The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Erpingham]

We need to lose the idea that Nennius was some sort of lonely hermit in a village or cave somewhere, with a few books on a shelf and whatever he could glean from passers by. He was part of an organised institution of learning - his mastery of Latin proves it - and by any gauge was well-educated.

Who has this idea?  A straw man argument doesn't advance things, nor does pretending modern Wales wasn't very far advanced from the early Middle Ages.

Nennius is a well-educated monk in a small monastery in Wales which probably is well-connected, so his knowledge of contemorary events may have been quite good. But he didn't have much in the way raw material on the earlier history of Britain.  We know because he says so.  We can't believe every word of his text except the bit that says how inadequate he felt his starting point was.  I'd much rather believe him on that and read what he says critically based on that admission.

[Justin Swanton]

We need to lose the idea that Nennius was some sort of lonely hermit in a village or cave somewhere, with a few books on a shelf and whatever he could glean from passers by. He was part of an organised institution of learning - his mastery of Latin proves it - and by any gauge was well-educated.

Who has this idea?  A straw man argument doesn't advance things, nor does pretending modern Wales wasn't very far advanced from the early Middle Ages.

Sorry Anthony. I was reading too much into "I'm afraid poor Nennius was in a much worse position, pulling together what he had to hand and any stories he and his contacts knew, making a heap and then trying to knit what he had into a coherent whole."

Nennius is a well-educated monk in a small monastery in Wales which probably is well-connected, so his knowledge of contemporary events may have been quite good. But he didn't have much in the way raw material on the earlier history of Britain.  We know because he says so.  We can't believe every word of his text except the bit that says how inadequate he felt his starting point was.  I'd much rather believe him on that and read what he says critically based on that admission.

Reading Nennius, my take is that he sees himself as more inadequate than that his source material is insufficient (and unreliable) at least for a short history. He can't write a long one:

I have lispingly put together this history from various sources, and have endeavored, from shame, to deliver down to posterity the few remaining ears of corn about past transactions, that they might not be trodden under foot, seeing that an ample crop has been snatched away already by the hostile reapers of foreign nations.

Nonetheless he insists, more than once, that he is writing the truth:

And do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory: for truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but she adds it to her former treasures.

The chaff is his style of writing. The wheat is the facts he transmits. Someone who has a poor opinion of himself but a great regard for the truth is, IMHO, to be taken seriously.

[DBS]

Oh dear.  I have been very restrained, given that when I was eleven I was taught by a very didactic Head of PE and Archaeology, who made us write essays on Two Bad Historians and One Good Historian.  Needless to say, Gildas and Nennius were Mr Sollis' two appalling reprobates, whose dreadful methodology was to avoided by all good First Years, and the Venomous Bede the teacher's pet.  In later life I have always regretted not having the knowledge at eleven to tell Mr Sollis that Gildas was not trying to be a historian, but that would probably have earned me the cane or at the very least, multiple laps of the cross country course...  So all of this risks unleashing pre-pubescent PTSD.

Anyway, I would observe that the Gallic Chronicle of 452, referenced by Jim a few pages back, gives 441 as the date for "The Britains, up to now afflicted by various disasters and vicissitudes, were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons."

[Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.]

Of course, the chronicler might be out by a year or two, but this is someone probably writing within a decade or so of the event, not - like Gildas - writing about events half a century to a century before, and not, like Nennius, doing so three centuries later.  Interesting is the description of the island as Britanniae in the plural, which suggests either a recollection of the old multiple late period provinces, or, alternatively and just as likely, the fragmentation of the island post-Rome.

