http://trac.org.uk/publications/pubs/trac1991/trac1991_67-78/#full-text-from-ocr-unformatted-included-for-search-purposes-only
its not exactly a newly written paper but is a nice concise account of the end of Roman Britain and the author;s take on the causes
It does seem to combine a doctrinaire approach with a high degree of speculation:
"Marxist theory is used to suggest why British society changed so much during the fifth century."
"This paper is based on the Marxist assumption that the primary causes of social change are the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production ..."
And not, for example, the need to fight off ever-increasing numbers of warlike Picts, Irish and Germans without the benefit of resident legions.
Actually the paper seems to be mainly speculation which is then slanted towards Marxist theory.
"Gildas (22.2) refers to two famines and a plague in the earlier fifth century: 'a deadly plague ... in a short period laid low so many people . . . that the living could not bury all the dead.' There had been a climatic deterioration in the later Roman period, and regular pandemic diseases appear to have been encouraged by empire-wide trade and travel. It is likely that there was a significant fall in population, which could have been one reason for the settlement of joederati [sic] on under-populated land. Consequently, determinist factors may have weakened Romano-British society. On the other hand, such problems were not unique to fifth-<:entury Britain; there had been epidemics and pandemics during the Roman period. Climate and disease should be seen only as indirect causes of political instability."
"The Germanic immigrations, notably during the fifth century, gave scope for further racial conflict. Martin Millett (1990, 219ff.) has suggested that political authority became personal rather than constitutional during the fifth century. Consequently, whereas in Gaul the political framework could accommodate immigrant groups by, for example, the legalised transfer of lands, the personalised politics in Britain encouraged a more personal and inconsistent response to such immigrations into the local socio-economic systems, which were increasingly socially-embedded; in particular, there may have been some reluctance to accommodate the immigrant elites within the political superstructure. This may have resulted in tension developing against such constraints. Religion is another factor that should be considered, perhaps as a lateral tension."
Whatever 'a lateral tension' is supposed to mean.
The essence of his argument:
"Britain was lost by the empire for political rather than military reasons."
Somehow I am not convinced. One could advance exactly the same reasonings, or rather speculations and dependent conclusions, about Illyria.
oh its speculative alright although the political aspect of the 'end' of Roman Britain has its merits (see Ken Dark's book!)
Quote from: Holly on June 26, 2017, 06:50:58 AM
oh its speculative alright although the political aspect of the 'end' of Roman Britain has its merits (see Ken Dark's book!)
Given the number of discussions we've had on this recently, I'd be tempted to say anything on "the end of Roman Britain" tends to be speculative. At least in this case, the author recognises he is speculating.
An interesting read Dave, thank you. The author says.
"The maintenance of the native aristocracy within the provincial system probably involved the continuation of the LPRIA socially-embedded economy."
I'd say that the evidence points to that being the case. If that is so then we ask what was the legal underpinning that allowed such a society to exist and function? We read the British reverted to their native laws or words to that effect-presumably the native system exerting itself after being submerged beneath the Roman one. This has implications for the shape of society, social structures and land holding. I can easily see this in the highland zone where Rome had been pretty much the military but it also seems to have been the case in the lowland zone.
Such a society would not easily lend itself to the "Marxist assumption that the primary causes of social change are the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production''. In fact such societies tended to change in direct response to external stimuli rather than rising internal tensions. The latter were channeled into a web of interlocking obligations and opportunities under a system designed to mimimise friction.
I struggle to see the actions of the British leaders we know of as any more 'personalised politics' than those of leading Gallo-Romans or indeed any Roman leaders we know in this period.
agreed Anton, continuity appears to be the model used as much as possible in political and economic means/measures and in some cases used successfully far more and far longer than previously proposed.
