Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-09 > 1189358617

From: "John Briggs" <>
Subject: Re: Brits vs. Normans [was Re: Why This Continuing Loony InfatuationBy The British With Diana?]
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:23:37 GMT
References: <jrXDi.305$><46e04d4a$0$662$><><46e05bff$0$656$><><><><><nqGEi.53924$><><>

Christopher Ingham wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:52 pm, David <> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 6:41 pm, "Martin" <> wrote:
>>> [T]he 'English' have been since
>>> Roman times, a mixture of people from all across the Roman Empire,
>>> Celts, Saxons, Francs, Belgae, Huns, Picts and whatever else you
>>> can think of.
>> Probably not a whole lot of Huns. Probably mostly a
>> Celt-Angle-Danish mixture.
> Not to mention the pre-Celtic substratum.

Let's not mention it :-)

>> The Roman element can never have been very thick on the ground; there
>> was never a native "Britanno-Romance" language comparable to Gallo-
>> Romance, Ibero-Romance and other dialects of late Latin....Roman
>> Britain would have been a place where the vast majority of people
>> spoke British Celtic, with a few Latin-speaking soldiers and
>> administrators....
> Hardly any of the Roman soldiers ever spoke Latin, as they were
> drafted from the provinces. Especially during the later empire the
> administrators too were more likely to be speakers of Germanic
> dialects.

That's probably completely untrue - the 'lingua franca' would have been
Latin (except in the Eastern Empire, where everyone spoke Greek - including
Pontius Pilate, but that's another argument...)
John Briggs

This thread: