https://www.academia.edu/7622048/The_Early_Chronology_for_St_Patrick_c._351_c._428_Some_New_Ideas_and_Possibilities?auto=download
yet another excellent article and discussion by Professor Koch. For me its a no brainer but the facts do fit in with his proposal for Patrick being active from around the 'Barbarian Conspiracy' through Magnus Maximus' reign and into the early 5th C
It's a fine, thought provoking bit of work and I think he is likely right in his thinking.
If he is, we have some interesting information about how educated Roman Britons saw the the Brythonic kingdoms above the Wall. It also supports Charles-Edwards view of a cultural and linguistic continuity between the Firth and the Loire.
It also would explain why the Druids didn't have Patrick dealt with as soon as he began his mission. I had often wondered why they didn't.
makes complete sense to me Stephen and does tie in very neatly with what we (think) we know from the sources and the activity in and around Western Europe
"Apostate Picts" in the Confessio. We need to think about that. Presumably converted through Brythonic agency and then changing their minds. For a short, if well evidenced, article Koch once again gives us lots to ponder on.
agreed though I dont necessarily see conflict in that aspect. Patrick mentions Picts and Scots as apostate and in this particular postulated timeframe, we could assume that Britannia (in this case Secunda) was mostly christian and that others 'beyond the pale' were either marginally or newly enfranchised.
No conflict at all in my view.
It implies to me that sometime between the death of Cunedda and Patrick's letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus someone sponsored major evangelism in Britannia Secunda and beyond. Macsen Wledig might of, and it could have become lost after the execution of the bishops resulting Christian outrage and the damnatio of his name.
and it is implied that Patrick is caught up in all of that and more as Koch suggests and on reading of Patrick's Confessio
Yes, scholars have speculated for decades on the nature of Patrick's great sin. I'd say we now know the answer- it was his role in leading the prosecution of the two bishops.