The chronology of 5th century Britain

[aligern]

The only strong argument  tgat I can see for the existence of Arthur is the fifty year gap, in A/S expansion.  That suggests a concerted effort by the  A/S as a defeat of one faction only would not hold back all Westward movement, nor would  it cause a flight to the continent by elements of the losers.To defeat a combined force of the invaders suggests a similar alliance had been brokered by the British. An Arthur character fits the story, but it could be Ambrosius or someone else.  It would also fit with the subsequent fracturing of tge British alliance and civil war.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

we do see such episodes throughout the early period Coel, Urien, Cadwallon all having transitory success under a banner of alliances. It is possible that there is an Arthur figure in there somewhere but if there is I am now convinced it is from a later date than the 5th Century and as such isnt the figure at Badon. That doesnt rule out a historical Arthur of great prowess its just too much of a stretch to put him earlier than the 6th C 

[Justin Swanton]

Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)

I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.

of course absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence but if you take the sum of all the information available it lends itself to a Badon being fought by Ambrosius. References to Arthur would appear to be more 6th and 7th century related and possibly multiple characters who become overlaid with each other.

The fact that Gildas leaves out any explicit mention of Germanus' pivotal role in defeating the Saxons - and AFAIK nobody doubts Germanus existed - means he is being deliberately selective in the facts he presents, which makes sense given the theme of his sermon. To deny Arthur existed or put him in another century because Gildas doesn't mention  him means heaving Nennius overboard and he is our principal source for 5th century Britain. There's no good reason to discount his testimony - there's nothing absurd about Arthur as Nennius describes him.

[Imperial Dave]

however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.

[Jim Webster]

I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up.  It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed.  But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures.  As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic )

There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors.

But if they lost their martial spirit how did they keep supplying men to one of the largest military forces within the Empire, and we do know that some of the Civitates had military forces, they helped with Hadrian's wall, and may have provided men for expeditions onto the Continent.

Britain was an unusual area, the size of the garrison compared to the size of the population may have ensured that

[Jim Webster]

Ah, but wvhat is Roman authority?  The situation in Britain is confused because the structure is inherently different in the lowland zone where there are towns with dependent areas ( once tribal) and the upland (or military zone) where the model is more tribal and federate. Since it was the highland zone that survived best and gave us a literature generated by the Celtic church and the dynasties that later ruled there it gives us a model that might not hold for civitates in the East of the country. Relatively recent work that has made claims for the continuance of tribal organisation seems to me to be confused by the original foundation of a town being a tribal centre and the tribal name clinging on through inertia, but did that mean real tribal culture and authority continuing on over a dozen generations. Were the labourers on the land conscious that they were Dobunni in any meaningful way.
The Empire had a gap in its structure between the town ( with dependent countryside) and the Empire itself ( ownerr of the  imperial bureaucracy and  the army, which was an imperial entity. Was there any structure or loyalty at the level of a province or diocese? Certainly it had no troops.  Interestingly the Christian church has no such intermediate structure. In Spain, when the Roman army no longer operates there the resistance to Gothic rule is by the cities.  There is no superior organisation that can maintain and deploy troops.
In Britain one might argue that the same applies and there is no province wide organisation with any traction.  Thus in the highland zone there is still tribal consciousness and reasoably rapidly , kings arise because the need for a war leader drives such a concentration of power.  In the South it might become  matter of town councils and many small units with no overall hierarchy... It has been suggested that Ambrosius ( or Arthur if they are not the same ) is the last claimant to something akin to governorship, one appointed by the Lowland Britons when Rome will not send one.
If the only structure the Eastern Britons have is the small cities , then no wonder they fell, because each would only have been of a size that a few boatloads of Saxons or Angles could take over and once the Saxons formed kingdoms these would be bigger than any British unit until the Western, once tribally based, kingdoms were encountered.
Roy

Indeed in Gaul, bishops stepped in at took leadership of the cities and spread their authority out from there. Britain is interesting in that this didn't happen. The respect with which Germanus was met showed it might have been happening, but perhaps the paganism of the Saxons swept them away and the Celtic church was less connected with the urban communities

[Justin Swanton]

however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.

Gildas is well-read. He knows for example that Parthia bordered on India:

"For when the rulers of Rome had obtained the empire of the world, subdued all the neighbouring nations and islands towards the east, and strengthened their renown by the first peace which they made with the Parthians, who border on India, there was a general cessation from war throughout the whole world" - De Excidio: 5

He knows all about Maximus, who predated St Germanus:

"He, by cunning arts rather than by valour, attaching to his rule, by perjury and falsehood, all the neighbouring towns and provinces, against the Roman state, extended one of his wings to Spain, the other to Italy, fixed the seat of his unholy government at Treves, and so furiously pushed his rebellion against his lawful emperors that he drove one of them out of Rome, and caused the other to terminate his most holy life. Trusting to these successful attempts, he not long after lost his accursed head before the walls of Aquileia," - De Excidio: 13

Is it likely he could have been ignorant of Germanus who made such a huge impact in Britain?

