This began with a hijacking of the Colchester thread (my humblest apologies). Figuring out whether Colchester (Camulodunum) could have been Arthur's HQ led to a study of the chronology of that era which deserved a separate thread.
Many of the posters here are, unlike me, erudite Arthurians, so I'm looking forward to learning quite a bit.
The idea is to try and establish the sequence of the main events in 5th century Britain and then see how accurately one can assign dates to some of those events. This is not so much rigorous history as best-fit scenario speculation. What reconstruction best fits the sources and what we know of that era? For sources we have Constantius' Vita Sancti Germani, Gildas' De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, and Nennius' Historia Brittonum as the main texts. There are others but they don't add much.
Let me start with the sequence. I propose as terminus a quo the departure of the Roman administration from Britain, and for terminus ad quem the Battle of Badon. Provisionally, the date for the former is about 420AD and for the latter the late 400's to early 500's (but feel free to object strenuously). So - provisionally - we have a period of about 60-90 years. I suggest this order of events:
1. c. 420AD - The Roman administration leaves Britain.
This can't be fixed with certainty as the Romans didn't so much withdraw from Britain as gradually disengage from it. In 383 Maximus pulls most of the troops out of Britain, but according to Gildas, a legion is later sent to aid against the Picts and Scots, and some cavalry and ships some time after that. Then they give the Britons the means to construct their own weapons and build towers on the coast for them (the last is probably inaccurate but it underlines a gradually diminishing Roman involvement in Britain). Nennius describes this same intermittent Roman involvement after Maximus.
2. The Britons appeal to Agitius (Aetius) in vain.
This could refer to Aetius or Aegidius. Probably the former as Aegidius is rather too late on the scene, only appearing during Majorian's reign. Aetius became MM in Gaul only in 426 so the appeal cannot be earlier than that date.
3. The Britons momentarily check the Picts and Scots and there is a time of peace.
"And then it was, for the first time, that they overthrew their enemies, who had for so many years been living in their country; for their trust was not in man, but in God; according to the maxim of Philo, "We must have divine assistance, when that of man fails." The boldness of the enemy was for a while checked, but not the wickedness of our countrymen: the enemy left our people, but the people did not leave their sins."- Gildas: 20
4. The Picts and Scots renew their attacks.
"a vague rumour suddenly as if on wings reaches the ears of all, that their inveterate foes were rapidly approaching to destroy the whole country, and to take possession of it, as of old, from one end to the other."- Ibid: 22
5. Vortigern calls in Hengist.
Hengist initially resides at Thanet. More of his men then come over and the Britons have trouble provisioning them. He brings his daughter and gives her to Vortigern in exchange for Kent. He gets Vortigern to agree to give his son and brother land in the north of Britain where they can better deal with the Picts. All of these events must have taken some time.
6. Vortigern marries his own daughter and St Germanus comes to oppose him.
This intervention against Vortigern by St Germanus seems separated from his earlier mission against the Pelagians and may have been a separate visit.
7. Vortigern seeks refuge from Hengist in fortresses in Wales whilst his son Vortimer fights Hengist and defeats him.
Vortigern seems to flee from the Britons as much as from the Saxons, leaving Vortimer in control.
"At length Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, valiantly fought against Hengist, Horsa, and his people; drove them to the isle of Thanct, and thrice enclosed them with it, and beset them on the western side. The Saxons now despatched deputies to Germany to solicit large reinforcements, and an additional number of ships: having obtained these, they fought against the kings and princes of Britain, and sometimes extended their boundaries by victory, and sometimes were conquered and driven back.
Four times did Vortimer valorously encounter the enemy; the first has been mentioned, the second was upon the river Darent, the third at the Ford, in their language called Epsford, though in ours Set thirgabail, there Horsa fell, and Catigern, the son of Vortigern; the fourth battle he fought, was near the stone on the shore of the Gallic sea, where the Saxons being defeated, fled to their ships." - Nennius: 43-44
8. Vortimer is killed. Hengist offers a new alliance with Vortigern. Vortigern is captured and cedes Essex, Sussex and Middlesex in exchange for his freedom.
"The king being a captive, purchased his redemption, by delivering up the three provinces of East, South, and Middle Sex, besides other districts at the option of his betrayers."- Nennius: 46
9. Vortigern again flees to Wales where St Germanus follows him and is given command of the army.
"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.
The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47
10. The Saxons campaign across Britain and engage St Germanus in Wales, where they are defeated by him.
"For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." - Gildas: 24
"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.
The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47
The Saxon campaign may be a relief army coming to the aid of Vortigern (who is their man and gives their presence in Britain legitimacy). Otherwise why come all the way to Wales?
11. Vortigern dies. Ambrosius Aurelianus succeeds him as the principal political authority in Britain.
"Others assure us, that being hated by all the people of Britain, for having received the Saxons, and being publicly charged by St. Germanus and the clergy in the sight of God, he betook himself to flight; and, that deserted and a wanderer, he sought a place of refuge, till broken hearted, he made an ignominious end." - Nennius: 48
"But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation (to whom flocked from divers places round about our miserable countrymen as fast as bees to their hives, for fear of an ensuing storm), being strengthened by God, calling upon him with all their hearts, as the poet says,– "With their unnumbered vows they burden heaven," that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus," - Gildas 25.
It seems that Aurelianus took power at the time of Vortigern's fall from grace, so he may have been on the scene when St Germanus defeated the Saxons.
12. St Germanus returns to the continent and some time later Arthur takes command of the army under Ambrosius.
"St. Germanus, after his death, returned into his own country. At that time, the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers. And Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the kingdom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period.
Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons."- Nennius: 50
13. Arthur fights 12 campaigns against the Saxons under the authority of Ambrosius, culminating in the Battle of Badon Hill.
"And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion castle, where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter. The ninth was at te City of Legion, which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon." - Nennius: 50
"After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Bath-hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity." - Gildas: 26.
Arthur then is chosen as commander 12 times and wins 12 victories. This suggests a long career spanning perhaps several decades.
Assigning dates
Dates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badon#Date) for Baden Hill range between 482 and 516. The date of St Germanus' death is disputed, but it must be in the 440s as he is en route to appeal to Aetius when he dies. Say 448 as the latest accepted date (though it might be later). If one places Germanus' victory over the Saxons somewhere in the mid 440's that means that Arthur takes command not long afterwards, say by 450 at the latest. A career of 30 to 40 years puts Baden somewhere in the 480's.
Vortigern then rules between the 420's and mid 440's, and invites the Saxons possibly in the 430's up to around 440.
Any further precisions possible? Or is it all tosh? (don't all reply at once)
oh my gawd.....you just had to open up the rabbit hole! ::)
An excellent thread. I'll contribute what I can. Time for a bit of a ponder.
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 09:05:27 AM
oh my gawd.....you just had to open up the rabbit hole! ::)
Haargh! Haargh! Nyaargh!(https://i.imgur.com/hD6f0KK.png)
School children used to learn a handful of dates significant in the story of Britain and one of them was that the Romans left in 410 AD. Life was so much simpler then :)
yes, time for a ponder and a read and a reread and a ponder and a scratching of the head and a puffing out of the cheeks....
Quote from: Erpingham on August 19, 2021, 10:00:58 AM
School children used to learn a handful of dates significant in the story of Britain and one of them was that the Romans left in 410 AD. Life was so much simpler then :)
According to one source (https://www.amazon.com/1066-All-That-memorable-history/dp/0750917164) it was even easier than that. 1066 was the only
memorable date.
Given that Gildas is at pains to tell us that he doesn't have the books he needs to write his history I think we need a prequel to Justin's point 1.
1. What Maximus (Maxim Wledig) does is important for what happens later. Irish and Welsh dynasties trace their founding to Maxim. He empowered them and they remembered it. They call him a Wledig, an over lord of kings.
