The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Anton]

Yes, my working assumption is that each polity acted as it thought was in its best interest.

[Imperial Dave]

touche.....

We will have none of that Frankish nonsense!

[Imperial Dave]

Polities, civitates and the like will have shrink in on themselves during the 5th century before expansion in the 6th century. Jealous guarding of these areas or spheres of interest would have necessitated boundaries

[aligern]

Fir once I would lije to disagree with Anton!
The archaeology of Eastern Britain and the DNA analyses show that the number of German invaders was small and that they soon incorporated Britons into their structure.  I suggest that the Wealhas question might be likened to the Arabisation of North Africa.  There were Africans who moved quickly to obtain sponsorship from arriving Arabs and there were those who stuck to being Berbers and maintaining tgeir own tradition.  The laws and organisation of the Caliphal state substantially disadvantaged , for exampke, Christians who did not convert, but advantaged those who did and it looks as though , despite the efforts of tge Arabs to remain distinct, they were intermingled in three generations.  I suggest that the same happened in England and South East Scotland, many Britons moved to become Saxons and the policing of contact would be difficult in small kingdoms with rudimentary  organisations.  Bronwen's a pretty girl, she hets an Anglian husband, her brother is tough and fit he joins the comitatus because Bronwen gets what she asks for. 
Where wealhas matter is in newly incorporated areas. So in Wessex the Western lands beyond Hampshire  would call for a regularisation of relationships, but I am not going to believe that the sane  writ runs in Surrey or Kent where most people cannot tell about their ancestry.  Restrictive laws might also hold in sutuations such as Derbyshire where British villages abd customs lasted longer.
Dark Age laws and royal pronouncements  are a better indication of what kings would like to happen, than what did happen.  People are people and they integrate relatively easily , especially when there is the incentive of discriminatory  legislation to overcome.
Maintaining difference was a major problem for the post Roman kings on the continent.  The Goths of both sorts tried to maintain an exclusive  religious distinction, but that eventually would break down and in England religion eventually united the communities.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

its another angle (sorry) to the conundrum but language is something we have skirted around thus far. Do we opt for the multi-language theory, the possible widespread proto germanic language in the SE or something else 

[Anton]

Fir once I would lije to disagree with Anton!
The archaeology of Eastern Britain and the DNA analyses show that the number of German invaders was small and that they soon incorporated Britons into their structure.  I suggest that the Wealhas question might be likened to the Arabisation of North Africa.  There were Africans who moved quickly to obtain sponsorship from arriving Arabs and there were those who stuck to being Berbers and maintaining tgeir own tradition.  The laws and organisation of the Caliphal state substantially disadvantaged , for exampke, Christians who did not convert, but advantaged those who did and it looks as though , despite the efforts of tge Arabs to remain distinct, they were intermingled in three generations.  I suggest that the same happened in England and South East Scotland, many Britons moved to become Saxons and the policing of contact would be difficult in small kingdoms with rudimentary  organisations.  Bronwen's a pretty girl, she hets an Anglian husband, her brother is tough and fit he joins the comitatus because Bronwen gets what she asks for. 
Where wealhas matter is in newly incorporated areas. So in Wessex the Western lands beyond Hampshire  would call for a regularisation of relationships, but I am not going to believe that the sane  writ runs in Surrey or Kent where most people cannot tell about their ancestry.  Restrictive laws might also hold in sutuations such as Derbyshire where British villages abd customs lasted longer.
Dark Age laws and royal pronouncements  are a better indication of what kings would like to happen, than what did happen.  People are people and they integrate relatively easily , especially when there is the incentive of discriminatory  legislation to overcome.
Maintaining difference was a major problem for the post Roman kings on the continent.  The Goths of both sorts tried to maintain an exclusive  religious distinction, but that eventually would break down and in England religion eventually united the communities.
Roy

We do mostly agree Roy, not on this one though.

Leaving aside Arabs and Berbers because we should in discussing Britannia.  Things are never really alike if we poke deeper.

