Possible cause for English supplanting native Celtic tounge

LAA   Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:08 pm GMT
It has been often claimed recently, that there was no ethnic cleansing of the Celtic people of modern day England, by the invading Anglo-Saxons.

Then why did English replace the Celtic language, while Gothic didn't replace Spanish, or Franconian didn't replace the Gallo-Romance language?

The answer lies with the traditional theory. There was a large scale, mass migration of Anglo-Saxon peoples into Britian. Through warfare, and conquest, they exterminated many of the inhabitants of Britain, while pushing much of them to the far fringes of the island, as in Wales. Read this article from BBC, it is very interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm
Guest   Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:11 pm GMT
Replacing a language should not be equated with replacing peoples!

btw, what about the native people of South America....were they also replaced?
LAA   Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:37 pm GMT
I am no expert linguist, but I am going to logically assume that language reflects the history of a given people.

Germanic languages only took hold in lands which they heavily settled and were the majority. Throughout most of Gaul, the Franks were outnumbered by a ratio of 20:1, in modern day France. By contrast, in the far north of Gaul, which roughly corresponds to the modern low countries, they settled in great numbers, and became the majority, while the local Belgae were far less cultured and more primitive than the rest of the Gallo-Romans, particularly in the south of Gaul, closest to Rome.

The Belgae people themselves were said to be a mix of Celt/German, during Caesar's time, much like the Celtiiberians of northern Spain.

Being so heavily outnumbered by a people of a highly sophisticated culture, Germanic language never took hold in modern day France. It did however, in the low countries, where the Franks became a majority.

So, I find it hard to believe that Anglo-Saxon supplanted Brittanic Celtic because of a small scale Anglo-Saxon settlement, amongst a majority Celtic population. I think the answer lies in the fact that the Angles and Jutes and Saxons eventually became the majority population of modern day England, while some Celts were possibly assimilated among the Anglo-Saxons, while many were either killed in resistance to the invasion and conquest over the course of three centuries, or were pushed to the so called "Celtic fringes" of Britain. The link I provided claims that the English are genetically more related to the Dutch, who are a continental Germanic people, who now occupy lands which bordered Jutland and Saxony.
Sander   Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:57 pm GMT
>>in the far north of Gaul, which roughly corresponds to the modern low countries<<

Since when do we call Belgae and Germania Inferior Gaul?
LAA   Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:30 pm GMT
Belgica was always part of Gaul.

Julius Caesar - "All Gaul is divided into three parts".

Those three parts were seperated into distinct provinces because of differences in culture and things of that nature. The three provinces of Gaul were Belgica (modern day far north of France, low countries) Celtica/Lugdenesis (most of northern and central France), and Aquitania (southwestern France and near the Spanish border). This was all Gallia Comata, or "long haired Gaul". The rest of modern day France had already been conquered by the Romans and was called Gallia Narbonesis. That was the far southeast of transalpine Gaul.
Sander   Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:41 pm GMT
I suggest you look up "low countries" before claiming they were incorporated in Gaul/Belgae LAA.
LAA   Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:24 pm GMT
I agree. But Belgica was part of Gaul. That much is certain Sander. Perhaps you should look it up.

"Gallia Belgica was a Roman province located in what is now the southern part of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, northeastern France, and western Germany. The indigenous population of Gallia Belgica consisted of a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes, often described as the Belgae. According to Julius Caesar, The border between Gallia and Belgica was formed by the Marne and the Seine[1] and that with Germania by the Rhine[2] The Helvetii settlement area became part of Gallia Belgica.

During the 1st century, the provinces of Gaul were restructured. The northern Gallia Belgica was renamed Germania Inferior, the eastern part Germania Superior and the southern border of Gallia Belgica was extented to the south. The newer Gallia Belgica included the city of Reims. This subdivision roughly corresponds to the current borders between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.