2. In the Old North Cunedda fights alongside the Men of Bryneich. His marwnad (elegy) evidences Heroic Culture within the Empire. The Men of Bryneich are clearly militarised. Cunedda seems to have some sort of stipend that entitles him to land and resources sufficient to support a court and a war band. He seems accountable to a higher power. He meets his death at the hands of rivals not foreign invaders. His court bard does not claim royal status for Cunedda. Cunedda's death does not trigger a blood feud. Instead, his followers seek a confirmation of existing arrangements. Koch dates Marwnad Cunedda to 383AD.
3. Rance argues for the settlement of Irish Federates in Wales. If we look at the location of Ogham Stones we see where we can find the Irish in Britannia. The stones themselves are an emulation of Roman military practice. They are often bilingual in Irish and Latin. This looks to me like a military arrangement sanctioned by Maxim.
4. We should accept Koch's dating of St. Patrick making him a contemporary and confederate of Maxim. His mission to Ireland then takes place immediately post the settlement of Irish Federates in Britannia.
Putting 2,3 and 4 together we see a militarisation of Britannia under Maxim. With 3 and 4 we see a major policy initiative to neutralise the threat from Ireland.
Quote from: Anton on August 19, 2021, 11:20:42 AM
Given that Gildas is at pains to tell us that he doesn't have the books he needs to write his history I think we need a prequel to Justin's point 1.
1. What Maximus (Maxim Wledig) does is important for what happens later. Irish and Welsh dynasties trace their founding to Maxim. He empowered them and they remembered it. They call him a Wledig, an over lord of kings.
2. In the Old North Cunedda fights alongside the Men of Bryneich. His marwnad (elegy) evidences Heroic Culture within the Empire. The Men of Bryneich are clearly militarised. Cunedda seems to have some sort of stipend that entitles him to land and resources sufficient to support a court and a war band. He seems accountable to a higher power. He meets his death at the hands of rivals not foreign invaders. His court bard does not claim royal status for Cunedda. Cunedda's death does not trigger a blood feud. Instead, his followers seek a confirmation of existing arrangements. Koch dates Marwnad Cunedda to 383AD.
3. Rance argues for the settlement of Irish Federates in Wales. If we look at the location of Ogham Stones we see where we can find the Irish in Britannia. The stones themselves are an emulation of Roman military practice. They are often bilingual in Irish and Latin. This looks to me like a military arrangement sanctioned by Maxim.
4. We should accept Koch's dating of St. Patrick making him a contemporary and confederate of Maxim. His mission to Ireland then takes place immediately post the settlement of Irish Federates in Britannia.
Putting 2,3 and 4 together we see a militarisation of Britannia under Maxim. With 3 and 4 we see a major policy initiative to neutralise the threat from Ireland.
1. yes completely agree, the 'transition' from empire to post empire begins in the 4th not 5th Century and I concur that Macsen Wledig is instrumental in this process. There are heaps of references back to him including family trees, folklore and the like.
2. Yes, the inference is that we are still nominally in the Roman period and clearly Cunedda is important in regards to his remit from MW/MM for stemming the tide (the North and the West at this point)
3. The whole Welsh seaboard shows evidence of this and in fact the origin for the kingdom of Brecon/Brecheiniog is of Irish ancestry but in all probability as federates and thus potentially as a result of prior action by MW and Cunedda
4. Again agree and makes sense with regards to what Patrick has to say in his works especially in regards to Coroticus
in fact we get more and more impression of a paramilitary set up in the far north and west of Britain in the later stages of the 4th Century
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 11:34:43 AM
in fact we get more and more impression of a paramilitary set up in the far north and west of Britain in the later stages of the 4th Century
Makes sense. He arrived in Britain in 380 and quelled an invasion of Picts and Scots in 381. He was proclaimed emperor in 383 and wanted to leave Britain secure when he departed with his regular troops, so organising a local defence would have been natural.
its also probably why we see the emergence of local rulers and 'kingdoms' in those areas ahead of more Southerly areas
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
its also probably why we see the emergence of local rulers and 'kingdoms' in those areas ahead of more Southerly areas
And why Vortigern rises to prominence before Ambrosius.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
1. c. 420AD - The Roman administration leaves Britain.
And this is the first problem, Roman administration.
To quote a passage from the wiki (not because of it's excellence but because it nicely summarises some of the discussion)
An appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.
So depending on your definition of 'Roman Administration' it had already departed by 410AD (Some think that it was kicked out when Constantine was killed and the civitates (who were an element within Roman administration but a minor one) appealed to Honorius to give them one.
Indeed Ikka Syvanne in his Military History of Late Rome 425-457
Indeed looking at my review of the book I wrote ", Britain and Spain remained 'functionally Roman' even after the 'Roman armies' had left. As an aside I found his discussion of the activities of the Bishop Germanus, the Alleluia Victory in Britain, and linking it in with the situation in Gaul at the time, particularly fascinating. " 8)
But this gives us a glimpse of the problem of chronology. One document we have a date for, we don't have the document, it's mentioned in another document, and might not refer to Britain at all.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2021, 12:21:44 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
1. c. 420AD - The Roman administration leaves Britain.
And this is the first problem, Roman administration.
To quote a passage from the wiki (not because of it's excellence but because it nicely summarises some of the discussion)
An appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.
The Rescript, presuming it refers to Britain, shows that Roman administration was still alive and well in Britain in 410. The writers, clearly British dignitaries, consider themselves as part of the Empire and Honorius as their overlord who is responsible for their welfare. That makes them "Roman administration" by any definition. Notice that Honorius doesn't ask them: "Who are you and why are you writing to me? He accepts that the welfare of the island is in principle his problem but tells them he simply doesn't have the manpower to help them and advises them to aid themselves.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2021, 12:21:44 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
1. c. 420AD - The Roman administration leaves Britain.
And this is the first problem, Roman administration.
To quote a passage from the wiki (not because of it's excellence but because it nicely summarises some of the discussion)
An appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.
The Rescript, presuming it refers to Britain, shows that Roman administration was still alive and well in Britain in 410. The writers, clearly British dignitaries, consider themselves as part of the Empire and Honorius as their overlord who is responsible for their welfare. That makes them "Roman administration" by any definition. Notice that Honorius doesn't ask them: "Who are you and why are you writing to me? He accepts that the welfare of the island is in principle his problem but tells them he simply doesn't have the manpower to help them and advises them to aid themselves.
The trouble is you're using words that had no meaning
We know there is a massive drop off in coin finds. Effectively they stopped using coinage, even compared to ten years previously.
So if there was an administration it was unique in the Roman world in not using coin
Secondly Emperors regularly got deputations, messages, loyal addresses from the civitates of various areas, asking for favours, thanking the Emperor for just existing, or even for doing something for them, so the source wouldn't have been an issue. Being part of one of these delegations, or even just carrying the letter, was a route to career advancement, you might attract the positive attention of the Emperor.
But Syvanne does make a good case for some Roman units crossing into Britain, not a 'reconquest' but just a temporary transfer, at a particular point in one of the campaigns. they may have stayed a few years but not that long
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 11:51:39 AM
its also probably why we see the emergence of local rulers and 'kingdoms' in those areas ahead of more Southerly areas
That is a whole discussion in itself.
The Men of Bryneich are Brigantes and Cunedda is no king.
Beyond the Wall "Men listened to X although he was no Gododdin tribesman".
There seems to have been a transition from the tribal based civates to dynastic rule over pretty much the same territory. The same thing seems to be happening in Ireland and the protagonists are those with the closest involvement in Britannia.
The earlier Ogham stones reference tribal identity the later ones dynastic identity.
It's hard not to see this as a result of militarisation.
