The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Jim Webster]

One thing struck me in Gildas:

It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.

Transliterating the Latin:

quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave soldiers")
enuntiare trucis belli pericula - to announce the perils of savage war
mihi statutum est - for me is appointed
quam desidiosorum, - but [the perils] of the indolent

So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...

He may be looking back to the Romans for his champion soldiers. After all he consistently speaks favourably of their martial attributes and how the trained the inhabitants of Britain who then slumped back into indolence

[Jim Webster]

I think on balance most people are erring on 490 give or take a few years

I think most people follow the same reasoning that led Justin to query a later date. Much earlier doesn't give time for the war, much later means Gildas died too young

There are inevitably other arguments as well 

[Imperial Dave]

all comes down to what dating conventions you follow and which sources but I was following the line of Gildas writing about Maelgwyn before his death in 549 (some say 547) AD. if Gildas writes this 44 years after Badon then its earliest is 505. 495 gets mentions alot and I cant remember offhand the source for 490 but I'll dig it out. Gildas infers that there is a passage of time during which war reaches most parts of Britain (I'll leave that to others to do the translations directly). I take it to mean that we have intermittent war from the mid 5th to the end of the 5th culminating in Badon. I am happy to be corrected but I just dont think an early 6th C cuts the mustard these days

[Imperial Dave]

of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time 

[Justin Swanton]

of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time 

And don't forget pondering and scratching the head and puffing out the cheeks. 

[Justin Swanton]

One thing struck me in Gildas:

It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.

Transliterating the Latin:

quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave soldiers")
enuntiare trucis belli pericula - to announce the perils of savage war
mihi statutum est - for me is appointed
quam desidiosorum, - but [the perils] of the indolent

So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...

He may be looking back to the Romans for his champion soldiers. After all he consistently speaks favourably of their martial attributes and how the trained the inhabitants of Britain who then slumped back into indolence

Putting the sentence in context:

Whatever my attempt shall be in this epistle, made more in tears than in denunciation, in poor style, I allow, but with good intent, let no man regard me as if about to speak under the influence of contempt for men in general, or with an idea of superiority to all, because I weep the general decay of good, and the heaping up of evils, with tearful complaint. On the contrary, let him think of me as a man that will speak out of a feeling of condolence with my country's losses and its miseries, and sharing in the joy of remedies. It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by champion soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.

So he is talking about about Britain, and in his introduction tells us the main theme of his sermon will be about the miseries of Britain, caused by the indolence of its inhabitants. The story is not uniformly bleak, however, as there have been effective remedies. The bit about champion soldiers is inserted in the middle of all this. The subject matter of his sermon which concerns the welfare of his fellow British will not include details of their military exploits but will concentrate on their moral state and its consequences.

[Imperial Dave]

of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time 

And don't forget pondering and scratching the head and puffing out the cheeks. 

I forgot to do that this time.....

[Tarnegol]

...Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time 

If you're anything like me you'll forget where you put the $%£@ing notes!

[Justin Swanton]

Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.

[Jim Webster]

Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.

I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 

The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.

There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?

[Imperial Dave]

...Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time 

If you're anything like me you'll forget where you put the $%£@ing notes!

at least you made notes 

[Imperial Dave]

Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.

I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 

The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.

There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?

bingo....welcome to the rabbit hole

[Jim Webster]

Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.

I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 

The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.

There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?

bingo....welcome to the rabbit hole

Indeed and the other problem is that the trail of white stones you leave so that you can find your way back gets mixed up with the trails of white stones all the others leave and everybody ends up following everybody else round in circles, muttering darkly   

[Imperial Dave]

and all the eureka moments that are dashed when you cross reference everything

[Justin Swanton]

It's not as bad as all that. Thus far all I have to do is presume that St Germanus' first visit lasted 10-15 years (and he did enough to fill up that time) - or that his military adventure is a separate visit from his anti-Pelagian mission - and a plausible chronology can be shaken out that doesn't require dumping anything significant in the major sources or unrealistically stretching (or shortening) the lifetimes of any of the major players. Exact dates are a problem but that's not a big issue as all we really need are the main events in the right sequence and approximately dated. So put Vortigern inviting the Saxons over at about 440, Germanus' victory over them at about 445, Arthur's final victory at about 482 (already suggested elsewhere) and everything falls into place. Ambrosius and Arthur don't cancel each other out nor are they the same individual if one accepts that Ambrosius had supreme political command whilst Arthur had supreme military command. All very proper and late Roman.