The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Imperial Dave]

I see Edwin Pace has a new book coming out at the end of the month....

[DBS]

On the question of Huns...

The question of course depends on what precisely one means as "Huns".  More precisely, what does a Roman mean by a Hun, an Anglo-Saxon like Bede mean by a Hun, or, perhaps most importantly, a Hun mean by a Hun.  Green's blog notes that it is possibly a reference to Alans.  I am not sufficiently up on late Roman/Byzantine authors to know whether, just as Ammianus, the first to discuss the Huns, still classicised references to anyone north of the Danube as Scythians thanks to Herodotus nearly eight centuries before, the post-Hunnic authors may have over-labelled trans-Danubian barbarians as Huns.  In any case, if one follows the likes of Kulikowski, these ethnic identities keep forming and changing, especially when the groups in question hit the border discernment of taxonomic Romans.  So a chap who might just possibly be identified as a Hun either by himself or by a Roman, ends up hitching his wagon to the warband of an Angle/Jute/Saxon/Frisian/whoever leader.  Or is even sent to Britain in the very late 4th century as a Romanised officer.  When does he, or his offspring, stop being a Hun and start being an Angle/etc/etc?  Indeed, when does an Angle become an Angle - the heart of the issue Heather, Halsall and Kulikowski have all attempted to tackle.

Similarly, when do all the Sarmatians supposedly transplanted to Britain in the second century stop being Sarmatians and end up being Roman Britons?  (Having of course given us all the baggage with which to explain the medieval Arthurian myths...  )

So, were there Huns in 4th and 5th century Britain?  Quite possibly.

Were there enough Huns to show up on a wargames table?  No, in my humble opinion.  (Doubt non-existant Arthur's non-existant cataphracts would have been able to win Badon if they had...  )

[Imperial Dave]

Indeed.....is an englishman a briton etc

[Anton]

A person might have, or be seen as having, layered identities.  An Atrebate, for example, might also be a Christian and a Roman depending on period. He will also be a Briton or a Gaul. I think this part of the equation is fairly clear.

Core identity is different in my view. 

I have seen no evidence that post Empire that it was possible to change core identity. There is evidence that a person couldn't do so. You couldn't just become a Gododdin tribesman because you said so.  Nor could you declare at will that you were a German and not a Briton. Core identity brought rights as well as responsibilities and was closely guarded.   

A Wealh with a lower wergild would benefit from declaring himself a German and getting the higher rate. He couldn't because the Germans wouldn't let him. To do so would harm their economic and social position.

[Imperial Dave]

interesting sub topic in itself....at what point do 'Britons' get accepted as 'English'

[Mark G]

Usually just after Ivanhoe wins the duel, and before the closing credits, is the accepted point I think

[Imperial Dave]

touche.....

[Justin Swanton]

interesting sub topic in itself....at what point do 'Britons' get accepted as 'English'

When Wales and Scotland finally leave the UK and nobody can call themselves "British" any more?

[Imperial Dave]

another subject in itself......

[Justin Swanton]

another subject in itself......

True. Would Bangor or Cardiff be the Welsh capital? What would the national language be? Would Ffynnon Garw still be a mountain?

[Erpingham]

Looping back to before Justin's musings, I wonder how much we can rely on the position of wealas in later law codes to interpret the Adventus period?  The evidence, unclear as it is, suggests all sorts of churn in the system, with various ethnic groups participating in the changes of the east of Britain.  Some minor groupings - Franks, Frisians, maybe the odd Hun and Goth - seem to be absorbed into the stronger entities.  We can probably assume that the pre-Adventus Germanic populations get absorbed in the same way.  Is there not, in such a melting pot, a place for established British power players to hitch themselves to the evolving new entities to maintain position (it seems to happen in Gaul)?  Those people may not have cared that the various "little people" shrink into second-class status.

[DBS]

touche.....

We will have none of that Frankish nonsense!

[Anton]

interesting sub topic in itself....at what point do 'Britons' get accepted as 'English'

That is an excellent question.  The answer maybe tied up with status.

Obviously a third generation British slave who can now only speak German is probably just seen as a Wealh with its status meaning rather than a Wealh in the ethnic sense.  We don't know how such an unfortunate saw themself.

Higher status Wealh existed but were still Wealh in the ethnic sense with all the legal disabilities.

If Alex Woolf is right, and I think he is, the legal inequalities of Wealh status eventually reduce our high status Wealh's descendants into slavery.

There is no economic danger or threat to social status of the ruling ethnic group in granting to membership to slaves because slaves were property not people.

My guess is that is when the Britons become English.

[Anton]

Looping back to before Justin's musings, I wonder how much we can rely on the position of wealas in later law codes to interpret the Adventus period?  The evidence, unclear as it is, suggests all sorts of churn in the system, with various ethnic groups participating in the changes of the east of Britain.  Some minor groupings - Franks, Frisians, maybe the odd Hun and Goth - seem to be absorbed into the stronger entities.  We can probably assume that the pre-Adventus Germanic populations get absorbed in the same way.  Is there not, in such a melting pot, a place for established British power players to hitch themselves to the evolving new entities to maintain position (it seems to happen in Gaul)?  Those people may not have cared that the various "little people" shrink into second-class status.

I don't see a melting pot anywhere in the sense of a new shared ethnic identity.

The evidence we have shows co-operation in the early period.   Discrete identities seem to be maintained all the same.

The little people are actually very important as they provide for the whole system.  Who controls them becomes the key issue.

At the start we still have civates/tribal polities that empower the high status. This seems to give way to the kings ruling over pretty much the same territories. How that changed internal dynamics is something to ponder.

The diverse groups of Germans seem to have had a similar cultural/social hierarchy and could accord each other the respect due on that basis regardless of ethnicity I think. 

likewise among the Celtic peoples.

When co-operating both groups showed each other due respect but remained ethnically discrete from what I can see.

[Justin Swanton]

The evidence we have shows co-operation in the early period.   Discrete identities seem to be maintained all the same.

Which does rather match that west-facing dyke in northern Kent.