I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up. It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed. But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures. As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic :) )
what I am fairly confident myself is that there is no definitive date/time when Roman authority ceases and Sub Roman Britain begins. The 410AD rescript can be seen as something of a red herring as it is in all essences a call for help not a declaration of independence
Quote from: Erpingham on August 19, 2021, 01:12:46 PM
I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up. It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed. But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures. As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic :) )
There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors. They have a sense of Roman identity and are happy to be part of the imperial system. Their former tribal identities are weakened to the point of transparency - except in the outlier districts like Wales or the north, where the tribal structures are stronger and the men more apt to fight. Maximus establishes the outliers as militarised districts but they are not enough to contain the Picts and Scots. The more Romanised southern areas can only bleat to Rome for help. They do have some sort of military system however, inherited from the Romans who teach them how to equip themselves and presumably how to fight. With this force they are just about able to contain the Saxons and as time goes by their army improves until it is able to regularly defeat the Saxons in battle, eventually crushing them at Badon.
Over the 400's things gradually start mutating into the after. The sense of a common Roman identity endures to the end of Arthur's career as commander of the combined forces of Roman Britain, but fissures develop after the Saxon threat is neutralised. There is never a strong, centralised civic authority. The local magistrates gradually transform into kings. They can still work together against the common peril - and notice that they are militarily significant - "Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with
all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons." - but as their regional authority solidifies their sense of unity diminishes and in the 6th century they are no longer able to make common cause against the Saxons. This weakens their military capability and the Saxons and other germanic settlers begin an irreversible two-century process of conquest.
How does that sound?
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2021, 12:34:34 PMThe trouble is you're using words that had no meaning
We know there is a massive drop off in coin finds. Effectively they stopped using coinage, even compared to ten years previously.
So if there was an administration it was unique in the Roman world in not using coin
True. There was a spectacular economic collapse in Britain in the course of the 5th century. Pottery production ceased altogether. This could be due to the constant raiding by Picts, Irish, Scots, Saxons and the rest, that completely disrupted the economic infrastructure, reducing manufacturing to the village level. It's likely that late Roman industry was a centralised process that was paralysed not only by barbarian predations but also by the lack of a strong centralised authority that enabled the local municipalities to work together. This doesn't mean though that the British didn't see themselves as Roman subjects and that the Empire didn't view them as such.
Ah, but wvhat is Roman authority? The situation in Britain is confused because the structure is inherently different in the lowland zone where there are towns with dependent areas ( once tribal) and the upland (or military zone) where the model is more tribal and federate. Since it was the highland zone that survived best and gave us a literature generated by the Celtic church and the dynasties that later ruled there it gives us a model that might not hold for civitates in the East of the country. Relatively recent work that has made claims for the continuance of tribal organisation seems to me to be confused by the original foundation of a town being a tribal centre and the tribal name clinging on through inertia, but did that mean real tribal culture and authority continuing on over a dozen generations. Were the labourers on the land conscious that they were Dobunni in any meaningful way.
The Empire had a gap in its structure between the town ( with dependent countryside) and the Empire itself ( ownerr of the imperial bureaucracy and the army, which was an imperial entity. Was there any structure or loyalty at the level of a province or diocese? Certainly it had no troops. Interestingly the Christian church has no such intermediate structure. In Spain, when the Roman army no longer operates there the resistance to Gothic rule is by the cities. There is no superior organisation that can maintain and deploy troops.
In Britain one might argue that the same applies and there is no province wide organisation with any traction. Thus in the highland zone there is still tribal consciousness and reasoably rapidly , kings arise because the need for a war leader drives such a concentration of power. In the South it might become matter of town councils and many small units with no overall hierarchy... It has been suggested that Ambrosius ( or Arthur if they are not the same ) is the last claimant to something akin to governorship, one appointed by the Lowland Britons when Rome will not send one.
If the only structure the Eastern Britons have is the small cities , then no wonder they fell, because each would only have been of a size that a few boatloads of Saxons or Angles could take over and once the Saxons formed kingdoms these would be bigger than any British unit until the Western, once tribally based, kingdoms were encountered.
Roy
nicely put Roy. I also think broadly along those lines.
We are reasonably confident that 'Highland' areas develop post Roman identities earliest and with the associated kingdom growth. S and SE areas are more Romanised and cling more towards the Roman model for as long as they can. A decline in the monetary system hastens the end of the large scale functioning of the imperial tax system and with it the city functioning and old landowner model. It is replaced by a hotch potch of civitates council control in some places, decurion or leading citizen (large landowner) led areas in others. Reliance on the imperial war machine leads to reliance on the next best thing...federate troops. Some of these are pre existing from the 4th century (Saxon Shore forts etc) and some are newly engaged by these ruling elites. There was probably an effort to maintain a working 'Roman' bureaucracy by these civitates either together (as in Vortigern et al), in isolation, or even in competition (Vortigern/Ambrosius). Further complications will have emerged re religious standpoints (Celtic/Pelagianism/Roman), re-emerging tribal identities and a reliance on hired help to enforce the peace. Things start coming to a head when Gaul is effectively carved up creating pressures on tribal movements on the continent and either tribes looking for employment or escape. The latterly implied internal divisions between Ambrosius and Vortigern (assuming they are contemporary) or similar, creates an opportunity for new groups/federates to expand into vacuums or weak areas but not necessarily to 'overrun them'. Having said that there may have been some 'migration' events during this period in which elites and some working populations move either westwards or to Britanny (and we are certain of the latter)
As time marches on in the 5th, internal pressures build up such that we get to a defacto state of emerging Germanic proto kingdoms (although very much smaller than the civitates or equivalents in the North and West) either piecemeal absorbing/coming into conflict with others (not necessarily exclusively Romano British even if the sparse written assumptions are so) or as confederations. Culmination with a BIG engagement loosely called Badon that halts this process for 2 generations until Gildas picks up the narrative with his moans of the British....
Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)
QuoteThis doesn't mean though that the British didn't see themselves as Roman subjects and that the Empire didn't view them as such.
Quite likely. One day the Empire would return, the economy would pick up and there would again be nice pottery in the shops. In the mean time, they would muddle on . As I've said above, the obvious structures to maintain would be the social, legal and administrative processes they were familiar with, just without the Imperial layer or regular forces.
I don't know how strong tge local councils were likely to be. In Gaul the bishops pkayed a major part in keeping things running. In England the church does not appear to have the sane strength. It has been suggested ( Liebschutz think) that Roman military units would take over their locality and their commander become a small scale warlord. If that did happen and there is not much evidence, then it is likely to have been only a small unit of men that continued on. 500 infantry or 300 cavalry is expensive and unnecessary if your main task is to chase bandits and overawe bagaudae. That would explain why the groups of federates appear so small. As to the civitates having greater military potential tgan the Saxon kingdoms, I somehow doubt it. The Saxons could count on most adult males being militarily useful, whereas the Britons are running something very like a slave or a share cropping economy. with the lower orders not being military participants.
Again it has been suggested that one of the attractions of barbarian rule or at least the collapse of the Roman system, was the reduction in the tax burden as the central power weakened and there was no army to spend the money on or send taxes in kind to.
Roy
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 03:51:10 PM
Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)
I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 19, 2021, 03:53:32 PM
One day the Empire would return, the economy would pick up and there would again be nice pottery in the shops. In the mean time, they would muddle on.
Gosh, it all sounds terribly like society's current response to a new disease. Are you sure we are not making the classic mistake of simply imposing our modern views upon events that happened 1,500 years ago?
???
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 01:50:22 PM
what I am fairly confident myself is that there is no definitive date/time when Roman authority ceases and Sub Roman Britain begins. The 410AD rescript can be seen as something of a red herring as it is in all essences a call for help not a declaration of independence
I have a slightly different take on that.
Roman authority is gone, certainly by 410. Roman allegiance persists and is encouraged even by Constantinople. There is a Ken Dark quote that I'm sure you know that sort of sums it up.
QuoteAre you sure we are not making the classic mistake of simply imposing our modern views upon events that happened 1,500 years ago?
No, but I do acknowledge the influence of Douglas Adams
FORD:
Delay? Have you seen the world outside this ship? It's a wasteland. A desert. Civilisation's been and gone. It's over. There are no lemon-soaked paper napkins on the way from anywhere.
