Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Imperial Dave]

which could indicate raw/untested/militia type troops raised in response to external threats (in addition to laeti/foederati)

Gildas seems rather confused as to when exactly things occured (his comments on what must be Hadrians Wall and other late Roman fortifications, including the Saxon Shore) but his general message is clear.  This would certainly point to a fundamentally militia approach but it would be surprising if there weren't other forces available, as Roy has said, supported by the big landowners for defence of their interests.  Also, that there were military communities of "barbarians" in service by land-grant or some other mechanism seems to follow from the archaeology.

As to untried, it would be very surprising if they weren't dealing with low level raiding and brigandage.  Dealing with more organised military threats or working together in defence of something bigger than their town or villa, perhaps not.   Presumably, this is where Germanus comes in.

absolutely, dealing with brigandage and low level raiding would be the order of the day for most militia types. Presumably (big presumption) is that this was the de facto state of lowland Britain on the whole with the suggestion of repeated incursions in the North and West and so hence the multiple mentions of Scots and Irish.

Interestingly, one interpretation of the Welsh Poem 'Marwnad Cunedda' has infighting between two brythonic groups - the Coelings (from Hen Coel fame) and Cunedda/Bryneich around Hadrians Wall in the very late 4th or early 5th. the poem mentions payment for troops in kind with no mention of precious metals/coins etc and Cunedda himself is referred to as guletic/gwledig (lord/leader/land holder) as opposed to teryn (king)

[Duncan Head]

On the subject of Britannia's resistance to the invader, Gildas has a few interesting observations, if delivered in overlong sentences.

"The Romans, therefore, left the country, giving notice that they could no longer be harassed by such laborious expeditions, nor suffer the Roman standards, with so large and brave an army, to be worn out by sea and land by fighting against these unwarlike, plundering vagabonds; but that the islanders, inuring themselves to warlike weapons, and bravely fighting, should valiantly protect their country, their property, wives and children, and, what is dearer than these, their liberty and lives; that they should not suffer their hands to be tied behind their backs by a nation which, unless they were enervated by idleness and sloth, was not more powerful than themselves, but that they should arm those hands with buckler, sword, and spear, ready for the field of battle; and, because they thought this also of advantage to the people they were about to leave, they, with the help of the miserable natives, built a wall different from the former, by public and private contributions, and of the same structure as walls generally, extending in a straight line from sea to sea, between some cities, which, from fear of their enemies, had there by chance been built.

In short, the Empire - or what was left of it - overturns a basic precept of Imperial rule and urges the populace to arm for their own defence.

De redditu iure armorum: Valentinian III issued a law of that name in 440 and Majorian the  same in 458, restoring the right to bear arms (in Italy at least) - so it was within the spirit of the times.

[Imperial Dave]

I am tempted to do an article on this thread....and possibly a mini campaign game too?

[Patrick Waterson]

Don't let anyone stop you, Dave.

[Duncan Head]

I am tempted to do an article on this thread....and possibly a mini campaign game too?

What would be Patrick's victory conditions?

[RichT]

Boring the opposition to death.

[Imperial Dave]

good question Duncan. I am happy for people to suggest things (inc Patrick ;-) )

For me, I would go for a Civitas or proto kingdom trying to get pre eminence over all others by say 600AD ish (any of them with victory points awarded for territory held etc)...this means that we are not necessarily looking at linear 'nationalities' as such and the timeframe is important in this context therefore

[aligern]

