The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Fair enough.

Acclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards).

OK, but are there any instances of acclamation raising someone to a purely military position with no political power, and only for the time of a campaign season?

I'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions.

It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him. The bishops had local control over their dioceses and could not be dictated to in their day-to-day administration by either the Pope or other bishops. Regional councils would determine a course of action against a regional problem but the participating bishops could not at least in principle be forced to acquiesce to any decision made - unless the council was an ecumenical council which was always given the seal of approval by the Pope's delegates and hence was binding on the bishops.

But, yes, the principle stands that important decisions could be made by a group of bishops.

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.

Let me approach it from another perspective. If we posit that Ambrosius had overarching political authority in Britain whilst Arthur had supreme military command of British forces, we can then reconcile Nennius and Gildas. Gildas' sermon concentrates on the moral (un)worthiness of Britain's political rulers and he doesn't go into the military side of things in any detail.* Nennius on the other hand is very much interested in the military side of things and he describes battles and names commanders - Germanus and Arthur.

There is a precedent for a British political overlord leaving the fighting to a subordinate. After Germanus shames Vortigern for marrying his daughter, the latter turns against the Saxons and retires to a fortress in Wales. He leaves military command to his son Vortimer, who fights successfully against the Saxons for a time:

"But soon after calling together his twelve wise men, to consult what was to be done, they said to him, "Retire to the remote boundaries of your kingdom; there build and fortify a city to defend yourself, for the people you have received are treacherous; they are seeking to subdue you by stratagem, and, even during your life, to seize upon all the countries subject to your power, how much more will they attempt, after your death!" The king, pleased with this advice, departed with his wise men, and travelled through many parts of his territories, in search of a place convenient for the purpose of building a citadel." - Nennius: 42
.........

"At length Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, valiantly fought against Hengist, Horsa, and his people; drove them to the isle of Thanct, and thrice enclosed them with it, and beset them on the western side. The Saxons now despatched deputies to Germany to solicit large reinforcements, and an additional number of ships: having obtained these, they fought against the kings and princes of Britain, and sometimes extended their boundaries by victory, and sometimes were conquered and driven back.

Four times did Vortimer valorously encounter the enemy; the first has been mentioned, the second was upon the river Darent, the third at the Ford, in their language called Epsford, though in ours Set thirgabail, there Horsa fell, and Catigern, the son of Vortigern; the fourth battle he fought, was near the stone on the shore of the Gallic sea, where the Saxons being defeated, fled to their ships." - Nennius: 43-44

Notice that Vortimer fights with the kings and is clearly their commander. Vortigern retains his position as British overlord as he later renews his alliance with the Saxons and cedes large parts of eastern Britain to them after he is captured. If he was just a Welsh warlord he would have no authority to do so and the Saxons would have known it.

This then neatly parallels a later rapport between Ambrosius and Arthur, and furthermore follows the late Roman practice of splitting civil and military command (in the sense of supreme command: Emperor and Magister Militum).


*Actually he says so himself: "for it is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field."

[Imperial Dave]

anything written 300-400 years after the events is supposition and interpretation of what is available to Nennius and others. Dont forget there is still debate ongoing as to who Nennius was and the dating of the various copies/versions available

some useful stuff is here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm

treatise on 'Nennius' I found interesting if somewhat 'old' is here https://www.jstor.org/stable/456601?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

[Imperial Dave]

just to add that the broad consensus is to treat Nennius extremely carefully as there are clearly inconsistencies, later gloss and obvious folklore portions mixed in with what might prove historically useful

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Gildas actually affirms that the kings (i.e. magistrates with some military authority) were chosen by vote:

"Kings were anointed, not according to god's ordinance, but such as showed themselves more cruel than the rest; and soon after, they were put to death by those who had elected them, without any inquiry into their merits, but because others still more cruel were chosen to succeed them." - De Excidio: 21

[Justin Swanton]

anything written 300-400 years after the events is supposition and interpretation of what is available to Nennius and others. Dont forget there is still debate ongoing as to who Nennius was and the dating of the various copies/versions available

some useful stuff is here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm

treatise on 'Nennius' I found interesting if somewhat 'old' is here https://www.jstor.org/stable/456601?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

I prefer to take the approach that someone like Nennius - who is consciously trying to write history - has a decent pile of source material to work from (which has since been lost) and understands the necessity of being careful with the truth. That doesn't mean he can't make any mistakes, sure, but I'm finding that he is a good deal more consistent than I was originally led to believe. Nennius' history may have had later glosses but the substance was written by one individual which he is traditionally accredited as being. I'll go with that. 

Careful with that translation of Nennius from Vortigern studies. Just glancing at it one problem already appears:

Vortigern [Guorthigirnus] then reigned in Britain. In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and their apprehensions of Ambrosius.