Now, if we put any weight on the claim that they were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons, then that must mean that the Saxons had already arrive in sufficient strength (more than the ASC's three keels) before then.  Lay to one side all the stuff about Vortigern, Hengist and Horsa - we do not know if they ever existed, since all the references to them come a lot later.  Focus on the fact that, to a near contemporary, by about 441, "Saxons", in Britain in whatever numbers and whatever status, whether foederati or barbarian encroachers, have enough strength to be judged, by a Gallic source somewhere near Marseille, to have upset the political applecart in Britain.  The extent of that disruption is quite possibly/probably exaggerated; maybe they only reduced the Britons closest to Gaul to their rule - eg Kent or East Anglia.  What does a monk in Marseille know about the rest of the island?

Yes, I recognise that the Saxons also get a mention in the Chronicle in 409/10, when "The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons." [Britanniae Saxonum incursione davastatae.]  But incursione is ambiguous - is it just another bad year for raids, or does it mean a more substantial loss of territory or permanent encroachment?

If we accept the date of St Germanus' visit in 429, then chances are that there are no Saxons around, at least ones necessarily distinguishable as an encroaching polity.  This ties in with the best guesses from the archaeology which struggles to identify any such encroaching cultural element before circa 430.  To my mind, the idea that a Bishop of Auxerre would be absent for fifteen years is just ridiculous.  There is, as far as I know, no near contemporary evidence to link Germanus with Saxons during his first visit, so it seems perfectly plausible for him to have come over, patronised the locals, and returned home as he should have done as a good bishop, and for the Saxon problem to have developed between his departure and circa 441.  Even if Saxons did encroach in 409/10 and put down some sort of presence, and we accept that the archaeology has simply not found any such evidence or been over confident in its dating to two decades later, that may just mean that a prudent Bishop from Auxerre was not daft enough to go near Kentish or East Anglian bad lands.

EDIT - Have just double checked Vita Germani and realise that it gives the Alleluia Victory as part of the first visit.  However, a) the Alleluia Victory seems one of the dodgiest elements in the hagiography; b) if Constantius of Lyon is writing in 480, he may have retrojected Saxons; c) even if the AV did happen, and was against Saxons, they may well be just raiders again, as per previous Roman Barbarian Conspiracies, and not evidence in themselves of an encroaching polity.  I think my reasoning therefore still stands firm.

[Erpingham]

 I,  Nennius,  disciple  of  St.  Elbotus,  have  endeavoured  to  write
some  extracts  which  the  dulness  of  the  British  nation  had  cast  away,
because  teachers  had  no  knowledge,  nor  gave  any  information  in  their
books about this island of Britain. But I have got together all that I could
find as well from the annals of the Romans as from the chronicles of the
sacred  fathers,  Hieronymus,  Eusebius,  Isidorus,  Prosper,  and  from  the
annals  of  the  Scots  and  Saxons,  and  from  our  ancient  traditions.

This is not a man who thinks his sources are adequate.  See also

deliver down to posterity the few remaining ears of corn about past transactions, that they might not be trodden under foot, seeing that an ample crop has been snatched away already by the hostile reapers of foreign nations.


Incidentally, I think you'd be better reading

And do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory

as expanding this metaphor about the wheat field of history (despite the distance in the actual text between them).  Nennius has delivered to posterity the ears of information corn which he has gleaned after hostile reapers have removed the main crop, which the reader is to winnow to remove the chaff and extract the wheat of fact.

[Imperial Dave]

There's no vested interest in forging a history of Britain.

I spat my tea out at that.....

[Imperial Dave]

Oh dear.  I have been very restrained, given that when I was eleven I was taught by a very didactic Head of PE and Archaeology, who made us write essays on Two Bad Historians and One Good Historian.  Needless to say, Gildas and Nennius were Mr Sollis' two appalling reprobates, whose dreadful methodology was to avoided by all good First Years, and the Venomous Bede the teacher's pet.  In later life I have always regretted not having the knowledge at eleven to tell Mr Sollis that Gildas was not trying to be a historian, but that would probably have earned me the cane or at the very least, multiple laps of the cross country course...  So all of this risks unleashing pre-pubescent PTSD.