AUTOPILOT:
The statistical likelihood is that other civilisations will arise. There will one day be lemon-soaked paper napkins. 'Till then, there will be a short delay. Please return to your seats.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 03:51:10 PM
Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)
I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.
of course absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence but if you take the sum of all the information available it lends itself to a Badon being fought by Ambrosius. References to Arthur would appear to be more 6th and 7th century related and possibly multiple characters who become overlaid with each other.
The only strong argument tgat I can see for the existence of Arthur is the fifty year gap, in A/S expansion. That suggests a concerted effort by the A/S as a defeat of one faction only would not hold back all Westward movement, nor would it cause a flight to the continent by elements of the losers.To defeat a combined force of the invaders suggests a similar alliance had been brokered by the British. An Arthur character fits the story, but it could be Ambrosius or someone else. It would also fit with the subsequent fracturing of tge British alliance and civil war.
Roy
we do see such episodes throughout the early period Coel, Urien, Cadwallon all having transitory success under a banner of alliances. It is possible that there is an Arthur figure in there somewhere but if there is I am now convinced it is from a later date than the 5th Century and as such isnt the figure at Badon. That doesnt rule out a historical Arthur of great prowess its just too much of a stretch to put him earlier than the 6th C
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 06:38:37 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 03:51:10 PM
Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)
I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.
of course absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence but if you take the sum of all the information available it lends itself to a Badon being fought by Ambrosius. References to Arthur would appear to be more 6th and 7th century related and possibly multiple characters who become overlaid with each other.
The fact that Gildas leaves out any explicit mention of Germanus' pivotal role in defeating the Saxons - and AFAIK nobody doubts Germanus existed - means he is being deliberately selective in the facts he presents, which makes sense given the theme of his sermon. To deny Arthur existed or put him in another century because Gildas doesn't mention him means heaving Nennius overboard and he is our principal source for 5th century Britain. There's no good reason to discount his testimony - there's nothing absurd about Arthur as Nennius describes him.
however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 02:35:24 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 19, 2021, 01:12:46 PM
I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up. It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed. But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures. As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic :) )
There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors.
But if they lost their martial spirit how did they keep supplying men to one of the largest military forces within the Empire, and we do know that some of the Civitates had military forces, they helped with Hadrian's wall, and may have provided men for expeditions onto the Continent.
Britain was an unusual area, the size of the garrison compared to the size of the population may have ensured that
Quote from: aligern on August 19, 2021, 03:02:14 PM
Ah, but wvhat is Roman authority? The situation in Britain is confused because the structure is inherently different in the lowland zone where there are towns with dependent areas ( once tribal) and the upland (or military zone) where the model is more tribal and federate. Since it was the highland zone that survived best and gave us a literature generated by the Celtic church and the dynasties that later ruled there it gives us a model that might not hold for civitates in the East of the country. Relatively recent work that has made claims for the continuance of tribal organisation seems to me to be confused by the original foundation of a town being a tribal centre and the tribal name clinging on through inertia, but did that mean real tribal culture and authority continuing on over a dozen generations. Were the labourers on the land conscious that they were Dobunni in any meaningful way.
The Empire had a gap in its structure between the town ( with dependent countryside) and the Empire itself ( ownerr of the imperial bureaucracy and the army, which was an imperial entity. Was there any structure or loyalty at the level of a province or diocese? Certainly it had no troops. Interestingly the Christian church has no such intermediate structure. In Spain, when the Roman army no longer operates there the resistance to Gothic rule is by the cities. There is no superior organisation that can maintain and deploy troops.
In Britain one might argue that the same applies and there is no province wide organisation with any traction. Thus in the highland zone there is still tribal consciousness and reasoably rapidly , kings arise because the need for a war leader drives such a concentration of power. In the South it might become matter of town councils and many small units with no overall hierarchy... It has been suggested that Ambrosius ( or Arthur if they are not the same ) is the last claimant to something akin to governorship, one appointed by the Lowland Britons when Rome will not send one.
If the only structure the Eastern Britons have is the small cities , then no wonder they fell, because each would only have been of a size that a few boatloads of Saxons or Angles could take over and once the Saxons formed kingdoms these would be bigger than any British unit until the Western, once tribally based, kingdoms were encountered.
Roy
Indeed in Gaul, bishops stepped in at took leadership of the cities and spread their authority out from there. Britain is interesting in that this didn't happen. The respect with which Germanus was met showed it might have been happening, but perhaps the paganism of the Saxons swept them away and the Celtic church was less connected with the urban communities
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.
Gildas is well-read. He knows for example that Parthia bordered on India:
"For when the rulers of Rome had obtained the empire of the world, subdued all the neighbouring nations and islands towards the east, and strengthened their renown by the first peace which they made with the Parthians, who border on India, there was a general cessation from war throughout the whole world" - De Excidio: 5
He knows all about Maximus, who predated St Germanus:
"He, by cunning arts rather than by valour, attaching to his rule, by perjury and falsehood, all the neighbouring towns and provinces, against the Roman state, extended one of his wings to Spain, the other to Italy, fixed the seat of his unholy government at Treves, and so furiously pushed his rebellion against his lawful emperors that he drove one of them out of Rome, and caused the other to terminate his most holy life. Trusting to these successful attempts, he not long after lost his accursed head before the walls of Aquileia," - De Excidio: 13
Is it likely he could have been ignorant of Germanus who made such a huge impact in Britain?
As regards those walls, there's something odd about them. Gildas affirms that at the time of their departure from Britain, the Romans taught the Britons how to build walls from one end of the island to the other. These walls were made of turf:
"By the advice of their protectors, they now built a wall across the island from one sea to the other, which being manned with a proper force, might be a terror to the foes whom it was intended to repel, and a protection to their friends whom it covered. But this wall, being made of turf instead of stone, was of no use to that foolish people, who had no head to guide them. " - De Excidio: 15
A second wall was subsequently built, again with the Romans advising the Britons who did the actual building: "because they thought this also of advantage to the people they were about to leave, they, with the help of the miserable natives, built a wall different from the former, by public and private contributions, and of the same structure as walls generally, extending in a straight line from sea to sea, between some cities, which, from fear of their enemies, had there by chance been built." - De Excidio: 18
This is all very precise. Everything we know about the dykes subsequently built shows that they were a) sometimes massive and long, b) were built of earth and not stone, and c) were works of engineering skill - Roman engineering skill. Is there any evidence that the Antonine wall had fallen into disrepair and was rebuilt at this time? Any evidence of dyke-like walls in Scotland?
Notice how later on Gildas talks about "the wall":
"Moreover, having heard of the departure of our friends, and their resolution never to return, they seized with greater boldness than before on all the country towards the extreme north as far as the wall. To oppose them there was placed on the heights a garrison equally slow to fight and ill adapted to run away, a useless and panic-struck company, who slumbered away days and nights on their unprofitable watch. Meanwhile the hooked weapons of their enemies were not idle, and our wretched countrymen were dragged from the wall and dashed against the ground. Such premature death, however, painful as it was, saved them from seeing the miserable sufferings of their brothers and children. But why should I say more? They left their cities, abandoned the protection of the wall, and dispersed themselves in flight more desperately than before. " - - De Excidio: 19
Which wall? Gildas affirms the Britons had just built two. Were these different from Hadrian's Wall that was far older, more imposing and a better-known landmark than they, and would be known as
the Wall?
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 06:48:19 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2021, 02:35:24 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 19, 2021, 01:12:46 PM
I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up. It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed. But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures. As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic :) )
There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors.
But if they lost their martial spirit how did they keep supplying men to one of the largest military forces within the Empire, and we do know that some of the Civitates had military forces, they helped with Hadrian's wall, and may have provided men for expeditions onto the Continent.
