"From island Bretons to Scottish ..." Topic

What are the old island Breton kingdoms that became Scottish?

Scotland came to include:
- The Pictish kingdom, or kingdoms. Probably British in language at least, possibly not; probably not what you meant.
- The Scots kingdom of Dal Riada. Not British.
- The British kingdoms of the "Old North", Yr Hen Ogledd, in the south of modern Scotland.

It is not always clear which names refer to independent kingdoms, and which of the more obscure names might be
minor kingdoms or just might be regions within one of the kingdoms. But the main kingdoms of Yr Hen Ogledd would be:

- Gododdin, the ancient Votadini, the subject of the heroic poem Y Gododdin. In the south-east, modern Lothian.
- Rheged, in Galloway or Cumbria, or both. The latest arguments suggest a centre in southern Galloway, but it may have extended southwards into Cumbria as well.
- Alt Clut, later Strathclyde, which became the last surviving Northern British kingdom.
- Possibly also Novant, Aeron, Calchfynydd, and Bryneich were British kingdoms at some point or other, but they are all pretty obscure.

And they're Britons, not Bretons. English uses the spelling "Breton" only for the continental migrants of Britannia Minor. The islanders are always "Britons".

Why ? it is the same people so Briton = Breton

Origin of Briton in the Oxford Living Dictionaries

From Old French Breton, from Latin Britto, Britton-, or its Celtic equivalent.

And british is a bad name for the time.

Because "Briton" comes, as you say, from various Latin words spelled with an i. Those who migrated to the Continent may choose to get the spelling wrong, but insular spelling has always used i (or y).

And they're not, entirely, the same people, because those Britons who migrated to Armorica and became Bretons presumably intermixed to some degree with the indigenous Gallo-Romans. The different spelling identifies that geographical distinction.

Of course, if you want to get really dogmatic about spellings, the Romans 'latinised' the name anyway.

It's thought that the initial B was pronounced by the original inhabitants more softly and should be a P.

Presumably as you say, it is false, the Bretons formed the nobility in Brittany and the Gallo-Romans, the people…

As in France, the Franks formed the nobility and the Gallo-Romans, the people …

In those days it did not mix like now between different ethnicities or peoples.

In the Middle Ages Cornish traders who came to trade at Saint-Malo were understood when they spoke Cornish to the Bretons who answered them in Breton and whom Cornish understood!!

When you emigrate, you do not change of ethnic origine …

Without mixing, it's the same people.

"In those days it did not mix like now between different ethicities or peoples."

Totally false.

Anything ! the nobles can be for alliances but not the bulk of the populations …

There are different theories as to how Breton – with its links to the islands – came to be the common language.

In France, the Franks may have formed the nobility and the Gallo-Romans the people, but the language became largely that of the people. Further east, in areas which are now eastern Brittany and the regions to the west, a language which became the modern 'Gallo' persisted. This lacks the insular elements of Breton and also less Frankish or Viking influence than most Oil French.

The difficulty is knowing why Breton is so similar to Cornish. Is it that distance meant that relatively little Latin was used, so the pre-existing language remained similar? Is it that there were cultural reasons for adopting the language of an invader/migrant, as suggested for the replacement of language in England? Or was the number of migrants large enough that their language can be at least locally in the majority – another suggestion for England. At least one modern author believes that the depredations of the Visigoths in Armorica left much of the region de- or under-populated and this encouraged immigration of "peasants, coloni, slaves and the hard-pressed" rather than a military elite.

If there was less social differentiation between the existing population and those coming from Britain (and elsewhere), then mixing can occur more easily.

What is not a military elite who has emigrated? But then how would they have repulsed Clovis – without a military elite – whose only military failure is his attempt to invade Brittany ..?

On the other hand, what I do not understand is that the Gallo-Romans let themselves be invaded and commanded by the Bretons, who in some ways, have also participated in the great invasion …

Why should it only be a military elite which has emigrated?

Ass for what happened between the Bretons and Clovis – no-one is sure. The evidence is shaky and contradictory. It may be that Clovis made the Bretons accept his overlordship which they then renounced – certainly the French kings claimed Brittany from this era and Gregory of Tours says that the Bretons were dominated by the Franks. That this domination was rarely possible to impose doesn't tell us what happened between CLovis and the Bretons.

