Anglo-Saxon invasion - fact or fiction?

[Geronimo2006]

Tradition (starting with Gildas and Bede) holds that the native English are descended from Germanic invaders called Anglo-Saxons. However a few historians are now calling this into question. They argue that while the language did change, this was because of changes in fashion rather than war. What do you believe to be the truth?

Francis Pryor, in the BBC documentary below, argues acculturation rather than invasion was the reason. He mentions conflicting DNA evidence. Mark Thomas of the University of London says 50-100% of the British population was replaced with Anglo-Saxons. But he also mentions another team of geneticists in the same department concluded the British DNA has not been completely replaced in the south and east of England. Also referenced is research by Dominic Powlesland of the remains of a 5th century Yorkshire village of Westheslerton where studies of the teeth indicate they were born in Britain.

Pryor also suggests Bede may have had an agenda of presenting the Britons as losing the land out of unworthiness of it.

Which version do you believe? Was there an Anglo-Saxon invasion, or did the Britons just adopt Germanic culture, like some African cultures r.g. Somalia adopted (at least partially) Arabic without being invaded?

I still lean to the invasion theory. But this documentary I saw yesterday has made me less certain.

[Ecthelion]

Tradition (starting with Gildas and Bede) holds that the native English are descended from Germanic invaders called Anglo-Saxons. However a few historians are now calling this into question. They argue that while the language did change, this was because of changes in fashion rather than war. What do you believe to be the truth?

Francis Pryor, in the BBC documentary below, argues acculturation rather than invasion was the reason. He mentions conflicting DNA evidence. Mark Thomas of the University of London says 50-100% of the British population was replaced with Anglo-Saxons. But he also mentions another team of geneticists in the same department concluded the British DNA has not been completely replaced in the south and east of England. Also referenced is research by Dominic Powlesland of the remains of a 5th century Yorkshire village of Westheslerton where studies of the teeth indicate they were born in Britain.

Pryor also suggests Bede may have had an agenda of presenting the Britons as losing the land out of unworthiness of it.

Which version do you believe? Was there an Anglo-Saxon invasion, or did the Britons just adopt Germanic culture, like some African cultures r.g. Somalia adopted (at least partially) Arabic without being invaded?

I still lean to the invasion theory. But this documentary I saw yesterday has made me less certain.

All this proves is that modern historians have run out of fresh plausible ideas and instead resort to beating dead horses in a way that makes them seem less dead.

If you actually take their theory at face value, you will have to assume that an entire population of Romano-Celts learned a completely foreign language, presumably at their own initiative, and then completely forgot their native Celtic/Latin, then renamed everything in a Germanic language.

No, the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain is pretty solid historical fact. They were initially called to Britain as replacements for the legions to defend the population against the Picts, then, as mercenaries often do, they turned on the Romano-Celts and took over the country.

A similar event happened during the early days of Valentinian I when the Picts, Saxons and Franks collectively invaded Britainnia and took over the island for a few years. Theodosius I's father was sent in to retake the island, which he did with relative ease.

[caratacus]

The frustrating thing about this time in Dark Ages, is that we don't have any good accounts apart from Bede to refer to. And depending on a historical record of events of someone who didn't travel much beyond the confines of a monastery and who was born many years after the events, is far from ideal.

It is open to many theories but the long standing idea that a unified Briton was conquered by some great invasion of Germanic people from Europe who swept from east to west, has pretty much been been revised totally. There was an incursion but it wasn't a coordinated invasion like the Norman conquest and probably took place in stages over a number of generations.

Another preconception was that Britons simply returned to its pre-Roman tribal identity after the Roman army was pulled out. Like many parts of the Empire it had been changed fundamentally by Roman rule and large numbers of people had settled in Briton from elsewhere, a large proportion of which were of Germanic origin. The biggest clue to the lack of a widespread genocidal event, is the frequency of Celtic place names on the map which notably includes many of England's rivers.

