The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Anton]

I've missed a bit of this.  Anyhow, bite sized chunks works for me.  Trying to assemble an overview of the whole period gets me nowhere.  If I consider one thing at a time I feel I'm making progress.  I'm currently thinking about the names of polities and what they might tell us.

[Jim Webster]

I've missed a bit of this.  Anyhow, bite sized chunks works for me.  Trying to assemble an overview of the whole period gets me nowhere.  If I consider one thing at a time I feel I'm making progress.  I'm currently thinking about the names of polities and what they might tell us.

I know what you mean about the bite sized chunks. It can at times be possible to get a grip of a small sector. But before you know where you are you discover that actually what you thought was right won't work because of something happening in Gaul that was dated to three years before 

[Anton]

Yes, it's slippy work Jim.  I can't help thinking we would benefit greatly from more of Justin's translations of Gildas.

[Jim Webster]

Yes, it's slippy work Jim.  I can't help thinking we would benefit greatly from more of Justin's translations of Gildas.

I think that if somebody did set to and do a translation, with a 'military' bias, it could be a useful corrective to other translations and could be read in parallel with them to everybody's advantage 

[Justin Swanton]

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

Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?

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

Then what about this passage:

"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.

The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47

[Erpingham]

Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?

He was already Bishop of Auxerre at the time of his visit, which may have given him a sense of obligation, perhaps ?

Then what about this passage:

Which is from Nennius, rather than Constantius.  Nennius' version is fuller than Constantius' and draws on other traditions.  It is also written much later. 

[Jim Webster]

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

Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?

His day job. He was a Bishop which meant he had considerable civil responsibility for his area and he travelled to Arles to met the Praetorian Prefect, Auxiliaris (435-437)

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

Then what about this passage:

"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.

The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47

That passage isn't in the life of Germanus which is what I was covering. The life mentions no individuals by name from the first trip (save one man of "High military rank" whose blind daughter was healed and he's not named) and in the second trip, a man called Elafius who had a crippled son. The whole Vortigern thing doesn't come from the life of Germanus. I'm not saying it isn't true, it just isn't mentioned at all. In the life he had fallen and injured his foot and was laid up 'for a considerable time' and he'd only just got over this when the army asked for both bishops to join them.

The only mention of Saxons is as an enemy, "the Saxons and the Picts had joined forces to make war on the Britons"
Because there is no mention of hostile Saxons 'in' Briton, I took it that both they and the Picts had invaded. Certainly there's no sense of a hostile presence other than this invasion, and Germanus had been in the country perhaps as much as a year by this point (I cannot see him sailing before Easter in 429AD, ignoring the weather and seasons for travelling, he'll have almost certainly wanted to keep Easter in his diocese. But as he had been injured and recovered so it could be Easter 430AD when the battle was held. But there are no mentions of Saxons, or Germanic elements in his army or in society or whatever. There is no hint of Arianism, the heresy they went to deal with was that of Pelagius. There is no hint there Britain was any easier or more difficult to traverse than Gaul.

Also the life states that the army had asked for both prelates (St Lupus was with him) and the two bishops came and celebrated Easter, which would bring with it a lot of Baptisms. It was after the Easter Service that Germanus 'announced that he would be their general" The latin uses Dux proelii.

[Imperial Dave]

I am still not convinced re Germanus's visit in terms of what he is supposed to have achieved. Ie the depth to which Britain was embroiled in Pelagianism and the miracles he has supposed to have performed. It feels panegyric in nature

[Jim Webster]

I am still not convinced re Germanus's visit in terms of what he is supposed to have achieved. Ie the depth to which Britain was embroiled in Pelagianism and the miracles he has supposed to have performed. It feels panegyric in nature

The fact that he may have had to go back for another go indicates it wasn't the howling success people assumed. But in the terms of saints lives, there aren't that many miracles, and he spends a lot of time bedridden and then gets called in by the military. Also he'll keep wanting to get back to Gaul, so you can see why, from the heresy point of view, it wasn't the success it was portrayed to be.
But panegyric was a reputable literary form back then so one can expect an element of that at the very least

[Imperial Dave]

yes and was used alot for various persons including emperors and senior generals obviously.

[Jim Webster]

yes and was used alot for various persons including emperors and senior generals obviously.

Yes the style 'trickled down' and senior clergy were the next level. I suspect we don't see the stuff written about senior provincial figures because it so rarely survives.

[Justin Swanton]

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

Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?

His day job. He was a Bishop which meant he had considerable civil responsibility for his area and he travelled to Arles to met the Praetorian Prefect, Auxiliaris (435-437)

Auxiliaris does rather fix the time of Germanus inter-visit stay in Gaul, and the Vita is clear his anti-Saxon activities definitely took place before he returned to Gaul, which would fix his battle against them at about 435 at the latest. I can't really argue with that. Time to rethink my chronology.

[Imperial Dave]

think of it as a jigsaw with many pieces, some of which are from a different jigsaw. If you are careful you will end up with a picture that you can roughly make out but will have gaps if you dont try to force the wrong pieces in it

[Erpingham]

Time to rethink my chronology.

Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429.  You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation.  Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time. 

[Justin Swanton]

Time to rethink my chronology.

Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429.  You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation.  Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time.

I don't see any reason to discard the second visit - I prefer to accept the sources unless there is real evidence for not doing so (and a lack of independent confirmation isn't a good enough reason). Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.