The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks Anthony that's a relief. Writing, tone, and all that make for tricky terrain.

I'm not intending to attack your character Justin, but I am attacking what you post on this forum about historical method (or specific things that you post about other topics of interest to me). I've done my best to point out errors you make where they fall within my area of expertise, though with limited success in convincing you that they are errors (not least because I do not share your black and white view of facts v. errors - I think there is a much bigger, greyer space of opinion and interpretation than you seem to).

"all existing history is bunk and only my own superior method has any value"

Not a straw man but obviously also not a direct quote of anything you have said. But you constantly disparage academic study, it is in the nature of all your posts on the superiority of your methods. Can you really not see that?

Ok, ok, I was growling too much. Getting grumpy in my old age and all that.

Let's start with academic study. For the record I consider it invaluable. Let me repeat that: I consider academic study invaluable. Academics are in a position to assemble data that people like myself are not. You pointed out earlier the importance of having a good knowledge of the various versions of MSS if you want start from a position of trusting the sources (and ta for helping out with that passage from Gildas ) Academics are specialists who spend years collating every relevant piece of information on a specific topic and there is simply nothing that can replace that.

My problem is with the interpretation of the data. When the data for a topic is huge the person doing the interpreting by necessity has to be a specialist dedicated full-time to it. However when the data is limited, it is possible for an ordinary Joe to analyse it himself. This means there are certain fields of study where a non-academic bloke can come to as informed an opinion as a professional historian. In my own book on formations in Antiquity I stick to topics for which there is not a lot of raw data. Line relief for example: only Livy spends a couple of hundred words describing how it works. Take him and the bits and pieces you can get from elsewhere and you have as much material to work with as any academic.

5th century Britain is eminently such a topic. We have four major sources: Gildas, Nennius, Constantius and Bede (Bede in fact is largely a secondary source) plus several other sources that are far more laconic. That's it. The ones in Latin I can read in the original language (and yes, I have to trust academics for the best version MS) so I can come to an informed judgement about them. Which is why I find the Wikipedia entry on Arthur astonishing:

King Arthur (Welsh: Brenin Arthur, Cornish: Arthur Gernow, Breton: Roue Arzhur) was a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of Welsh and English folklore and literary invention, and modern historians generally agree that he is unhistorical.

Of the four major sources mentioned, Arthur is not mentioned in Gildas, Constantius and Bede but he gets a fairly detailed paragraph in Nennius (and he is mentioned in the Y Gododdin and elsewhere - though later). Reading the sources it becomes clear why he is mentioned only in Nennius.

Gildas
Gildas makes clear he will not be describing the military exploits of the Britons:

quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers
enuntiare trucis belli pericula - to announce the perils of savage war
mihi statutum est - for me is appointed
quam desidiosorum, - but [the perils] of the indolent

The context makes clear he is talking about British soldiers and not Roman soldiers.

Gildas also leaves out the victory of Germanus and that has to be deliberate. His interest is the moral state of the Britons and their kings and how that affected their fortunes against the Saxons. This is a sermon, not a history book. Transient victories didn't interest him. Only one decisive battle did.

Constantius
Constantius doesn't mention Arthur because he is writing the life of Germanus which ended probably before Arthur's career began.

Bede
Bede doesn't mention Arthur but this brings up the issue of chronology. Bede starts out with the arrival of the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, their initial status as mercenaries and their rebellion against their hosts, and follows with a short chapter on Ambrosius and his war against the Saxons culminating in Badon. He affirms his account is incomplete and that he will take it up again later on: "But of this hereafter." But he never does. He then devotes several paragraphs to Germanus' arrival in Britain culminating in his victory against the Saxons, followed by Germanus' second visit to combat pelagianism. After that Bede devotes a brief chapter to the Britons' civil wars and then goes straight to the arrival of St Augustine at the end of the 500s.

This sequence is problematic. Badon was the decisive battle against the Saxons by all accounts so Germanus' victory had to have preceded it. Bede seems to opt for a simplified sequence of events: the Saxons arrive. They rebel when they don't get enough provisions. They triumph against the Britons. The Britons unite under Ambrosius, sometimes winning and sometimes losing, and eventually triumph at Badon (he has clearly lifted this from Gildas). It seems that Bede isn't too sure where Germanus fits into all this so he just adds him afterwards. He doesn't mention Arthur because Gildas didn't.