Britain was an unusual area, the size of the garrison compared to the size of the population may have ensured that
The citizens themselves, unlike barbarians, weren't militarized. If they didn't join the army and get some training and weaponry they would know diddly-squat about fighting. And nearly all who
had joined the army had been removed from Britain by Maximus. Remember the Breton troops in Gaul?
the interpretation of Gildas is a candle burning exercise and a topic all on its own. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not a historian so we have to be careful with how we use what he says. An account is better than no account but 2 accounts are better still. Relying wholly on Gildas for information about Britain is like relying wholly on an account written by Donald Trump about America. However, taking him at face value there is no mention of Arthur for the time period in question. He doesnt mention a lot of things admittedly only what he feels is important to his message
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 07:15:27 AM
the interpretation of Gildas is a candle burning exercise and a topic all on its own. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not a historian so we have to be careful with how we use what he says. An account is better than no account but 2 accounts are better still. Relying wholly on Gildas for information about Britain is like relying wholly on an account written by Donald Trump about America. However, taking him at face value there is no mention of Arthur for the time period in question. He doesnt mention a lot of things admittedly only what he feels is important to his message
It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deil%27s_Dyke). ;)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 06:55:10 AM
Quote from: Holly on August 19, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
however dont forget Gildas wasnt very up to speed with his history and confused the building of the Hadrian and Antonine wall for a start so could be unknowing about Germanus. The issue we have is that alot of history as such is 'living' at that time and so beyond Gildas's own lifetime it can start to get hazy and he is reliant on testimony of passed down information. We have a sole source of information with all the personal bias's that could be layered on top and have no corroborating testimony either way. On balance of probability Arthur as we hope to know him didnt exist at the time we want him to. But to say he didnt exist full stop is unlikely. He is too immured in Welsh legend and 9th century written history alludes to his existence even if placed in the wrong time period.
Gildas is well-read. He knows for example that Parthia bordered on India:
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:21:33 AM
It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deil%27s_Dyke). ;)
There are plenty of them across the British Isle. Offa's Dyke is perhaps the longest, some of the older ones may well have been bronze age and for the moving and sorting of livestock. It's a fascinating topic in its own right
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
oh yes there are hundreds and hundreds of miles of dykes everywhere in Britain. I will grant you that it is possible that more recent works could have been picked up on by Gildas as per the above passages. We just dont know. Having been back and forth on the written stuff both 'factual' and 'folklore' orientated I am still hopeful for an Arthur character and in all probability several, I just dont think he is early enough for Badon. Again, thats a separate discussion as this one is more about chronology but rabbit holes beget rabbit holes as well we know ;D
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:30:26 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:21:33 AM
It seems there are such things as Scottish dykes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deil%27s_Dyke). ;)
There are plenty of them across the British Isle. Offa's Dyke is perhaps the longest, some of the older ones may well have been bronze age and for the moving and sorting of livestock. It's a fascinating topic in its own right
So we can consider the hypothetical possibility that Gildas was talking about dykes, not Hadrian's Wall? It fits very neatly with what came later.
always a possibility. The other issue is we dont know if you visited them personally or just heard about them. Same with his treatment of the various Kings he has a go at.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist
And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.
There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.
But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 08:07:54 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist
And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.
There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.
But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name
IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas
had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.
We might note that Maximus plays a much larger role in later Welsh tradition than Germanus, being seen as a dynastic foundation by a number of kingdoms. He is also recorded as father in law of Vortigern in some stories. So Gildas' greater knowledge of Maximus may simply be because his story was well established already.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 08:18:46 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 08:07:54 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist
And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.
There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.
But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name
IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.
saying that Gildas
had to have known about him is also a bit of a reach. He may have known about him, he may not. Maybe Germanus did something he disapproved of and so didnt include him. He may have appeared originally but was scrubbed out in later editions etc etc. Connecting an absence of mention of Arthur with an absence of mention of Germanus is a reach. He didnt mention the Loch Ness Monster so we can propose that Nessie existed on that premise ;)
In all seriousness, he doesnt mention any Pict, Irish or Saxon leaders from the time period he is writing about. It may be that he only has snippets of info from the time period because it is before his floruit and so uses these because its all he has. Then there comes the question about where he got the information from. Historians in Britain even in the Roman period are like hen's teeth, in the 5th Century worse still. In all likelihood he has to rely on verbal information possible from eyewitnesses and possibly from 2nd or 3rd hand sources. We just dont know. Even if he is trying his best to write an accurate and truthful account it is fraught with assumptions, red herrings, misinformation and bias.
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 09:58:56 AM
saying that Gildas had to have known about him is also a bit of a reach. He may have known about him, he may not. Maybe Germanus did something he disapproved of and so didnt include him. He may have appeared originally but was scrubbed out in later editions etc etc. Connecting an absence of mention of Arthur with an absence of mention of Germanus is a reach. He didnt mention the Loch Ness Monster so we can propose that Nessie existed on that premise ;)
In all seriousness, he doesnt mention any Pict, Irish or Saxon leaders from the time period he is writing about. It may be that he only has snippets of info from the time period because it is before his floruit and so uses these because its all he has. Then there comes the question about where he got the information from. Historians in Britain even in the Roman period are like hen's teeth, in the 5th Century worse still. In all likelihood he has to rely on verbal information possible from eyewitnesses and possibly from 2nd or 3rd hand sources. We just dont know. Even if he is trying his best to write an accurate and truthful account it is fraught with assumptions, red herrings, misinformation and bias.
Germanus was a champion of Catholic orthodoxy, sent by the bishops of Gaul (and the Pope) to combat Pelagianism in Britain. That automatically makes him a hero for any 5th century British ecclesiastic. Plus he shamed Vortigern into exile and commanded the British army in their first ever victory over the Saxons. He visited Britain several times and he was much nearer in time to Gildas than Maximus (who did much less). I maintain that it was utterly impossible that Gildas had never heard of him. But that's just me. ::)
Gildas writes a sermon with an historical preface, so his preface covers material that he will develop in the body of his sermon, and the body of his sermon is about the perfidy of British kings. So, British and king. He has no interest mentioning anyone else.
And he probably had plenty of source material to work from, which source material has been lost since the society that preserved it vanished from history.
Which brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius do not contradict but rather compliment each other and supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 08:18:46 AM
IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.
Perhaps Gildas doesn't mention Germanus because he did know about him, rather than the accumulation of legends which we've had handed down.
After all Gildas was born about 500AD, Germanus may have died as late as 448AD but the only generally accepted trip to Britain is about 429AD
I would urge you to read Ikka Syvanne in his Military History of Late Rome 425-457
Here he covers Germanus who married a lady in the Imperial Court and was appointed Dux by the Emperor
There's an interesting wiki about the life of Germanus which we get the information about him from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Germani
It's even suggested by some scholars that the famous victory was added as much because a hagiography needed one
The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 08:18:46 AM
IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.
Perhaps Gildas doesn't mention Germanus because he did know about him, rather than the accumulation of legends which we've had handed down.
After all Gildas was born about 500AD, Germanus may have died as late as 448AD but the only generally accepted trip to Britain is about 429AD
I would urge you to read Ikka Syvanne in his Military History of Late Rome 425-457
Here he covers Germanus who married a lady in the Imperial Court and was appointed Dux by the Emperor
There's an interesting wiki about the life of Germanus which we get the information about him from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Germani
It's even suggested by some scholars that the famous victory was added as much because a hagiography needed one
The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.
What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources
themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. :)
QuoteWhich brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius ....... supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.
Although I'm not up to speed on the literature, I suspect this would be a bit of minority view .
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 10:31:21 AM
QuoteWhich brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius ....... supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.
Although I'm not up to speed on the literature, I suspect this would be a bit of minority view .
I'm used to it. ::)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM
The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.
Oh it's easy to put together a chronology - Justin has just done so. The hard bit is getting everyone else to agree with yours.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 10:28:20 AM
What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. :)
The problem is the principal sources are not good.
So take the sources for St Germanus.
He existed, he came to Britain, but the sources were remarkably vague about what he did when he arrived here, and they may have assumed that 5th century Britain was the same as 5th century Gaul, so assumed the same social and military structures.
