The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Justin Swanton]

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.

If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?

[DBS]

If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?

None.  I hesitate to speak for Holly, but the point he and I are both making is that Britain collapses economically in the second half of the 4th century, before even the supposed "end of Roman rule."  The towns and cities are reckoned by the archaeologists to have lost population by 50% or more.  Coinage dries up - very little new stuff is coming in, London stops minting coins, and the last "British minting" occurs with some dodgy copies of continental coinage around 407/8, probably recycled from clippings and potentially linked to the last brief splutter of imperial pretensions under Constantine.

Tintagel gets some luxury imports into the early sixth century, but at Cadbury they are recycling old cremation urns to get dinner ware.  The plague in the mid sixth century is probably the last nail in the coffin for imperial trade connections.

[Imperial Dave]

it is implied in Gildas that Ambrosius was at Badon but not categorically so.

[Imperial Dave]

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.

'Saxons' in this sense could refer to the Kent/Frankish connection which could be well established in the 5th and if so might be a garbled message of hegemony that was reported

[DBS]

An excellent point.  From the perspective of a chap in Lyon, the eastern end of the English Channel (say, Kent and Belgium) has gone horribly hairy and pagan.  The details may well elude him, or just do not matter.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

I wouldn't set it all aside unless there is solid evidence for doing so. What determines a 'reckless accretion' is entirely subjective in nature.

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.

Those might have been their nicknames. Didn't Vikings - same background - have similarly odd names that were less than flattering but didn't bother them?

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.

The section on Germanus' political role in the Vita is very summary, only two chapters out of a work of 46 chapters. The writer evidently didn't want to go into too much detail as his focus was elsewhere.

Again, the very fact that has appeared by the time Nennius writes it up a few centuries later makes it inherently dodgy.

Nennius' focus is on British history, notably the politics, hence naturally he goes into the details around Germanus' military adventure and his dealings with Vortigern.

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.

The text of the Gallic Chronicle is clear: "The British lands, up to this time lacerated with various disasters and events, were subjugated under the rule of the Saxons."

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

Dicio means:  1. authority, power, control, 2. rule, domain, sway. See here. The Saxons have Britain under their control at this point, not just a small piece of it.

[Imperial Dave]

Britanniae is vague - all 5 provinces or just the bit that would make sense - the SE and Kent

[Justin Swanton]

If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?

None.  I hesitate to speak for Holly, but the point he and I are both making is that Britain collapses economically in the second half of the 4th century, before even the supposed "end of Roman rule."  The towns and cities are reckoned by the archaeologists to have lost population by 50% or more.  Coinage dries up - very little new stuff is coming in, London stops minting coins, and the last "British minting" occurs with some dodgy copies of continental coinage around 407/8, probably recycled from clippings and potentially linked to the last brief splutter of imperial pretensions under Constantine.

Tintagel gets some luxury imports into the early sixth century, but at Cadbury they are recycling old cremation urns to get dinner ware.  The plague in the mid sixth century is probably the last nail in the coffin for imperial trade connections.

Actually that makes sense. The trouble starts for the Britons after Maximus leaves - even before if you include the Barbarian Conspiracy - and doesn't really stop until after Badon, at which point the economy has settled down to subsistence level anyway.

[Imperial Dave]

the world of Britain shrinks after the economic decline and could explain the rise of civitates as polities relatively early and why we have some references to 'local rulers' in the 4th when supposedly still under Roman rule such as Coel Hen, Paturnus, Cunedda etc. whether they are all credible or responsible for the acts they are linked with in written refences or not is another matter

[DBS]

The text of the Gallic Chronicle is clear: "The British lands, up to this time lacerated with various disasters and events, were subjugated under the rule of the Saxons."

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

Dicio means:  1. authority, power, control, 2. rule, domain, sway. See here. The Saxons have Britain under their control at this point, not just a small piece of it.

You misunderstand.  I know what the text says.  What I am saying is that just because the chronicler, thought to be in or near Marseille, perceives that to be the case, does not mean that it was the case.  There will be an horizon to his knowledge and understanding. It is the same as Ammianus talking about, say, the Huns displacing the Alans and the Goths.  All that he really knows for sure is that the Goths turn up in a distressed state on the Danube; he has no deep understanding of events on the Ukrainian steppe.