Nennius
Nennius by far and away gives the most coherent and complete account. The Saxons are invited in by Vortigern. Germanus arrives at about the same time. Vortigern's dealings with Hengist are described in detail (and make sense) ending with him fleeing to Wales where Germanus confronts him and also fights the Saxons in the mountains. After Germanus leaves, "the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers." This matches nicely the state of the British as described by Gildas and Bede as well as the Saxon domination of Britain in 441 mentioned by the Gallic chronicle. Arthur then appears "with all the kings and military force of Britain." He has no political or even permanent military authority but is chosen as commander for each campaign, culminating in Badon*. Why doesn't Nennius mention Ambrosius as having command? There seems to be a telescoping of events at this point, since from a Saxon hegemony to Badon requires a period longer than 40 years, probably too long for a single man to be active on the battlefield. Proposing that Ambrosius initially took command and was later replaced by Arthur resolves the problem of reconciling the sources as well as accounting for the time. But Nennius opted for choosing the one man who actually did the decisive fighting.

Conclusion: there is no cause to think Arthur was a myth. I've given my reasons - based on the textual evidence of the sources - for thinking that. Is my conclusion invalid because academic opinion does not agree?


*Thinking about it, the fact that Arthur is chosen as commander for each campaign suggests that Ambrosius was no longer on the scene. If Ambrosius was the overarching Dux then he only had to choose Arthur once. If however there was no longer a single political authority then Arthur would need the assent of the "kings" each time he took command of the army. This would imply an increasing fragmentation of the political unity of post-Roman Britain - which is what happened.

[Imperial Dave]

and the alternate conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence that Arthur was real either..

[Erpingham]

Is my conclusion invalid because academic opinion does not agree?

Not necessarily but don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why certain academics doubt the Arthur story, rather than just shrugging it off having read a few sources?  As I said before, academics don't just collate sources, they have the time and resources to be part of the dialogue around those sources and can be more aware of the specialist opinions on those sources. 

Talking of sources, I'm slightly baffled as to why you rate Nennius as a primary source and Bede as secondary, especially as Nennius is the ultimate collator/synthesiser of the views of others.

[Justin Swanton]

The question of trusting the sources deserves a separate post so here goes

The idea that all 'sources' are by default true is merely naive (even more so without any understanding of what a 'source' really is eg how the texts on which such reliance is placed are preserved, transmitted and constructed).

Any basic course in history will (or should) include something on the historical method. In the absence of any historical education or training, Wikipedia is as usual a good start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

The techniques of source criticism in particular are central to the historical method (and as an off topic aside, the failure of most people to understand the principles of source criticism, eg by accepting at face value something they read on social media, is the source of many evils in the world today).

The criteria given in the Wiki articles are common sense but, using them, I come up with no reason to discount the reliability of the primary sources for 5th century Britain, at least for the main events. The only problem seems to be shaking out a coherent chronology and that isn't difficult to do.

For example, applying the principles of source criticism to Nennius:

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
About four centuries after the events he describes. That isn't too long, certainly not long enough to justify rejecting significant passages in his account.

2. Where was it produced (localization)?
In Wales, i.e. amongst the people he writes about.

3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
A well-educated monk who has a poor opinion of his linguistic abilities but a high regard for the truth. In other words, he doesn't evince an ego that would affect his objectivity.

4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
A variety of books and documents from very different backgrounds that not only would have helped give an objective appraisal of the events he describes but also would have belonged to a short copying history and hence consisted of largely incorrupt texts in his time.

5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
I don't know about this one. How many MS variants are there of Nennius?

6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
He gives a coherent history that can without difficulty be made to accord with other accounts and the facts as known.


As a final point, the evolution of Academia on the historicity of Arthur is interesting, in that there was not a shred of additional evidence on the subject that appeared from the before to the after position, i.e. the after position didn't learn of any new reasons to reject Arthur as a historical character; it just decided to reject him:

In 1936, R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres treated Arthur as a Roman comes Britanniarum. They assert that "the historicity of [Arthur] can hardly be called into question", though they are careful to separate the historical Arthur from the legendary Arthur.

In 1971, Leslie Alcock claimed to "demonstrate that there is acceptable historical evidence that Arthur was a genuine historical figure, not a mere figment of myth or romance". Also in 1971, while conceding that Gildas does not mention Arthur, Frank Stenton says that this "may suggest that the Arthur of history was a less imposing figure than the Arthur of legend" but then argues that "it should not be allowed to remove him from the sphere of history." In 1977, John Morris argued in favour, but his work was widely criticised at the time as having "grave methodological flaws". David Dumville took the opposite position in the same year: "The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."