I've no doubt that the Britons were incorporated into the new social structure.  The question is where in the pecking order?

Last time I looked the DNA evidence seemed to show Anglia as well, the Anglian heartland.

Oddly enough I was thinking about mixed marriages earlier.

Let's taken Bronwen and her husband.  What is the political/legal/ethnic  status of their children?  Had she married a Celt then his political identity is the one the kids inherited.  Full rights in the kindred.  I think that wasn't the case among the Germans of Britannia where ethnic membership was required from both parents.

Let's take the brother in law, he gets to join the Comitatus but with lower status as far as we can evidence.  We have not a shred of evidence for equal status.

The Wealhas laws were not for new territorial  acquisitions they were simply the law-everywhere.  I can think of nothing I've read that suggests otherwise.  I'd note that the Wealhas laws only appear when the Germans are firmly in control.

Woolf thinks they operated in all the German Kingdoms including Northumbria and Kent.

It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives.  Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them.  Laws also generated income.  It was all serious stuff.

[Imperial Dave]

I am inclined to agree, social standing was everything. The other point is that a 'foreigner' is basically anyone not of your social/ethnic/tribal grouping so in theory other Germanics could be included in this and might help explain the 'enclaves' of Saxons/Angles/Frisians/Jutes etc We only really get a glimpse of what this means in the late 7th with Ine's laws but by then foreigner may have come to reflect Briton speaking early Welsh versus A-S speaking early English 

[Jim Webster]

It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives.  Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them.  Laws also generated income.  It was all serious stuff.

When looking at law, the rule you get from historians of the Roman Empire is that the more often the law is repeated, the more frequently it was ignored, hence the need to repeat it.

With regard to warriors joining a comitas, we see in Beowulf, warriors were accepted from other peoples.
After all, everybody is expected to die if you do.

Also if you raised Bronwen's mythical brother to the full status of a Saxon, you could expect from him the full duties of a Saxon.

[Imperial Dave]

we will not know but perhaps there was a transition period....prove yourself etc or 2nd generation etc

[Erpingham]

It seems to me that we have hit a bit of a fault line.  Stephen seems to me to envisage a much more ethnically coherent Adventus than others, who see something more freeform, where a Saxon/Anglian/Jute leader may have a comitatus which is a coalition of the capable, be they Frisians, Franks or half-breed Britons.  We do know where it ends up - that those who still are culturally distinctive wealas become second class citizens.  I still wonder whether, though, in that early period, your genetic ancestry was the only thing that mattered.

[Imperial Dave]

we do have multiple situations and differences across Britannia depending on where we are looking. We have to take into account pre existing foederati who in all probability became over time the 'dominant' social grouping where they were settled and 'pulled' in Britons into their orbit and all BEFORE any assumed Adventus and breakup of the political landscape in the late 4th to mid 5th. A nominal Romano-British elite controlling those areas could easily get absorbed or replaced in time. Other areas become 'taken over' in a more rapid process during the 5th when post Roman control has ceded to local rulers/councils. With little to fear from Roman mobile field armies, take overs would be easier in these areas potentially. Again in the west there is an allusion to Irish foederati which in time goes the reverse way and gets 'reabsorbed' by Roman-British polities. The North is a real frontier area and so this is the one I struggle with mostly but see it as Romano-British in outlook for the main with 'loyal' foederati in the early period only giving way to opportunistic take overs in the 6th

[Anton]

It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives.  Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them.  Laws also generated income.  It was all serious stuff.

When looking at law, the rule you get from historians of the Roman Empire is that the more often the law is repeated, the more frequently it was ignored, hence the need to repeat it.

With regard to warriors joining a comitas, we see in Beowulf, warriors were accepted from other peoples.
After all, everybody is expected to die if you do.

Also if you raised Bronwen's mythical brother to the full status of a Saxon, you could expect from him the full duties of a Saxon.

I do not think raising was easily accomplished Jim.  The clue is in the word raising.  In the normal course of life men would transgress against each other and compensation would be due. 

