The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Imperial Dave]

Its not that Nennius and Gildas are unreliable.......we just have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them. Taking into account that the copies we have now may contain redactions, loss of content and errors on top of the primary bias and veracity means that we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to. What helps is if we have archaeological evidence that supports the narrative we have proposed. Although again there is danger in the tail wagging the dog with that.

What I would say is that I would be marginally more happy with what Gildas has written about the events around his floruit than before. Although as a last word on Gildas from me is that there is a sneaky suspicion by some that a redaction has occurred at some point in regards to the bit about the 'Saxon prophecy' referring to 150 and 300 years.

With Nennius I am less certain because he has admitted he is using a whole heap of stuff and so has consciously tried to create a narrative with information from 400 years in the past that he cannot hope to confirm is completely true. The unknown number of sources x 400 years gives a high probability for errors and misinformation. Undoubtedly there is truth in there as well but unpicking it is somewhat er.... difficult

[Justin Swanton]

Its not that Nennius and Gildas are unreliable.......we just have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them. Taking into account that the copies we have now may contain redactions, loss of content and errors on top of the primary bias and veracity means that we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to. What helps is if we have archaeological evidence that supports the narrative we have proposed. Although again there is danger in the tail wagging the dog with that.

What I would say is that I would be marginally more happy with what Gildas has written about the events around his floruit than before. Although as a last word on Gildas from me is that there is a sneaky suspicion by some that a redaction has occurred at some point in regards to the bit about the 'Saxon prophecy' referring to 150 and 300 years.

With Nennius I am less certain because he has admitted he is using a whole heap of stuff and so has consciously tried to create a narrative with information from 400 years in the past that he cannot hope to confirm is completely true. The unknown number of sources x 400 years gives a high probability for errors and misinformation. Undoubtedly there is truth in there as well but unpicking it is somewhat er.... difficult

There you are, Dave. If we have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them, and we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to, then by definition they are unreliable. I'd be interested in the academic process by which one reaches such a degree of uncertainty (I have a sneaking suspicion it's a case of over-analysing to the point of utter confusion, but that's just me ).

Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.

[Imperial Dave]

pretty much...

overlaying information is how alot of these things get super analysed and picked apart. The sticking point (one of the sticking points) is when you get differences...which bit is the true bit. Having said that, information that appears to corroborate might not confirm its true. For example, Bede uses Gildas for his early period info so just because Gildas and Bede agree doesnt means its all good! 

[Justin Swanton]

Having said that, information that appears to corroborate might not confirm its true. For example, Bede uses Gildas for his early period info so just because Gildas and Bede agree doesnt means its all good! 

Sure, but what I'm seeing thus far is that the whole picture hangs together. No important part of Nennius or Gildas is proven to be wrong or impossible or even implausible. That must count for something.

[Imperial Dave]

having been down this road myself I am hesitant to say yea or nay. The only thing I will say is on balance of probability xyz could have happened etc. We just dont know and there are a myriad of theories out there all using the same sources....

[DBS]

Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.

Actually, as regards Livy for the monarchy and early Republic, there is exactly the same level of scepticism in some quarters... for exactly the same reasons as scepticism regarding Nennius: too great a distance in time, unclear and uncertain sources, and clear evidence of muddling.  With Livy, it comes down to articles of faith re: the Fasti - their existence and accuracy.

[Justin Swanton]

Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.

Actually, as regards Livy for the monarchy and early Republic, there is exactly the same level of scepticism in some quarters... for exactly the same reasons as scepticism regarding Nennius: too great a distance in time, unclear and uncertain sources, and clear evidence of muddling.  With Livy, it comes down to articles of faith re: the Fasti - their existence and accuracy.

Is it a general academic consensus that it is impossible to know if any of the major events and actors in the monarchy and early Republic as described by Livy existed at all?

[Erpingham]

Well, things have rapidly moved on   There are a couple of points from earlier I might have picked up on but, just for context around Constantius and his sources, he knew and corresponded with St Lupus, Germanus' colleague on the first mission, so could indeed have had a clearer view of earlier conditions than later ones.

Generally, I slightly despair of Justin's approach to the subject.  Decide to treat a late, problematic, source as holy writ and try to force other evidence to conform.  Why ignore Bede, who introduces Hengest and Horsa, for example?  Why must we treat Nennius as completely accurate but ignore the Annales or the AS Chronicle as getting their dates wrong?   Why do we not consider the archaeology?  How about the Brittany link (which I'd suggest may be why Constantius thinks everything is fine with the British church - he's hearing feedback from the West coming through the strong links to Brittany).  Honestly, this is one hell of a complex subject and just to fix on one late source with clear content issues is a bit of basic error.  But people who know the subject much better than me have made this apparent in the course of the discussion.

[Imperial Dave]

as an aside, the various academics who make this their bread and butter shift from position to position over the years depending on latest research, new finds, reinterpretations and unconscious modern perceptional bias

[DBS]

Regarding Livy...

No, as I say it comes down to articles of faith in the existence and reliability of the Fasti for that period.  At university, I was taught Roman Republican history by two lecturers.  One was Tim Cornell, who believed one could use Livy as a rough guide (in the absence of anything better and recognising that in some places he clearly did not have a clue - big issues such as the alleged conflict between the patricians and the plebs are very problematic) but with caution, and who thought that the Fasti might have some sound basis for the period.  The other, Dominic, was a complete and utter sceptic, and reckoned anything before the mid fourth century BC at best was pretty much out of reach of serious history.