By 1986, J. N. L. Myres, who had written in 1936 (with Collingwood) that Arthur was historical, said "It is inconceivable that Gildas... should not have mentioned Arthur's part..." (that is, if he had existed) and complains that "No figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time." By 1991, the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain stated that "historians are tending to take a minimal view of the historical value of even the earliest evidence for Arthur, but most probably still see him as an historical figure..." while "the chivalric Arthur... was essentially the creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century".

In 2003, Thomas Charles-Edwards' book on the period only mentions Arthur in the context of a later Welsh story. In 2004, Francis Pryor dismisses the evidence that Arthur existed but says that proving he did not exist is as impossible as proving that he did. In 2007, O. J. Padel in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Arthur as a "legendary warrior and supposed king of Britain". He was less dismissive in 2014, describing Arthur as "originally legendary or historical", but also cited the failure of the tenth century Welsh poem Armes Prydein, which prophesied the expulsion of the English from Britain, to mention Arthur among the ancient heroes who would return to lead the resistance.

In a 2007 review, Howard Wiseman follows Sheppard Frere (1967), saying that "the evidence allows, not requires belief", and follows Christopher Snyder (2000) in emphasising the need for a better understanding of the period, regardless of whether Arthur existed. In 2011, Robin Fleming's history of the period does not mention Arthur at all. In 2013, Guy Halsall reports that "among the academic community, the sceptics have decisively carried the day". In 2018, Nicholas Higham refutes all the outstanding claims for a historical Arthur, summarising his position as: "That Arthur has produced extraordinary quantities of 'smoke' is in large part because he is so well suited to be a fulcrum of make-believe. But there is no historical 'fire' underlying the stories that congregated around him, just 'highland mist'." His book has been generally praised.

In a 2018 review, Tom Shippey summarises the situation as "modern academic historians want nothing to do with King Arthur."[1] In a 2019 review, Brian David reported that "Few topics in late antique and medieval history elicit scholarly groans quite like the idea of a supposedly 'factual' King Arthur. Yet historians and other scholars made cases for Arthur's existence in historical and literary studies until the 1980s. For academics today, the question of the realism of King Arthur has been largely banished to popular books, video games, and movies."

This is a decision, not a deduction. Were the academics who accepted Arthur's historicity naive, or not erudite enough, or what? Are later academics who have exactly the same data as earlier ones supposed to be cleverer than them? I love how Myres says: "It is inconceivable that Gildas... should not have mentioned Arthur's part..." Did he actually read Gildas? (don't answer the question, I'm being sarcastic)

[Justin Swanton]

Is my conclusion invalid because academic opinion does not agree?

Not necessarily but don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why certain academics doubt the Arthur story, rather than just shrugging it off having read a few sources?  As I said before, academics don't just collate sources, they have the time and resources to be part of the dialogue around those sources and can be more aware of the specialist opinions on those sources. 

Talking of sources, I'm slightly baffled as to why you rate Nennius as a primary source and Bede as secondary, especially as Nennius is the ultimate collator/synthesiser of the views of others.

Nennius is a primary source in that he does not substantially repeat material from other sources that we already possess. Virtually every primary source we have is "secondary" in the sense of reproducing the accounts of others. Only a few are eyewitnesses. But I don't understand secondary sources in this sense.

[Erpingham]

I love how Myres says: "It is inconceivable that Gildas... should not have mentioned Arthur's part..." Did he actually read Gildas? (don't answer the question, I'm being sarcastic)

Perhaps a better question would be "Did he read Gildas in the same way as Justin Swanton?"

Virtually every primary source we have is "secondary" in the sense of reproducing the accounts of others. Only a few are eyewitnesses. But I don't understand secondary sources in this sense.

There are perhaps problems with "primary" and "secondary" sources, because the terms are conventionally used in different ways.  Some use primary sources to mean sources close to contemporary with events.  Others use it to mean first-hand sources.  As you say, most histories, chronicles and annals are secondary under this definition.  In either case, it is hard to see Nennius qualifying as a primary source any more than Bede.

[Justin Swanton]

I love how Myres says: "It is inconceivable that Gildas... should not have mentioned Arthur's part..." Did he actually read Gildas? (don't answer the question, I'm being sarcastic)

Perhaps a better question would be "Did he read Gildas in the same way as Justin Swanton?"

True. He has letters after his name, I don't. If Gildas said he wouldn't be mentioning the deeds of the Britons' outstanding soldiers then Gildas must have been talking tosh. Tosh I say! 

Virtually every primary source we have is "secondary" in the sense of reproducing the accounts of others. Only a few are eyewitnesses. But I don't understand secondary sources in this sense.

