No. You'll notice that the first and second here contradict each other. It was already rolling for years before the "English". Do you really think that English derived from Latin and Greek, uses the latin alphabet but was invented only 1000 years ago in Britain? Not trying to be an asshole here just asking you to think about that. Latin, Greek and German are English's parents. Old French and Old Saxon were simply coexisting with old Englsh. Naturally words were exchanged but since even those have latin and greek backgrounds...
No, I don't want to quibble about which other language forms the largest influence on 'old English' vs 'middle English' vs 'modern English. I'll certainly grant that latin itself is a more 'elder parent' than French and that French is very latin-ish to begin with. I don't really have any dispute with you about the point of origin of English language. We are certainly agreed that English is a bastard/mongrel language. I never meant to suggest otherwise.
If you follow proto-English and "old English" you'll see it was already in use between the peoples of the Mediterranean, Germany and Scandinavia.
This is apparently where we are in disagreement. As far as I understand the history of English, the early phase known as "old English" is the period of 5th century up to 1066. That is the language of Beowulf. It essentially developed as a vernacular language for the Angles and Saxons in England and that's about it.
I've found no references of this 'old English' language being used as a 'bridge' language for any third parties at that point in history - apart from the obvious connection with northern Germany and Denmark (from whence the Angles and Saxons came). The only reference to the language in terms of the Mediterranean I can find would be the Vangarian Guard of the Byzantine Emperors and that's it. In this last respect, it was always customary for Roman Emperors to have a private bodyguard made up of elite foreign/barbarian warriors.
The English language is only about 1000 years old.
The 'middle English' beginning with the Norman conquest is the language of Chaucer and this is the particular phase I was referring to with my point about English being about 1000 years old. That is to say, from a modern perspective (and a lay reader), the language of Chaucer can be very challenging indeed, but the language of Beowulf is utterly incomprehensible to anyone not trained to it.
That being said, you are most certainly correct that 'old English' obviously is much older than 1000 years.
Beowulf, (900AD) is "old English" and has nothing to do with Britain. The language was already in use for centuries at that time.
As noted above, I don't dispute the age of 'old English'. However I must insist that 'old English' still has everything thing to do with being a British language. That's where it was created, that's where it was used, that's where it grew to become the language we use today. Certainly lots of other languages have had a large influence, but to say 'old English' has nothing to do with Britain just defies my comprehension.
That language a, b or c may be most heavily by population used does not make it "international", or we'd be speaking Chinese. English is a mongrel language born from the others. It is fair to point out though how many each influence the other. Britannia came, most likely, from Roman mispronouncing Praetanii which was a label laid on the Celts by a greek. Praetanni, became Britanii.
I don't dispute this. I only have disputed your assertion that English, whether that be 'old English' or 'middle English', served as any kind of international language prior to the modern era. It certainly served as a common language for various peoples in Britain, no doubt of that, but I just don't see much evidence of its usage outside of Britain by non-Brits (using these terms loosely here).
As far as I understand western European history of the 5th to the 15th century, only Latin and later French could possibly be asserted to have any substantial currency as an international language in Europe at that time period. Certainly not 'old English' except perhaps in some pockets on the outer edges of Europe.
Fair enough, and thanks. Never heard of this. But the point I made about monotheism is only more valid then.
Yes, I'm sure we are entirely in agreement on the entire lack of merit in the idea expressed in the OP.
leave you with:
When English was being born, all writers in it were also writers of Latin. Latin words came into English from the first, and many were added later. Spanish was created among Latin speakers who had to communicate with Goths when they joined together to fight the Arabs, and Spanish contains many concessions to Visigothic habits (as well as later Arabic influences). English words with Latin antecedents arrived by several routes. Some were present when English was created; some entered through Norman French and other languages, some were coined later, and some are cognates (cousins, not descendants) like the prepostion in. English was, I believe, created as a common means of communication for a country of many languages, but, after 1066, with one Latin-literate court.
I never disputed that English originates as a common means of communication in 'dark ages' Britain. I have only objected to your assertion of the substantial international usage of the language at that time period.
As far as I'm concerned, English's rise to international stature doesn't really begin until the industrial revolution and didn't really become dominant until WW2.
My apologies for continuing this topic digression about the history of English, but it is a more interesting topic than the OP. 