Anyway, I would observe that the Gallic Chronicle of 452, referenced by Jim a few pages back, gives 441 as the date for "The Britains, up to now afflicted by various disasters and vicissitudes, were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons."

[Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.]

Of course, the chronicler might be out by a year or two, but this is someone probably writing within a decade or so of the event, not - like Gildas - writing about events half a century to a century before, and not, like Nennius, doing so three centuries later.  Interesting is the description of the island as Britanniae in the plural, which suggests either a recollection of the old multiple late period provinces, or, alternatively and just as likely, the fragmentation of the island post-Rome.

Now, if we put any weight on the claim that they were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons, then that must mean that the Saxons had already arrive in sufficient strength (more than the ASC's three keels) before then.  Lay to one side all the stuff about Vortigern, Hengist and Horsa - we do not know if they ever existed, since all the references to them come a lot later.  Focus on the fact that, to a near contemporary, by about 441, "Saxons", in Britain in whatever numbers and whatever status, whether foederati or barbarian encroachers, have enough strength to be judged, by a Gallic source somewhere near Marseille, to have upset the political applecart in Britain.  The extent of that disruption is quite possibly/probably exaggerated; maybe they only reduced the Britons closest to Gaul to their rule - eg Kent or East Anglia.  What does a monk in Marseille know about the rest of the island?

Yes, I recognise that the Saxons also get a mention in the Chronicle in 409/10, when "The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons." [Britanniae Saxonum incursione davastatae.]  But incursione is ambiguous - is it just another bad year for raids, or does it mean a more substantial loss of territory or permanent encroachment?

If we accept the date of St Germanus' visit in 429, then chances are that there are no Saxons around, at least ones necessarily distinguishable as an encroaching polity.  This ties in with the best guesses from the archaeology which struggles to identify any such encroaching cultural element before circa 430.  To my mind, the idea that a Bishop of Auxerre would be absent for fifteen years is just ridiculous.  There is, as far as I know, no near contemporary evidence to link Germanus with Saxons during his first visit, so it seems perfectly plausible for him to have come over, patronised the locals, and returned home as he should have done as a good bishop, and for the Saxon problem to have developed between his departure and circa 441.  Even if Saxons did encroach in 409/10 and put down some sort of presence, and we accept that the archaeology has simply not found any such evidence or been over confident in its dating to two decades later, that may just mean that a prudent Bishop from Auxerre was not daft enough to go near Kentish or East Anglian bad lands.

EDIT - Have just double checked Vita Germani and realise that it gives the Alleluia Victory as part of the first visit.  However, a) the Alleluia Victory seems one of the dodgiest elements in the hagiography; b) if Constantius of Lyon is writing in 480, he may have retrojected Saxons; c) even if the AV did happen, and was against Saxons, they may well be just raiders again, as per previous Roman Barbarian Conspiracies, and not evidence in themselves of an encroaching polity.  I think my reasoning therefore still stands firm.

very much in step with what i have been trying to (badly) say.....

[DBS]

very much in step with what i have been trying to (badly) say.....

Thank you, and I for one understood your argument.  One other point that has struck me in recent years is the manner in which most discussions of fifth century Britain tend to ignore the seismic goings on in Belgica.  The Franks get a mention when discussion turns to Augustine's mission to convert the barbarians at the end of the sixth century, because Bertha provides the avenue for entry, but from the middle of the fifth there are those nice chaps Childeric and Clovis carving out their kingdom.  It is taken as a given that Kent prospers, especially under Aethelbert, because of its Frankish links, but what about a century earlier when keels hitting Thanet are as likely to be Frankish or Frisian as they are Angle, Saxon or Jute, and Belgica Secunda, quite literally across the water from Kent, is home to the evolving Merovingian polity?

[DBS]

For anyone questioning why Gildas inexplicably fails to mention the Blessed Germanus, perhaps ponder this sentence from the end of Ch 27 of Constantius' hagiography:

The effect of all this was so salutary that even now the faith is persisting intact in those parts. And so, with everything settled, the blessed bishops made a prosperous journey back to their own country.