As regards those walls, there's something odd about them. Gildas affirms that at the time of their departure from Britain, the Romans taught the Britons how to build walls from one end of the island to the other. These walls were made of turf:

"By the advice of their protectors, they now built a wall across the island from one sea to the other, which being manned with a proper force, might be a terror to the foes whom it was intended to repel, and a protection to their friends whom it covered. But this wall, being made of turf instead of stone, was of no use to that foolish people, who had no head to guide them. " - De Excidio: 15

A second wall was subsequently built, again with the Romans advising the Britons who did the actual building: "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." - De Excidio: 18

This is all very precise. Everything we know about the dykes subsequently built shows that they were a) sometimes massive and long, b) were built of earth and not stone, and c) were works of engineering skill - Roman engineering skill. Is there any evidence that the Antonine wall had fallen into disrepair and was rebuilt at this time? Any evidence of dyke-like walls in Scotland?

Notice how later on Gildas talks about "the wall":

"Moreover, having heard of the departure of our friends, and their resolution never to return, they seized with greater boldness than before on all the country towards the extreme north as far as the wall. To oppose them there was placed on the heights a garrison equally slow to fight and ill adapted to run away, a useless and panic-struck company, who slumbered away days and nights on their unprofitable watch. Meanwhile the hooked weapons of their enemies were not idle, and our wretched countrymen were dragged from the wall and dashed against the ground. Such premature death, however, painful as it was, saved them from seeing the miserable sufferings of their brothers and children. But why should I say more? They left their cities, abandoned the protection of the wall, and dispersed themselves in flight more desperately than before. " - - De Excidio: 19

Which wall? Gildas affirms the Britons had just built two. Were these different from Hadrian's Wall that was far older, more imposing and a better-known landmark than they, and would be known as the Wall?

[Justin Swanton]

I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up.  It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed.  But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures.  As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic )

There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors.

But if they lost their martial spirit how did they keep supplying men to one of the largest military forces within the Empire, and we do know that some of the Civitates had military forces, they helped with Hadrian's wall, and may have provided men for expeditions onto the Continent.

Britain was an unusual area, the size of the garrison compared to the size of the population may have ensured that

The citizens themselves, unlike barbarians, weren't militarized. If they didn't join the army and get some training and weaponry they would know diddly-squat about fighting. And nearly all who had joined the army had been removed from Britain by Maximus. Remember the Breton troops in Gaul?

[Imperial Dave]

the interpretation of Gildas is a candle burning exercise and a topic all on its own. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not a historian so we have to be careful with how we use what he says. An account is better than no account but 2 accounts are better still. Relying wholly on Gildas for information about Britain is like relying wholly on an account written by Donald Trump about America. However, taking him at face value there is no mention of Arthur for the time period in question. He doesnt mention a lot of things admittedly only what he feels is important to his message

[Justin Swanton]

the interpretation of Gildas is a candle burning exercise and a topic all on its own. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not a historian so we have to be careful with how we use what he says. An account is better than no account but 2 accounts are better still. Relying wholly on Gildas for information about Britain is like relying wholly on an account written by Donald Trump about America. However, taking him at face value there is no mention of Arthur for the time period in question. He doesnt mention a lot of things admittedly only what he feels is important to his message

It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes. 

[Jim Webster]

however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.

Gildas is well-read. He knows for example that Parthia bordered on India:

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in

[Jim Webster]

It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes. 

There are plenty of them across the British Isle. Offa's Dyke is perhaps the longest, some of the older ones may well have been bronze age and for the moving and sorting of livestock. It's a fascinating topic in its own right

[Justin Swanton]

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

[Imperial Dave]

oh yes there are hundreds and hundreds of miles of dykes everywhere in Britain. I will grant you that it is possible that more recent works could have been picked up on by Gildas as per the above passages. We just dont know. Having been back and forth on the written stuff both 'factual' and 'folklore' orientated I am still hopeful for an Arthur character and in all probability several, I just dont think he is early enough for Badon. Again, thats a separate discussion as this one is more about chronology but rabbit holes beget rabbit holes as well we know 

[Justin Swanton]

It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes. 

There are plenty of them across the British Isle. Offa's Dyke is perhaps the longest, some of the older ones may well have been bronze age and for the moving and sorting of livestock. It's a fascinating topic in its own right

So we can consider the hypothetical possibility that Gildas was talking about dykes, not Hadrian's Wall? It fits very neatly with what came later.