaker.

Giving that you had both Anglo-Saxon expatriates in Normand court, that Harold went to Flanders, and that you had a significant number of Normans in late Anglo-Saxon England : it could have been either a form of medieval French or late Anglo-Saxon English.

 

[Brunaburh]

It's worth noting that these linguistical evidence doesn't really stop at the Rhine either, and while growingly mixed with Germanic from the Ist century onward, are pretty much obvious up to Middle Danube (where is, maybe, to be searched part of the populations that became Belgians). Basically Celtic groups taking on Celtic peoples, like in the early Latenian period.

I agree, but we can say west of the Rhine was more or less solidly Celtic, whereas east of it was a patchwork of language families, with Germanic very dominant in northern modern Germany east of the Rhine and Western Poland. Southern Germany was largely Celtic at this point too.

 

[fasquardon]

How far North were Celtic languages spoken in Europe? My impression was that Celtic languages were mixed with Germanic languages along the northern reaches of the Rhine and that what is now the Netherlands was fairly Germanic in its speech (indeed, I believe the Franks inhabited the area at the time Britain was being conquered by Rome).

There is not much attestation that Belgae were speaking a Germanic speech : at this point Germanic/Germania are essentially geographical names with not much linguistical characterization. It's noteworthy that Gallic Belgium had shfting delimitation, up to having an equivalence between Aremorica and Belgica for Strabon.
In fact, even in the Ist century BCE, Germanic peoples as Ariovist's are importantly celtized themselves.

The problem with Brittonic is rather to be searched in its classification : P/Q division or Insular/Continental division

That first link is very interesting, in terms of just how wide the area various Romans referred to as "Belgica".

Not scholars of history and linguistics though. There have been some very noisy non-specialists who have publicized some pretty wild theories on this. There is copious evidence of Celtic in Britain at the time of the Roman invasion, there is no evidence of anything else.

Hm. Interesting. Is the chestnut about there being less Celtic place names than we'd expect in England false as well, or is there strong evidence both for a solid Celtic England AND a relative poverty in Celtic derived place-names in modern England?

fasquardon

 

[LSCatilina]

How far North were Celtic languages spoken in Europe?

It's hard to really tell, because we rely on textual documents either archeologically found scripts, or names given by Greeks or Romans. And it's no use totally equaling Halstattian or Latenian material culture with Celtic speakers, unless pulling a Kossina. Which would be wrong.
But, trying to match these two broad sources might give an indication of current knowledge (which, I must stress it, doesn't mean it's a known expansion) : roughly a line between Bohemia and North Rhineland with possible but unsourced and maximalist presence up to Danemark.

My impression was that Celtic languages were mixed with Germanic languages along the northern reaches of the Rhine and that

There is too few indication on how they were mixed or not to be decisive, really. Using known tribal and people names, we know that Germanic presence is attested on the right bank of the Rhine but how deeply is another matter : certainly the pressure from Northern Germania brang its lot of Germanic speakers from the IInd century BCE onwards.

what is now the Netherlands was fairly Germanic in its speech (indeed, I believe the Franks inhabited the area at the time Britain was being conquered by Rome).

Franks, as a people, doesn't appear before the IIIrd century as most of Barbarian peoples of the limes (out of structuration thanks to subsides, trade and raiding; and confederalisation of pre-existing tribes). You probably had Germanic speakers along the northern Rhineland since the IInd century BCE, but it's not clear how much Germanized these regions or people actually were at this point. It's possible that the Cesarian conquest forced a greater cultural differentiation on both banks of the Rhine would it be trough the sudden cut of transrhenan ties. On this regard, southern Germany, heavily celtized, seems to have been hadly hurt by the consequences of the Gallic War and increased the penetration of Germanic elements and dominance from this point onward : you'd argue that this was already a tendency by the IInd/Ist century BCE, but it doesn't seem to have led to a this clear cut differenciation as newcomers were at least importantly Celtized if not Gallicized and it might have been the case until the Ist century CE with Roman projection in Germania : Sicambri cheifs have Gallic names; Mattici or Tencteri could be a Celtic tribal name (or partially celtic) and with worship of Gallic deities, it's not clear how much Batavi were Germanized...

Very basically, the definitive germanisation of Rhineland might be a by-product of Roman conquest of the Gauls, and its frontier' policy. The same goes for most of the limes on Rhine and Danube IMO.

 

[Gloss]

Can we say distinguish between Celtic tribes that were called "Germanic" by Romans and those that were like Ariovistus in some sense actually Germanic but heavily or predominantly Celtized?

Very basically, the definitive germanisation of Rhineland might be a by-product of Roman conquest of the Gauls, and its frontier' policy. The same goes for most of the limes on Rhine and Danube IMO.

I'm curious why is the case, I can imagine that the smaller Celtic community in Germania would be more easily assimilated than without Roman presence but how did the Roman directly affect it with their policies?

 

[LSCatilina]

Can we say distinguish between Celtic tribes that were called "Germanic" by Romans and those that were like Ariovistus in some sense actually Germanic but heavily or predominantly Celtized?

We can't : considering Ariovistus' peoples as "really Germanic" is already a stretch. Suebi tended to be, in Antiquity, a relatively generic term (probably as Goth was) and while the name itself is probably Germanic, when applied to Ariovistus' coalition it probably as well included a lot of Celtic elements in addition to Celtized ones hence why considered sometimes as Celts by Romans.

We're essentially tributary of an institutionalized/politicized definition of Gaulish people that were less about ethnicity but (if we go by the definition by assembly thesis) comes from independent Gaul and recycled by Romans. That Ariovist's coalition was fought over by the pan-Celtic coalition of the -60's is less an indication of its "real" Germanity than a political opposition to its integration and rivality inside a politically-defined Gaul.

I'm curious why is the case, I can imagine that the smaller Celtic community in Germania would be more easily assimilated than without Roman presence but how did the Roman directly affect it with their policies?

Rome tended to make "rear alliance" with Barbarians against other Barbarians. The management of the Batavian war involved crushing Rhenan tribes with peoples coming from the hinterland of Germania and already pressuring southern Germania Celtic peoples since two centuries, a move certainly reinforced by the decline of Celtic ensemble in Germania, Norica and Bohemia, due to Roman conquest being structurally destabilizing.
Romania crushing and taking over Gaulish and overall continental Celtic political and cultural centers certainly had an effect, as well than enforcing among Germania's people a self-identification as Germans (it would, of course, be essentially true of limes peoples).

 

[Gloss]

We can't : considering Ariovistus' peoples as "really Germanic" is already a stretch. Suebi tended to be, in Antiquity, a relatively generic term (probably as Goth was) and while the name itself is probably Germanic, when applied to Ariovistus' coalition it probably as well included a lot of Celtic elements in addition to Celtized ones hence why considered sometimes as Celts by Romans.

Well, the "actually" in my sentence referred to those connection to Germanic groups being actually real(even if intermixed) and not a geographical description.

Rome tended to make "rear alliance" with Barbarians against other Barbarians. The management of the Batavian war involved crushing Rhenan tribes with peoples coming from the hinterland of Germania and already pressuring southern Germania Celtic peoples since two centuries, a move certainly reinforced by the decline of Celtic ensemble in Germania, Norica and Bohemia, due to Roman conquest being structurally destabilizing.
Romania crushing and taking over Gaulish and overall continental Celtic political and cultural centers certainly had an effect, as well than enforcing among Germania's people a self-identification as Germans (it would, of course, be essentially true of limes peoples).

Did the Romans need to tell Germanic groups what they were? Didn't they at least have some sort of shared religions, obviously also language etc. kinda like the pre-Roman Gauls?

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, the "actually" in my sentence referred to those connection to Germanic groups being actually real(even if intermixed) and not a geographical description.

I understood that : and I still mean that making a distinction between "real" Germans if celtized and "Celts of Germania" can't be done, even if the distinction was actually relevant (which it was probably not, compared to the political distinction between Gaul and Germania)

Did the Romans need to tell Germanic groups what they were? Didn't they at least have some sort of shared religions, language etc. kinda like the pre-Roman Gauls?

It's an almost universal principle that self-identity depends partially from the neighbors perspective, especially if these are able to project their own perception onto the perceived. Again, I must point that language doesn't make an identity : Gauls shared a language, probably religious practices, oppida, etc. with their neighbors and they still didn't considered them as Gaulish nevertheless.
And when the local superpower is able to project its own identitarian notions and to influence on chiefdom institutions by virtually influencing on their evolution, it does have consequences : already declining from both Roman and northern Germanic pressure, Celtic quasi-Gallic had little structural strength on this regard /

Taking the example of pre-Roman Gaul : Druidism already declined in Gaul to the point virtually disappearing from its southern part even before the conquest due to Roman indirect influence and influence onto the evolution of vergobrets, a more mediterranean way-of-life being exported, rise of a militarized aristocracy, etc. since the IInd century BCE. It was quite a quick evolution because Rome kinda was a massive superpower with the cultural-political gravity equivalent to a blackhole's, while its northern neighbors (even when sophistically structured) simply did not.