The Roman empire crumbled away in Britain, and the resultant break down in social order probably initiated a state of anarchy and the formation of various tribal kingdoms to try and establish stability. This breakdown in social unity was exploited by Anglo Saxons who settled in various areas through force of arms but which also acted as a stabilizing military influence. Their influence gradually spread into other areas through military conquest but their cultural influence cannot be dismissed. Roman rule maintained cohesion through its army but it also had extensive trading network and the absence of that trading link with the continent must have been a huge blow to the people of Britain. The Anglo Saxons brought both military protection but also cultural and trading links to continental Europe and that must have been an attractive prospect to people having to live by that time, a very frugal existence in comparison with what had happened before.

The Anglo Saxons were not simply bloody thirsty savages but had an advanced society which would not have been completely alien or hostile to large numbers of people already living in Britain. Living amongst them offered a more secure and prosperous existence than living in fortified huts in a constant state of war with your neighbours or Pictish or Irish invaders, which what appears to be going on at this time, especially in the West and the North. Military conquest certainly did take place but it wasn't simply a vast army of Saxons against a unified army of Britons under the leadership of an Arthurian figure. The Saxons subsequently developed their own kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria etc And I'm sure their initial history in England would have been any different. With conflict sometimes developing between groups of Saxons as much as against groups of Britons but with overall less social division and warfare.

With the fall of Roman rule people would have welcomed belonging to a strong group. If that group spoke a Germanic tongue and you were required to do likewise and adopt their ways, this is a lesser concern if the option is constant warfare and starvation. The Saxons favoured areas with good soils and probably brought their farming practices to areas in which the system of farming had previously depended upon slave labour which no doubt would have collapsed along with the fall of the Empire. People gravitate towards winners not losers, once the Saxons had established a strong foothold in England the tipping point to their cultural dominance was probably assured in the wake of Rome's absence in areas that did not retain a particularly strong Celtic identity.

[clandestino]

DNA suggests that most of England is genetically distant from Wales and Scotland and closely related to continental Germanic and in lesser extant to Scandinavian Germanic people. Couple of years ago when genetics still operated with macro-haplogroups like R1b genetic results were '' suggesting '' that there aren't much difference 'tween British Celts and Germanics, however since than R1b has been decomposed into several quite distant subgroups which has shown that Celtic R1b-L21 and English R1b-U 106 are separated for thousands of years and that most of English Y DNA haplogroups is most similar to other Germanic people.
Pretty correctly shown here:

[Aru]

Looking at genetics while searching for proofs of cultural and political events suggests that one believes those events included genocide. Why would invasion of Britain by mainland Germanics be either proven or rejected by genetics? Is it not possible for a country to be conquered without whole (at least male) population murdered? Is it not possible for genetic makeup of territory to change due to peaceful migration? What do politics, culture and language have to do with genetics at all? Rhetorical question.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I should mention that genetically, the modern British are closest to the Ancient Romans (the Romanians are closest in language, the Greeks in culture, and the Italians just have dibbs on it.)

The collapse of Roman Britain was a slow process, very similar to what can be seen in Noricum in the Life of St. Severinus, with the slow collapse of the Danube frontier after the death of Aetius. I mean, 27,000 Limitanei don't just disappear overnight.

Guy Halsall shows through archaeological finds the collapse of Roman authority between 420-450. In a nutshell, archaeological finds show that south of the Thames, in Cornwall, and up the Eastern side to about the region of Mold (conveniently enough as it is known Germanus of Auxerre commanded British Limitanei in a battle there) was under the central authority in Londinium until about 440, after which those Regions break away and become more like city states, and the Roman government in London continues to control the area south of the Thames to the coast until just after 450.

Litauia (A Government in Wales from roughly the 430's but first attested in 451) was known to have maintained contact with the Roman state, even sending troops to fight in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, according to Gregory of Tours and Jordanes (Fleuriot, The Britons, 2007). The Aremoriciani also maintained contacts with Britain well into the 470's.