There are perhaps problems with "primary" and "secondary" sources, because the terms are conventionally used in different ways.  Some use primary sources to mean sources close to contemporary with events.  Others use it to mean first-hand sources.  As you say, most histories, chronicles and annals are secondary under this definition.  In either case, it is hard to see Nennius qualifying as a primary source any more than Bede.

If Bede substantially reproduces material that we can already read in earlier sources then I understand Bede as a secondary source, i.e. he must be judged by the earlier sources. Nennius doesn't substantially repeat earlier material that still exists so I take him as a primary source. Works for me. 

[Erpingham]

Nennius doesn't substantially repeat earlier material that still exists so I take him as a primary source.

Nennius made a heap of the material he had collected.  This does suggest it existed prior to him writing it.  I agree though he had access to stuff which we can't verify, like everything on Arthur.

[aligern]

I think, Justin, that you have done us a service by listing out the historiography of the Arthur's character as expressed by 'serious' historiabs, so not the guy who majors on cataphracts and not the one who thinks Arthur's battles are located where there is a Black Horse pub.  However, I suggest that there is more to the historian's opinions than might be at first apparent.
There is a history to the various opinions, a history of historical revisionism.  Historians once broadly accepted an Arthur figure, it fitted with the timeline  of events more modern historians have rejected this. ( I understand that I am generalising here). To an extent this fits with the need of historians to say something new about an exceedingly well trodden path.  If one takes a hard nosed approach to the evidence then there is no Arthur.  Someone who would be a major figure is not mentioned in any primary source or sources near enough to events to have spoken to someone involved or had access to a source contemporary to events. That means they do not pick around in Nennius, unless corroborated he is not bankable. That events might suggest a figure of sufficient stature is irrelevant because tge Arthur deniers will not accept that reasoning.  If you are a big character then you should have at least a primary source and preferably corroborative evidence.   A claim based upon the transmission of a bardic tale will not do because 3 or 400 years is plenty of time fir a minor , or invented character to have acquired all sorts of attributes.
So we are left with a choice, to say that in history there is no Arthur with any sound backing or to say that there is very likely to have been a figure who defeated a Saxon coalition whist leading  a Ronano British allied force. The latter proposition is fair enough, but it isn't history it fails the test of evidence. Other explanations would dobas well.
Roy ( Who quite likes an Arthur)

[Justin Swanton]

Nennius affirms that Vortigern was afraid of Ambrosius. He also affirms Ambrosius' mother was alive and that she claimed Ambrosius had no father - a claim Ambrosius himself contradicted, saying his father was a Roman consul. Why had the fact been hidden until then?

We have the consul lists  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls

Technically it is very unlikely indeed that one of the consuls was his father. I think some theories suggest his father was Magnus Maximus who was consul in 388

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls

Interesting. I had a vague idea that "consul" might have meant a rank in local Romano-british society, not strictly a consul as such. For Gildas and Nennius, Ambrosius was of high Roman rank but his father was dead. If Ambrosius was a boy near the end of Vortigern's life that fixes his birth around 420-ish or so. So we would need someone who had been a consul and was dead by, say, 430. Agricola would fit the bill. He was from Gaul and was twice praetorian prefect of Gaul - the first time before 418, the second time in 418 - before becoming a consul in 421. He may have been involved in the steadily diminishing Roman military aid to Britain from 410 onwards which would give him a reason to actually visit Britain. There's no mention of him after 421 so he could have been dead by the time Ambrosius was talking about his father's consular rank. This is all hypothetical of course - I can't supply any evidence to support it.

[Erpingham]

Thanks for that Roy.  To add, from my perspective, the reason why Arthur has fallen from favour may be because of the accumulation of baggage, not just the well-known chivalric baggage but the burgeoning "Arthur" industry.  It is simpler by far to avoid calling anyone Arthur and focus on the evidence to try to get a working picture of what is going on on the ground.

I like the Frere quote in one of Justin's posts "the evidence allows, not requires, belief".  I don't think we've moved on a lot from there, Arthur-wise.  Where I think we have moved on a lot since Frere said that is our greater archaeological understanding of the context and I think painting the period in broad strokes which interpret this is probably where scholarship is at present (not that I have an up-to-date knowledge).