 

[raharris1973]

Celtic oral culture is attested in 17th century Gloucestershire, 20th century Cheshire and Herefordshire and 21st century Shropshire, but I guess that's not what you mean. Cultural survival of wealas, who from context must be Welsh-speakers rather than slaves, is directly textually documented in 8th century Wessex and Northumbria. At a similar time important individuals in Wessex, Northumbria and Mercia had Celtic names, though the Northumbrians were primarily churchmen rather than aristocrats.

The latest significant Anglo-Saxon individual we know of who had a Celtic name was Earl Gospatrick, a name that contains Welsh gwas- "servant of", he was banished by William the Conqueror in the late 1070's if I remember correctly. He was from the far north of Northumbria though, and place name evidence shows the Britons of the north expanded southwards in the 10th and 11th centuries, showing a small-scale Celtic re-colonisation of Anglo-Saxon territory.

Thanks - super informative

Kunobelinos "hound of the god Bel" Tinkomaros "big fish" Karactakos "beloved" Tasgovanos "badger-(like?)" Cassiuellaunos "bronze(?)-chief" Boudicca "Victorious" Kartimandwa "Pony-(driver?)"

You know, in terms of sounds, number of syllables and endings with "-os" these "typical Celtic" words/names seem more similar to Greek and Lithuanian (and maybe Latin) than to anything Germanic or Slavic.

Of course after the Christianization of Germans and Anglo-Saxons alot of the words and names start to look really different. Pre-Christianization, Germanic and Slavic groups all seemed to have names ending in "-i" or "-ii"

Fimbulwinter

What's that?

 

[Brunaburh]

You know, in terms of sounds, number of syllables and endings with "-os" these "typical Celtic" words/names seem more similar to Greek and Lithuanian (and maybe Latin) than to anything Germanic or Slavic.

Of course after the Christianization of Germans and Anglo-Saxons alot of the words and names start to look really different. Pre-Christianization, Germanic and Slavic groups all seemed to have names ending in "-i" or "-ii"

Yeah, but it's worth remembering that all indoeuropean languages were 2000 years closer together at that point, so there would be more similarities, the Lithuanian thing is because Lithuanian is morphologically quite conservative.

 

[Sian]

The Normans seem to have been mostly an intrusive aristocracy inserting itself at the top of society. The Anglosaxons ppears to have been far more like a migration event, replacing every level of society. Genetic studies seem to show considerable replacement of Celtoromanic genes. Fairly speculative, but still.

Also, the Anglosaxons arrived in a land weakened and depopulated by the Fimbulwinter and the Plague. The Normans invaded a place with presumably considerably higher population density.

Finally, I am not sure how closely wedded the Normans were to French at the time. I could see them swear by Saint Balder. I would speculate that some may still have spoken Norse at home, which they probably shared with the Norse in the north of England at the time.

This fit what my understanding of events are ... Anglo-Saxon was more of an migration where large parts of the Anglo, Saxon (and Jute) communities pulled up roots and moved across, thralls and kings and everything inbetween. Compared to the Norman which was primarily the aristocracy changing, while the population largely stayed the same outside of the top

 

[LSCatilina]

You know, in terms of sounds, number of syllables and endings with "-os" these "typical Celtic" words/names seem more similar to Greek and Lithuanian (and maybe Latin) than to anything Germanic or Slavic.

That's essentially second case Nominative Sing, (and by the latter period, at least in Gaulish, it seems to turn in -o). Genitive singular is-ī not -ou, and while -oi is sometimes used instead of the expected --ū(i) in Dative Sing. from a greek influence,but that's phonologic.
First case seems to be closer to Greek in Sing. (especially for Cisalpine Gaulish) but is really different in plural.

What's that?

The harsh winter that precedes Ragnarok. There's tentatives to make it a remembrance of the cold winters of 535-536, and it's prbably how Umbral meant it, but I personally remain unconvinced by linking mythological features to historical events myself.
Anyway, Umbral meant that extreme wheater temperatures of the VIth may have crippled Britto-Roman communities but at this point they already collapsed into remains of military commands, municipal authorities and rural communities headed by landowning elites in the West, and relatively acephalic communities mixing with Germanic settlers since the late VIth.

It probably played a role, while not causal in creating Germanic migrations patterns it might have increased these settlements, as these patterns already existed : the Danish/Geatish pressure on Northern Europe is attested at this point.
As for the plague, I'm unsure why it's supposed to have touched Britto-Romans more harshly than Britto-Germans.