It would therefore be reasonable to say that portions of Britain wished to stay in contact with the Roman state well into the 450's. Maybe Aetius sent some sort of response to the "Groans of the Britain" to maintain political and military support from it for his position and as a potential ally against Barbarians, or with hopes of reclaiming it even (which would have been impossible without a fleet though.)

Robert Vermaat could explain the collapse of Roman Britain in more detail.

[Cyclops]

I think the Romans settled retired soldiers away from their homelands. I imagine in the 4th and 5th century lots of Saxons and Angles and Jutes got settled in Britannia. I think the settled soldiers were high status individuals and came to control access to trade and elite social status in South and east Britain. I think thats enough to motivate the British to adopt a measure of Germanic identity.

In Ireland in the 19th century social changes led to the mass abandonment of Irish in favour of English. This seems to have been sparked by the famine (and is often linked to a loss of faith in "the old ways") but I imagine the opportunity to work or live in English speaking countries was a big spur. Combine the two motivations and you get lots of people leaving and the remnants mostly adopting the English language. Within forty years of the famine there were socities forming to save Irish from extinction, so rapid was the decline.

I think the necessity of having suitable genealogies as part of elite Germanic culture that spanned the channel to points both north and south of the Rhine meant people had to adopt a Germanic identity. Once you had a Germanic pedigree you could attract warriors and merchants who admired that pedigree. Speaking the language (or one of several Germanic dialects) would a be a must.

I have no evidence for this, its mostly guess work but there's some suggestive hints about acculturation. For example the founder of the house of Wessex has (or was given by chroniclers) a British name.

I think something similar happens with the Norse. They hit hard and leave a genetic imprint, but no-ones suggesting they emptied Man or genocided Dublin. Indeed the Irish and Saxon systems accomodated the invaders quickly, although the various Anglish and Saxon dialects were affected by the Norse tongue strongly enough to produce a new language.

I also think the Germanic system produced warriors capable of supporting polities in a way the receding Roman one did not (especially when pretenders split with the rermaining garrison troops). The areas of Britain that were most de-tribalised seem to be the most Germanised ones. I think the bits of Britain with some sort of remnant or intact tribal structure were able to "man up" on their own terms, continuing Insular traditions of gathering around a chief to fight, instead of adopting a Germanic system of gathering around a chief to fight.

[Aru]

I should mention that genetically, the modern British are closest to the Ancient Romans

I expect you have a relevant genetic sample of significant number of people from the vast areas of Roman empire spread across three continents and through 6 centuries of it's domination around Mediterranean and Western Europe and you have compared it with genetics of modern Britons, coming to such conclusion?

[Cyclops]

Looking at genetics while searching for proofs of cultural and political events suggests that one believes those events included genocide. Why would invasion of Britain by mainland Germanics be either proven or rejected by genetics? Is it not possible for a country to be conquered without whole (at least male) population murdered? Is it not possible for genetic makeup of territory to change due to peaceful migration? What do politics, culture and language have to do with genetics at all? Rhetorical question.

Some genetic studies do cast interesting lights on the subject. For example in Iceland I believe much of the mitochondrial DNA (from the mother's line only) suggests Irish heritage, whereas much of the the Y chromosome material suggests Nordic heritage. This fits a picture of sex-crazed Vikings abducting comely Irish maidens and heading off to the "Norse frontier" away from greedy Scandinavian cheiftans (eniched by the growing Atlantic tade cycle) who polygamously bought up all available Norse women.

I do agree the genetic studies are usually unclear though. How can you tell if DNA was contributed by rape, or just being really good looking? If a whole lot of people die in a plague or starve because the fail to adapt to a post imperial economic envirnment, or are out-bred by hardier simple fok from the hills, is that genocide?

[Aru]

Iceland was populated only recently. Yes, it's interesting to find that out about it, but it is not relevant in places that received wave after wave of immigrants for ten thousand years at least. Current genetic makeup of any (non-isolated) populated place can hardly be attributed to one or two famous events which happened in period of under 1 century.

