The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Imperial Dave]

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.

actually thats very good insight Anthony and one to which I also ascribe

[Justin Swanton]

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 Gildas 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.

I agree, looking at the Latin:

tempore igitur interueniente aliquanto, - with a considerable period of time intervening
cum recessissent domum crudelissimi praedones, - when the most savage robbers returned to their home
roborante deo reliquiae, - the remnants, strengthened by God,
quibus confugiunt undique de diuersis locis miserrimi ciues, - to whom the most wretched citizens from different places fled
tam audie quam apes alueari procella imminente, - as eagerly as a hive of bees with the storm approaching
simul deprecantes eum tot corde - at the same time praying to him (God) wholeheartedly
et, ut dicitur, innumeris 'onerantes aethera uotis, - and, as one might say, burdening heaven with innumerable supplications
ne ad internicionem usque delerentur, - lest [they be given] to massacre until they were annihilated
duce ambrosio aureliano uiro modesto, - with the dux Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man
qui solus forte romanae gentis tantae tempestatis collisione occisis in eadem parentibus purpura nimirum indutis superfuerat, - who perhaps/by chance alone of the Roman gens survived the tempest in which his parents, doubtless endowed with the purple, were killed
cuius nunc temporibus nostris suboles magnopere auita bonitate degenerauit, - of which now in our times his offspring are greatly unworthy of their grandfather's/ancestral goodness
uires capessunt, uictores prouocantes ad proelium: - laid hold of strength (the subject is the 'remnants'), goading the victors (the Saxons) to battle
quis uictoria domino annuente cessit. - this is difficult (Rich, can you help?): quis is in the nominative singular - "who", "the which". Victoria is in the singular and could be nominative or ablative. My understanding: Which victory, by the will of God, came [to them].

But yes, the passage does imply that the final victory was granted to the fighting remnant of the Britons who were with Ambrosius. Though how exactly Ambrosius is 'with' them is not made clear. It goes too far to affirm that this passage makes him the commander at Badon. Strictly speaking it is the remnants that gain the victory which may exclude Ambrosius from the final battle.

[Erpingham]

But yes, the passage does imply that the final victory was granted to the fighting remnant of the Britons with Ambrosius. Though how exactly Ambrosius is 'with' them is not made clear. It goes too far to affirm that this passage makes him the commander at Badon.

I agree.  Ambrosius is the rallying point but "take up arms and challenge their victors to battle " does not necessarily refer to a single specific action rather than fighting in general.

[RichT]

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit. - this is difficult (Rich, can you help?): quis is in the nominative singular - "who", "the which". Victoria is in the singular and could be nominative or ablative. My understanding: Which victory, by the will of God, came [to them].

Quis (quibus in the Avranches MS) is dative, 'to whom'
Victoria is the subject

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit
'to whom victory, the Lord approving, fell'

Discussion:

https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/2014/07/07/gildas/

[Imperial Dave]

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit. - this is difficult (Rich, can you help?): quis is in the nominative singular - "who", "the which". Victoria is in the singular and could be nominative or ablative. My understanding: Which victory, by the will of God, came [to them].

Quis (quibus in the Avranches MS) is dative, 'to whom'
Victoria is the subject

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit
'to whom victory, the Lord approving, fell'

Discussion:

https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/2014/07/07/gildas/

thanks for the link Rich, really helpful

[Justin Swanton]

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit. - this is difficult (Rich, can you help?): quis is in the nominative singular - "who", "the which". Victoria is in the singular and could be nominative or ablative. My understanding: Which victory, by the will of God, came [to them].

Quis (quibus in the Avranches MS) is dative, 'to whom'
Victoria is the subject

quis uictoria domino annuente cessit
'to whom victory, the Lord approving, fell'

Discussion:

https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/2014/07/07/gildas/

Thanks Richard. It appears the Avranches MS is a corrected version of the original MS:

"The Avranches version has a more relaxed, medieval/vernacular word order.  The reviser/copyist does not trust the Latin endings to convey syntactical relationships: Gildas's "roborante deo"  and "romanae gentis" become "roborati a deo" and "de romane gente," with prepositions to clarify what goes with what. Gildas's "tantae tempestatis collisione" (which goes with "superfuerat," survived) is moved after the "in eadem" (in Gildas referring to the family killed in "the same" tempest which AA survived). He/she is trying to break Gildas's sentences down into more digestible chunks without losing anything.  Bede's simplification is masterful, Avranche's confused."

In any case the overarching sense is clear: victory falls to the remnants that at least start out with Ambrosius.