Are you still enjoying Charles-Edwards?
its insightful and well written and so far hasnt felt to be too 'heavy' for me....a good sign. It is a BIG book though ;D
It's a whopper and could easily have been produced as three volumes. I understand he viewed it as the synthesis of his lifetimes work. I'm only sorry I came to his work so late in life there is so much to think about in what he gives us.
agreed. He shows depth of knowledge of the subject matter (so far that I have read) without being overbearing and also insightful plus open to reinterpretations of existing 'wisdom'
Read it and was not terribly impressed. I remember a conversation with Simon Elliott where he was talking about substantial Investment in rural industries and particularly waterways. This article does not seem to take any of that development into account. I don't much like the language which seeks to define one section of society as 'exploiters' and the larger part as sonehow their victims. Of course there are going to be examples where small farmers, fir exampke, are oppressed by bullying overlords, but often we do not know that, especially from archaeological evidence. It has been suggested that Bacaudae in Gaul might not be wholly composed of fleeing cultivators, but include the upper classes who were effectively in internal revolt and that Bacaudic groups carried on agriculture and defended themselves against central govt. tax collectors.
In terms of the pre conquest Britons and Gauls it appears that the social structure provided armies with cmitatus troops and mass forces of 'warriors' Even if we do not believein Caesar's or Tacitus' numbers for the barbarians the Romans were still opposed by mass armies. It does not appear that such mass tribal armies are resuscitated after the removal of formal imperial garrisons. Thst argues for a considerable change in the social relationships, as doe the employment by the Late Antique British elites of federate troops. That the Post Roman Britons might not be capable of fielding mass armies from their own resources might well only indicate that the populace is substantially unarmed, leaving the only paramilitary forces that estate owners maintained for internal security as effective frces. On the other hand, who were the pedyt? Who garrisoned the forts that were restored? Who are all these Britons that the AS Chronicle suggests are massacred at say the Saxon shore forts. We just do not know how troops were raised and what social relationship it reflected.
Roy
Roy said "It has been suggested that Bacaudae in Gaul might not be wholly composed of fleeing cultivators, but include the upper classes who were effectively in internal revolt and that Bacaudic groups carried on agriculture and defended themselves against central govt. tax collectors."
I increasingly buy that argument. Faulkner who also went for a 'Marxist' approach spent a whole book arguing for a class revolt in Britannia but in terms of tangible evidence seemed only to have the Bacaudae of Gaul. We have no mention of Bacaudae in Britannia although we do have Dark's Martinian Christian revolution which deserves consideration.
That said when the British revert to their own laws and set about the barbarians they are emulated in Gaul, notably in Amorica-something is going on. If we can accept the argument that the Bacaudae are not (just?) a peasant revolt then the picture becomes a little clearer and it fits with Charles-Edwards view of a British continuum from the Forth to the Loire.
To relate this thread to the one on ethnogenesis. One imagines that at the various points when imperial reach receded in the Western Empire the inhabitants of each area were faced with the problem of what they were. Alaric's Goths had little doubt what they were ( though they may only have been becoming Visigioths, the outside world lumped them as that, Similarly the Vandals went from two types of Vandal, the Alans and some Suebi and Goths to being the Vandals ( kingdom of Vandals and Alans) without too much angst. However, what was a Roman provincial? Stephen is very right that this throws up whole questions of who owns the land under what laws? What is the basis of authority? If we are all Dobunni then the Dobunnian landlord has some right to loyalty from those who till his land, there is community and precedence, but if we are still Romans then what is the legal authority of someone whose rights are enforceable by a state that exists here in name only. A major weakness of the Empire is that provinces and dioceses do not have much strong existence without an empure and an emperor, even though he did not spend his time dealing with local disputes. Looking at the law codes of Theodosius and Justinian it is coear that emperors took an interest in every court decision ( I don't mean they personally read them)
Gildas talk of tyrants implies a strong view of legitimacy...though that can be highly mutable. I do wonder if that meant different things in different parts of Britannia. In the Southern zone they could default from province down to civitas , probably quite easily, but with a problem if the situation spanned civitates, perhaps the need for a Virtigern like figure. On the frontiers the states organised on a federate basis had constitutions issued and approved by Rome and local 'kings' who administered that law. It might be a specific Roman law. for federates like the Salic law, or it might be tribal law...though that is mire likeky in the areas not appertaining to land ownership and service. Which law would take place in a situation where your slave accidentally killed your neighbour's dog? Anyway I wonder how it worked in the lowland areas, where kings appointed to be like the kings of Bath, Gloucester and Cirencester killed at Dyrrham in 577, or did councils run the town? If the government defaulted to town councils in the East then that is a reason for easy conquest and Arthur. Easy conquest because individual town based statelets would be small enough for a few hundred East Saxons or South Angles to take out ( given that the civitates are NOT really tribal and do not have mass levy armies) and a reason for an Arthur in that only by combining their aristocratic and federate forces under a neutral leader could the civitates stand up to the aggressive infiltrators.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on June 29, 2017, 11:45:40 AM
A major weakness of the Empire is that provinces and dioceses do not have much strong existence without an empure and an emperor
From the centre's perspective, that's a feature and not a bug, because it gives the provincials an incentive not to try and go it alone.