[Justin Swanton]

I think, Justin, that you have done us a service by listing out the historiography of the Arthur's character as expressed by 'serious' historiabs, so not the guy who majors on cataphracts and not the one who thinks Arthur's battles are located where there is a Black Horse pub.  However, I suggest that there is more to the historian's opinions than might be at first apparent.
There is a history to the various opinions, a history of historical revisionism.  Historians once broadly accepted an Arthur figure, it fitted with the timeline  of events more modern historians have rejected this. ( I understand that I am generalising here). To an extent this fits with the need of historians to say something new about an exceedingly well trodden path.  If one takes a hard nosed approach to the evidence then there is no Arthur.  Someone who would be a major figure is not mentioned in any primary source or sources near enough to events to have spoken to someone involved or had access to a source contemporary to events. That means they do not pick around in Nennius, unless corroborated he is not bankable. That events might suggest a figure of sufficient stature is irrelevant because tge Arthur deniers will not accept that reasoning.  If you are a big character then you should have at least a primary source and preferably corroborative evidence.   A claim based upon the transmission of a bardic tale will not do because 3 or 400 years is plenty of time fir a minor , or invented character to have acquired all sorts of attributes.
So we are left with a choice, to say that in history there is no Arthur with any sound backing or to say that there is very likely to have been a figure who defeated a Saxon coalition whist leading  a Ronano British allied force. The latter proposition is fair enough, but it isn't history it fails the test of evidence. Other explanations would dobas well.
Roy ( Who quite likes an Arthur)

One thing which struck me some time ago: how well do we know successful generals in Antiquity who had no political power compared to successful generals who were also politicians? Scipio Africanus for example was from the gens Cornelii, one of Rome's 6 patrician families. He became a consul and had political opponents. He decided the peace terms at the termination of the Second Punic War. So his victory over Hannibal is well-known. Compare him to Publius Venditius. Crassus had suffered a crushing defeat at Carrhae, one of the worst in Roman history. A few years later Venditius avenged that defeat by several decisive victories against Parthia which included axing two major Parthian invasions and killing Pacorus, the Parthian king's son. But who's ever heard of him? He was from an obscure background and was a pure military man, never wielding any political power and remaining entirely in Antony's shadow.

I would posit that Arthur was similarly disregarded in his time because he was politically insignificant - he was of lesser rank than the kings who fought with him and he needed their ongoing placet to command the British forces. It was only later on, when the Saxons resumed their conquest of Britain in the 6th century, that Arthur was held up as a symbol of the glory days (no! he really existed too!). Being a capable warrior became of prime importance: "he was no Arthur". After Badon this military ideal did not initially feature as the Britons were relieved the war was over and they could get on with their lives and start really squabbling with each other. There is a parallel with the British voting Churchill out of office once the dirty work of winning WW2 had been accomplished. Nobody who lives through a long war idealises war once it is over. You want rather to forget about it.

[aligern]

They voted  Churchill out because the troops ( and their families) had seen what happened in 1920 when a  ' home fit  for heroes' had rapidly become tge dole and the soup kitchen, even then work house. The electorate suspected that Churchill was the arch Conservative  and would have the workers back to the thirties by enacting Tory cheap labour policies!
In tge Ancient world war is politics, so , if you are nit Emperor or king then  you won the battles and kept a low profile. I am not sure how that would play in post Roman Britain. Holly, does bardic poetry celebrate other tgan the rulers?
Roy

[Duncan Head]

Nennius had the works of Prosper, whose Chronicle includes consul details.  If Nennius's source suggested Maximus, or anyone else, he could have checked.  So, its as vague as his parents "wearing the purple" - a vague belief in Ambrosius aristocratic credentials.

Geoffrey of Monmouth reckons Ambrosius' father was a "King Constantine". Everyone seems certain that this isn't the British usurper-emperor Constantine III - but why not? That would certainly be "born in the purple".

Tee hee.

[Justin Swanton]

Nennius had the works of Prosper, whose Chronicle includes consul details.  If Nennius's source suggested Maximus, or anyone else, he could have checked.  So, its as vague as his parents "wearing the purple" - a vague belief in Ambrosius aristocratic credentials.

Geoffrey of Monmouth reckons Ambrosius' father was a "King Constantine". Everyone seems certain that this isn't the British usurper-emperor Constantine III - but why not? That would certainly be "born in the purple".

Tee hee.

Presuming that Nennius isn't making it all up, Ambrosius was a boy when Germanus upbraided Vortigern for the first time after which Vortigern moved to Wales. Germanus arrived in 427. Constantine III died in 411. That makes Ambrosius 16 at the absolute youngest but Germanus spent some time in Britain dealing with the Pelagians before tackling Vortigern so 17-18 is more likely (when did you reach manhood in that time?). It's possible but just barely.