https://www.academia.edu/25244131/Walls_and_Withdrawals_Gildas_Version_of_the_End_of_Roman_Britain?email_work_card=view-paper
not sure if this was covered elsewhere on the forum as it is an article from 2015. I know Pace has his detractors but the article is persuasive and highly possible
Quote from: Holly on June 05, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
https://www.academia.edu/25244131/Walls_and_Withdrawals_Gildas_Version_of_the_End_of_Roman_Britain?email_work_card=view-paper
not sure if this was covered elsewhere on the forum as it is an article from 2015. I know Pace has his detractors but the article is persuasive and highly possible
I'll have a look at that with my sandwich at lunch 8)
Had a read thanks.
First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view. Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements? Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.
Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting. That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 09:29:40 AM
Had a read thanks.
First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view. Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements? Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.
Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting. That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.
which work by Koch would you recommend?
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 09:29:40 AM
Had a read thanks.
First vengeance Theodosius, second vengeance Maxim Wledig would be my current view. Patterns and whatnot Maxim's new military arrangements? Gildas does say he does not have access to the texts he needs or words to that effect.
Of course if Koch is right we do have our earlier witness in St Patrick and his view of north of the Wall is hugely interesting. That the lads of the Old North should be behaving like Christian Cives and at least some of the Picts have already been evangelised and turned apostate stuck with me as significant.
Interesting about the possible tie in of the ND though and the 'significant' 3 year window of opportunity for the partial re-acquisition
Pretty much anything by Koch Jim. But if I guess your interest right his essay on an early chronology for St Patrick. I'll post a link in a mo' and then St Patrick's letter to the soldiers of Coroticus.
https://www.academia.edu/7622048/The_Early_Chronology_for_St_Patrick_c._351_c._428_Some_New_Ideas_and_Possibilities
You'll find the letter easy enough.
I think I'd need to think more about it Dave but I wouldn't reject it out of hand. The links with the Empire seem real enough it's more about the capacity of the Empire.
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 11:57:54 AM
Pretty much anything by Koch Jim. But if I guess your interest right his essay on an early chronology for St Patrick. I'll post a link in a mo' and then St Patrick's letter to the soldiers of Coroticus.
https://www.academia.edu/7622048/The_Early_Chronology_for_St_Patrick_c._351_c._428_Some_New_Ideas_and_Possibilities
You'll find the letter easy enough.
I think I'd need to think more about it Dave but I wouldn't reject it out of hand. The links with the Empire seem real enough it's more about the capacity of the Empire.
not saying its right Stephen just that there are a few ties ins that give it plausibility especially in regards to the 'resurgent' Western Empire after Honorious
Thanks for that Anton, tomorrow's lunchtime reading sorted 8)
Having read Walls and Withdrawals it did strike me that this would help to explain a comparatively civilised Britain which was visited by Germanus in about 429
Agreed Jim...not saying its all neat and tidy but I have always struggled with the 409AD 'cut-off' and this proposal could lend additional weight to the argument that for perhaps until the mid 5th C there was real hope for a permanent reestablishment with Rome
The contact between Rome and Britain in the first half of the fifth century is an interesting topic because there is so little solid evidence.
It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406. As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.
The Notitia Dignitatum (ND) entry for Britain is problematic. The units in the British Field Army are mentioned elsewhere in ND. Is it an entry that pre-dates the revolt of 406? Was it a planned expedition that never happened? It must have some basis for being included.
A question would be what motive would the Imperial Roman court have to make such an attempt to invade in around 420. The area around Belgium seems to have been under Frankish control. How much of Armorica was under Imperial control? Would the British welcome back Imperial control and would tax revenues have ever justified the attempt? How would an Emperor have maintained control in Britain, would it not have become a potential threat as a source for rebellion?
I am sure I don't have the answers!
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 06, 2020, 02:05:35 PM
The contact between Rome and Britain in the first half of the fifth century is an interesting topic because there is so little solid evidence.
It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406. As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.
The Notitia Dignitatum (ND) entry for Britain is problematic. The units in the British Field Army are mentioned elsewhere in ND. Is it an entry that pre-dates the revolt of 406? Was it a planned expedition that never happened? It must have some basis for being included.