Trying to put together a chronology for the century the first thing you have to do is to look at your fixed dates
Constantine arriving in Gaul from Britain is pretty reliable, to a couple of years.
Germanus in Britain, whatever he did is pretty reliable.
Then we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.
Just trying to put things in the right order without bothering about dates is awfully tricky
Quote from: Mick Hession on August 20, 2021, 10:35:50 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM
The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.
Oh it's easy to put together a chronology - Justin has just done so. The hard bit is getting everyone else to agree with yours.
Cheers
Mick
Indeed getting people to agree that the events you put in your Chronology actually happened is tricky enough, never mind a date 8)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 10:28:20 AM
What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts.
But then you aren't "leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever" because the act of "see[ing] if they can be made to make sense" involves inserting a whole load of "whatever has been suggested" by
you. You keep making this false distinction between you (pure study of the evidence) and everyone else (willful irrelevant interpretation). It happens in every topic, every time.
But I've no dog in this particular fight, so carry on chaps.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 10:28:20 AM
What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. :)
The problem is the principal sources are not good.
So take the sources for St Germanus.
He existed, he came to Britain, but the sources were remarkably vague about what he did when he arrived here, and they may have assumed that 5th century Britain was the same as 5th century Gaul, so assumed the same social and military structures.
Trying to put together a chronology for the century the first thing you have to do is to look at your fixed dates
Constantine arriving in Gaul from Britain is pretty reliable, to a couple of years.
Germanus in Britain, whatever he did is pretty reliable.
Then we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.
Just trying to put things in the right order without bothering about dates is awfully tricky
I make one assumption: that Germanus' first visit was purely ecclesiastical and that it is distinct from his intervention against Vortigern which after looking carefully at Constantius and Nennius can be interpreted as an entirely separate visit.....or (on reflection more likely) his first visit lasted years - a decade or more - which is quite reasonable since it takes time to neutralise a heresy. You don't just preach a couple of fiery sermons and then hop on the boat.
With that assumption everything falls into place. Vortigern brings the Saxons over only around 440. This matches the Frankish Chronicles that affirm the Saxons (temporarily) conquered Britain in 445. Ambrosius' battle in the mid 440's then allows for Arthur to have a military career that isn't impossibly long culminating in Baden in the 480's. It all hangs together and doesn't require that significant passages in the sources be chucked overboard.
QuoteThen we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.
But it is interesting that the story of something significant happening in the late 440s is a consistent theme, even if we don't know what it was. The sundry Germanics, who we know archaeologically to have been around in Britain for generations suddenly become visible as a political force around this time.
On when to locate Arthur. Ken Dark makes a useful point.
"These data suggest that, in the late sixth century, there was a sudden burst of interest in the previously-unknown secular name 'Arthur'. 'Arthur' briefly became for some reason famous among Irish elites in western Britain and Ireland, especially (perhaps only) those with British connections. 'Arthur' was acceptable to Christian rulers and Church alike, and is unlikely to have been derived from pagan religion. However, this was not a saint's name-out of the hundreds of Celtic dedications from Britain and Ireland there is no 'Arthur'."
On the Law. Current views seem to be that Roman Law over lay customary law in the Empire's provinces. When the Empire can no longer operate properly, with appeal to the Emperor or his deputy local law presumably regains primacy.
Gildas says something about the process. He wrote:
"At length the tyrant thickets increased and were all but bursting into a savage forest. The island was still Roman in name, but not by law and custom".
Then we have Zozimus telling us the Britons armed themselves, walloped the barbarians, threw off Roman law and reverted to native law or words to that effect.
It's worth recalling that St. Patrick, a member of the governing class, spoke Brythonic as his first language. His family had status under the Roman system and educated themselves for an Imperial career in the Roman fashion. All the while at home and no doubt elsewhere they spoke Celtic. We have not a clue about where Patrick grew up. My guess is in the heart of the villa zone bordered by the Severn.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 10:56:52 AM
I make one assumption: that Germanus' first visit was purely ecclesiastical
Which is why I recommended Ikka Syvanne's book
He places Germanus in a Gallic context and by definition there is evidence for him having military responsibilities there
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 10:56:52 AM
With that assumption everything falls into place. Vortigern brings the Saxons over only around 440. This matches the Frankish Chronicles that affirm the Saxons (temporarily) conquered Britain in 445. Ambrosius' battle in the mid 440's then allows for Arthur to have a military career that isn't impossibly long culminating in Baden in the 480's. It all hangs together and doesn't require that significant passages in the sources be chucked overboard.
This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.
the 'detailed' information we have around Germanus's visit is in detail highly dubious. Various miracles and shouting at ruffians all feels very allegorical
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 12:43:25 PM
This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.
I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light ;)
Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 12:48:22 PM
the 'detailed' information we have around Germanus's visit is in detail highly dubious. Various miracles and shouting at ruffians all feels very allegorical
Actually at this point it's worth looking at St Patrick (one, or both, or Palladius) and the world that we see portrayed in Patrick's letters. It gives us a chance to compare the world he knew with the one Germanus was supposed to have visited
absolutely....
I rather like Patrick
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 04:25:55 PM
absolutely....
I rather like Patrick
I'd like him better if they could be sure how many of him there were ::)
But yes, even with the doubts, he's a contemporary and St Germanus seems to have been the bishop who ordained him
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 12:43:25 PM
This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.
I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light ;)
Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain
Actually, one can see Ambrosius as a distinct personality in Nennius, hovering in the background. Nennius affirms that Arthur was of much lower rank than the kings, nevertheless he was their dux belli 12 times, commanding all the British forces. Where did he get that authority from? This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that. If Arthur was appointed to the job of supreme commander one man must have appointed him. Who was that? Only one candidate.
To have an Arthur you have to have an Ambrosius.
QuoteThis was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that.
Given the prevalence of tanistry around the Celtic world, I don't see why they wouldn't have understood the concept. How they made decisions, though, is a mystery to me. Perhaps those more familiar with the material can produce examples of collective decision making?
Add : The process of acclamation was , of course, well known to the Romans and to various other peoples of the time, so that too may have played a part.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:32:56 PM
QuoteThis was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that.
Given the prevalence of tanistry around the Celtic world, I don't see why they wouldn't have understood the concept. How they made decisions, though, is a mystery to me. Perhaps those more familiar with the material can produce examples of collective decision making?
Add : The process of acclamation was , of course, well known to the Romans and to various other peoples of the time, so that too may have played a part.
In tanistry the chieftain of a tribe was elected for life by the family heads. A successor - the tanist - was elected at the same time. It was therefore a permanent political appointment. One can argue that that was how Vortigern and Ambrosius achieved their per-eminence though I think even that was unlikely as most of Roman Britain was no longer a tribal society. Certainly in the case of Arthur it wouldn't apply as his authority was always temporary and strictly military. Which is why acclamation wouldn't apply to him either. 12 acclamations?
The issue was your slightly glib assertion that "political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that." Yes, they would. Acclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards). I'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions. So, no, appointing a joint war chief does not need a "Big Man". Whether there was such a man is another question but you cannot use the evidence as you have to confirm his existence.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 20, 2021, 12:43:25 PM
This assumes a) Arthur exists and b) Arthur exists in this time period. I am reasonably relaxed that we do have an Arthur or Arthurs but not convinced he exists in the relevant timeframe. At the moment we only have written information about him in the 9th Century and beyond.
I think the easiest way to look at Arthur as there's something casts an Arthur shaped shadow through history, but whether it was an Arthur, or something that looks like him from a certain angle in a certain light ;)
Personally I think there was 'an Arthur' (whatever one was) but whether he was really Ambrosius or whatever I'm less certain
Actually, one can see Ambrosius as a distinct personality in Nennius, hovering in the background. Nennius affirms that Arthur was of much lower rank than the kings, nevertheless he was their dux belli 12 times, commanding all the British forces. Where did he get that authority from? This was 5th century Britain and the political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that. If Arthur was appointed to the job of supreme commander one man must have appointed him. Who was that? Only one candidate.