If we accept, and I think we should, the continuance of the native aristocracy under Roman rule albeit now subordinated then we might consider the different experiences they may have had. Those who had been Roman allies from early on presumably did better than those who resisted or rebelled. Even within a polity some aristos would have lost out to land confiscation (Forts, roads. mineral resources) while others kept what they had and as a consequence rose in status. The winners in that situation end up running the civates. So far, so good.
Then we might ask just what was the area of the civates? Plainly it's not the entire former tribal territory because colonia, confiscations, the military, imperial estates and whatever else Rome wanted had to be deducted. So, these are truncated polities. Nor would they have enjoyed the same favour, access and prestige of the military, the colonia and imperial officials or lease holders.
Within native administered areas I expect native land holding patterns were maintained meaning the Rix Dubonni was for internal purposes a man lord rather than a landlord, although externally he may have acted as, and indeed actually been one. Across Britannia then we have a range of land holding tenures. Again, so far so good-probably.
All this is then thrown into the air when the break with Rome occurs. The military had it seems become largely British. The imperial officials and the lessees presumably disappeared or attempted to accommodate to the new order.
The colonia are interesting, they should have been bastions of the imperial order but I struggle to see that from my reading. Perhaps the leading family established a dynasty, perhaps changes in the composition of the military and local politics had already re-integrated the ruling council into the political structure of the civates.
The other thing that comes to mind is that, in my view, the least powerful civates who had lost the most territory would have had the least access to a mass levy of fighting men. I doubt the Iceni fared well post Boudicca both in terms of enslavement and loss of land and it was in their territory that the Anglians established themselves.
local families will always rule informally in the provinces with the very highest order controlled by the state. when the state control is removed, the lower orders move up a few layers. I think island isolation helped (or hindered) Britain in their 'break' with Rome
That's a nice, succinct way of putting it. Vortigern, who seems to have been real enough in so far as his descendants are identifiable, seems to have moved up to significant power.
a local strongman, landowner, decurion or even military commander but 'British' in nature
Interesting, Stephen. I do wonder how much tribal structure continues in the lowland zone. From conquest to abandonment is 350 to 400 years which is 10-15 generations which did see some major changes in social organisation...mind you we are not certain about pre Roman tribal organisation, even in Gaul. Do we know who 'owned' the land or the peopke? Were the 'Britons' independent small farmers with a familial clan connection to tribe, or were they in small groups with a leading family which then pledged an allegiance upwards and did the small groups own the land......this being the land of the Hollins! When the Romans organised the tribal territories did the Hollin if the Hollins move to town? did he then assert Roman style ownership of common lands and convert his relatives into tenants? There are obvious parallels later in history for the concentration of rural power in the hands of the larger landowner. From Rome's point of view there is a desire to have the tribe demilitarised which I think happens in Gaul and Spain, though gradually as the Gauls are still semi competent at the time of the revolt of Vindex. Military ability is soon lost.