[clandestino]

I should mention that genetically, the modern British are closest to the Ancient Romans (the Romanians are closest in language, the Greeks in culture, and the Italians just have dibbs on it.)

Couldn't disagree more...

[Diocle]

Robert Vermaat could explain the collapse of Roman Britain in more detail.

Wow! ... who is this man?

Could you post a link to the historical books written and published by this guy about Ancient Britain? Or maybe just the name of the British University in which he teaching Ancient and Medieval History? ... Thanks a lot!

Couldn't disagree more...

Yes, also I, of course.
... but you should consider that we are just two standard common human beings, instead He talks inspired by God Himself, He doesn't need sources, texts and numbers, because He knows the Truth so, we, common human beings, we cannot compete with Him and His revealed Truth! It's a religious matter, you know..


Now returning to the real world, I suggest the reading of Peter Heather's 'Empires and Barbarians' where what happened in Britain is explained in a pretty convincing way, Heather thinks that the Invasion was a real mass migration and not just a case of substitution of the elites, Heater examinates the structure of the ownership of the lands and its radical changes after the Saxon Invasion, read it if you have the occasion, it's not coming from the Sky, but it's a good historical book.

[Roma_Victrix]

If you actually take their theory at face value, you will have to assume that an entire population of Romano-Celts learned a completely foreign language, presumably at their own initiative, and then completely forgot their native Celtic/Latin, then renamed everything in a Germanic language.

Hmm...whereas the Celtic tongue certainly fell out of vogue amongst the conquered Britons under Anglo-Saxon kings, Latin continued to be immensely important in Anglo-Saxon Britain for its obvious administrative utility. In fact, it was the preeminent written language of administration and law in that realm at that time, with documents written in Old English coming in at second place. Bede, for example, being the ecclesiastic man that he was, wrote his landmark history in Latin. It was expected that his learned Anglo-Saxon contemporaries would understand it effortlessly. Of course, it was no longer the common tongue, but like elsewhere in Europe it was the language of high culture and the educated elite.

I assume you already know this. However, it's a good reminder for any n00bs lurking here who aren't familiar with the Middle Ages. Hell, for that matter, Latin remained the preeminent language of communication across Early Modern Europe even while French nipped at its heels in aristocratic circles.

@Clandestino: that map of Y-DNA haplogroups is fascinating and revealing for so many reasons. Look at the difference not only between northern and southern Italy, but also the similarity of southern Italy and Sicily with Asia Minor (i.e. Turkey). Aside from most of England, Western Europe (including the Isle of Corsica and the Balearic Islands) is one big solid chunk, while Germany is a giant hodgepodge of different genetic influences as I've always suspected. I'm actually surprised to see only the northernmost part of the country as being significantly impacted by Nordic genes. It seems like I1 (Northern Proto Europeans) and R1b U106 (North European Eurasians) are very mixed in northern Germany, Denmark, and the southwestern Norway and Sweden, but that "true" Germans are the North European Eurasian type, by way of covering most of the territory of what is now Germany (plus the Netherlands).

If one is to fully trust this map and population survey, it would be pretty clear to see England's obvious genetic link with both the I1 and R1b U106 types found in Germany and the Nordic countries. However, as it should be expected, this heavy Germanic influence is mixed with the original population of Britons. I think the Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule adopted their Germanic tongue not only because their new rulers spoke it, but also because a significant amount of their new neighbors and those in positions of authority also spoke it. In that case, it is clear to see the advantages of adoption over sticking to a Celtic language that didn't allow you to advance up the social ladder.

[Ecthelion]

Hmm...whereas the Celtic tongue certainly fell out of vogue amongst the conquered Britons under Anglo-Saxon kings, Latin continued to be immensely important in Anglo-Saxon Britain for its obvious administrative utility. In fact, it was the preeminent written language of administration and law in that realm at that time, with documents written in Old English coming in at second place. Bede, for example, being the ecclesiastic man that he was, wrote his landmark history in Latin. It was expected that his learned Anglo-Saxon contemporaries would understand it effortlessly. Of course, it was no longer the common tongue, but like elsewhere in Europe it was the language of high culture and the educated elite.

