Arthurian Britain annoyances

[Ianofsmeg16]

D'you know what really gets me annoyed? Watching "seven ages of britain" on discovery and its about the peiod between 410-1066, and its getting me so angry at the fact that they seem to think the saxons walked in, waved a sword and the britons all went back to wales, as a guy whos working on an Arthurian period mod i know quite a bit of history on this period and the britons certainly put up a fight for a long time.
So why do people, respected historians, still belive that the britons were a pushover?

[gmjapan]

I think they are making their assumptions heavily influenced by todays Britons who just want a cup of tea, a biscuit and a good moan! And its usually a moan of how others are guiding the development of the world, without actually doing anything about it themselves, apart from moan. ;)

But I agree, after watching a bunch of docs I was left with the impression they basically said a collective "sod it" and exited from history. It wasnt until recently (like last 2yrs) that I was surprised to learn Britons were a mix of thriving and fighting communities and not just waiting for a conquorer(sp?) to bring them civilisation of any description. Which was also from a documentary.

Maybe you should pen a script for such a programme to set the record straight(er)...

[English assassin]

I'm surprised that anyone feels confident enough to say what happened to the Britons for sure. AFAIK its not even proved very clearly one way or the other whether the Britons left England (either by forcible migration or being killed) or whether they stayed more or less where they were, and the Anglo Saxons lived along side them and intermarried, and it was only Saxon culture that became dominant.

Rather in the way that when the Romans came the population stayed more or less the same but the Roman culture was widely adopted.

In fact the last I read was more in favour of the intermarriage/culture option.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The Romano Britons did put up a hell of a fight against the Saxons. The most damaging thing that happened to the Roman British cause was when a meeting was taken place between three hundred Saxons and Britons where there were to be no weapons of any kind but the Saxons all held knifes in their boots and at the meeting they massacred the Britsh Nobles which seriously damaged the organisation afterwards. Ambrosius' father was proabaly killed in this incident around the year 456.

The late 450s and 60's saw the mass migration of the nobility to armonica. Also for numbers wise the Britsh were severly dealt a blow when a 12,000 man force under Riothamus was wiped out in battle against Euric, the Visigothic king in aid of the Western Roman emperor, Anthemius, and the survivors, including Riothamus, vanished and were never heard from, again.

A generation of peace ensues between the 490's till 550's but Corrupt leadership, more civil turmoil and individual apathy further erode Romano-British culture over next fifty years, making Britain ripe for final Saxon "picking."

The West country, Wales, Cornwall, Devon and in the north at Cumbria , Strathclyde and Elmet were strong areas of Romano Britsh culture even after the saxon dominace but many of the nobles immigrated to Brittany, and maybe even parts of Ireland and Northern Spain maybe Galicia

[Agraes]

Well, after reading some french historians like Léon Fleuriot, it appears that migration in Brittany was more a 'conquest' than an exile. Briton dynasties from Dumonia and Dyfet were settled in 2 kingdoms : Domnonée and Cornouailles (in Breton Kernev), that split latter with the Bro-Erec (after the name of it's first king, Waroch or Erec, 'the land of Erec') in the eastern part, around Darioritum, actualy Vannes. The ancient civitas of the gaulish tribes of the Ossismi and Veneti have been settled by Britons since Maximus Magnus took the throne of the Western Empire with his British Legions, then killed by the Eastern Empire who let the Britons to defent Northern Gaul, including Western Armorica - that will be Brittany.
In 495-497 (it is also believed to be the date of the great victory of Arthur against the Saxon, Badon Hill), Britons were allowed by Clovis to keep their territories in the civitas ossismi and veneti, plus in the civitas coriosoliti. The dynasty of Budic, under the protection of Aircol Lawhir, king of Dyfed was settled in the civitas ossismi and veneti, and the dynasty of Riwall/Riwallon in civitas coriosoliti, what will became Domnonée, after the name of the insular kingdom of Dumnonia/Domnonia/Dyfneint, actually Devon and Cornwall.
Bretons kingdoms were an important part of the Britons one in general, as we can see, the powerful Urien of Rheged send troops to help his ally Tewdrig of Kernev against Waroch.

Cities of Rennes and Nantes will remain Frankish until the unrest of Nominoé and his son Erispoé (who will became king of Brittany), against Charles le Chauve around 845 AD.

Note also that the advance of the Saxons was not as quick as believed. Importants kingdoms don't fell until the VIIth century, such as Gododdin, or Rheged. The weakeness of the Britons was in their lack of union (except at the time of Arthur, as I believe - it is only hypothesis) : Urien and all his allies were on the point to destruct the Bernicians Angles (that will became Northumbria) when he was assassined by Morcant Bulc of Bryneich... and Britons kings such as Dunaut Bwr of Penines or Gwallawc Marchawc Trin of Elmet attacked Urien's son, Owein, and it was the end of North Rheged as a strong power.
Briton kings have also the use to split the kingdoms between their sons... this implies weakened kingdoms...

Not sure thought, but I have read that London only felt to Saxons in 568... after the first pandemy of black plague (537).

[Incongruous]

To say that it was merely a cultural takeover would be a sevre understatment.
The entire Jutish population had to flee due to an increasingly inhosbittable homeland. David Starkey writes that in recent DNA surveys in the midlands and the east over 90% of the male population was displaced. These people were not merely warbands but settlers looking for land, they were obliged to force the natives out. It is estimated that about 200,000 Saxons Angles and Jutes flooded into Britain within the first fiftey of so years. Also, the cultural assimilation of which so many speak deos not make sense, for on the mainland Germanics took to native Roman ways by learning Latin and keeping local offices and cities in tact, in "England" no such occurance took place, the Germanic settlers replaced the official language with Old English, on the mainland Germano-Romans appeared, a society which championed the idea of a Christian Rome. In England the Germanics did away with the religion and laws.
I have read peices about cultural assimilation, yet thay are backed up with weak evidence such as Celtic curves appearing on manuscripts, compared to the veidence against this, its a weak link.
Then what about Offas Dyke? What is that construction of wim? Its more a symbol telling the Britons of Wales that they no longer hold Britain and they are now the Barbarians. Bede makes no mention of large British populations intermingling with the Germanics, yet he deos make refreance to the peoples of the English Kingdoms and makes no mention of any Celtics.
Then there is Gildas, even he deos not show any sign that the British held onto their land, he lements the loss of his ancestral homelands.
I see no real argument either from modern day findings or Historical records.

Why these Germanic peoples acted so differently to their mainland bretheren may be due to the fact that the Britains were no push over like you said the last British Kingdom (Elmet) in what was to become England did not fall untile the end of the 570's.

[Meneldil]

If you want to know what really happened during the Arthurian age, you'd better watch the Kaamelott french TV-Series. That's 200% historicaly accurate, and really give you a taste of how life was back then