Such a claim rather undermines Gildas' entire thesis!  Even if Gildas had heard of Germanus' visits - and it is perhaps generous to assume that the ecclesiastical grapevine was still functioning fully in fifth and sixth century Britain - he may have had a less rosy view of their outcome or significance.  He thought Britain had gone to hell in a handcart, so either Germanus was not as wonderful as Constantius of Lyon reckoned, or else, no matter how heroically saintly the great man was, he had still failed to save Britain from itself.  Either way, Germanus is irrelevant to Gildas.

Furthermore, if Constantius reckoned in the 480s that the faith was safe in Britain, he was either delusional or we need seriously to recalibrate most of the commonly held assumptions.

[Imperial Dave]

thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th

were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived

[DBS]

thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th

were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived

Exactly.  Gildas may be exaggerating of course - after all, he managed to get a decent enough Roman or sub Roman education - and the good folk at Tintagel are still getting a few nice imports from the old empire, but the archaeology suggests the towns and cities are pretty much gone by the late 4th century, let alone the late fifth.  We do not hear much specific mention of British bishops in this period.  Bishops, on the Roman model, are of course linked to towns, so much more vulnerable than self sufficient monasteries to such a collapse of the Roman model.  Also worth noting that, when Celtic Christianity re-enters the written record for mainland Britain in the seventh century, it is monastic based, not episcopal, and of course is out of line with Rome.  Compare Aidan with Paulinus, or the shenanigans of the dreadful St Wilfrid trying to impose Roman orthodoxy (and make himself an archbishop...)  Lastly, Constantius may have heard first hand - if dubious - tales of Germanus' trips, but how would he be in a position to know how things were in the 480s, sitting in Lyon?

[Justin Swanton]

This is all certainly a learning curve. Ta David for putting me on to the Gallic Chronicle. It is, as you say, one of the most reliable sources on the Empire in the 5th century including Britain.

Thus far it seems we can fix a few dependable dates:

1. 410: Britain is "devastated by an incursion of the Saxons."
2. 429: Germanus arrives at Britain for his first visit.
3. 435-7: Germanus is back in Gaul where he travels to Arles to negotiate a tax reduction with Auxiliaris (Prefect of Gaul 435-7).
4. 441: Britain is under Saxon domination.

Using these dates as a framework, is it possible to insert the major events in Nennius and Gildas in a way that is coherent? Let me try. (please be patient!)

After Magnus Maximus leaves Britain in 383
The Romans on several occasions send forces to Britain to aid the Britons, eventually leaving them the means to defend themselves. The Romans no longer directly intervene in British affairs. (Nennius and Gildas)

Before and after the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons cannot defend themselves against the barbarians. The barbarian raids are not continuous - there are truces and times of peace and even plenty for the Britons (Gildas)

After the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons appeal to Aetius some time after 426 when he takes command of the Gallic field army. (Gildas)

Vortigern rises to power to fill the vacuum left by the Roman military administration. He fears the Picts and Scots, but also the "Romans" - i.e. the more romanised Britons in the southeast, and Ambrosius. (Nennius)

He invites the Saxons in as mercenaries. They become dissatisfied with the provisions given them after they have grown in numbers (Nennius and Gildas).

After Germanus' arrival in 429
Germanus preaches throughout Britain, visits the tomb of St Alban, is injured and spends some time in convalescence. (Vita Sancti Germani)

Vortigern is given Hengist's daughter in return for Kent. He then gives territory to Hengist's son in northern Britain near the Wall (Gual) (Nennius)

Vortigern marries his own daughter. Germanus shames him before an assembly of clerics and laity. Vortigern retires to Wales where he builds a fortress and meets Ambrosius who is a child and impresses him with his supernatural knowledge. (Nennius)

Vortimer fights against the Saxons and wins some victories against them before being killed. (Nennius)

Vortigern renews his friendship with the Saxons. He is captured during a feast and cedes large parts of southeast Britain to them (Nennius).