I assume you already know this. However, it's a good reminder for any n00bs lurking here who aren't familiar with the Middle Ages. Hell, for that matter, Latin remained the preeminent language of communication across Early Modern Europe even while French nipped at its heels in aristocratic circles.

@Clandestino: that map of Y-DNA haplogroups is fascinating and revealing for so many reasons. Look at the difference not only between northern and southern Italy, but also the similarity of southern Italy and Sicily with Asia Minor (i.e. Turkey). Aside from most of England, Western Europe (including the Isle of Corsica and the Balearic Islands) is one big solid chunk, while Germany is a giant hodgepodge of different genetic influences as I've always suspected. I'm actually surprised to see only the northernmost part of the country as being significantly impacted by Nordic genes. It seems like I1 (Northern Proto Europeans) and R1b U106 (North European Eurasians) are very mixed in northern Germany, Denmark, and the southwestern Norway and Sweden, but that "true" Germans are the North European Eurasian type, by way of covering most of the territory of what is now Germany (plus the Netherlands).

If one is to fully trust this map and population survey, it would be pretty clear to see England's obvious genetic link with both the I1 and R1b U106 types found in Germany and the Nordic countries. However, as it should be expected, this heavy Germanic influence is mixed with the original population of Britons. I think the Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule adopted their Germanic tongue not only because their new rulers spoke it, but also because a significant amount of their new neighbors and those in positions of authority also spoke it. In that case, it is clear to see the advantages of adoption over sticking to a Celtic language that didn't allow you to advance up the social ladder.

Yes, but that's true for anywhere in the Medieval West. I wouldn't say that Latin was any more or less prominent in Britain vs. Frankia, Visigothic Spain or Ostrogothic Italy.

But the vulgar language will always persist unless a determined effort is made to wipe it out. That method usually takes form of swords axes and foul language.

[Rinan]

But the vulgar language will always persist unless a determined effort is made to wipe it out. That method usually takes form of swords axes and foul language.

Disagreed. The Romans also managed to impose Latin on a pretty sizeable chunk of people in the Western Empire, without having to resort to rampant massacre... That'd have been less people to tax. It was a process that took centuries of course, and there is no way to know exactly how many kept on speaking their native language. For how long did people keep on talking Brythonic in Britain, or Gaulish in Gaul for that matter? In my opinion there is simply no way to know! For example, we don't even know what language Charlemagne spoke in his free time. Was it Germanic? Was it proto-French? Was it Latin? The formal register required you to write Latin; any other language thereby becomes invisible to historians. Unless refered to by someone, but unfortunately we're not exactly swimming in the primary sources for this period.

So what am I getting to? When the Anglo-Saxons came in and replaced/absorbed the local Briton elite, they replaced elite culture and language as well. Once they were christianised by the 7th century they received some Roman culture back into the mix (ecclesiastical Latin, church bureaucracy, the art of writing, etc.) but the common-folk, with their possibly Celtic language were the subaltern, the voiceless common people. Want to climb up the social ladder? Speak Latin or English. You can't even write Celtic, there is not even a script for doing that! In order words, there was no need to wipe out the "vulgar language". Why would you do that anyway? So there is nobody anymore to farm your fields and tend your cattle, so you can your time boasting in the mead-halls and waging war against the neighbour petty-king?

I would like to make a quick comparison to show that you don't need to slaughter the whole population to make your cultural and linguistic stamp on a country. A few centuries later we have the Vikings coming by in Britain. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions that after a few years of raiding they suddenly stop their banditry and pick up the plow for farming. They settled the area what is known as the Danelaw. Were they a numerous horde that displaced and massacred the Anglo-Saxons? Probably not! Scholars have been debating what number of Norsemen we should be talking about. It's a tough nut to crack, but the current concensus is that we probably shouldn't be talking about more than a few thousands. Yet they replaced the local elite, and their influence meant that to this day the English language retains a rather surprising amount of Norse vocabulary. (See for example, Sawyer's The age of the Vikings, 1971; but more recently, G. Halsall).