There is another ineluctable process of rural life, which Jim can elucidate, and that is crop failure. One imagines that in tribal society the leaders are responsible for aiding the poorer ones in times of hardship. This certainly appears to true of Arab tribes. However, with the advent of Roman legal and client relationship one can see that such free aid which incurs a debt of service is replaced by money aid which incurs commercial debt which in years of repeated hardship results in expropriation, conversion to tenancy or even slavery. As Rome expected the rich to collect taxes from the poor and pay them upwards, the nature of hardship generated debt has a monetary outcome. I believe such processes and the movement of the leaders to towns results in greater stratification and less tribal solidarity. That , combined with the demilitarisation of the mass of the tribe makes revolt less feasible.
As I understand it there is an eventual move of the rich back to living in in the countryside in their villas....a move to private riches and public squalor. Hence , by the time that the Empire is failing the rich are in power over a depressed, disarmed peasantry ( OK a broad brush view) they maintain small groups of comitates for defence abd coercion, they have horses and weapons...well at least hunting weapons.....they relate to their local town as a centre for exchabge and tax collection, but these are diminished towns. People know that they belong to a tribal civitas with a name and maybe some traditions, but even that solidarity has been weakened by Christianity which has destroyed tribal gods which once provided a solidarity by being particular to the group. In this scenario tribe is very weak. Do e
we find tribe being cited as the actor in the lowland area in the fifth century? I recall that it is the civitas or the city that is spoken of? As said, at Dyrrham the three British kings are described by their city, rather than of X tribe. There is more tribal location in the frontier kingdoms such as the Votadini, but do the Welsh , North British or West British polities map to old tribal divisions and capitals?
My concern is that there is a route to an interpretation such as Laycock's that tribal, pre Roman Britain reasserts itself and was always there, when actually, cities were created as centres for tribes in order to Romanise and control the tribes. Those cities survive as trade centres admin centres, bishoprics etc.
When the Imperial structure goes away the cities are keft as centres of administration, but there may by then be very little tribal about it, the city runs its area, or rather the people who run the area repair to the city vecause they used to. If there are forces that fight they are the men of the city, the guards of landowners who maintain a house in the city, the federates hired or granted land by the city, but nothing much to do with the tribe.
Roy
The crop failure point is an interesting one.
When it comes to food supplies, various parties had 'preferred creditor' status and they would get whatever grain there was. The army would be one, and the cities the next. The peasantry actually growing the grain were likely to be 'legally' pillaged by tax gatherers and their armed escorts. Cities are not going to rein in the high handed official who successfully gets them the grain they need in a time of famine.
What we have to remember is that whilst the peasant might well have sold all his spare grain (which might be held with his landlord or some other figure too powerful for local officials to rob) each peasant would almost inevitably be sitting on a hidden stockpile of seed corn. In rough figures, a peasant would hold back about a quarter of this year's harvest to become the seed corn for next year. The authorities would have no hesitation in confiscating that.
So what may have happened is that the peasant lost his seed corn, and then had to buy back replacement grain from his landlord who was powerful enough to sit on stocks of it, at a higher price, going deeper into debt.
I often wonder whether the arguments for autumn or spring sowing of cereals boiled down to
"Autumn sowing, the grain is sowed, they cannot confiscate it."
"Spring sowing, at least you have the chance of eating your seed corn to get your family through the winter."
Crop seizure is an interesting question. Roy is right that the army had, de jure or de facto, first call and they didn't really care about local economic sustainability - it was somebody else's problem. The civitates needed some sustainability, so couldn't afford to starve all the local farmers. Major landholders also didn't want peasants dying or deserting the land, though they may wish to gain control of the land. What value is land with no-one to sow and reap for you? Move onto post Roman times. Could things actually be better for the peasant? Yes, he faces off against local government and local gentry but not against a well-armed government force who didn't care whether he lived or died.