[RichT]

It appears the Avranches MS is a corrected version of the original MS:

That may be, but of course there is no surviving 'original MS' of Gildas. As Wikipedia says:

The oldest manuscript of the De Excidio is Cottonian MS. Vitellius A. VI, of the eleventh century, damaged by fire in 1731, but used by Theodor Mommsen in his edition nevertheless. Other manuscripts include the Avranches public library MS. No. 162 of the twelfth century, the Cambridge University Library MS. Ff. I. 27 of the thirteenth century, and the Cambridge University Library MS. Dd. I. 17 of ca. 1400. Cambridge Ff. I. 27 is the recension of a certain Cormac, and differs sharply from the other manuscripts in that it contains a shortened form of various parts and has many textual readings peculiar to itself. The oldest attestation of Gildas is actually found in the extensive quotations and paraphrases of the De Excidio made by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the earliest manuscripts of which date to the eighth century. .... The text as it is used today is thus a scholarly reconstruction; the prime witness and possibly the entire manuscript stemma may not actually preserve the original page order of the autograph.

That Avranches is a later version is 'just' a scholarly opinion (a very probable one) but the relationship if any between it and Cottonian is not certain.

As a general point, one of the peculiarities of source fundamentalists is a failure to engage with the complexities of manuscript history.

In this particular case though it makes little difference - the victory clearly fell to the 'remnants' or 'descendants' (which so far as I know, which isn't very far (not my period) is not disputed).

[Imperial Dave]

as posted a few pages back, there is some discussion on the page order by Rosenbaum in their article plus I think Woolf also make reference to it on a lesser scale

[Jim Webster]

Perhaps it is an unfamiliarity with 20th century Wales? This was a modern western country with a literate population, well-stocked libraries, multiple top class places of learning and Britain's first "book town" in Hay-on-Wye.  It has changed since the Dark Ages.

We have Nennius' word that he had very little material to go on, especially local historical materials, but had used whatever he could lay his hands on. 

Incidentally, Holyhead monastry is interesting in that it was built inside a late Roman fort. 

This potted history of St Cybi's church is quite interesting.

Sure, 8th century Gwynedd wasn't 20th century Gwynedd, but I think my point still stands. Nennius lived at a library that had existed without disturbance for 300 years. The library was part of a very cosmopolitan Church - Elfodd had conformed the date of Easter to the date observed by the rest of the Church. That means plenty of communication between Catholic Wales and the rest of Catholicism. True, he has much less material to work from than existed in former times, but that doesn't mean he had so little material that he would be obliged to pad out or invent things to make up his work - which isn't very long in any case.

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.

I think you overestimate the size of these libraries. There Hereford Chained Library has 229 manuscripts, a monastery with a thousand books would be very large
Also look at the topics of interest. There would be gospels, commentaries (Oh so very many of them), lives of various church fathers (A lot of these would be the lives of the greats rather than local saints) and there would be works by the great religious thinkers. Augustine and others. Then there would be legal texts such as those a major landowner would feel necessary to have to hand.
For the history section, there might be a chronicle kept by the monastery, (but not all did it) a few local saint's lives and perhaps a general history or two.
But seriously there didn't need to be histories in a monastery library, it's not what they were there for

[Justin Swanton]

One final point on the passage in Gildas: Ambrosius has the title of "dux" which is a military office, hence his role is one of military leadership at the outset of the British opposition to the Saxons. It still leaves open the question of how long he actually led armies in battle. If the Britons rise up not too long after Germanus returns to Gaul before 435-7 and Badon is in the 480s at the earliest, then the timeline suggests a younger and more active commander would be needed when Ambrosius grew old.

[Justin Swanton]

Perhaps it is an unfamiliarity with 20th century Wales? This was a modern western country with a literate population, well-stocked libraries, multiple top class places of learning and Britain's first "book town" in Hay-on-Wye.  It has changed since the Dark Ages.

We have Nennius' word that he had very little material to go on, especially local historical materials, but had used whatever he could lay his hands on. 

Incidentally, Holyhead monastry is interesting in that it was built inside a late Roman fort. 

This potted history of St Cybi's church is quite interesting.

Sure, 8th century Gwynedd wasn't 20th century Gwynedd, but I think my point still stands. Nennius lived at a library that had existed without disturbance for 300 years. The library was part of a very cosmopolitan Church - Elfodd had conformed the date of Easter to the date observed by the rest of the Church. That means plenty of communication between Catholic Wales and the rest of Catholicism. True, he has much less material to work from than existed in former times, but that doesn't mean he had so little material that he would be obliged to pad out or invent things to make up his work - which isn't very long in any case.

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.