So, TL;DR: You don't need to kill off all the little, meaningless peasants to put your stamp on history. Just replace and/or absorb the elite. You're now in charge of the land, the church, therefore the guys who do the writing. You will now be remembered by posterity! Aditionally, a process of top-down acculturation will take place, so that a few hundred years later a new, unique culture is created.

DNA suggests that most of England is genetically distant from Wales and Scotland and closely related to continental Germanic and in lesser extant to Scandinavian Germanic people.

Very interesting map! But a word of caution: It's very hard to put this data to an actual historical phenonemon or period. For example, can we say the different haplo-groups have any bearing whatsoever on the great Volkswanderung? The "north european" influence on Britain could as well go back to the Iron Age, Bronze Age, or perhaps even Stone-Age for all I know. I think any study of genetics is going to have to take into account that Europe has been in flux for millennia. The whole region has been interconnected for, like, forever! The Roman period, but even more so the modern period, has given the chance for (peaceful) migration on massive scale! How does that alter our genetic pool? And much more importantly, what does that say about people's culture? In the end of the day, people's identity revolve around their perceived ethnicity. Cultural and ethnical identities are very much mental constructs of the people involved.

[Akrotatos]

Comparing the Saxons' success in imposing their culture with Romans and Danes is not correct IMO:

a) Romans were a superior culture (in wealth, infrastructure and the ability to write things down and pass on their achievements) that united previously divided territories and opened them to international trade. On top of that, it has been made clear that even they did not really manage to erase local languages in places they did not settle in numbers. And of course, when they met cultures with similar achievements and most of all, written language they failed to romanize them (Eastern Med).

b) Saxons and Vikings were only a few centuries apart, they were basically the same people, only the Saxons had been christianised in the 7th century. Their languages were similar and the customs, apart from those that Christianity had stamped out were similar too. So, having the Vikings spread their culture was not that difficult, local elite and peasants recognised most of it on some level.


IMO, going as far as saying that the Saxons only replaced the local elite is wrong. We don't even need to leave the British isles to see what happens when a foreign elite invades and conquers the land, the Normans did it. French became the language of the government for a while but soon lost and English replaced it. Sure, Normans influenced English but they did not impose their language.

In contrast, when Anglo-Saxons invaded (probably in waves) they replaced local placenames (how many villages, hills and forests have celtic names and how many have Saxon?) and eradicated Celtic languages everywhere. IMO, this suggests an Anglo-Saxon migration, with the locals either displaced or reduced to a secondary class that was assimilated quickly by the invaders.

[Rinan]

I didn't mean to say that the Romans and the Saxon conquests are in any way identical. I just wanted to point out another historical example (more or less relevant to the discussion) of one group of people (The Romans) imposing their language and culture upon conquered subjects, without having to resort to massacre. I.E., culture can be geographically spread by less violent means than complete genocide. Okay, having established this we can take a fresh look at the Anglo-Saxons. I think that, fundamentally, we agree on the subject, in the sense that "assimilation" took place, and not utter genocide.

You make a good case for the Normans, but seem to forget one thing. By the time they invaded England, English was an "established culture" with the ability to write, infrastructure, and all (like the Romans and the Eastern Med.), so the competition might have been fiercer. So: when the Anglo-Saxons invade Britannia they encounter people speaking Celtish, a language that had no real history of being written down; A Celt wanting to write or wanting to climb up the social ladder would've done it in English or Latin. Later; The Normans come in and French becomes the new aristocratic language; but it has to vie for control not only with Latin, but also with a venerable language called English. The situation is quite different.