I'm also wondering about the role of clientage in the mix. Roman society put huge store by clientage. So this would give an alternative, or at least evolved, pattern of allegiance. Given that the wealthy landowners probably are at least in part the same as they were in pre-Roman times, there will still be echoes of the tribal, but it wouldn't be the real driver. Had tribal identity become more like it is in modern England - a matter of heritage and identity but not the political structure?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 30, 2017, 10:10:10 AM
Crop seizure is an interesting question. Roy is right that the army had, de jure or de facto, first call and they didn't really care about local economic sustainability - it was somebody else's problem. The civitates needed some sustainability, so couldn't afford to starve all the local farmers. Major landholders also didn't want peasants dying or deserting the land, though they may wish to gain control of the land. What value is land with no-one to sow and reap for you? Move onto post Roman times. Could things actually be better for the peasant? Yes, he faces off against local government and local gentry but not against a well-armed government force who didn't care whether he lived or died.
I'm also wondering about the role of clientage in the mix. Roman society put huge store by clientage. So this would give an alternative, or at least evolved, pattern of allegiance. Given that the wealthy landowners probably are at least in part the same as they were in pre-Roman times, there will still be echoes of the tribal, but it wouldn't be the real driver. Had tribal identity become more like it is in modern England - a matter of heritage and identity but not the political structure?
given that the wealthy wouldn't get their crop seized, they would be the ones the peasant would have to turn to for seed corn. Two bad harvests would probably mean that the family was indebted beyond any hope of every paying off the debt and would be enough to turn a free tenant into a serf
I think Roy's question takes us to the hub of it - what of tribal structures in the lowlands. First I'd say tribal tho' we all use the term can miss direct us. The social and legal system across Pre Roman Celtic Europe is pretty much the same so far as we can see from classical sources and that includes the lowlands. The society has a hierarchy of kings, druids, nobles, bards and craftsmen that rests on free farmers who are clients of the fore going. It is a society that can produce large forces of fierce infantry-the free farmers. There are also slaves which we cannot say much about.
When we compare the glimpses of the social structures the classical writers give us with what we have from Gildas and early Brythonic, Irish and Welsh sources we get a fit. If, and I appreciate not many people are interested in doing so, we look at the surviving early legal texts and information contained in poems we start to be able to place our knowledge in context. We can begin to see how it all worked. It's what makes reading the work of Koch and Charles-Edwards so rewarding to read.
Once Rome is in charge it often works through the existing pre-Roman aristocracy who, as long as taxes are paid and noses kept clean, continue in place. If we look at Gaul we can find aristos of senatorial rank (none in Britannia) who can still speak Celtic and are conversant with their 'tribal' identity and seemingly proud of it. IIRC the Emperor Julian comes across a druid. It looks as though the authority given by Rome has simply been added to the authority already possessed under the native system. I'd expect lowland Britannia to be similar.
At the start of our period we have a system in place, it is subordinated to the Roman system, at the end of our period Rome is gone and it seemingly re-emerges. Presumably it survives because it was still useful through out to the native aristocracy in terms of fulfilling what Rome required of them. That's my take on it although I'd stop short of saying we know.
I'd wonder what proportion of the peasantry remained 'free farmers' to provide the fierce infantry. We seem to see a situation where throughout the empire the peasantry slipped into some sort of semi- or even un-free status.
It may be that the tribes on the periphery, Wales and the North, retained their greater number of warriors because they were more likely to be pastoralists and therefore not as easily reduced to serfdom
As an example of how rapidly Clan chiefs and landowners get get rid of warlike tenants look at how the Scots aristocracy disarmed and disposed of their tenants between 1750 and 1850
interesting that you should mention the Scots Highlanders Jim, I'm just reading Stevenson's biography of Alasdair Mac Colla Ciotagh which deals in some depth with dilemma of the Clan Chiefs trying to get the best out of two systems of authority. I'm not sure its directly comparable but if it is then we should think of the British aristos as Campbells to a man.
