Rheged in Galloway

[Anton]

Thanks Duncan.

[Imperial Dave]

slightly OT, but that article mentions Procopius stating that Britons were settling in Brittany along with Angles and Frisians. Not read that before. Not sure whether that means 'together' or in separate groups or in conflict or not....

[Patrick Waterson]

Intriguingly, Justin previously covered much of this in forum discussion and a Slingshot article.

[Duncan Head]

slightly OT, but that article mentions Procopius stating that Britons were settling in Brittany along with Angles and Frisians. Not read that before. Not sure whether that means 'together' or in separate groups or in conflict or not....

What Procopius says is:

Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia.

So Brittany/Armorica is not named, but inferred from the presence of Britons. See http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/procop.htm for discussion of names.

Presumably the groups are not "in conflict", since P says they're all being settled under Frankish patronage. Compare Gregory of Tours for the Saxones Bajocassini settled in Normandy

[Imperial Dave]

again, slightly OT, I did read in Dark's Civitas to Kingdom that there is a suggestion that inhabitants of (mainly lowland) Britain in the 5th/6th/7th C could be grouped together as 'Saxons' in the widest term but encompasing all sub nationalities including native Britons. ie a political grouping

Just a thought as the Procopius passage seems to imply specific 'nationalities' - an interesting notion. Were the Saxons more federate and the Angles/Jutes less so or the other way around. Always intrigued me why Saxons is a common term but we end up with Angles/English

[Duncan Head]

I wonder if Procopius' "Frisians" might be other authors' "Saxons"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii suggests that the ancient Frisian population collapsed, as a result of Roman deportations plus rising sea levels, and by the 5th century Frisia was practically depopulated. Then

As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii.

Doesn't explain the later preference for Anglian over Saxonish, but might help reconcile various listings of migrant nations.

[Andreas Johansson]

Hm. Whoever wrote the WP piece doesn't think Prokopios' note counts as a mention of the ancient Frisians, because of the unreliability of some of his other data on "Brittia". But presumably the remnant populations attested archaeologically (The 6C is before the time given for the arrival of the "new Frisians") must have been known by some name(s) and "Frisii" seems the obvious candidate.

But I guess it's entirely possible that Prokopios was archaicizing, figuring that whatever Greek version of "Frisians" he was using could be applied to the Saxons of his day just like how "Scythians" could be applied to latter steppe nomads of whatever ethnic origin.

[Anton]

I tend to the view that in the longer term the Anglian polities succeeded in Britannia while the Saxon ones failed to prosper. So we end up with 'Angland' rather than some Saxon inspired name.

The Celtic practice of calling all Germanic communities Saxons muddies the waters as does the eventual rise of Wessex. From what we can see it seems to me that the protracted conquest of Britannia was mainly an Anglian achievement emanating out of East Anglia.

[aligern]

Interesting, as it is Wessex that ultimately triumphs and unifies the country. Anglian kings only acheive primus inter pares status, with other states as tributary. Wessex gets to be the site of the political capital and when the Danes attack again it is Wessex that hold out longest and is the heart of the kingdom in 1066.
My suggested theory is that the move to the use of England and English is a smart move by Alfred the Great, who needed to bring English Mercia on board and hence flattered the Mercians by giving them primacy in language and naming the hew nation that Alfred intended. At the time east Anglia was held by Danes, as was Deira and the five boroughs dominated Danish Mercia so there was no political strength in the Angles, but the accession of English Mercia made Wessex the strongest power in the island and the price Alfred willingly paid for that was 'naming rights'.
Roy

[Duncan Head]

My suggested theory is that the move to the use of England and English is a smart move by Alfred the Great

Surely the usage is already established by Bede's Historia Ecclesisatica Gentis Anglorum,and his use of phrases such as "ab aduentu uero Anglorum in Brittaniam". The most Alfred did is not try to change it.

[aligern]

Bede was an Anglian writing in an Anglian kingdom. What any theory of Angle and Saxon as rival names has to account for is why one group or the other would dominate...or at least  its nane and language label would stand for the whole.  At the monent I do not see that this unifying action occurred before the post Great Army settlement. By what mechanism sm would successful Wessex become Anglian?
Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

Do we know when Continental languages started using "England", "Angleterre", etc. for the whole?

[Imperial Dave]

drifted slightly off topic but I am more than interested in this 

[Duncan Head]

Bede was an Anglian writing in an Anglian kingdom. What any theory of Angle and Saxon as rival names has to account for is why one group or the other would dominate...or at least  its nane and language label would stand for the whole.  At the monent I do not see that this unifying action occurred before the post Great Army settlement. By what mechanism sm would successful Wessex become Anglian?

For your theory to work, you would need to demonstrate a difference in usage between Anglian and Saxon regions pre-Alfred. Can you? Bede was read throughout England, so I see no reason at the moment to doubt that his usage was common.

[Anton]

Just for the fun of it, looking at the list of Bretwalda a pattern emerges.

Aelle of the South Saxons is thought a likely candidate for the losing side at Badon.  Presumably he was a Saxon. Sussex never becomes a major kingdom.

Ceawlin of Wessex, grandson of Cerdic. He is a leader of Saxons otherwise the Cerdic story would not have survived. Then again, I'd say talk of Wessex is premature until the laws of Ine, and Ceawlin like his father and grandfather was leading an Atrebate successor state with a Saxon component tied to the royal house.

Aethelberht of Kent leads an unusual kingdom according to the sources. A Jutish military aristocracy emerges from a foedus with Votigern.  Kent is contested by its original possessors, hammered by Cerdic and his immediate successors and seems to have accepted Frankish over lordship.  It never becomes a major kingdom. Was Aethelberht a Saxon or a Jute?

Raedwald of East Anglia is the first Anglian Bretwalda and seems to have exercised considerable power.  It is from Raedwald's realm that Mercia and Northumbria eventually come into being.

Edwin, Oswald and Oswiu of Northumbria are all Anglian Bretwalda. 

On the face of it this is a story of Anglian achievement.  I'd imagine all of the Germanic communities were very aware of what had happened.

Wessex only comes to the fore when every other Kingdom had collapsed before the Danish onslaught and well after the contest with the British for the ownership of lowland Britain was settled.