Germanus again rebukes Vortigern who again flees to Wales and builds a fortress in Guorthegirnaim. Germanus and all the British clergy go there to remonstrate with Vortigern. (Nennius)

The Saxons march to Wales to help Vortigern. Germanus is given command of the British forces. He defeats the Saxons in a valley surrounded by mountains. (Nennius)

Vortigern flees to Dimetae where he dies. Germanus leaves Britain some time before 435-7 (Nennius)

From Germanus' return to Gaul before 435-7
The Saxons grow "in strength and numbers" (Nennius)

They spread from the east to the western shore: " For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." (Gildas)

After the Saxon hegemony of 441
Germanus returns to Britain for a brief visit that is entirely ecclesiastical in nature. Saxon domination is a fait accompli at this point but life goes on, at least in the vicinity of London. The Saxons would probably behave like other barbarian tribes in the Empire: out for a slice of the cake without wanting to smash the entire plate.

The Britons rally around Ambrosius who is now a man, and a long and inconclusive struggle begins, with sometimes the Britons and sometimes the Saxons winning the battles. (Gildas)

Later on Arthur is given the command of the British forces and wins all the battles he fights, 12 in total. (Nennius) Was Arthur chosen as commander because he was a better general than Ambrosius?

The climactic battle is fought at Badon (Gildas and Nennius). Notice that Ambrosius is not explicitly mentioned as being present at this battle by Gildas, only Arthur (by Nennius). This battle is probably in the 480s or 490s as it is the year of the birth of Gildas, who, according to the Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys is "an old man full of days" when he died. His death is dated at 570 by the Welsh Chronicle so a date in the late 400s is indicated (if one accepts the Welsh Chronicle). Arthur is actively present at the battle killing hundreds of the enemy (which I interpret as he and his personal unit doing the killing), so he is young enough to be in the saddle and swinging a sword, which puts him probably in his 50's at the latest. Presuming a date in the 480s, that means Arthur starts campaigning in the 450's at the earliest. If Ambrosius was a boy towards the end of Vortigern's life - ball park figure, say 10 around 430 - that would make him in his 60's at Badon's earliest date. He might even have been dead when the battle was fought.*

Looking at Nennius and Gildas' account of Ambrosius, Gildas affirms his family had the purple but both his parents were killed. Nennius affirms his father was a Roman consul even though his mother affirms he had no father. A possible way of resolving this is that Ambrosius' mother wasn't actually his mother, just his guardian, and his real identity was being kept a secret to prevent him from being killed as well, possibly by a fearful Vortigern. Once he had succeeded in impressing Vortigern he revealed who he really was and Vortigern took him on board as a useful ally. Just a hypothesis, but it reconciles the accounts. Why not?

And now let me run for cover...


*Edit: he is probably dead since Gildas affirms his offspring gain the final victory.

[Imperial Dave]

This is all certainly a learning curve. Ta David for putting me on to the Gallic Chronicle. It is, as you say, one of the most reliable sources on the Empire in the 5th century including Britain.

Thus far it seems we can fix a few dependable dates:

1. 410: Britain is "devastated by an incursion of the Saxons."
2. 429: Germanus arrives at Britain for his first visit.
3. 435-7: Germanus is back in Gaul where he travels to Arles to negotiate a tax reduction with Auxiliaris (Prefect of Gaul 435-7).
4. 441: Britain is under Saxon domination.

Using these dates as a framework, is it possible to insert the major events in Nennius and Gildas in a way that is coherent? Let me try. (please be patient!)