If the Gallo-Romans had their numbers reduced by the Visigoths (and all the other stresses of the time) then they may well have welcomed the arrival of people with whom they had a great deal in common. This would have helped both economically and militarily. Whether before this they felt the same kinship as the British in Wales and the north showed, I don't know, but there are probably similarities. The kinship may have been enhanced as there is archaeology to suggest migration c.300 from SE England to Brittany.

The number of migrants is the source of much argument among academics, just as it is with the Anglo-Saxons, so I'm just putting the other view to the 'military elite' proposal. I would say that the British (whether direct from Britain or via Brittany) who landed in Galicia were able to form a community which could maintain its identity for some time which would seem unlikely if it were just a few elite making the journey.

Why should it be a military elite which has emigrated?

Because I think that it was necessary a majority of warriors to secure the territory, before a real immigration …

Ass for what happened between the Bretons and Clovis – no-one is sure ?

Yes everything is known, and yes certainly the French kings claimed Brittany from this era and Gregory of Tours says that the Bretons were dominated by the Franks, But it's wrong, they were not and Gregory of Tours wrote for his Frankish masters…

It's impossible because under the distant Merovingians successors of Clovis, only the triangle Rennes – Nantes – Vannes interest them and they can not hang on …

And for the Franks of the Carolingian dynasty …

Watch a map of this empire is always a great pleasure for me because Brittany is not part of him.

And Charlemagne was forced to build a 'March of Brittany'…

The Visigoths in Brittany ??? From when to when ???

A archeology to suggest migration c.300 from SE England to Brittany ??? Only 300? It is a figure that comes back constantly, even the units of Breton cavalry are regularly given to 300 men.

The emigration started well before the official dates, that is to say before the "fall of Britannia" in 410 AD and it had several, so it lasted at least 3 centuries.

c.300 as in 300AD, not as in 300 people.

Can you give some sources for what happened between Clovis and the Bretons if everything is known? All I have read says otherwise.

There are apparently three discernible phases of migration – one around 300 and the others in a couple of periods in second part of the 5th century/ the 6th century. Each could well have been over years, but not, probably, a constant trickle lasting two centuries. We don't know how quickly integration happened – though if only a 'military elite' crossed over then integration may have been quicker, not slower since wives would need to be obtained locally. Social distinctions may have remained, but genetic mixing may have been fast.

As for the Visigoths and Armorica, I misread the source – it wasn't the depredations in Armorica which caused a vacuum, but the effect of the collapse of Roman rule and the arrival of the Visigoths which led to migration from the various areas to Armorica. At the same time, SE England in particular was coming under pressure from elsewhere and large areas were seemingly abandoned – at least some may have gone to Armorica.

There would be no need to secure the territory with a majority of warriors if this is a migration to a friendly place.

I read – I think it was in Procopius of Caesarea – that because Clovis could not submit the Armorican,Clovis made peace with them …

Procope names the inhabitants of Amorica, the arborykhes, so the specifications Gallo-Romans or Bretons did not exist in his time?

Then he turns against the Visigoths …

Does anyone know when the word Breton appeared?

"Wives were to be obtained locally?" You know what is said about Conan Meriadec about the "wives" that could have taken his riders in Armorica …

The only non-Celtic people of this era who left traces are the Alans, Sarmatian auxiliaries of the Roman army?

" But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and shewed themselves brave men in this war, and since the Germans were not able to overcome them by force, they wished to win them over and make the two peoples kin by intermarriage. This suggestion the Arborychi received not at all unwillingly; for both, as it happened, were Christians. And in this way they were united into one people, and came to have great power."
So yes, the Arborychi fight the Germans to a standstill, but then come to an accommodation with them which results in their union. Who would claim to be leader of such a union? (if it really happened, of course. But if it didn't, how much credence can we give to the rest of the passage).

'Breton' seems to start being used in the 13th century.

It is only in the famous Rennes – Nantes – Vannes triangle where the Merovingian / Carolingian Francs and their French successors were able to make a certain presence and only for trade, the rest of Brittany was too unaffordable …

In fact all the texts are made by the Franks or their courtiers, nothing comes from the other side …

In fact Procopius of Caesarea does not make the difference between Betons and Gallo-Romans, he calls them the arborykhes …

The Bretons said themselves the last of the Romans …

Clovis was to consider them identical to those he defeated at Soisson.

He had to take them for romans …

The word 'Breton' seems to start being used in the 13th century ???

Not long before that ???