To have an Arthur you have to have an Ambrosius.
Why? Before you can state that Arthur gained his legitimacy from Ambrosius you have to show how Ambrosius gained his legitimacy
Both may have merely been warlords with a lot of Bucellarii who claimed legitimacy in the name of a distant Emperor who might even have heard of them
The various civitates and leaders paid 'protection' or even fitted into the Roman system where the warlord claimed the right to Hospitalitas under late Roman billeting law
Given that some of the Welsh clerical sources portray Arthur in an unflattering light, this could be explained by him imposing a heavier burden on church lands, probably inevitable as the economy diminished and the church become economically more important
its a good point actually. Arthur is often portrayed in a poor light in Welsh legendarium. Whenever he existed and what he was in terms of authority, the likelihood is that he wasnt universally loved especially by the lowest echelons of society who often bore the brunt of the food renders
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PM
The issue was your slightly glib assertion that "political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that." Yes, they would.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PMAcclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards).
OK, but are there any instances of acclamation raising someone to a purely military position with no political power, and only for the time of a campaign season?
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PMI'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions.
It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him. The bishops had local control over their dioceses and could not be dictated to in their day-to-day administration by either the Pope or other bishops. Regional councils would determine a course of action against a regional problem but the participating bishops could not at least in principle be forced to acquiesce to any decision made - unless the council was an ecumenical council which was always given the seal of approval by the Pope's delegates and hence was binding on the bishops.
But, yes, the principle stands that important decisions could be made by a group of bishops.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PMSo, no, appointing a joint war chief does not need a "Big Man". Whether there was such a man is another question but you cannot use the evidence as you have to confirm his existence.
Let me approach it from another perspective. If we posit that Ambrosius had overarching political authority in Britain whilst Arthur had supreme military command of British forces, we can then reconcile Nennius and Gildas. Gildas' sermon concentrates on the moral (un)worthiness of Britain's political rulers and he doesn't go into the military side of things in any detail.* Nennius on the other hand is very much interested in the military side of things and he describes battles and names commanders - Germanus and Arthur.
There is a precedent for a British political overlord leaving the fighting to a subordinate. After Germanus shames Vortigern for marrying his daughter, the latter turns against the Saxons and retires to a fortress in Wales. He leaves military command to his son Vortimer, who fights successfully against the Saxons for a time:
"But soon after calling together his twelve wise men, to consult what was to be done, they said to him, "Retire to the remote boundaries of your kingdom; there build and fortify a city to defend yourself, for the people you have received are treacherous; they are seeking to subdue you by stratagem, and, even during your life, to seize upon all the countries subject to your power, how much more will they attempt, after your death!" The king, pleased with this advice, departed with his wise men, and travelled through many parts of his territories, in search of a place convenient for the purpose of building a citadel." - Nennius: 42
.........
"At length Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, valiantly fought against Hengist, Horsa, and his people; drove them to the isle of Thanct, and thrice enclosed them with it, and beset them on the western side. The Saxons now despatched deputies to Germany to solicit large reinforcements, and an additional number of ships: having obtained these, they fought against the kings and princes of Britain, and sometimes extended their boundaries by victory, and sometimes were conquered and driven back.
Four times did Vortimer valorously encounter the enemy; the first has been mentioned, the second was upon the river Darent, the third at the Ford, in their language called Epsford, though in ours Set thirgabail, there Horsa fell, and Catigern, the son of Vortigern; the fourth battle he fought, was near the stone on the shore of the Gallic sea, where the Saxons being defeated, fled to their ships." - Nennius: 43-44
Notice that Vortimer fights with the kings and is clearly their commander. Vortigern retains his position as British overlord as he later renews his alliance with the Saxons and cedes large parts of eastern Britain to them after he is captured. If he was just a Welsh warlord he would have no authority to do so and the Saxons would have known it.
This then neatly parallels a later rapport between Ambrosius and Arthur, and furthermore follows the late Roman practice of splitting civil and military command (in the sense of supreme command: Emperor and Magister Militum).
*Actually he says so himself:
"for it is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field."
anything written 300-400 years after the events is supposition and interpretation of what is available to Nennius and others. Dont forget there is still debate ongoing as to who Nennius was and the dating of the various copies/versions available
some useful stuff is here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm
treatise on 'Nennius' I found interesting if somewhat 'old' is here https://www.jstor.org/stable/456601?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
just to add that the broad consensus is to treat Nennius extremely carefully as there are clearly inconsistencies, later gloss and obvious folklore portions mixed in with what might prove historically useful
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PM
The issue was your slightly glib assertion that "political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that." Yes, they would. Acclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards). I'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions. So, no, appointing a joint war chief does not need a "Big Man". Whether there was such a man is another question but you cannot use the evidence as you have to confirm his existence.
Gildas actually affirms that the kings (i.e. magistrates with some military authority) were chosen by vote:
"Kings were anointed, not according to god's ordinance, but such as showed themselves more cruel than the rest; and soon after, they were put to death by those who had elected them, without any inquiry into their merits, but because others still more cruel were chosen to succeed them." - De Excidio: 21
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 09:20:36 AM
anything written 300-400 years after the events is supposition and interpretation of what is available to Nennius and others. Dont forget there is still debate ongoing as to who Nennius was and the dating of the various copies/versions available
some useful stuff is here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm
treatise on 'Nennius' I found interesting if somewhat 'old' is here https://www.jstor.org/stable/456601?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
I prefer to take the approach that someone like Nennius - who is consciously trying to write history - has a decent pile of source material to work from (which has since been lost) and understands the necessity of being careful with the truth. That doesn't mean he can't make any mistakes, sure, but I'm finding that he is a good deal more consistent than I was originally led to believe. Nennius' history may have had later glosses but the substance was written by one individual which he is traditionally accredited as being. I'll go with that. :)
Careful with that translation of Nennius from Vortigern studies. Just glancing at it one problem already appears:
Vortigern [Guorthigirnus] then reigned in Britain. In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and their apprehensions of Ambrosius.Transliterating the Latin:
guorthigirnus regnauit in brittannia - Vortigern ruled in Britain
et dum ipse regnabat - and while he was ruling
urgebatur a metu pictorum scottorumque - he was pressed/weighed down by fear of the Picts and Scots -
Urgebatur is in the third person singular and clearly refers to Vortigern, not the natives.
et a romanico impetu - and by the Roman attack/vigour/fury -
Impetus is in the singular so probably doesn't mean "attack" but more likely "determined opposition"
nec non et a timore ambrosii - and not least by fear of Ambrosius
So Vortigern does have power over Britain, but his authority is fragile as he is troubled by external threats as well as internal opposition, i.e. his rule is not viewed as entirely legitimate by the Romans. Ambrosius is his biggest internal opponent but does not yet command the loyalty of the other magnates. My take is that Vortigern had military prestige since he came from a militarised outlier district and was accepted as overlord in a time of crisis but he was not popular amongst the more Romanised Britains.
my reservations are based on a few observations and overlaying of timelines which are quite complicated as you will no doubt have fathomed. I dont have a problem with an Arthur I just maintain he is too late for the 5th Century. It really depends on how you are linking the 'Arthur' with the timeframe with the (1st) battle of Badon and what references and evidence you are relying on.
whether you believe his is mid 5th (ad.Saxonicum), late 5th (1st Battle Badon) or early-mid 6th (during or post Gildas floruit) and/or secondary Arthurs after the 1st one
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 09:50:30 AM
my reservations are based on a few observations and overlaying of timelines which are quite complicated as you will no doubt have fathomed. I dont have a problem with an Arthur I just maintain he is too late for the 5th Century. It really depends on how you are linking the 'Arthur' with the timeframe with the (1st) battle of Badon and what references and evidence you are relying on.
whether you believe his is mid 5th (ad.Saxonicum), late 5th (1st Battle Badon) or early-mid 6th (during or post Gildas floruit) and/or secondary Arthurs after the 1st one
The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:52:57 AM
The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?