The question of how many free farmers remained is important and probably it is in direct relation to how much land was still in the hands of the native aristos. We know a lot of land was not.
I cannot bring to mind any British evidence for free farmers being reduced to un-free status in the late empire. Though clearly slave taking was part and parcel of conquest and crushing rebellions and we have late evidence of slavery, Marwanad Cunedda for example. That poem also refers to the men of Bryneich who I take as the free farmers.
Kent comes to mind where the struggle seems to have been fierce and where native custom seems to have survived, indicating free farmers.
given the lack of evidence we have for British, I don't think we can take the negative
It's the same with Kent, was the struggle fierce because Kent had more free farmers or more foederate?
The struggle for Kent seems to have been fought between the native lords and their supporters on one side and the foederates on the other, both no doubt claiming legitimacy. Surely Kent would be as Romanised (whatever we think that means) as anywhere else in the lowlands. Yet there they are going toe to toe.
I thought Jim Storr's recent book where he attempts to read the fighting through examining earth works from the perspective of a military engineer useful in thinking about what happened in Kent.
Remember that in other parts of the Empire, landowners maintained their own military or paramilitary forces. The American south shows that a slave owning society can be heavily militarized
I've seen accounts from North Africa and Egypt where estates had considerable numbers of guards on their books, often trained and sometimes lead by men borrowed from the military
We should also remember that a large supply of free farmers isn't essential to a military system. Unfree servants (ministerales) of great landowners developed as a military force somehow within the Frankish realms. So peasantry tied in some way to landowners could have been called on to supply military force here. Obviously, Francia and Britannia are not the same place but looking at how post-Roman Gaul developed can help in identifying possible actors and forces in post-Roman Britain.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 30, 2017, 03:04:02 PM
We should also remember that a large supply of free farmers isn't essential to a military system. Unfree servants (ministerales) of great landowners developed as a military force somehow within the Frankish realms. So peasantry tied in some way to landowners could have been called on to supply military force here. Obviously, Francia and Britannia are not the same place but looking at how post-Roman Gaul developed can help in identifying possible actors and forces in post-Roman Britain.
Indeed if landowners could call on unfree tenants and had a core of trained estate guards, then we're looking at a very different military picture from a traditional 'tribal' force
Which is fascinating in itself
Quote from: Anton on June 30, 2017, 02:16:07 PM
The struggle for Kent seems to have been fought between the native lords and their supporters on one side and the foederates on the other, both no doubt claiming legitimacy. Surely Kent would be as Romanised (whatever we think that means) as anywhere else in the lowlands. Yet there they are going toe to toe.
I thought Jim Storr's recent book where he attempts to read the fighting through examining earth works from the perspective of a military engineer useful in thinking about what happened in Kent.
indeed, a very good and novel approach to looking at the whole issue of the SE 'takeover' by Angles/Jutes/Saxons and the like. Not 100 percent convinced as he is about it but I think it forms a good potential to what happened on the tactical level
His use of history is confused but we can probably take his military engineering assessment as being on the money.
On the south eastern take over thing I must have another look at Thomas Green on Lincolnshire 400-600. Currently though I'm experiencing the photobucket trauma, I nearly wrote shakedown, so my blog needs some attention.
Quote from: Anton on June 30, 2017, 07:31:13 PM
His use of history is confused but we can probably take his military engineering assessment as being on the money.
On the south eastern take over thing I must have another look at Thomas Green on Lincolnshire 400-600. Currently though I'm experiencing the photobucket trauma, I nearly wrote shakedown, so my blog needs some attention.
Dr Caitlin Green's book on the subject is well regarded and its on the list!
A timely reminder, I'd forgotten, Caitlin Green.
