The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Anton]

I have a couple of Green's books.  Favours Arthur as a purely Lincolnshire based hero if I recall right and that a Brythonic polity lasted there into the Sixth Century. 

So, horse archers for the Army Lists then?

[Imperial Dave]

and why not......

Also just read an article by Roger White whilst I try to access his book Britannia Prima - his take is that the breakdown and settlement/migration etc is along province lines

[Justin Swanton]

It would be interesting at this point to see where posters are as regards the historicity of the sources on 5th century Britain. How do you see the following:

Ambrosius
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Arthur
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Hengist
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Vortigern
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Battle of Badon
1. A semi-mythical battle with some basis as an historical event but about which we can know nothing for certain
2. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons but about which we are unsure of the date and the leaders
3. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons, that took place from the late 5th to early 6th century, and in which either Arthur or Ambrosius or both took part.

Edit: by "sources" I mean the earlier sources: Gildas, Nennius, Constantius, the earlier Chronicles, etc. Geoffrey of Monmouth et al. are excluded.

[Jim Webster]

just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over 

https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html

Let me have some fun...

The body of sub-Roman academic opinion does not mention Huns as being present in Britain in any discernible degree, therefore Dr Green's assertions to the contrary cannot be taken seriously by mainstream researchers. We have no choice but to place her in the category of outdated or discredited research that includes an historical Arthur, Ambrosius, Vortigern and a forcible Saxon conquest (rather than a peaceful settlement). 😁

The list of Germanic peoples mentioned could have been settled as federates in the late 4th century by the Imperial authorities, as they tried to bolster their influence in the province.
Huns is interesting, but I would suggest it's equally possible that some of the peoples on the Continental North Sea Coast could well have owed nominal allegiance to leaders who owed slightly less nominal allegiance to the Huns.
This allegiance would doubtless have been acceptable provided the Huns didn't actually try to get them to do anything. So when Attila learned that some of his more distant and arms length vassals were settling Britain, then he could feel justified, for the purposes of flaunting his power to the Romans, to claim Britain in his empire.
After all the Romans couldn't do anything about it, the inhabitants of Britain would probably never hear about his claim and even if they did, nobody was listening to them anyway

[Erpingham]

Now, if choice 2 was

"A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and a degree of myth has grown up"

I could have gone with 2. throughout 

As it is, I can only go for 2 in the Badon question and "none of the above" for the others.

[Justin Swanton]

Now, if choice 2 was

"A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and a degree of myth has grown up"

I could have gone with 2. throughout 

As it is, I can only go for 2 in the Badon question and "none of the above" for the others.

Amended. Populi locuti sunt, causa finita est. 

[aligern]

Ambrosius
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible X

Arthur
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up X
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Hengist
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up X
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Vortigern
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up X
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Battle of Badon
1. A semi-mythical battle with some basis as an historical event but about which we can know nothing for certain
2. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons but about which we are unsure of the date and the leaders
3. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons, that took place from the late 5th to early 6th century, and in which either Arthur or Ambrosius or both took part. X

X marks my choices, though Icould be picky about degree in each case .
I think we are dealing with a period in which the sources veer substantially towards embroidery and are expected to by their audience.
As an aside I think the Bretwalda position is well worth considering.  It looks as though there is  an overlord status  that can be claimed and to an extent recognised and that overlordship and tribute are major motivators ( so there might be an Arthur and he might smack an invading coalition, but the motives might be dominance and tribute rather than the expulsion if one side or another ) . Being Bretwalda seems to tranfer between kingdoms and peoples and is understood right up to Edgar being rowed up the Dee.
I also think that the strategic moves, such as reaching the Severn mouth or Chester are important. Important enough that leaving a tributary kingdom in Lincoln with a British ruler would be unimportant by comparison.
Lastly, I buy the idea that the dykes tell a story of aggression , attempts at resistance and incorporation and any 'story' that does not fit them in is missing a major and long enduring piece of evidence.
Roy

[RichT]

2 or none of the above, for all, depending on exactly what is meant by the questions.