The region corresponding to the original province became in the 5th century the center of Clovis' merovingian kingdom and during the 8th century the heart of the carolingian empire. After the death of Charlemagne's son, Louis the Pious, the region was divided into the western and middle Francia, the kernels of the modern France and Germany.

The area is the historical heart of the Low Countries, an historical region corresponding roughly to the current Benelux group of states, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg as well as the French Flanders and some part of the Rhineland" - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgica
a.p.a.m.   Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:18 pm GMT
The Celts were conquered by other peoples in most of Europe (Gaul, Cisalpine Gaul, Germany, Britain) because they were not united as a people. Julius Caesar himself commented that there was a great deal of division and acrimony between the various Celtic tribes. Caesar took note of this and exploited the situation by taking sides with one Celtic tribe or another thereby creating even more division among the Celts, which resulted in their ultimate doom. It wasn't until late in the Gallic wars when Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix managed to unite the Celtic tribes of Ancient Gaul. But by then, (52 B.C.), it was too late and the Romans prevailed. It just goes to prove that a house divided cannot stand.
greg   Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:02 am GMT
LAA : « I am no expert linguist (...) ».

Merci mais t'inquiète pas : on avait remarqué....
fab   Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:08 pm GMT
" So, I find it hard to believe that Anglo-Saxon supplanted Brittanic Celtic because of a small scale Anglo-Saxon settlement, amongst a majority Celtic population. "


LAA,

Tu sais, la colonisation de l'Amérique latine, qui est une immense partie du continent Américain, a ete réalisée avec un groupe limité de conquistadors proportionellement à la petite taille de l'Espagne et la grande taille des nouveaux territoires conquis.
Il existe de nombreux facteurs qui peuvent intervenir dans l'imposition d'une culture sur une autre. La raison pour laquelle les empires Incas ou Azteques se sont si rapidement inclinés face à la culture reste encore un mystère pour la majorité des historiens.
a.p.a.m.   Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:57 pm GMT
Just because one nation or people invade and conquer another people, it doesn't mean that the conquered nation/people will accept the language or culture of the conquering nation. If the coquering nation is more advanced and more civilized, the conquered nation will always accept the conquest. It never works the other way around. A perfect example is when the Romans invade ancient Gaul. The Gauls, for the most part , accepted Roman rule and adopted the Roman language and Roman ways. This was because the Romans were more technologially advanced and were more civilized. The Ancient Gauls were very tribal and fought amongst oneanother. When the ancient Romans conquered Gaul, they drastically improved the country by buiding roads, cities, aqeducts, temples, baths, etc. The Gauls soon accepted the Latin language because they considered it favorable to their navtive Celtic language. On the other hand, when the Germanic barbarians invaded Roman occupied lands in the 3rd and 4th centuries, they did not, in fact, they could not impose their language and culture on the native Roman population because their warlike, Germanic culture was inferior to Roman culture. The Germanic barbarians wanted to emulate the Romans. They regarded Roman civilization as superior to their own. Hence, they adopted Roman ways, and began to speak Latin.
LAA   Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:58 pm GMT
Yes, most of what apam said was rather true.

In the case of post-Roman Europe, how could an inferior culture, outnumbered 20 to 1, impose its own language and culture, on a superior civilization, while this very civilization was still administrating civil as well as religious matters?

If you are a new settler to a foriegn land, and the vast majority of people around you speak vulgar Latin, how could you communicate with them? Keep in mind that all the learned men of the land do not speak your language. All the scholars, physicians, educators, and the local elite all speak Latin, while none of them speak your Germanic language. There is no one to force your language on the conquered people, who keep in mind, are also under your protection as federati.

It wouldn't happen. It only happened in large parts of Britain because the native people were wiped out, or pushed to the extremities of the island. Many died in defense of the island, some were made slaves. Others held out in areas like Wales, or some others simply chose to flee in a mass exodus to the continent, such as "Brittany".

And Fab, I didn't really understand what you said in French. If you are going to address me in French, it has to be very simple.