A Saxon who transgressed against Bronwen's brother knows he has to pay.  Them's the rules-no problem.  He would not feel he has to pay the Saxon rate to a Wealh- that is not just.   So dissent in the comitatus.  A comitatus whose prime function is taking territory from the Wealh.  That seems problematic to me.

Specifically though, we have no evidence at all of anyone changing core ethnicity and a fair bit showing that it didn't happen.  If we apply the "Arthur Test" we wouldn't even consider it.

[Anton]

It seems to me that we have hit a bit of a fault line.  Stephen seems to me to envisage a much more ethnically coherent Adventus than others, who see something more freeform, where a Saxon/Anglian/Jute leader may have a comitatus which is a coalition of the capable, be they Frisians, Franks or half-breed Britons.  We do know where it ends up - that those who still are culturally distinctive wealas become second class citizens.  I still wonder whether, though, in that early period, your genetic ancestry was the only thing that mattered.

We have Anthony.

We can clearly see evidence of co-operation in the early period.  So to answer your question your "genetic ancestry" didn't matter because you were allies involved in a joint enterprise.  Mutually respecting or at least tolerating each others cultural and social systems for the good of the cause.  That there would be "half breeds" resulting is not in question.  I can think of a rather famous one and can say he was not awarded a new ethnic status.  Such progeny had to have a legal status and such evidence as we have informs my view of how it worked.

[Anton]

we do have multiple situations and differences across Britannia depending on where we are looking. We have to take into account pre existing foederati who in all probability became over time the 'dominant' social grouping where they were settled and 'pulled' in Britons into their orbit and all BEFORE any assumed Adventus and breakup of the political landscape in the late 4th to mid 5th. A nominal Romano-British elite controlling those areas could easily get absorbed or replaced in time. Other areas become 'taken over' in a more rapid process during the 5th when post Roman control has ceded to local rulers/councils. With little to fear from Roman mobile field armies, take overs would be easier in these areas potentially. Again in the west there is an allusion to Irish foederati which in time goes the reverse way and gets 'reabsorbed' by Roman-British polities. The North is a real frontier area and so this is the one I struggle with mostly but see it as Romano-British in outlook for the main with 'loyal' foederati in the early period only giving way to opportunistic take overs in the 6th

Yes, things were different in the various constituent parts of Britannia and it is important to keep that in mind.

My first question would be where were the pre-existing feoderati?  Second how do we know they were there? Solving that would take us somewhere.

The Irish are easier to see.  They are clearly in Britannia with Roman permission.  They enjoy certain advantages in terms of relations with the British.   They are Christian, they speak more or less the same language as the Britons and so both can understand the other, they have pretty much the same underlying legal, social and cultural package.  They are also  invested in the' kings system' emerging amongst the Britons.  They do merge into the local population, some sooner than others but it takes generations before they all do so.

Further to your point on the different Germanic groups, they to can understand the other and have pretty much the same underlying legal, social and cultural package. I think that is quite important in the early period.

[Jim Webster]

I do not think raising was easily accomplished Jim.  The clue is in the word raising.  In the normal course of life men would transgress against each other and compensation would be due. 

A Saxon who transgressed against Bronwen's brother knows he has to pay.  Them's the rules-no problem.  He would not feel he has to pay the Saxon rate to a Wealh- that is not just.   So dissent in the comitatus.  A comitatus whose prime function is taking territory from the Wealh.  That seems problematic to me.

Specifically though, we have no evidence at all of anyone changing core ethnicity and a fair bit showing that it didn't happen.  If we apply the "Arthur Test" we wouldn't even consider it.

The problem with wergild is that was we don't know how formalised it was in Britain in our period. I've come across this,  A Lifeʼs Worth: Reexamining th: Reexamining Wergild in the Anglo-Saxon Royal Law Codes (c. 600-1035)

The 600AD is because the Kentish laws were probably written then. Whilst they might have codified existing practice, they might also have instituted new practice but we cannot take them as a guide to a period two centuries previously.