There is a similar and unresolved problem in Gaul. Who are the 'men of Bourges'? Are they hired in Franks, with their leader becoming a local grandee, are they local 'tribesmen' even if that means being small farmers for whom tribe is only a function of the city being the head of an adminstrative area once the territory of a tribe and there now being no identity available higher than that.
Roy
I would guess they are similar to 'the men of Bryneich' who Cunedda fights alongside in Y Gododdin. The locals who were able and expected to fight -tribesmen of Bryneich. Cunedda who has his own court etc is provided for by a treaty.
Even in Y Gododdin there is a definite sense of belonging to a greater unit-in terms of Bourges I don't know enough to comment.
Indon't think there s any difficulty in there being a class if armed farmers in a federate groupnsuch as the Votadini. They are lije the Franjs in Belgium, land for service. Its the lowlands of Britain that may be more like Gaul where one expects a disarmed peasantry and federates being hired to,operate alngside the comitatenses of the landlords, who would be like the paramilitary forces of the Egyptian landlords that Jim cited.
Roy
If anything Cunedda is of Dummonian descent rather than Votadini. The Votadini don't need land in return for service, they already have land, they want specie and high status goods.
The men of Bryneich are armed natives not hired outsiders.
I understand the comparison been made with Gaul and Egypt but how did such landlords fare in Dark's Martinian revolution in Britannia? How do we get from them to Vortigern?
highlands are militarised and lowlands less so. The tribesmen in the highland areas tend to be armed and up for a fight more than the lowlands. Having said that the 'frontier' area of Hadrians wall is a special case with hired groups helping to maintain the border. A complex picture and one we should never try to simplify along racial or ethnic lines in my opinion
Thinking back to the men of Zkent cite earlier, it all looks very dufferent if there are only a few hundred Jute/ Saxons. In that case one does not need a militarised peasantry,nthe landdiwners and their retainers will suffice firva tough contest, toe to toe across the county.
Roy
That's true, but Gildas explicitly tells us that the original number were reinforced.
The ostensible reason for the revolt was inadequate anona to support the federates which doesn't sound like a problem a few hundred men would experience in Kent.
Nor would the earth works Storr identified fit the needs of fighting on the scale of a few hundred a side.
As an aside it is interesting that Kent keeps both its original name and Christianity.
Quote from: Anton on July 04, 2017, 11:24:09 AMAs an aside it is interesting that Kent keeps both its original name and Christianity.
If Kent keeps Christianity, why does Augustine need to convert King Æthelberht?
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 04, 2017, 11:38:06 AM
Quote from: Anton on July 04, 2017, 11:24:09 AMAs an aside it is interesting that Kent keeps both its original name and Christianity.
If Kent keeps Christianity, why does Augustine need to convert King Æthelberht?
which is a good question. Did Christianity survive amongst the lower classes?
Yes Christianity seems to have survived among the lower classes or at least some of them.
dont forget that what sources we have often keep their commentaries to the middle and upper classes.....lower classes arent worth the vellum or ink.....
another article....somewhere in the middle (ie in the 90's)
https://www.academia.edu/900894/From_Roman_to_Saxon_the_late_fourth_to_seventh_centuries_AD_in_Cornovia?auto=download
I remember the author, a very interesting article, thanks, it will repay reading more than once.
I'd forgotten about Hound King Son of the Holly but alongside the Silchester Irish memorial stone it's, I think, one of the only two finds putting the Irish in an urban setting in the period.
I thought- given we all accept that some of the British moved to Armorica- that it might be worth seeing if we know anything about the social structure the would be Bretons took with them. Checking Celtic Culture- A Historical Encyclopedia edited by Koch it seems there were many free farmers on 40 acre holdings.
the interesting thing about Maqui Coline is that he is a potential ancestor of mine.... my surname is Hollin which in old english is holegn ie of the holly.... :)
Get your land claims in now!
Quote from: Anton on July 06, 2017, 10:21:12 AM
Get your land claims in now!
As an aside, polygamy makes collecting land claims so much easier
Safety in numbers.
its all mine I say!