I have to ask, Dave, why there was not an attempt of one kingdom to dominate and incorporate the others.  In Gaul, Spain, Africa and Italy, eventually there is a resolution down to one dominant barbarian tribal kingdom. That may say something about the numbers and initial lack of a cohesive culture of the invaders. As I subscribe to the 'three ship' theory, i.e. that there are small German forces, either arriving scattered or here already as small federate contingents, that militates against an overmighty invader with an army of say 10'000, just taking over and being able to overawe any opposition. From the British side we might ask the question of why they did not start out at least with a unified organisation. The appeals to Honorius, Aetius are by the civitates, there is no governor, not even a governor of one of the four dioceses mentioned. Interestingly there is no leadership at that level on the continent. Once the army is gone the Roman organisation appears to be down to individual cities. I think this has severe implications for any scenario based game because the essential reality of the post imperial provinces and dioceses is that they do not exist. In the minds of the Late Romans you can aim for the purple and thus the legitimate command of all trrops in a province, or you can run a town. When the organisation is reduced to the level of town, or tribal warrior king of what had been a civitas, then there appears no concept of anything bigger except maybe to incirporate a neaby petty kingdom. I know this is a point I have made before, but any game has to deal with the realities of the mental concepts of people at the time to be a good simulation.
There appears to be a Bretwalda like concept amongst tge Britons, which may have Roman echoes, but it appears to be tribute and acknowledgement of superiority based. Hence I suggest that the game is about political and military manoeuvering to gain the 'Dragon if the Island' position and that other states are not conquered, rather they are overawed, maybe militarily and forced to turn up with their comitatus to fight alongside levies and foederati from wherever the battle is, but that the tribal kings and leaders of civitates are always difficult to coerce and to hold together as an army and always plotting to undercut and perhaps get the position for themselves, though historically it looks more likely that the alternative is simply to be independent of central authority rather than to replace it.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

It depends upon the main focus of the campaign, whether this is to kick the invaders out of Britannia and/or subdue them so they are good servants rather than bad masters, or to become primus inter pares as far as the surviving British kingdoms are concerned, stopping the Saxons being a side-issue.

As far as I can see, the first condition was the priority under Ambrosius/Uther/Arthur, and the second afterwards.

Hence, up to and including the Arthur period, the idea could be for the Britons to gain prestige (victory points) by defeating Saxons.  Rather than just counting at the end of the game, prestige can be used to create alliances: if two (or more) powers of differing prestige ally against a Saxon foe, they average out their prestige ratings (these become the new victory point totals).  Hence it pays to ally with a more prestigious friendly power, but the top-rated powers will be reluctant to ally with just anyone, as doing so can drop their totals.

Victory points gained by the alliance are shared equally, except that the power which entered the alliance with the highest prestige score is considered to lead ('Pendragon!') and gains a bonus equivalent to an additional share of victory points.  Hence, say five kings get together and thrash a Saxon army, gaining 200 victory points: each king gets 40 VP but the Pendragon gets another 40, total 80.  There is of course a catch: defeat loses victory points, and the Pendragon loses an extra share (which means he will probably not be Pendragon next time round).

At some point players can agree to invoke a change the victory conditions so that victory over Saxons no longer generates VP, but victory over Britons does.  This (the Mort D'Arthur) will significantly change the play of the game, as the Britons henceforth cease to be friendly rivals and instead become cats in a sack.  Invoking Mort D'Arthur would perhaps require a Pendragon to have held a clear victory point superiority for a few turns, to the point where it would be obvious that if things continued no other player could hope to win.  The Saxons can also be expected to spread with fewer problems, perhaps enhanced by a general Saxon revolt on the turn the Mort D'Arthur is invoked.

That would be my suggested concept.  It obviously needs work, and I think Dave's idea of points for territory etc. should apply throughout, and timeframe will matter, but the general approach should keep a campaign alive.

[Erpingham]

It might be worth reviewing our evidence for a "Bretwalda" figure.  As I have understood it, it mainly boils down to names.  Vortigern has a name that could be high king, Uther is called Pendragon which means head dragon, which could be a heroic reference to leadership, Arthur is Dux Bellorum, which again could be a role or a title implying wider hegemony.  But these always smack of back projection after the event.  Vortigern could just be a name, Uther could be a leader of warriors and Arthur could just have been senior comitatus leader in a campaign.

[Duncan Head]

Arthur is also "ameraudur" in the Elegy of Geraint, and possibly other Welsh sources. But I don't think anyone else is, which argues against it being an institution.