When it came to Finals, both were marking the papers.  I therefore was careful to adopt a very sceptical stance, since I knew that Tim was open minded enough to mark well someone who took such a view as long as they argued it well, whilst Dominic was less likely to be kind to anyone who followed Tim's line... 

[Justin Swanton]

Generally, I slightly despair of Justin's approach to the subject.  Decide to treat a late, problematic, source as holy writ and try to force other evidence to conform.

Not quite. Thus far I've looked at Nennius, Gildas, the Welsh Chronicles, the Gallic Chronicles, the Life of Germanus and the Life of Gildas and seen if it's possible to reconcile them without forcing all of them to fit one in particular.

Why ignore Bede, who introduces Hengest and Horsa, for example?

Getting there.

Why must we treat Nennius as completely accurate but ignore the Annales or the AS Chronicle as getting their dates wrong?

Not "completely accurate" but, thus far, in accord as regards the major events with the other sources. It's just a case of seeing if it is possible to shake out a coherent chronology. Re dates, the one problematic date is 516 and it doesn't fit with a long-lived Gildas nor with Arthur appearing on the scene after Germanus returns to Gaul. 516 would mean that Arthur arrives only about 50 years after Germanus.

Why do we not consider the archaeology?

Fine, let's consider it. All yours.

How about the Brittany link (which I'd suggest may be why Constantius thinks everything is fine with the British church - he's hearing feedback from the West coming through the strong links to Brittany).

What exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.

Honestly, this is one hell of a complex subject and just to fix on one late source with clear content issues is a bit of basic error.

Again, I haven't done that.

[Justin Swanton]

Regarding Livy...

No, as I say it comes down to articles of faith in the existence and reliability of the Fasti for that period.  At university, I was taught Roman Republican history by two lecturers.  One was Tim Cornell, who believed one could use Livy as a rough guide (in the absence of anything better and recognising that in some places he clearly did not have a clue - big issues such as the alleged conflict between the patricians and the plebs are very problematic) but with caution, and who thought that the Fasti might have some sound basis for the period.  The other, Dominic, was a complete and utter sceptic, and reckoned anything before the mid fourth century BC at best was pretty much out of reach of serious history.

When it came to Finals, both were marking the papers.  I therefore was careful to adopt a very sceptical stance, since I knew that Tim was open minded enough to mark well someone who took such a view as long as they argued it well, whilst Dominic was less likely to be kind to anyone who followed Tim's line... 

I can absolutely relate to writing an exam for a prof rather than for the subject matter. Y'know, I wonder to what extent our convictions come from a consensus among the people we tend to respect rather than from the facts or evidence itself. Meself, I don't trust consensuses (or consensi?) at all. If I can't see conclusive evidence for something then I reserve judgement (which means there is an impressive pile of things I don't know). Looking only at the sources and bypassing academic opinions continues to be an eye-opener for me.

Take for example Badon. It is commonly assumed that Gildas makes Ambrosius responsible for the British victory, but - actually reading Gildas - he doesn't say anything of the kind. The resistance against the Saxons initially coalesced around Ambrosius, sure, but it was his offspring who were given the final victory by God. Implication: by that time he was dead. So Gildas doesn't contradict Nennius who affirms that Arthur was responsible for winning Badon, personally (or him and his own unit) killing hundreds of Saxons in the process. Does any academic point that out?

BTW I don't disparage academic study - it is invaluable for assembling every relevant bit of source material that might shed light on a topic. No single individual who has to hold down a day job is capable of doing that.

[Erpingham]

Fine, let's consider it. All yours.

Well, here are a couple of relatively recent items dealing with archaeology that give some idea of how interpreting all this is rather complicated :

https://www.academia.edu/24427173/The_adventus_saxonum_from_an_Archaeological_Point_of_View_How_Many_Phases_Were_There

https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/axe-the-anglo-saxons.htm

I'm not saying either of the approaches are right, just that there are different ways of seeing.

What exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.

I think the issue is whether we assume the events described by Gildas et al should have been noted as having an impact on the Church. 

[Erpingham]

Take for example Badon. It is commonly assumed that Gildas makes Ambrosius responsible for the British victory, but - actually reading Gildas - he doesn't say anything of the kind. The resistance against the Saxons initially coalesced around Ambrosius, sure, but it was his offspring who were given the final victory by God.

It may be others read Gildas like this :

"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 seems odd to insult the offspring of Ambrosius as degenerate then in the next sentence ascribe to them victory.  It makes more sense, I think, to read the remarks about Ambrosius' offspring as an aside.

[DBS]

What exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.

I think the issue is whether we assume the events described by Gildas et al should have been noted as having an impact on the Church.

Exactly.  If one is to believe the Life of Gildas (and I am in no way assuming it is reliable), he was probably no longer even in the country when he wrote The Ruin of Britain but had been forced to evacuate to a monastery the other side of the Channel.  And that is someone passionately devoted to preserving and upholding the faith.  It is also notable that when Gregory sent Augustine, there is no mention or role for the British church in the plans for evangelism and establishing 26 bishops, and by the seventh century Wilfrid is being deployed to outmanoeuvre the dodgy British church on Rome's behalf.  Yes, time had passed, but one gets the distinct impression even the non-Saxon bits of the island had been somewhat written off in Rome.