The chronology of 5th century Britain

[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

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.

It depends what you mean by primacy. Pope Vigilius, arrested on the orders of the Emperor Justinian, at least partially for theological reasons, might have felt his primacy left much to be desired 

[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.

It depends what you mean by primacy. Pope Vigilius, arrested on the orders of the Emperor Justinian, at least partially for theological reasons, might have felt his primacy left much to be desired 

Eh? Ecclesiastical primacy of course. Nothing stopped the head of the Catholic Church from being arrested, imprisoned and executed by a ruthless emperor, king or whatever. It was the regular fate of popes in the 900's.

[Jim Webster]

Eh? Ecclesiastical primacy of course. Nothing stopped the head of the Catholic Church from being arrested, imprisoned and executed by a ruthless emperor, king or whatever. It was the regular fate of popes in the 900's.

Indeed there is a discussion as to how much Christianity had survived in England before Augustine arrived, and there is even more discussion as to how much there was even in 400AD. Gildas was a monk and evangelist and seeing Britain through his eyes may exaggerate the influence of the Church

But at some point, the Ecclesiastical primacy of the Pope hardly applied to Britain. Firstly we don't know how much influence Pelagius still had. Germanus' hagiographer says that he defeated them, (but that gives us the Mandy Rice-Davis defence of 'he would say that wouldn't he')
Then we have the 'Celtic Church' which is sometimes known as Insular Christianity (which has other uses as well which is perhaps why the term Celtic Church survives.

In the end we had the Synod of Whitby to decide the date of Easter, rather than just a papal directive. It's at that point that the Papacy starts having more influence over the church in the British Isles

[Justin Swanton]

One thing struck me in Gildas:

It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.

Transliterating the Latin:

quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave soldiers")
enuntiare trucis belli pericula - to announce the perils of savage war
mihi statutum est - for me is appointed
quam desidiosorum, - but [the perils] of the indolent

So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...

[Imperial Dave]

apart from Ambrosius

[Justin Swanton]

apart from Ambrosius

Yes, apart from him. 👍 One begins with a "G" and the other with an "A"... 

Edit: oh yes, and one with a "V".

[Imperial Dave]

yes the this is, if you reason that way then he might not be mentioning a whole host of characters who are from the era....we just dont know

[Erpingham]

G = Guorthemir?

[Imperial Dave]

I was thinking Gandalf for some reason

[Justin Swanton]

G = Guorthemir?

No. Second letter is an "e"...

[Erpingham]

Gerontius?  Can't be Germanus - Gildas would have seen him as a saintly figure responsible for ensuring the Catholic church became established in Britain and inspired St Illtud to found the monastry where Gildas studied.

[Justin Swanton]

Gerontius?  Can't be Germanus - Gildas would have seen him as a saintly figure responsible for ensuring the Catholic church became established in Britain and inspired St Illtud to found the monastry where Gildas studied.

Germanus was nevertheless an experienced military man who assumed the role of general and won a crucial battle against the Saxons. Somehow I don't think Gildas would have been scandalised or embarrassed by that.

Bottom line though is that Gildas makes clear the exploits of an Arthur were not going to appear in his sermon.

[Justin Swanton]

yes the this is, if you reason that way then he might not be mentioning a whole host of characters who are from the era....we just dont know

Sorry Dave, don't quite follow this.

[Justin Swanton]

Something else about Gildas. The Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys says he was "an old man full of days" when he died. The Welsh Chronicle gives 570 as the year of his death. But Gildas affirms that Badon happened the year he was born. In which case the Chronicle's date of 516 for Badon makes Gildas 54 when he died, hardly old and full of days. If however Badon took place in the 480's then Gildas would have been in his 80's when he died.

I have a notion of where the date of 516 came from but let me look at that tomorrow (not in front of a PC right now).

[Imperial Dave]

I think on balance most people are erring on 490 give or take a few years