The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Erpingham]

That makes him unusually healthy and long-lived but not unbelievably so.

I think one of the problems is everyone tends to end up like this.  In order to marry Maximus' daughter, and assuming she is a child when her father dies Vortigern has to be roughly contemporary, which makes him maybe in his 70s when he dies.  Ambrosius is an adult and political enemy when Vortigern dies c. 450, which makes him in at least his sixties if he is still political authority at the time of Badon.  Arthur was probably younger than Amrosius but he's still be fighting his last battle in his sixties or later.  As you say, not impossible, but a long string of people "dying old" does signal caution.

[Erpingham]

It was? I'd be interested in the source for that.

All the fault of Victorius of Aquitaine, apparently

[Justin Swanton]

It was? I'd be interested in the source for that.

All the fault of Victorius of Aquitaine, apparently

Nennius doesn't follow him, putting 30 years between Christ's birth and death:

"From the passion of Christ are completed nine hundred and forty-six; from his incarnation, nine hundred and seventy-six"

I wonder how much the others did.

[Imperial Dave]

on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance

[Justin Swanton]

on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance

The moment of epiphany.   I wouldn't consider trying to do serious history if I can't read the sources in the original language. Translations suck.

[Imperial Dave]

they can do.....

I am now in the throes of deep diving the info I have again on the subject and unfortunately I will have to rely on others translations so may have to take consensus views here and there

[Jim Webster]

on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance

The moment of epiphany.   I wouldn't consider trying to do serious history if I can't read the sources in the original language. Translations suck.

Good luck with 5th century Britain, the 'original sources' are in late latin, Early Welsh and you can even find mentions in Greek 

I agree entirely with you in your statement, but one problem is that so few historians have competence across the entire spectrum of languages 

[Imperial Dave]

and have now retraced an article I found intriguing a few years ago. i chanced upon it when doing de excidio research. Have a look and see what you think. It works on teh premise that the original writings of Gildas would have been on a private 'small book' type layout. Its use/misuse may have left several pages lost and/or jumbled and then copied verbatim by a scribe or copyist who didnt realise.

The first link is for the 'reassembled' latin sections and the second link for the translation.

I found it really interesting and in the context of the flow of transmission of info highly possible. It is interesting also to note that if, as the author believes, that not only are some pages jumbled but also that other pages have been lost, it could (could I emphasise) the reason why other leaders, heroes and villains are not mentioned by Gildas.....

https://www.scribd.com/document/305606036/The-Exemplar-of-Gildas-De-Excidio
https://www.academia.edu/30914661/The_Gemitus_Britannorum

[Justin Swanton]

and have now retraced an article I found intriguing a few years ago. i chanced upon it when doing de excidio research. Have a look and see what you think. It works on teh premise that the original writings of Gildas would have been on a private 'small book' type layout. Its use/misuse may have left several pages lost and/or jumbled and then copied verbatim by a scribe or copyist who didnt realise.

The first link is for the 'reassembled' latin sections and the second link for the translation.

I found it really interesting and in the context of the flow of transmission of info highly possible. It is interesting also to note that if, as the author believes, that not only are some pages jumbled but also that other pages have been lost, it could (could I emphasise) the reason why other leaders, heroes and villains are not mentioned by Gildas.....

https://www.scribd.com/document/305606036/The-Exemplar-of-Gildas-De-Excidio
https://www.academia.edu/30914661/The_Gemitus_Britannorum

Interesting theory.

[Imperial Dave]

it is. The other thing is that it puts a lot of emphasis on Hen Coel and the battle north of the Wall (Coilsfield)

[Imperial Dave]

it appears I may have broken Justin......

[Justin Swanton]

it appears I may have broken Justin......

To think I've been wrong all this time... (sobs)

[Imperial Dave]

 

[Jim Webster]

I picked up that Life of St Germanus

A few points about him, he had been a Dux, and even as a bishop slept under his general's cloak instead of any blankets

It's uncertain how long he was in Britain but he spent some time laid up with some sort of foot injury so probably months

He was back in Gaul at least by 435AD because of people he met and interacted with were only in post at about that period

With the second trip to Britain, it was far less of a deal than his first trip. The problem was a handful of preachers and there was enough civil authority to have them rounded up and exiled to Gaul with Germanus.

There's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time

The life was written about 480AD 

[Imperial Dave]

There's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time

The life was written about 480AD

possibly tolerated for federates and unknown re Northern tribes not visited