All in all, I think we should be careful with comparisons. Comparisons can show us "what ifs", "How it also could have been", but not provide any hard law of causality: If people X invades Y, then language Q of Y will yield to language Z of X". The inevitable result of which language becomes dominant depends on a myriad of factors, I think.

[Geronimo2006]

Yes, but that's true for anywhere in the Medieval West. I wouldn't say that Latin was any more or less prominent in Britain vs. Frankia, Visigothic Spain or Ostrogothic Italy.

There is no real evidence that Latin made much headway in terms of becoming the spoken language of the British people. The survival of Welsh and Cornish (both descendents of Brythonic) and indeed Breton (brought by British refugees/immigrants) underlines this. However there is a fair amount of Latin substratum in Welsh.

[Akrotatos]

You make a good case for the Normans, but seem to forget one thing. By the time they invaded England, English was an "established culture" with the ability to write, infrastructure, and all (like the Romans and the Eastern Med.), so the competition might have been fiercer. So: when the Anglo-Saxons invade Britannia they encounter people speaking Celtish, a language that had no real history of being written down; A Celt wanting to write or wanting to climb up the social ladder would've done it in English or Latin. Later; The Normans come in and French becomes the new aristocratic language; but it has to vie for control not only with Latin, but also with a venerable language called English. The situation is quite different.

Indeed I forgot that. I think you underestimate the Romano-British society though when you are saying they were not an established culture.

There is no real evidence that Latin made much headway in terms of becoming the spoken language of the British people. The survival of Welsh and Cornish (both descendents of Brythonic) and indeed Breton (brought by British refugees/immigrants) underlines this. However there is a fair amount of Latin substratum in Welsh.

Wales and Cornwall were not settled or bothered much by the Romans. Roman roads just stop there. Makes sense that their languages would survive, since they are also the places that managed to hold the Saxons at bay.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Roma_Victrix]

So what am I getting to? When the Anglo-Saxons came in and replaced/absorbed the local Briton elite, they replaced elite culture and language as well. Once they were christianised by the 7th century they received some Roman culture back into the mix (ecclesiastical Latin, church bureaucracy, the art of writing, etc.) but the common-folk, with their possibly Celtic language were the subaltern, the voiceless common people. Want to climb up the social ladder? Speak Latin or English. You can't even write Celtic, there is not even a script for doing that! In order words, there was no need to wipe out the "vulgar language". Why would you do that anyway? So there is nobody anymore to farm your fields and tend your cattle, so you can your time boasting in the mead-halls and waging war against the neighbour petty-king?

You make a good case for the Normans, but seem to forget one thing. By the time they invaded England, English was an "established culture" with the ability to write, infrastructure, and all (like the Romans and the Eastern Med.), so the competition might have been fiercer. So: when the Anglo-Saxons invade Britannia they encounter people speaking Celtish, a language that had no real history of being written down; A Celt wanting to write or wanting to climb up the social ladder would've done it in English or Latin. Later; The Normans come in and French becomes the new aristocratic language; but it has to vie for control not only with Latin, but also with a venerable language called English. The situation is quite different.

I generally agree with your posts here except for one large nagging thing you have consistently done wrong: assuming that the Celts weren't writing their native languages in the Latin alphabet already. Relatively speaking there isn't too much that survives, but from the 7th to 10th centuries there is a large enough corpus of Old Irish written material for us to know much of this extinct language, a Goidelic language that is the father to both Modern Irish and Scottish Gaelic. You mention Charlemagne and how we are unaware of what his native language might have been. Well, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, a well-known Carolingian theologian and scholar who came to mainland Europe from Ireland under the patronage of Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Bald (Charlemagne's grandson), makes it clear with his Old Irish notes in the glosses of his texts that he was a native speaker of that language, written in Latin letters.

Therefore the situation appears to be that the Celtic Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule abandoned their language not because it was impossible to write in the Latin alphabet (a premise which, as stated above, is false), but because their Celtic language would have been useless in an administration run by people who spoke Old English. It is most likely that simple.