A question would be what motive would the Imperial Roman court have to make such an attempt to invade in around 420. The area around Belgium seems to have been under Frankish control. How much of Armorica was under Imperial control? Would the British welcome back Imperial control and would tax revenues have ever justified the attempt? How would an Emperor have maintained control in Britain, would it not have become a potential threat as a source for rebellion?
I am sure I don't have the answers!
I think some of the questions are self answering in that if Britain hadn't welcomed Imperial control it wouldn't have happened.
But reestablishing 'control' need not have taken too much doing. There may still have been the remains of military units still being supported somehow. So it may more have been a case of turning up with a couple of units and reorganising the troops who were already there
It may have been a shoestring operation, perhaps with more thought to establishing bases on the British side of the Channel to make it easier to run naval patrols
Not a bother Jim. I hope you find it useful.
I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave. There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder.
I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern? What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me. Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country.
Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 02:42:30 PM
Not a bother Jim. I hope you find it useful.
I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave. There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder.
I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern? What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me. Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country.
Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.
Yes between this and Germanus we have the appeal to Aetius.
It sounds like a slow 'letting standards slip' rather than a catastrophic collapse
Its fair enough to say that the citizebs of the Empire did not know that its days were numbered, particularly as there was no memory of any other structure to belong in. One f the advantages the barbarians had was that through being the king of the Burgundians, or Suebi you had a position and loyalties that were well understood. Romans making a bid for freedom could set themselves up as emperors, but that implied a claim to and war with the emperor.
If the former Romans had some concept of being king over a defined ex imperial province then perhaps the Britons might have found unity under a monarch of a territory substantial enough to defeat the various invaders in turn.
The Franks in Belgian territory do not have a king, but apparently several ntil Vlovis bumped them off. It appears that the old tribal substructures still operated and the Franks regarded themselves as foederati certainly up to 452 where they turn up to support Aetius at his summons. as do the Saxons from the Norman coast who likely had been regularised as foederati to defend against piracy.
Roy
.
Quote from: aligern on June 06, 2020, 05:05:54 PM
Its fair enough to say that the citizebs of the Empire did not know that its days were numbered, particularly as there was no memory of any other structure to belong in. One f the advantages the barbarians had was that through being the king of the Burgundians, or Suebi you had a position and loyalties that were well understood. Romans making a bid for freedom could set themselves up as emperors, but that implied a claim to and war with the emperor.
If the former Romans had some concept of being king over a defined ex imperial province then perhaps the Britons might have found unity under a monarch of a territory substantial enough to defeat the various invaders in turn.
The Franks in Belgian territory do not have a king, but apparently several ntil Vlovis bumped them off. It appears that the old tribal substructures still operated and the Franks regarded themselves as foederati certainly up to 452 where they turn up to support Aetius at his summons. as do the Saxons from the Norman coast who likely had been regularised as foederati to defend against piracy.
Roy
.
I suspect that memories/records/legends of the bad days of the third century would have given people a feeling that it's probably been this bad before and we got through it.
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 02:42:30 PM
Not a bother Jim. I hope you find it useful.
I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave. There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder.
I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern? What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me. Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country.
Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.
indeed. Germanus found a (at least superficially) functioning Roman 'state' upon his visit and was able to organise the locals into action against Picts/Irish/Saxons. If his attested visit is indded 429AD then it is only 8 or 9 years after this posited 3 year Roman Adventure
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 06, 2020, 02:05:35 PM
It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406. As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.
One problem I have with that period for an expedition to Britain is that it is the time when Constantius (III briefly) in focused on Gaul and Spain - and his Gallic emphasis appears to have been the south. I find an expedition to Britain to be a bit implausible in the wider scheme of things even if it were by a more junior leader than Constantius, the imperial focus just wasn't on the north it had far more important things to do.
Quote from: Anton on June 06, 2020, 02:42:30 PM
Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.
I wonder whether this was really a case of intervening to support the empire or a case of a group ejected from Britain for some reason due to local issues (lost out in some way) who then became yet another local warlord led group in the area north of the Loire? I seriously doubt the claim in Jordanes that Anthemius invited them.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 06, 2020, 06:33:15 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 06, 2020, 02:05:35 PM
It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406. As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.