Transliterating the Latin:

guorthigirnus regnauit in brittannia - Vortigern ruled in Britain

et dum ipse regnabat - and while he was ruling

urgebatur a metu pictorum scottorumque - he was pressed/weighed down by fear of the Picts and Scots - Urgebatur is in the third person singular and clearly refers to Vortigern, not the natives.

et a romanico impetu - and by the Roman attack/vigour/fury - Impetus is in the singular so probably doesn't mean "attack" but more likely "determined opposition"

nec non et a timore ambrosii - and not least by fear of Ambrosius

So Vortigern does have power over Britain, but his authority is fragile as he is troubled by external threats as well as internal opposition, i.e. his rule is not viewed as entirely legitimate by the Romans. Ambrosius is his biggest internal opponent but does not yet command the loyalty of the other magnates. My take is that Vortigern had military prestige since he came from a militarised outlier district and was accepted as overlord in a time of crisis but he was not popular amongst the more Romanised Britains.

[Imperial Dave]

my reservations are based on a few observations and overlaying of timelines which are quite complicated as you will no doubt have fathomed. I dont have a problem with an Arthur I just maintain he is too late for the 5th Century. It really depends on how you are linking the 'Arthur' with the timeframe with the (1st) battle of Badon and what references and evidence you are relying on.

whether you believe his is mid 5th (ad.Saxonicum), late 5th (1st Battle Badon) or early-mid 6th (during or post Gildas floruit) and/or secondary Arthurs after the 1st one

[Justin Swanton]

my reservations are based on a few observations and overlaying of timelines which are quite complicated as you will no doubt have fathomed. I dont have a problem with an Arthur I just maintain he is too late for the 5th Century. It really depends on how you are linking the 'Arthur' with the timeframe with the (1st) battle of Badon and what references and evidence you are relying on.

whether you believe his is mid 5th (ad.Saxonicum), late 5th (1st Battle Badon) or early-mid 6th (during or post Gildas floruit) and/or secondary Arthurs after the 1st one

The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?

[Imperial Dave]

The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?

Annales Cambriae

[Justin Swanton]

The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?

Annales Cambriae

The Annales give only one Badon which is dated 516. The same Annales give the age of Bishop Ebur as 350 years, so we can accept it is not entirely accurate in its chronology.

[Erpingham]

The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?

Annales Cambriae

dated to 665.   "The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies."

Its significance or otherwise is discussed here :

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=jlo

Warning for Justin : this is a long discussion of where scholars have placed Badon in the past and, as such, will not fit with your prefered historical method.  It does, inter alia, cover the evidence extensively, however.  For me, it demonstrates the unwisdom of saying anything too definitive about the nature and location of the battle.

[Justin Swanton]

The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?

Annales Cambriae

dated to 665.   "The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies."

Its significance or otherwise is discussed here :

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=jlo

Warning for Justin : this is a long discussion of where scholars have placed Badon in the past and, as such, will not fit with your prefered historical method.  It does, inter alia, cover the evidence extensively, however.  For me, it demonstrates the unwisdom of saying anything too definitive about the nature and location of the battle.

Fine. I'm on a learning curve. So the Annales have a second Badon 149 years after the first. The simplest interpretation is that the second Baden doesn't have anything to do with Arthur as the Britons had by then been pushed back to Wales and Cornwall/Devon and weren't in any position to fight and win pitched battles against the Saxons. Badon - like Thermopylae - seems to have been a good defensive position and hence a suitable place for battles.

[Jim Webster]

It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him.

Not in this period. It's probably  Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604) was the first who pushed for what we think of as the Papal Primacy but until about 730 the popes (often grudgingly) accepted the authority of the Byzantine Emperor via the Exarchate of Ravenna

So there wasn't the centralisation we now assume as the norm, indeed when Augustine was sent north by the Pope to 'convert' England, he was specifically told to keep his eyes open whilst crossing Gaul and if there were any Gallic ways of doing things that seemed good to him, he should adopt them

[Jim Webster]

Let me approach it from another perspective. If we posit that Ambrosius had overarching political authority in Britain whilst Arthur had supreme military command of British forces,

First you have to presume that they were contemporaries, but you'd have to explain how he had overarching political authority when we know there were other 'kings' and leaders
Apparently analysis of Nennius have led some to conclude there were two men called Ambrosius, (Better to say Ambrosius Aurelianus as that way you avoid the more important Bishop) who might have been related

[Anton]

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.

Gildas actually affirms that the kings (i.e. magistrates with some military authority) were chosen by vote:

"Kings were anointed, not according to god's ordinance, but such as showed themselves more cruel than the rest; and soon after, they were put to death by those who had elected them, without any inquiry into their merits, but because others still more cruel were chosen to succeed them." - De Excidio: 21

Should anyone be conversant with the Early Irish Law texts a lot of what Gildas says becomes quite familiar.  Elective kingship is the business of the nobles of the polity and the free men who are their clients.  It was a highly competitive affair.   I think that is exactly what Gildas is describing in the quote above. Leading Church Men couldn't alter that, they could only pick a side and try to extract a price for their support.

[Imperial Dave]

others things to consider is the context and political backdrop to when any 'historical' accounts were written. what was the purpose, who did they favour, who was the audience, ie what was the lens through which the writer and audience was expected to view it. very few written accounts have zero bias and in times of great upheaval even less so