The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Imperial Dave]

 

later legendarium has Arthur as a fairly unpleasant character

[Justin Swanton]

either that or he was a nasty piece of work.....?

I liked his sense of humour. I suppose he'd have had a problem with us Rhodies if he'd lived a decade longer. He was fond of keeping the Empire together; we were fond of leaving it. 

[Erpingham]

later legendarium has Arthur as a fairly unpleasant character

That brings me back to Vortigern.  I haven't really had much cause to contemplate Vortigern (so thanks to Justin).  But if we take a conventional approach to his history, he is very much a character who worsens over time.  He isn't directly mentioned in Germanus' visits in the early texts yet Nennius has a large set of Germanus v. Vortigern stories.  Likewise, to Gildas, he is guilty more of bad judgement and pride than anything else (assuming, as seems likely, that Gildas did intend him as the proud tyrant).  Yet, by the time of Nennius, he has clearly gained mythical stories which paint him in a bad light.

[Imperial Dave]

regardless of anything else, if he was responsible for the hiring of Saxons that ultimately went wrong he is going to cop it in the long (historical) run

[Anton]

True enough.  Although my current view is that the Saxons were dealt with, not so the Angles.

A Powis dynasty had Vortigern in their genealogy-he wasn't edited out.  So far as Dark's Martinian Revolution goes Powys seems to me to be a heartland.  I'm sure there is something useful there if I keep poking about.

Nennius may have retailed information from dynasties hostile to Powys and thus we have the Vortigern who gets incrementally worse as time goes by. 

As an example we have Marwnad Cunneda because of Gwenydd's territorial ambitions in Bryneich.  This in turn leads to Cunedda driving the Irish out of Gwynedd entering the record.  Yet, we have good evidence that Gwynedd was a joint Irish/Ordovices enterprise.  It seems to me that MC is repurposed to buttress current political concerns by the Gwynedd dynasty namely the still obviously Irish rival rulers of Brycheiniog and the overlordship of Bryneich.

[Imperial Dave]

the Angles are different because there are lots of hints that they are more anchored as a people within the Britannia framework ie pre 'Saxon Revolt' (whatever that may be) and possibly pre 5th C. They 'assume' overlordship of Bryneich mid 6th but it feels more of a dynastic shift?

[Jim Webster]

the Angles are different because there are lots of hints that they are more anchored as a people within the Britannia framework ie pre 'Saxon Revolt' (whatever that may be) and possibly pre 5th C. They 'assume' overlordship of Bryneich mid 6th but it feels more of a dynastic shift?

The Jutes (or at least Kent) could have been settled very differently as well

[Imperial Dave]

agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence

[Jim Webster]

agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence

And was probably Christianised or comparatively Christianised early. I've read somewhere that Kent and similar have a lot more pre-Saxon names that a lot of other areas and the assumption is it as settled 'lawfully' or at least the locals were important enough to be asked for the names of places.

[Imperial Dave]

very true including the name itself Ceint

[Anton]

I can't think of any hints that the Angles (as a functioning group) were in Britannia pre 400 CE.  Not sure if I've missed anything.

As we have seen there's no actual evidence for Laeti in Britannia. If we apply the rigorous "Arthur" test a lot of cherished beliefs have to fall.  I had thought the Germans who preserved Cerdic's name were Laeti, seems not.

When Maxim decided to settle federates, it seems he went for Irish and Brythonic ones. Cunedda looks increasingly like a federate to me.  There's a hint in his Marwnad that he was of Dumnonian (above the Wall) origin.

Also, I think it significant that all of the Celtic speaking peoples have the same name for the Germans in Britannia and that name references Saxons not Angles.  It implies they came across the Saxons first.

I reckon that that the Ceint/Kent Vortigern's federates story is pretty much right in its essentials. It looks a though there was a deal and Vortigern made it and Hengist, if it was he, kept his end of it.

[Justin Swanton]

agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence

And was probably Christianised or comparatively Christianised early. I've read somewhere that Kent and similar have a lot more pre-Saxon names that a lot of other areas and the assumption is it as settled 'lawfully' or at least the locals were important enough to be asked for the names of places.

One interesting thing about Kent is that one of the earlier dykes in north Kent, east of London, faces west. (Here's the discussion we had re dykes in King Arthur's Wars by Jim Storr) Its construction, like all earlier dykes, is precise, indicating Roman engineering techniques. Why west? That might suggest that the local population of Kent was quite happy to work with the Saxons and aided them in their struggle against the rest of sub-Roman Britain. Possibly because the ceding of Kent to Hengist - unlike Vortigern's later concessions - had never been contested by the other 'kings' and hence was seen as legitimate by the locals. A theory, but it does fit a square peg into a square hole.

[Imperial Dave]

just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over 

https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html

[Justin Swanton]

just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over 

https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html

Let me have some fun...

The body of sub-Roman academic opinion does not mention Huns as being present in Britain in any discernible degree, therefore Dr Green's assertions to the contrary cannot be taken seriously by mainstream researchers. We have no choice but to place her in the category of outdated or discredited research that includes an historical Arthur, Ambrosius, Vortigern and a forcible Saxon conquest (rather than a peaceful settlement). 😁

[Imperial Dave]

just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over 

https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html

Let me have some fun...

The body of sub-Roman academic opinion does not mention Huns as being present in Britain in any discernible degree, therefore Dr Green's assertions the contrary cannot be taken seriously by mainstream researchers. We have no choice but to place her in the category of outdated or discredited research that includes an historical Arthur, Ambrosius, Vortigern and a forcible Saxon conquest (rather than a peaceful settlement). 😁