staving R A Brown:
> Lars Finsen wrote:
>> Den 19. mar. 2010 kl. 10.44 skreiv Peter Bleackley:
>>> What they would all need to have in common is for Rome to have held
>>> on to Britain for at least a century more. Latin apparently didn't
>>> displace Gaulish as the common language of Gaul until at least 500AD
>>> (from a book my wife owns, called "The World of Late Antiquity") by
>>> which time Hengest and Horsa had already arrived in Britain.
>> That is debated a lot.
> Yes - I guess we'll never know the full story without time travel ;)
>> My opinion is that Gaulish thrived until the Frankish invasions, and
>> then dwindled rapidly. The towns, which constituted a minute
>> proportion of the population, were however largely latinised.
> Yes, IMO it was urban population that was important in preserving Gallic
> Romance. Although until the industrial revolution, the greater part of
> populations were rural, the influence of urban centers on
> language/dialect seems to have been important. I feel fairly certain
> that when the legions left Britain, the urban centers were latinized.
> the difference between Gaul & Britain was the almost complete collapse
> of the urban centers in Britain.
The date given by the book I mentioned is explained as being when
Christianity spread to the rural population in Gaul, bringing the use of
Latin with it. (Note that the words "pagan" and "heathen" originally
meant "countryman", and acquired their current meaning due to the slower
spread of Christianity in rural areas).
I think the book is by a historian called Peter Brown. ISBN 0-393-95803-5