One problem I have with that period for an expedition to Britain is that it is the time when Constantius (III briefly) in focused on Gaul and Spain - and his Gallic emphasis appears to have been the south. I find an expedition to Britain to be a bit implausible in the wider scheme of things even if it were by a more junior leader than Constantius, the imperial focus just wasn't on the north it had far more important things to do.
that's one reason why I thought it might be a very 'minimalist' expedition.
although reestablishing control of the channel would be a massive boost to Roman aspirations of holding Gaul and by consequence Britannia together in the latter part of the 1st quarter of the 5th century
Quote from: Holly on June 06, 2020, 07:28:55 PM
although reestablishing control of the channel would be a massive boost to Roman aspirations of holding Gaul and by consequence Britannia together in the latter part of the 1st quarter of the 5th century
I think that we might consider it to be recovering Britain, in reality, they may not think they'd 'lost' Britain. British officials may have been in reasonably regular touch, doubtless merchants and families were still crossing backwards and forwards, in some small way. Indeed problems in Gaul might be as big a barrier to movement as problems in Britain.
With parts of Gaul ignoring the Empire and other bits controlled by people actively hostile, Britain might not have seemed a problem.
Caesar claimed that to control Gaul he had to deal with Britain, it might even be that at a certain level this is true?
I'd incline to that view too. For the British elites it would have been a win win situation. Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial. In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire. The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances changed.
British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient. I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.
The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation. Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.
Quote from: Anton on June 07, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.
The position of the Emperor was interesting it that being Christian and head of the church legitimised him. By the end of the Second Century AD and start of Third Century, Christians started regarding Baptism and the Eucharist as 'sacraments' The problem with this is that it is the "sacramentum" which is the oath sworn by the Roman army. The evolution of this idea is easily seen as Paul talks about Christians being Citizens of heaven and there is a strong sense that you cannot serve two masters. (No man can serve two masters: for either he. will hate the one, and love the other; or else. he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.)
So it was difficult for a Christian to swear allegiance to the Emperor because the Christian had already sworn allegiance to God.
But if the Emperor was God's representative, then he was, as it were, in the chain of command. So a Christian could probably legitimately serve a Christian Emperor. Yes Christians had served previously often in large numbers, and would refuse to serve afterwards, but this placing the Emperor in the divine chain of command is important and continued to be important for centuries. As an example, in the 39 articles of the Church of England (the version signed by Charles 1st on his accession) it starts
His Majesty's Declaration
BEING by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following:
Which effectively states, 'I'm in the chain of command between you and God, so you can swear allegiance to me.'
And in fact the final article states
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
So yes, I suspect Christianity legitimised the position of Emperor, but may not of legitimised the position of an individual Emperor. So Emperors could be replaced and a successful Christian replacement was obviously just an internal office reshuffle of which God apparently approved. 8)
Yes, it's interesting to deconstruct it.
In effect if things go badly it's because men made a mistake and got the wrong Emperor but that can, and must be, swiftly rectified because God requires the right Emperor. God, of course, is always right and so the Emperor is always sacred except when a mistake has been made by men.
I thought Peter Heather's exposition of this in his last book to be very good.
Quote from: Anton on June 07, 2020, 04:34:07 PM
Yes, it's interesting to deconstruct it.
In effect if things go badly it's because men made a mistake and got the wrong Emperor but that can, and must be, swiftly rectified because God requires the right Emperor. God, of course, is always right and so the Emperor is always sacred except when a mistake has been made by men.
I thought Peter Heather's exposition of this in his last book to be very good.
Yes this allows both stability and flexibility.
I don't know whether there is any cause and effect here, but in the 4th century, only Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, Eugenius seemed to have successfully broken into the Imperial line, briefly. Otherwise Emperors tended to be killed and replaced by other 'legitimate' emperors.
It may be that Christianity helped stabilise dynasties?
Quote from: Anton on June 07, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
I'd incline to that view too. For the British elites it would have been a win win situation. Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial. In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire. The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances change
British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient. I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.
