The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Erpingham]

Then we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered  Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.

But it is interesting that the story of something significant happening in the late 440s is a consistent theme, even if we don't know what it was.  The sundry Germanics, who we know archaeologically to have been around in Britain for generations suddenly become visible as a political force around this time.

[Anton]

On when to locate Arthur.  Ken Dark makes a useful point.

"These data suggest that, in the late sixth century, there was a sudden burst of interest in the previously-unknown secular name 'Arthur'.  'Arthur' briefly became for some reason famous among Irish elites in western Britain and Ireland, especially (perhaps only) those with British connections.  'Arthur' was acceptable to Christian rulers and Church alike, and is unlikely to have been derived from pagan religion.  However, this was not a saint's name-out of the hundreds of Celtic dedications from Britain and Ireland there is no 'Arthur'."

On the Law.  Current views seem to be that Roman Law over  lay customary law in the Empire's provinces.  When the Empire can no longer operate properly, with appeal to the Emperor or his deputy local law presumably regains primacy.

Gildas says something about the process. He wrote:

"At length the tyrant thickets increased and were all but bursting into a savage forest.  The island was still Roman in name, but not by law and custom".

Then we have Zozimus telling us the Britons armed themselves, walloped the barbarians, threw off Roman law and reverted to native law or words to that effect.

It's worth recalling that St. Patrick, a member of the governing class, spoke Brythonic as his first language.  His family had status under the Roman system and educated themselves for an Imperial career in the Roman fashion.  All the while at home and no doubt elsewhere they spoke Celtic.  We have not a clue about where Patrick grew up.  My guess is in the heart of the villa zone bordered by the Severn.

[Jim Webster]

I make one assumption: that Germanus' first visit was purely ecclesiastical

Which is why I recommended Ikka Syvanne's book
He places Germanus in a Gallic context and by definition there is evidence for him having military responsibilities there

[Imperial Dave]

With that assumption everything falls into place. Vortigern brings the Saxons over only around 440. This matches the Frankish Chronicles that affirm the Saxons (temporarily) conquered Britain in 445. Ambrosius' battle in the mid 440's then allows for Arthur to have a military career that isn't impossibly long culminating in Baden in the 480's. It all hangs together and doesn't require that significant passages in the sources be chucked overboard.

This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.

[Imperial Dave]

the 'detailed' information we have around Germanus's visit is in detail highly dubious. Various miracles and shouting at ruffians all feels very allegorical

[Jim Webster]

This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.

I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light 

Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain

[Jim Webster]

the 'detailed' information we have around Germanus's visit is in detail highly dubious. Various miracles and shouting at ruffians all feels very allegorical

Actually at this point it's worth looking at St Patrick (one, or both, or Palladius) and the world that we see portrayed in Patrick's letters. It gives us a chance to compare the world he knew with the one Germanus was supposed to have visited

[Imperial Dave]

absolutely....

I rather like Patrick

[Jim Webster]

absolutely....

I rather like Patrick

I'd like him better if they could be sure how many of him there were 

But yes, even with the doubts, he's a contemporary and St Germanus seems to have been the bishop who ordained him

[Justin Swanton]

This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.

I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light 

Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain

Actually, one can see Ambrosius as a distinct personality in Nennius, hovering in the background. Nennius affirms that Arthur was of much lower rank than the kings, nevertheless he was their dux belli 12 times, commanding all the British forces. Where did he get that authority from? This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that. If Arthur was appointed to the job of supreme commander one man must have appointed him. Who was that? Only one candidate.

To have an Arthur you have to have an Ambrosius.

[Erpingham]

This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that.

Given the prevalence of tanistry around the Celtic world, I don't see why they wouldn't have understood the concept.  How they made decisions, though, is a mystery to me.  Perhaps those more familiar with the material can produce examples of collective decision making?

Add : The process of acclamation was , of course, well known to the Romans and to various other peoples of the time, so that too may have played a part.

[Justin Swanton]

This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that.

Given the prevalence of tanistry around the Celtic world, I don't see why they wouldn't have understood the concept.  How they made decisions, though, is a mystery to me.  Perhaps those more familiar with the material can produce examples of collective decision making?

Add : The process of acclamation was , of course, well known to the Romans and to various other peoples of the time, so that too may have played a part.

In tanistry the chieftain of a tribe was elected for life by the family heads. A successor - the tanist - was elected at the same time. It was therefore a permanent political appointment. One can argue that that was how Vortigern and Ambrosius achieved their per-eminence though I think even that was unlikely as most of Roman Britain was no longer a tribal society. Certainly in the case of Arthur it wouldn't apply as his authority was always temporary and strictly military. Which is why acclamation wouldn't apply to him either. 12 acclamations?

[Erpingham]

The issue was your slightly glib assertion that "political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that."  Yes, they would.  Acclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards).  I'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions.  So, no, appointing a joint war chief does not need a "Big Man".  Whether there was such a man is another question but you cannot use the evidence as you have to confirm his existence.

[Jim Webster]

This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.

I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light 

Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain

Actually, one can see Ambrosius as a distinct personality in Nennius, hovering in the background. Nennius affirms that Arthur was of much lower rank than the kings, nevertheless he was their dux belli 12 times, commanding all the British forces. Where did he get that authority from? This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that. If Arthur was appointed to the job of supreme commander one man must have appointed him. Who was that? Only one candidate.

To have an Arthur you have to have an Ambrosius.

Why? Before you can state that Arthur gained his legitimacy from Ambrosius you have to show how Ambrosius gained his legitimacy
Both may have merely been warlords with a lot of Bucellarii who claimed legitimacy in the name of a distant Emperor who might even have heard of them

The various civitates and leaders paid 'protection' or even fitted into the Roman system where the warlord claimed the right to Hospitalitas under late Roman billeting law

Given that some of the Welsh clerical sources portray Arthur in an unflattering light, this could be explained by him imposing a heavier burden on church lands, probably inevitable as the economy diminished and the church become economically more important

[Imperial Dave]

its a good point actually. Arthur is often portrayed in a poor light in Welsh legendarium. Whenever he existed and what he was in terms of authority, the likelihood is that he wasnt universally loved especially by the lowest echelons of society who often bore the brunt of the food renders