After Magnus Maximus leaves Britain in 383
The Romans on several occasions send forces to Britain to aid the Britons, eventually leaving them the means to defend themselves. The Romans no longer directly intervene in British affairs. (Nennius and Gildas)

Before and after the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons cannot defend themselves against the barbarians. The barbarian raids are not continuous - there are truces and times of peace and even plenty for the Britons (Gildas)

After the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons appeal to Aetius some time after 426 when he takes command of the Gallic field army. (Gildas)

Vortigern rises to power to fill the vacuum left by the Roman military administration. He fears the Picts and Scots, but also the "Romans" - i.e. the more romanised Britons in the southeast, and Ambrosius. (Nennius)

He invites the Saxons in as mercenaries. They become dissatisfied with the provisions given them after they have grown in numbers (Nennius and Gildas).

After Germanus' arrival in 429
Germanus preaches throughout Britain, visits the tomb of St Alban, is injured and spends some time in convalescence. (Vita Sancti Germani)

Vortigern is given Hengist's daughter in return for Kent. He then gives territory to Hengist's son in northern Britain near the Wall (Gual) (Nennius)

Vortigern marries his own daughter. Germanus shames him before an assembly of clerics and laity. Vortigern retires to Wales where he builds a fortress and meets Ambrosius who is a child and impresses him with his supernatural knowledge. (Nennius)

Vortimer fights against the Saxons and wins some victories against them before being killed. (Nennius)

Vortigern renews his friendship with the Saxons. He is captured during a feast and cedes large parts of southeast Britain to them (Nennius).

Germanus again rebukes Vortigern who again flees to Wales and builds a fortress in Guorthegirnaim. Germanus and all the British clergy go there to remonstrate with Vortigern. (Nennius)

The Saxons march to Wales to help Vortigern. Germanus is given command of the British forces. He defeats the Saxons in a valley surrounded by mountains. (Nennius)

Vortigern flees to Dimetae where he dies. Germanus leaves Britain some time before 435-7 (Nennius)

From Germanus' return to Gaul before 435-7
The Saxons grow "in strength and numbers" (Nennius)

They spread from the east to the western shore: " For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." (Gildas)

After the Saxon hegemony of 441
Germanus returns to Britain for a brief visit that is entirely ecclesiastical in nature. Saxon domination is a fait accompli at this point but life goes on, at least in the vicinity of London. The Saxons would probably behave like other barbarian tribes in the Empire: out for a slice of the cake without wanting to smash the entire plate.

The Britons rally around Ambrosius who is now a man, and a long and inconclusive struggle begins, with sometimes the Britons and sometimes the Saxons winning the battles. (Gildas)

Later on Arthur is given the command of the British forces and wins all the battles he fights, 12 in total. (Nennius) Was Arthur chosen as commander because he was a better general than Ambrosius?

The climactic battle is fought at Badon (Gildas and Nennius). Notice that Ambrosius is not explicitly mentioned as being present at this battle by Gildas, only Arthur (by Nennius). This battle is probably in the 480s or 490s as it is the year of the birth of Gildas, who, according to the Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys is "an old man full of days" when he died. His death is dated at 570 by the Welsh Chronicle so a date in the late 400s is indicated (if one accepts the Welsh Chronicle). Arthur is actively present at the battle killing hundreds of the enemy (I interpret that as his personal unit with him doing the killing), so he is young enough to be in the saddle and swinging a sword, which puts him probably in his 50's at the latest. Presuming a date in the 480s, that means Arthur starts campaigning in the 450's at the earliest. If Ambrosius was a boy towards the end of Vortigern's life - ball park figure, say 10 around 430 - that would make him in his 60's at Badon's earliest date. He might even have been dead when the battle was fought.

Looking at Nennius and Gildas' account of Ambrosius, Gildas affirms his family had the purple but both his parents were killed. Nennius affirms his father was a Roman consul even though his mother affirms he had no father. A possible way of resolving this is that Ambrosius' mother wasn't actually his mother and his real identity was being kept a secret to prevent him from being killed as well. Once he had succeeded in impressing Vortigern he revealed who he really was and Vortigern took him on board as a useful ally. Just a hypothesis, but it reconciles the accounts.