Taking Arthur; if we first accept (for the sake of argument) that Badon is a real battle (of Britons v. Saxons), then somebody had to command the Britons, since armies of the time were not lead by committee. That somebody might have been called Ambrosius Aurelianus or he might have been called Arthur or he might have had a name that become transformed in later tellings into Arthur or he might have been called something else entirely. Either way, this man is in a sense a historical figure forming a kernel of truth for the legendary Arthur of Historia Brittonum (and Annales Cambriae etc). So, 2. But nothing in Historia Brittonum or any of the other legendary material tells us anything historical about this 'Arthur' (except that he commanded at Badon). There is no reason to suppose that the historical figure (the victor of Badon), the putative mythologised historical figure perhaps based on him (winner of twelve battles, slayer of hundreds of Saxons), and the entirely mythological figure (who fought giants, werewolves etc) are in any meaningful sense the same man. So, 1.

[Imperial Dave]

It would be interesting at this point to see where posters are as regards the historicity of the sources on 5th century Britain. How do you see the following:

Ambrosius
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Arthur
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Hengist
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Vortigern
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible

Battle of Badon
1. A semi-mythical battle with some basis as an historical event but about which we can know nothing for certain
2. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons but about which we are unsure of the date and the leaders
3. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons, that took place from the late 5th to early 6th century, and in which either Arthur or Ambrosius or both took part.

2/2/2/2/1.5

[Anton]

I really should be joining in and answering Justin's survey, and I will.  Alas, I cannot until I'm over the shock of Ilkka Syvanne's  Britain in the Age of Arthur. 

Ilkka thinks St. Patrick was a sex slave for sailors.  I should have bought the pints instead.  Still I'll be able to kill wasps with it.  You can't do that with a pint.

[Erpingham]

You can't do that with a pint.

Never ended up with a wasp swimming in your pint?  The stripey so-and-sos have got some eco-propaganda going on about how they are good for the planet but it a ruse - they're evil, I tell you, evil!

Oh, sorry, got a bit carried away.   Shame about the book.  I thought Illke Sylvanne was supposed to be quite good on Late Roman military things?

[Imperial Dave]

I really should be joining in and answering Justin's survey, and I will.  Alas, I cannot until I'm over the shock of Ilkka Syvanne's  Britain in the Age of Arthur. 

Ilkka thinks St. Patrick was a sex slave for sailors.  I should have bought the pints instead.  Still I'll be able to kill wasps with it.  You can't do that with a pint.

bloody 'ell.....havent gotten to that bit yet

[Anton]

I have Anthony, but no more now I've got the book!

Dave, it's breathtaking.  What's worse is that I see how he got there. 

St P has to take ship to escape.  It's an Irish ship so St. P needs to obtain slainte (protection from harm-safety) from one of the crew.  This involved a pagan ritual and a legal obligation that must be respected by all.  It requires the person seeking to suck the nipple of his proposed protector.  St.P doesn't want to because it involves the old gods.  From little acorns...

[Imperial Dave]

well....I'll hold my breath as I read it....been sidetracked into articles so may be a while

[Anton]

I'll try a bit more of it.  Back on topic.

Ambrosius
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible
2.

Arthur
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible
3.  The picture in the earliest sources is consistent with Arthur the Soldier.

Hengist
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible
2.  There's the Finnsburgh fragment to consider too.

Vortigern
1. A purely mythical character
2. A figure with some basis as an historical personage but about which we can know little for certain, and around which a degree of myth has grown up
3. An historical character whose exploits as described in the sources are substantially credible
3.
Battle of Badon
1. A semi-mythical battle with some basis as an historical event but about which we can know nothing for certain
2. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons but about which we are unsure of the date and the leaders
3. An historical battle between Britons and Saxons, that took place from the late 5th to early 6th century, and in which either Arthur or Ambrosius or both took part.
3.