What the Gallic Chronicle gives us, in my opinion, is a clear contemporary statement that there is some sort of Saxon polity in southern or eastern Britain in 441, that has won some form of territorial or political control - ie a major step beyond raiding.  The extent of that control is another matter entirely, and the use of in dicionem may be a bit of monastic hyperbole.

As for Nennius, I am sorry, but I am sure that Constantius, whose primary objective was to tell everyone how wonderful Germanus was, would not have missed the opportunity to mention his hero doing a spot of Old Testament prophetic correction of a depraved monarch like a modern Elijah.  Ergo, if Constantius does not mention Vortigern, or Vortigern's daughter, or the Saxons and Picts fighting for Vortigern against the saint, I really, really question the wisdom of saying that Nennius, hundreds of years later, knew better.  Nennius is simply not sound - he is a damned sight dodgier than Gildas.

[Justin Swanton]

it is implied in Gildas that Ambrosius was at Badon but not categorically so.

Looking at Gildas, all he affirms is that Ambrosius started the British resistance against the Saxons:

"A remnant, to whom wretched citizens flock from different places on every side, as eagerly as a hive of bees when a storm is threatening, praying at the same time unto Him with their whole heart, and, as is said, burdening the air with unnumbered prayers, that they should not be utterly destroyed, take up arms and challenge their victors to battle under Ambrosius Aurelianus. He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race chanced to survive in the shock of such a storm (as his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed in it), whose offspring in our days have greatly degenerated from their ancestral nobleness. To these men, by the Lord's favour, there came victory."

It isn't Ambrosius who finally wins, but his offspring. The implication is that he is dead when victory finally comes.

Britanniae is vague - all 5 provinces or just the bit that would make sense - the SE and Kent

In the context of the Chronicle it seems clear enough that all of Roman Britain is indicated.

[Imperial Dave]

we will have to agree to disagree about the Gallic Chronicle. For me it says that Britain suffers from an incursion by 'Saxons' and although not described that would make sense if the SE nearest the continent. Dont forget that the channel area including the SE of Britain and NW of the Gallic area was considered at various times as a whole/singularity. Also the author of the Gallic Chronicle is a very staunch orthodox Christian and laments paganism and arianism in particular with focus on the degeneration of the Roman State

[Duncan Head]

- 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.

Don't forget that Hengist (or a Hengist) is mentioned in the Finnsburg fragment. At the very least, that confirms that it's an acceptable Germanic name. At most, it may describe "the" Hengist leading footloose warriors just across the North Sea.

[Imperial Dave]

Hengest is another of those elusive figures that is mentioned in poetry and quite possibly historical but not conclusively. The Finnsburg fragment and Beowulf feel very familiar to say Aneirin's Y Gododdin. Lots of praise poetry and heroic in nature

[Justin Swanton]

What the Gallic Chronicle gives us, in my opinion, is a clear contemporary statement that there is some sort of Saxon polity in southern or eastern Britain in 441, that has won some form of territorial or political control - ie a major step beyond raiding.  The extent of that control is another matter entirely, and the use of in dicionem may be a bit of monastic hyperbole.

What I find interesting is that the Chronicle, taken in its obvious sense, matches the picture painted by Nennius and Gildas of Britain in that period.

Nennius, after Germanus returns to Gaul:

"At that time, the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers. And Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the kingdom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period."

Notice that Nennius distinguishes between Kent and Britain. Octa takes over Kent but the Saxons increase in power in Britain, not just in Kent.

Gildas, after the Saxons invited by Vortigern grow dissatisfied with their provender:

"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."

This is more than just one army (never mind a small raiding force) defeated by a Germanus in a single battle in Wales - it's all over the country. The Britons begin to resist this invasion only under Ambrosius:

"But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation ... that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus"

If a square peg fits a square hole...

Thus far I find it quite possible to reconstruct a coherent picture without having to toss any source overboard. The only real headache is that date of 516 for Badon in the Welsh Chronicle, but looking through the Chronicle it seems that it gets other dates wrong as well. If one proposes that the original date was given as after the birth of Christ but was assumed to be after Christ's Passion by a copyist who then corrected it to the birth of Christ by adding 30-odd years, it then fits the rest of the narrative.

Clearly the academic consensus is that Nennius and Gildas are so unreliable that one can't even know for certain if Arthur or Ambrosius existed (never mind Hengist or Vortigern and one can laugh off Vortimer) but I'm curious why there is so much doubt over the sources. Their accounts are abbreviated and incomplete (though they complement each other nicely) but I haven't seen anything major in them for this period that is demonstrably false.