The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Anton]

Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating.  He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows.  That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.

[Imperial Dave]

and anything roughly east of a line of the Fosse Way 'doesnt exist' or is at least outside of his influence sphere and/or intended audience

[Anton]

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.

I found that very helpful Justin  Thank you.

[Anton]

and anything roughly east of a line of the Fosse Way 'doesnt exist' or is at least outside of his influence sphere and/or intended audience

He seems to indicate a surviving British polity in the east with his remarks about St Alban's Shrine.  His sphere of influence is I think the key thing.  He looks to be primarily making a political intervention aimed at a specific audience.

[Justin Swanton]

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

The fact that Vortigern makes all the big decisions (ceding Kent to the Saxons over the head of its king)  and is responsible for what happens in north Britain even though he doesn't come from there. And the fact that his son commands the other kings in battle.

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

The evidence for two Ambrosii?

[Justin Swanton]

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

This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway. I studied Church history for years and can supply evidence that the primacy of Rome was operational from day one (e.g. the intervention of Rome in the Corinthian church even though John the Apostle was still alive and much nearer). But better to just leave it at that.

[Erpingham]

This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.

Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church.  Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed

In this context, it is best to recall synods arose in the context of this discussion as "gatherings of senior people to decide things known in the 5th century".

Yours, on behalf of the moderatorial and administrative branch,

[Justin Swanton]

This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.

Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church.  Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed

Damn! So I can't start explaining why Catholicism is the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. 

[Anton]

On the ceding of Kent. 

It's worth noting that Ceint uniquely kept its original name and Christianity survived there.  I think that Vortigern ceded half of its territory and Hengist kept his end of the federate bargain by way of legitimacy -hence the name and religious survival.  The original owners kept the other half and fought to regain the rest.

There's the survival of gavelkind too, until the 1920s.  Quite remarkable.

[Justin Swanton]

Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating.  He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows.  That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.

"Secular authority" as we understand it didn't exist before the French Revolution. Before that time a government was always expected to uphold the religion of its subjects. Even the cosmopolitan Roman Empire formally endorsed the Roman religion whilst adopting elements of other religions. A government separated from religion was unthinkable.

What was happening in Britain was interesting though. The Life of St Germanus affirms that many Britons weren't Christians. The Empire itself had become formally Christian only towards the end of the 4th century so a Christian society with a Christian government was still very much WIP in Britain and elsewhere. This would have meant that social codes of conduct were fluid: the old pagan/Roman customs were gradually being replaced or were transmuting into the Christian ethic but the process was far from complete. This removed a lot of restraint from the new British rulers (who had no traditional code of kingly conduct to restrain them anyway). The fact that Vortigern thought he could openly marry his daughter and get away with it is telling. I don't think the new 'kings' were warlords so much as a kind of mafiosi, very much part of the system but not under the moral constraints of 'normal' people. And anyway, people in power generally tend to think they are exempt from the moral obligations of the hoi-polloi. But it was worse in Britain according to Gildas.

[Erpingham]

This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.

Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church.  Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed

Damn! So I can't start explaining why Catholicism is the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. 

Correct

[Imperial Dave]

back to the aspect of Gildas and the why......is he sermonising to gain some form of authority over the western Kings (my son, you have sinned but its not too late if you recognise xyz....)

[Justin Swanton]

back to the aspect of Gildas and the why......is he sermonising to gain some form of authority over the western Kings (my son, you have sinned but its not too late if you recognise xyz....)

I don't think so. He is sermonising in the 500s - when Christianity was much more established - to remind the kings (who are expected to uphold the Christian religion anyway) what happens when they abandon the practice of their faith. For Christianity to work one has to keep driving home its tenets as they are not easy to live by, especially for someone in power. Which is why there were sermons in the first place.

And he doesn't want political authority over the kings. There was a kind of partnership between Church and government in the early Middle Ages, not a domination of kings by the Church. You have to wait until the 1200s before the Popes acquired direct political power over Christian states, especially the Empire. But that didn't last long. The slap in the face of Boniface VIII (which killed him) ended papal political hegemony. The Papacy went past the limits and paid for it.

[Anton]

Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating.  He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows.  That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.

"Secular authority" as we understand it didn't exist before the French Revolution. Before that time a government was always expected to uphold the religion of its subjects. Even the cosmopolitan Roman Empire formally endorsed the Roman religion whilst adopting elements of other religions. A government separated from religion was unthinkable.

What was happening in Britain was interesting though. The Life of St Germanus affirms that many Britons weren't Christians. The Empire itself had become formally Christian only towards the end of the 4th century so a Christian society with a Christian government was still very much WIP in Britain and elsewhere. This would have meant that social codes of conduct were fluid: the old pagan/Roman customs were gradually being replaced or were transmuting into the Christian ethic but the process was far from complete. This removed a lot of restraint from the new British rulers (who had no traditional code of kingly conduct to restrain them anyway). The fact that Vortigern thought he could openly marry his daughter and get away with it is telling. I don't think the new 'kings' were warlords so much as a kind of mafiosi, very much part of the system but not under the moral constraints of 'normal' people. And anyway, people in power generally tend to think they are exempt from the moral obligations of the hoi-polloi. But it was worse in Britain according to Gildas.

Actually Justin secular authority is just what we find in the Early Irish Law texts and it persists until the early 1600s.  It is recognisable as such even by our modern views on the subject.  One example may surfice.  We all know Christian marriage law and, ignoring Brides of Christ, there is only one kind of marriage permitted.  Not so in early Medieval Ireland, there were multiple legally sanctioned forms of marriage there.  The Church didn't like it but couldn't change it.

The reason that I'm referencing Irish Law is that it was codified as a direct response to the mayhem (kings) unleashed by the collapse of the Western Empire.  The newest stimulus for the Irish learned class was from Brythonic interactions.  Christianity was the vehicle for that. It is hard not to see the same struggle going on in Britannia.

As far as I can tell Maxim, an ardent Nicene Christian, oversaw the comprehensive conversion of Britannia. Gildas and Patrick before him aren't remotely worried about British pagans.  Heresy is a different matter but that is an intra Christian thing.

I'm not seeing paganism as a feature in St Germanus's visit.  Fear of Pelagasianism and maybe some evidence for sumptary laws was my take.

[Imperial Dave]

in fact there is a form of inversion that happens in the 4th and 5th Centuries whereby the western and northern areas that were nominally Roman and nominally Christian suddenly had a vigorous injection of Celtic churchism + hankering for the Imperial days and the South and Eastern areas go from Roman/Christian to pretty much pagan and non roman in outlook