[aligern]

One of the best evidences for such a position is that , once they have the piwer, the Saxons start squabbling over who has the position. It looks as though it is a big moment when it becomes a title that is held by the invader, as though it was something they took from the Britons. As I have tried to explain before peopke actually in oeriod have limited concepts of what can be....hence Roman provincial kings are not firthcoming. Its about what is in their heads. A more recent exampke is in the ECW when the Earl of Manchester says 'What matter it if we beat the king 50 times, he shall still be king'.  He clearly had no concept that they could create a republic or a different constitution and that is very much how peopke, even powerful and well educated ones who have read Greek and Latin texts, think. So I suggest that the Saxons see Bretwaldaship as being the thing to aim for, as the prize, because it was what the Britons had as the greatest pisition on the island. Significantly the Saxons seem to have worked by overawing rather than just crushing and incorpirating the other German kingdoms, so Essex goes on for some while, Kent becomes a sub kingdom of Wessex.

[Erpingham]

I think, at risk of treading on Mick's turf, the Irish situation in the Middle Ages and 16th century  may be similar.  Local power relations and titles were the whole scope of leaders ambitions and, instead of seeing the big picture of the foreign threat, they just saw it as a possible ally in their local struggles.  High kingship was a theoretical possibility, but it wasn't a sovereign position.

[Mick Hession]

By all means, tread on 

You make a very interesting point. But the clarity of the foreign threat was probably not that evident at the time. In medieval Ireland the foreignness of the English was tempered within a generation or so by intermarriage, bilingualism and the adoption of certain Irish customs (usually those that favoured the nobility!). At a local level, the neighbouring English baron on one side of your territory was no more exotic than your Irish neighbours on the other side and just as likely to raid your cows one week as to ally with you against someone else the next week. As time went by the distinction between English and Irish became quite fuzzy in many respects and in some cases old identities were discarded and replaced by new ones - thus the Ui Dunlainge became anglicised as FitzDermots and the De Nangulos became O'Costellos, for example. It was only with the "second conquest" by the Tudors that the Irish (and those of the original English that had gone native) came up against something completely alien, but that was a comparatively rapid process - a half-century or thereabouts - so left little time for adaptation to the threat.

Looking at Arthurian Britain, Guy Halsall makes some interesting points about identity that certainly have parallels with the Irish experience, though the traffic is a bit more one-way, with British communities adopting Saxon identities over time.                     

Cheers
Mick

[Imperial Dave]

very interesting thoughts chaps....

I was generally thinking along the same lines in terms of aiming for...lets say.....'Tyrant of the Island' as the winning position in the campaign. Roy makes very good points about the (apparent) localised view of what was achievable by the British and later the Saxons (or Anglo British!). Patrick also makes interesting points about points to be gained in a campaign game

I will ponder on this but definitely think there is merit in:

- alliances gaining points for players 
- (extra) points for being 'Tyrant of the Island' for a season especially when winning battles
- territory held = points/resources
- use of Roman roads/cities for movement/supply/prestige (which admitedly might drop off to wards the end of the game!)
- spend points to recruit allies/foederati
- in addition chance has to play a part (think plague/bad weather/raiding pirates/loss of allies!/emigration)
- economic output and population
- special leaders and unique leader qualities (eg a fancy sword called Calliburn etc giving combat bonuses)
- obvious combat segments per season whether done by dice/cards or tabletop battles (poss allow for both)

I do have a picture in my mind of Britain split into some petty kingdoms/civitates diagrammatically marked on a map.

What I would ask others is in regards of the timeframe. Originally I had it in my head a period of roughly 410AD (from the alleged rescript incident) to approx 600AD (loss of most lowland Britain by the Brythonic speakers and a sundering of the SW, Wales and the North from each other). However I am persuaded to narrow the point down to a 'generation' or 2 if there was merit and an easy choice eg 480AD to 520AD could encompass most of the action in regards to a potential 'Arthur' and all those battles........?