The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation. Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.
the Breton/Armorica angle has always interested me. The slow loss of Britain from the Empire makes the connection with Armorica that much more understandable and logical. If it was assumed that elites had land both sides of the channel, they could flit from area to area depending on the immediate circumstances but once things started to look more and more dicey for Britain, either through pelagianism, highland warlords encroaching on the lowlands or removal of official Roman units, they would be a steady stream to move there during the 5th and then the 6th C
Quote from: Holly on June 07, 2020, 05:26:02 PM
Quote from: Anton on June 07, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
I'd incline to that view too. For the British elites it would have been a win win situation. Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial. In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire. The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances change
British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient. I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.
The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation. Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.
the Breton/Armorica angle has always interested me. The slow loss of Britain from the Empire makes the connection with Armorica that much more understandable and logical. If it was assumed that elites had land both sides of the channel, they could flit from area to area depending on the immediate circumstances but once things started to look more and more dicey for Britain, either through pelagianism, highland warlords encroaching on the lowlands or removal of official Roman units, they would be a steady stream to move there during the 5th and then the 6th C
rather than a stream of 'refugees' would it be local elites with their 'clients' moving to where they had connections?
I would guess that the same extended families held power on both sides of the channel and that alliances and clientship operated throughout.
If things got too hot in Britannia a prestigious leader could charter a merchant ship, we know they were still about, and move his people on mass. The trip being paid for by future exactions from the transported. Thinking of Koch's view of the the migration of the Cornovii to Dumnonia did the Dummonian elite do just what Dave suggests and head for Brittany?
the other interesting thing, for me, is why the exodus eastwards and over the sea rather than westwards. To me this presents either, as suggested, that elites had estates or sponsors in Armorica or were not too enamoured of moving to the largely 'Highland' areas of Western Britain. Why? Could be explained purely because there were very well established local magnates and warlords westwards that would resist economic migrants. Alternatively there could have been a more fundamental difference in outlook, politically, socio-economically or religiously
Quote from: Holly on June 07, 2020, 08:31:13 PM
the other interesting thing, for me, is why the exodus eastwards and over the sea rather than westwards. To me this presents either, as suggested, that elites had estates or sponsors in Armorica or were not too enamoured of moving to the largely 'Highland' areas of Western Britain. Why? Could be explained purely because there were very well established local magnates and warlords westwards that would resist economic migrants. Alternatively there could have been a more fundamental difference in outlook, politically, socio-economically or religiously
It could be that they had closer ties with others in the 'lowland zone' or perhaps even with the existing aristocracy in parts of Gaul
I can imagine that Western Britain had its own ruling class in place that didn't need them
Also I suspect they and their clients would have been superfluous in that they wouldn't bring with them the sort of skills needed to 'open up new lands' or otherwise strengthen the area
very true and as the article suggests there was possibly an pre-established east/west divide as the partial reoccupation by Roman forces occurred mainly in the SE
Quote from: Holly on June 07, 2020, 08:52:03 PM
very true and as the article suggests there was possibly an pre-established east/west divide as the partial reoccupation by Roman forces occurred mainly in the SE
For the purpose of the discussion, let's assume that it happened. I'm not sure whether 'occupation' is the right way to describe it.
I would suggest that there wasn't enough troops involved to 'reconquer' the island, and in all probability a small force came across at the invitation of those in charge on the island who still thought of themselves as part of the Empire
It could be as simple a thing as setting things up so the 'Saxon Shore' command worked properly across both sides of the channel and perhaps bringing local units back up to strength or at least bringing them up to the mark with regards efficiency
I'd see it as rather like Gaul in 452. In some ways it was all Roman, settled barbarians still accepted that they were on imperial territory, just that they did what tgey wanted there. Landowning was regulated by imperial treaties and imperial kaw. The Burgundian's right to land was either a grant of hospitalitas from the empire or purchase from Roman citizen or the takeover of deserted land in a way the empire recognised. As said earlier, you were king of tge Burgundians or Goths, not if a defined territory. Tge Franks held their land under a foedus with the empire. They turned up under their kings at Aetius' summons. In Britain the variously settled frontier tribes held land for service in the same way. There were at least some soldiers in the Northern forts ( as there were in Gaul as Limitanei answer Aetius' call) , there were German foederati in strategic locations too. However, what was lacking was a military commander or governor across all the island . When the Britons ask for help it sounds most like the elites who run the civitates who petition. Tax collection has very likely broken down and anything much beyond local supply arrangements' too. If there is a mobile force in York which stimulates the Angles to repeated dike building then it is most lijely fed from local resources. When a Roman arrives to help he does not deal with one strongman, but the heads of many tiny city states.