I think you overestimate the size of these libraries. There Hereford Chained Library has 229 manuscripts, a monastery with a thousand books would be very large
Also look at the topics of interest. There would be gospels, commentaries (Oh so very many of them), lives of various church fathers (A lot of these would be the lives of the greats rather than local saints) and there would be works by the great religious thinkers. Augustine and others. Then there would be legal texts such as those a major landowner would feel necessary to have to hand.
For the history section, there might be a chronicle kept by the monastery, (but not all did it) a few local saint's lives and perhaps a general history or two.
But seriously there didn't need to be histories in a monastery library, it's not what they were there for

Nennius is specific about what he has:

traditions of our ancestors
writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain
annals of the Romans
the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Isidore, Hieronymus  Prosper, Eusebius,
the histories of the Scots and Saxons

This isn't much, but it's enough for a short history of less than 10,000 words.

On the subject of the Welsh and Gallic chronicles, how reliable are they deemed to be? Specifically, how many of their personages, events and dates are accepted as accurate?

[Imperial Dave]

the Welsh Chronicles are quite late but depends on whether you mean the Annales Cambriae or the "4 Ancient Books of Wales" ie The Black Book of Carmarthen, The Book of Taliesin, The Book of Aneirin, The Red Book of Hergest

[Jim Webster]

Perhaps it is an unfamiliarity with 20th century Wales? This was a modern western country with a literate population, well-stocked libraries, multiple top class places of learning and Britain's first "book town" in Hay-on-Wye.  It has changed since the Dark Ages.

We have Nennius' word that he had very little material to go on, especially local historical materials, but had used whatever he could lay his hands on. 

Incidentally, Holyhead monastry is interesting in that it was built inside a late Roman fort. 

This potted history of St Cybi's church is quite interesting.

Sure, 8th century Gwynedd wasn't 20th century Gwynedd, but I think my point still stands. Nennius lived at a library that had existed without disturbance for 300 years. The library was part of a very cosmopolitan Church - Elfodd had conformed the date of Easter to the date observed by the rest of the Church. That means plenty of communication between Catholic Wales and the rest of Catholicism. True, he has much less material to work from than existed in former times, but that doesn't mean he had so little material that he would be obliged to pad out or invent things to make up his work - which isn't very long in any case.

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.

I think you overestimate the size of these libraries. There Hereford Chained Library has 229 manuscripts, a monastery with a thousand books would be very large
Also look at the topics of interest. There would be gospels, commentaries (Oh so very many of them), lives of various church fathers (A lot of these would be the lives of the greats rather than local saints) and there would be works by the great religious thinkers. Augustine and others. Then there would be legal texts such as those a major landowner would feel necessary to have to hand.
For the history section, there might be a chronicle kept by the monastery, (but not all did it) a few local saint's lives and perhaps a general history or two.
But seriously there didn't need to be histories in a monastery library, it's not what they were there for

Nennius is specific about what he has:

traditions of our ancestors
writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain
annals of the Romans
the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Isidore, Hieronymus  Prosper, Eusebius,
the histories of the Scots and Saxons

This isn't much, but it's enough for a short history of less than 10,000 words.

On the subject of the Welsh and Gallic chronicles, how reliable are they deemed to be? Specifically, how many of their personages, events and dates are accepted as accurate?

One problem is that in the people we're looking at the Saxons and Scots don't appear to have been literate.
The Welsh and Gaul were, but the Gallic Chronicles rarely look to Britain. But this article gives you some idea as to the problems of the Chronicles

https://www.academia.edu/3432000/_The_Dark_Ages_Return_to_Fifth-Century_Britain_The_Restored_Gallic_Chronicle_Exploded_._Britannia_21_1990_185-95

Also there are dating problems, from memory one of them isn't so bad if you treat it as being x years out.
As for the writings of the ancient inhabitants of Britain, What writings? Certainly if he means pre-Roman I'm not sure there's any evidence there were any.
Roman Annals are fair enough, but they don't cover Britain much after it faded away from the Empire. And there's never a lot of detail.

[Erpingham]

One problem is that in the people we're looking at the Saxons and Scots don't appear to have been literate.

By the time Nennius is writing, they are literate.  They have monastic written material (which being in Latin would be accessible to Nennius) and the Anglo-Saxons have their Chronicle by the stage, but we don't know he spoke English, so that may not be a source he could access..

[Imperial Dave]

Nennius is specific about what he has:

traditions of our ancestors
writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain
annals of the Romans
the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Isidore, Hieronymus  Prosper, Eusebius,
the histories of the Scots and Saxons

This isn't much, but it's enough for a short history of less than 10,000 words.

On the subject of the Welsh and Gallic chronicles, how reliable are they deemed to be? Specifically, how many of their personages, events and dates are accepted as accurate?

taking each on the list:

traditions - possibly referring to bardic stories.....?
writings and monuments - mostly Roman or post Roman and dont forget ancient inhabitants is anyone before the 9th Century so possibly Gildas and Annales Cambriae plus gravestones and the like
annals of the Romans - Gallic Chronicles certainly
The fathers - as is
Saxons and Scots - Bede and then some ecclesiastical stuff for the Scots