And now let me run for cover...

not required. Its an attempt to piece together a working chronolgy for the 5th. We may disagree on the detail but the output is welcome!

[Imperial Dave]

thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th

were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived

Exactly.  Gildas may be exaggerating of course - after all, he managed to get a decent enough Roman or sub Roman education - and the good folk at Tintagel are still getting a few nice imports from the old empire, but the archaeology suggests the towns and cities are pretty much gone by the late 4th century, let alone the late fifth.  We do not hear much specific mention of British bishops in this period.  Bishops, on the Roman model, are of course linked to towns, so much more vulnerable than self sufficient monasteries to such a collapse of the Roman model.  Also worth noting that, when Celtic Christianity re-enters the written record for mainland Britain in the seventh century, it is monastic based, not episcopal, and of course is out of line with Rome.  Compare Aidan with Paulinus, or the shenanigans of the dreadful St Wilfrid trying to impose Roman orthodoxy (and make himself an archbishop...)  Lastly, Constantius may have heard first hand - if dubious - tales of Germanus' trips, but how would he be in a position to know how things were in the 480s, sitting in Lyon?

the numismatic, lack of stone building and switch to much more local wares evidence points to an economic collapse from the late 4th through the 5th. Its also quite distinctly different from all but some parts of Northern Gaul on the continent. Britain starts to diverge from the continental Roman and post Roman 'model' in the 4th so by the 5th Britain is in effect radically different and in effect cut off from the rest of the Roman world.

[Justin Swanton]

not required. Its an attempt to piece together a working chronolgy for the 5th. We may disagree on the detail but the output is welcome!

For me the period is increasingly coming into focus. Nennius and Gildas seem quite reliable in the main facts if you understand their approach. Gildas makes clear he won't be mentioning the exploits of the Britons' "champion soldiers" - hence no Arthur or Germanus - and Nennius affirms he is writing a precis history since he lacks the documentation for a longer one, but he is emphatic he is giving a reliable account. Their accounts can be made to fit the solid facts we do have from other sources and add up to a plausible chronology that doesn't make active military men too old - I was rather wondering what was happening in that interim period between the fall of Vortigern and the arrival of Arthur. If Ambrosius is a so-so military commander (he doesn't come from a military background) who loses as often as he wins, and Arthur is a good commander who generally or always wins, then it makes sense that Arthur succeeds Ambrosius in the military sphere even if Ambrosius continues to have a political overlordship. Do any other sources mention Ambrosius at Badon?

[DBS]

And now let me run for cover...

Two things:
- as mentioned above, I would set aside mention of Vortigern, Hengist, Horsa, Ambrosius as a precocious child, incest with daughters and castle retreats in Wales.  They all seem to be the reckless accretions by Nennius and inherently dodgy.  Personally, I think there may well have been a Vortigern (whatever that name or title conveys or conceals) and an Ambrosius, but I do not believe in the naming of a Saxon "Gelding" and "Horse" as the villainous barbarian brothers.  As for Germanus lecturing Vortigern for taking Happy Families a tad too far...  One might have thought Constantius would have mentioned something like that, alongside the fight against heretical teachings.  Also, even if one accepts the Alleluia victory as historical fact, Constantius just has it as Christian Britons vs nasty Picts and Saxons - no mention of the Picts or the Saxons fighting for an evil and depraved British king deposed by a saint.  Again, the very fact that has appeared by the time Nennius writes it up a few centuries later makes it inherently dodgy.

- I would not overplay the brief Gallic Chronicle statement for 441 into "Saxon hegemony".  From a Gallic perspective, even local victories and the establishment of a small pagan barbarian enclave on the Channel and/or North Sea coast might seem to be the overthrow of the old order in Britain.  To my mind, it more likely marks the real start of the contest for what became England, rather than an immediate strategic victory by the Saxons.