Walls and Withdrawals: Gildas’ Version of the End of Roman Britain

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.academia.edu/25244131/Walls_and_Withdrawals_Gildas_Version_of_the_End_of_Roman_Britain?email_work_card=view-paper

not sure if this was covered elsewhere on the forum as it is an article from 2015. I know Pace has his detractors but the article is persuasive and highly possible

[Jim Webster]

https://www.academia.edu/25244131/Walls_and_Withdrawals_Gildas_Version_of_the_End_of_Roman_Britain?email_work_card=view-paper

not sure if this was covered elsewhere on the forum as it is an article from 2015. I know Pace has his detractors but the article is persuasive and highly possible

I'll have a look at that with my sandwich at lunch 

[Anton]

Had a read thanks.

First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view.  Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements?  Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.


Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting.  That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.

[Jim Webster]

Had a read thanks.

First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view.  Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements?  Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.


Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting.  That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.

which work by Koch would you recommend?

[Imperial Dave]

Had a read thanks.

First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view.  Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements?  Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.


Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting.  That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.

Interesting about the possible tie in of the ND though and the 'significant' 3 year window of opportunity for the partial re-acquisition

[Anton]

Pretty much anything by Koch Jim.  But if I guess your interest right his essay on an early chronology for St Patrick.  I'll post a link in a mo' and then St Patrick's letter to the soldiers of Coroticus.

https://www.academia.edu/7622048/The_Early_Chronology_for_St_Patrick_c._351_c._428_Some_New_Ideas_and_Possibilities

You'll find the letter easy enough.

I think I'd need to think more about it Dave but I wouldn't reject it out of hand.  The links with the Empire seem real enough it's more about the capacity of the Empire.

[Imperial Dave]

Pretty much anything by Koch Jim.  But if I guess your interest right his essay on an early chronology for St Patrick.  I'll post a link in a mo' and then St Patrick's letter to the soldiers of Coroticus.

https://www.academia.edu/7622048/The_Early_Chronology_for_St_Patrick_c._351_c._428_Some_New_Ideas_and_Possibilities

You'll find the letter easy enough.

I think I'd need to think more about it Dave but I wouldn't reject it out of hand.  The links with the Empire seem real enough it's more about the capacity of the Empire.

not saying its right Stephen just that there are a few ties ins that give it plausibility especially in regards to the 'resurgent' Western Empire after Honorious

[Jim Webster]

Thanks for that Anton, tomorrow's lunchtime reading sorted 

Having read Walls and Withdrawals it did strike me that this would help to explain a comparatively civilised Britain which was visited by Germanus  in about 429

[Imperial Dave]

Agreed Jim...not saying its all neat and tidy but I have always struggled with the 409AD 'cut-off' and this proposal could lend additional weight to the argument that for perhaps until the mid 5th C there was real hope for a permanent reestablishment with Rome

[lionheartrjc]

The contact between Rome and Britain in the first half of the fifth century is an interesting topic because there is so little solid evidence. 

It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406.  As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.

The Notitia Dignitatum (ND) entry for Britain is problematic.  The units in the British Field Army are mentioned elsewhere in ND. Is it an entry that pre-dates the revolt of 406? Was it a planned expedition that never happened? It must have some basis for being included.

A question would be what motive would the Imperial Roman court have to make such an attempt to invade in around 420.  The area around Belgium seems to have been under Frankish control.  How much of Armorica was under Imperial control?  Would the British welcome back Imperial control and would tax revenues have ever justified the attempt?  How would an Emperor have maintained control in Britain, would it not have become a potential threat as a source for rebellion? 

I am sure I don't have the answers!

[Jim Webster]

The contact between Rome and Britain in the first half of the fifth century is an interesting topic because there is so little solid evidence. 

It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406.  As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.

The Notitia Dignitatum (ND) entry for Britain is problematic.  The units in the British Field Army are mentioned elsewhere in ND. Is it an entry that pre-dates the revolt of 406? Was it a planned expedition that never happened? It must have some basis for being included.

A question would be what motive would the Imperial Roman court have to make such an attempt to invade in around 420.  The area around Belgium seems to have been under Frankish control.  How much of Armorica was under Imperial control?  Would the British welcome back Imperial control and would tax revenues have ever justified the attempt?  How would an Emperor have maintained control in Britain, would it not have become a potential threat as a source for rebellion? 

I am sure I don't have the answers!

I think some of the questions are self answering in that if Britain hadn't welcomed Imperial control it wouldn't have happened.
But reestablishing 'control' need not have taken too much doing. There may still have been the remains of military units still being supported somehow. So  it may more have been a case of turning up with a couple of units and reorganising the troops who were already there
It may have been a shoestring operation, perhaps with more thought to establishing bases on the British side of the Channel to make it easier to run naval patrols

[Anton]

Not a bother Jim.   I hope you find it useful.

I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave.  There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder. 

I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern?  What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me.  Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country. 

Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.

[Jim Webster]

Not a bother Jim.   I hope you find it useful.

I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave.  There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder. 

I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern?  What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me.  Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country. 

Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.

Yes between this and Germanus we have the appeal to Aetius.
It sounds like a slow 'letting standards slip' rather than a catastrophic collapse

[aligern]

Its fair enough to say that the citizebs of the Empire did not know that its days were numbered, particularly as there was no memory of any other structure to belong in. One f the advantages the barbarians had was that through being the  king of the Burgundians, or Suebi  you had a position and loyalties that were well understood. Romans making a bid for freedom could set themselves up as emperors, but that implied a claim to and war with the emperor.
If the former Romans had some concept of being king over a defined ex imperial province then perhaps the Britons might have found unity under a monarch of a territory substantial enough to defeat the various invaders in turn.

The Franks in Belgian territory do not have a king, but apparently several ntil Vlovis bumped them off. It appears that the old  tribal substructures still operated and the Franks regarded themselves as foederati certainly up to 452 where they turn up to support Aetius at his summons. as do the Saxons  from the Norman coast who likely had been regularised as foederati to defend against piracy.
Roy
. 

[Jim Webster]

Its fair enough to say that the citizebs of the Empire did not know that its days were numbered, particularly as there was no memory of any other structure to belong in. One f the advantages the barbarians had was that through being the  king of the Burgundians, or Suebi  you had a position and loyalties that were well understood. Romans making a bid for freedom could set themselves up as emperors, but that implied a claim to and war with the emperor.
If the former Romans had some concept of being king over a defined ex imperial province then perhaps the Britons might have found unity under a monarch of a territory substantial enough to defeat the various invaders in turn.

The Franks in Belgian territory do not have a king, but apparently several ntil Vlovis bumped them off. It appears that the old  tribal substructures still operated and the Franks regarded themselves as foederati certainly up to 452 where they turn up to support Aetius at his summons. as do the Saxons  from the Norman coast who likely had been regularised as foederati to defend against piracy.
Roy
.

I suspect that memories/records/legends of the bad days of the third century would have given people a feeling that it's probably been this bad before and we got through it.