Roy
The thing about land that really interests me is the imperial Estates. These were huge and lucrative and while we don't know where they were Britain certainly had some. There was also a lot of land belonging to the military. Post the fall of Constantine most of these British resources were presumably up for grabs. If you wanted to settle federates without dispossessing the locals and potentially upsetting your power base these were the resources to use.
Rance thinks that was what happened in Dyfed and Koch thinks that's what Vortigern's dynasty did when granting extensive lands to the church.
makes complete sense. Its a win win. You can donate land from the former imperial estates to foederati and the church to secure service. If Imperial control ever does reoccur then the Emperor would either validate this arrangement or reacquire what he thought he could do
Quote from: Holly on June 08, 2020, 12:58:34 PM
makes complete sense. Its a win win. You can donate land from the former imperial estates to foederati and the church to secure service. If Imperial control ever does reoccur then the Emperor would either validate this arrangement or reacquire what he thought he could do
Exactly, if the Emperor returns with enough power for his opinion to matter, than it's his problem, not yours :)
On the east-west situation in Britannia has anyone else read Greene on the situation in what became Lyndsey. I have a copy but it's years since I read it. From memory the thesis is that the British polity there falls in the 6th century and the remaining British military elite heading north, for Bryneich maybe?
On Roy's point more than one scholar has thought that there was a big and scary British polity north of the Humber. the south of the Old North I suppose. Perhaps comprising of Rheged, Deira and Bryneich.
Quote from: Anton on June 08, 2020, 01:27:27 PM
On the east-west situation in Britannia has anyone else read Greene on the situation in what became Lyndsey. I have a copy but it's years since I read it. From memory the thesis is that the British polity there falls in the 6th century and the remaining British military elite heading north, for Bryneich maybe?
On Roy's point more than one scholar has thought that there was a big and scary British polity north of the Humber. the south of the Old North I suppose. Perhaps comprising of Rheged, Deira and Bryneich.
I've read a few of her articles but not the book. She goes into quite a bit of detail and makes some good points re the British polity there and its fall.
Re the second point.....Men of the North is a term that still resonates. One wonders if when the garrisons were reduced in the Highland areas of North and Western Britain that the change to an Heroic society was accelerated even happening towards the end of the 4th Century. This is perhaps why we see an East/West and North/South divide develop. The West and North create a largely martial society to protect themselves from raiders. The South and East still have links to the continent and if/when the postulated Roman forces come back in the 1st quarter of the 5th Century, they dont go beyond the confines of the lowlands because of this. In effect, the West and North are much like the situations in the rest of the Western Empire. Nominal Imperial Authority in semi-autonomous areas
If they ever did come back of course. I've been meaning to have a proper look at the Notitia.
Yes, it continues to resonate today. Amazing really.
If Marwanad Cunedda is anything to go by then the change was in place as you indicate. The question is who was running the show? There's obviously an authority way above Cunedda's level that owns the treaty his bard is so anxious to promote. That authority transcends the Wall. Breaking the treaty 'will make the civates quake'. There's a fair bit of real politic in it.
There are no demands for blood vengeance in the poem just an appeal to keep the treaty and provide the bard with his new suit once a successor takes over. It's almost as though Cunedda's death is just the cost of doing business. Sort of 'He was a great lad altogether but you know how it goes'. It implies Cunedda was killed by a similar outfit. I keep rereading Koch's treatment of it there is an awful lot in it.
there is an awful lot in it and you can see the beginnings of the situation that developed into Rheged and Gododdin and thus Catraeth further down the line