Annales Cambriae
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:52:57 AM
The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?
Annales Cambriae
The Annales give only one Badon which is dated 516. The same Annales give the age of Bishop Ebur as 350 years, so we can accept it is not entirely accurate in its chronology.
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:52:57 AM
The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?
Annales Cambriae
dated to 665. "The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies."
Its significance or otherwise is discussed here :
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=jlo
Warning for Justin : this is a long discussion of where scholars have placed Badon in the past and, as such, will not fit with your prefered historical method. It does,
inter alia, cover the evidence extensively, however. For me, it demonstrates the unwisdom of saying anything too definitive about the nature and location of the battle.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2021, 10:36:05 AM
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:52:57 AM
The dates given by Nennius are a problem, granted, but putting Arthur into the period Nennius assigns to him (i.e. just after the fall of Vortigern) doesn't present any problems and fits in neatly with Gildas. What is the evidence for a second battle of Baden BTW?
Annales Cambriae
dated to 665. "The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies."
Its significance or otherwise is discussed here :
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=jlo
Warning for Justin : this is a long discussion of where scholars have placed Badon in the past and, as such, will not fit with your prefered historical method. It does, inter alia, cover the evidence extensively, however. For me, it demonstrates the unwisdom of saying anything too definitive about the nature and location of the battle.
Fine. I'm on a learning curve. So the Annales have a second Badon 149 years after the first. The simplest interpretation is that the second Baden doesn't have anything to do with Arthur as the Britons had by then been pushed back to Wales and Cornwall/Devon and weren't in any position to fight and win pitched battles against the Saxons. Badon - like Thermopylae - seems to have been a good defensive position and hence a suitable place for battles.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him.
Not in this period. It's probably Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604) was the first who pushed for what we think of as the Papal Primacy but until about 730 the popes (often grudgingly) accepted the authority of the Byzantine Emperor via the Exarchate of Ravenna
So there wasn't the centralisation we now assume as the norm, indeed when Augustine was sent north by the Pope to 'convert' England, he was specifically told to keep his eyes open whilst crossing Gaul and if there were any Gallic ways of doing things that seemed good to him, he should adopt them
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
Let me approach it from another perspective. If we posit that Ambrosius had overarching political authority in Britain whilst Arthur had supreme military command of British forces,
First you have to presume that they were contemporaries, but you'd have to explain how he had overarching political authority when we know there were other 'kings' and leaders
Apparently analysis of Nennius have led some to conclude there were two men called Ambrosius, (Better to say Ambrosius Aurelianus as that way you avoid the more important Bishop) who might have been related
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:25:03 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2021, 05:58:41 PM
The issue was your slightly glib assertion that "political notables wouldn't have understood parliaments or majority votes or passing resolutions or anything like that." Yes, they would. Acclamation is another way of assembled people "appointing" or "approving" a person in this period (and long afterwards). I'd also point out the church, who possibly were the administrative glue behind things, were quite used to holding synods and making decisions. So, no, appointing a joint war chief does not need a "Big Man". Whether there was such a man is another question but you cannot use the evidence as you have to confirm his existence.
Gildas actually affirms that the kings (i.e. magistrates with some military authority) were chosen by vote:
"Kings were anointed, not according to god's ordinance, but such as showed themselves more cruel than the rest; and soon after, they were put to death by those who had elected them, without any inquiry into their merits, but because others still more cruel were chosen to succeed them." - De Excidio: 21
Should anyone be conversant with the Early Irish Law texts a lot of what Gildas says becomes quite familiar. Elective kingship is the business of the nobles of the polity and the free men who are their clients. It was a highly competitive affair. I think that is exactly what Gildas is describing in the quote above. Leading Church Men couldn't alter that, they could only pick a side and try to extract a price for their support.
others things to consider is the context and political backdrop to when any 'historical' accounts were written. what was the purpose, who did they favour, who was the audience, ie what was the lens through which the writer and audience was expected to view it. very few written accounts have zero bias and in times of great upheaval even less so
Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating. He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows. That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.
and anything roughly east of a line of the Fosse Way 'doesnt exist' or is at least outside of his influence sphere and/or intended audience
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 09:29:45 AM
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 09:20:36 AM
anything written 300-400 years after the events is supposition and interpretation of what is available to Nennius and others. Dont forget there is still debate ongoing as to who Nennius was and the dating of the various copies/versions available
some useful stuff is here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm
treatise on 'Nennius' I found interesting if somewhat 'old' is here https://www.jstor.org/stable/456601?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
I prefer to take the approach that someone like Nennius - who is consciously trying to write history - has a decent pile of source material to work from (which has since been lost) and understands the necessity of being careful with the truth. That doesn't mean he can't make any mistakes, sure, but I'm finding that he is a good deal more consistent than I was originally led to believe. Nennius' history may have had later glosses but the substance was written by one individual which he is traditionally accredited as being. I'll go with that. :)
Careful with that translation of Nennius from Vortigern studies. Just glancing at it one problem already appears:
Vortigern [Guorthigirnus] then reigned in Britain. In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and their apprehensions of Ambrosius.
Transliterating the Latin:
guorthigirnus regnauit in brittannia - Vortigern ruled in Britain
et dum ipse regnabat - and while he was ruling
urgebatur a metu pictorum scottorumque - he was pressed/weighed down by fear of the Picts and Scots - Urgebatur is in the third person singular and clearly refers to Vortigern, not the natives.
et a romanico impetu - and by the Roman attack/vigour/fury - Impetus is in the singular so probably doesn't mean "attack" but more likely "determined opposition"
nec non et a timore ambrosii - and not least by fear of Ambrosius
So Vortigern does have power over Britain, but his authority is fragile as he is troubled by external threats as well as internal opposition, i.e. his rule is not viewed as entirely legitimate by the Romans. Ambrosius is his biggest internal opponent but does not yet command the loyalty of the other magnates. My take is that Vortigern had military prestige since he came from a militarised outlier district and was accepted as overlord in a time of crisis but he was not popular amongst the more Romanised Britains.
I found that very helpful Justin Thank you.
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 11:52:33 AM
and anything roughly east of a line of the Fosse Way 'doesnt exist' or is at least outside of his influence sphere and/or intended audience
He seems to indicate a surviving British polity in the east with his remarks about St Alban's Shrine. His sphere of influence is I think the key thing. He looks to be primarily making a political intervention aimed at a specific audience.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 11:03:11 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
Let me approach it from another perspective. If we posit that Ambrosius had overarching political authority in Britain whilst Arthur had supreme military command of British forces,
First you have to presume that they were contemporaries, but you'd have to explain how he had overarching political authority when we know there were other 'kings' and leaders
The fact that Vortigern makes all the big decisions (ceding Kent to the Saxons over the head of its king) and is responsible for what happens in north Britain even though he doesn't come from there. And the fact that his son commands the other kings in battle.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 11:03:11 AMApparently analysis of Nennius have led some to conclude there were two men called Ambrosius, (Better to say Ambrosius Aurelianus as that way you avoid the more important Bishop) who might have been related
The evidence for two Ambrosii?
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him.
Not in this period. It's probably Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604) was the first who pushed for what we think of as the Papal Primacy but until about 730 the popes (often grudgingly) accepted the authority of the Byzantine Emperor via the Exarchate of Ravenna
So there wasn't the centralisation we now assume as the norm, indeed when Augustine was sent north by the Pope to 'convert' England, he was specifically told to keep his eyes open whilst crossing Gaul and if there were any Gallic ways of doing things that seemed good to him, he should adopt them
This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway. I studied Church history for years and can supply evidence that the primacy of Rome was operational from day one (e.g. the intervention of Rome in the Corinthian church even though John the Apostle was still alive and much nearer). But better to just leave it at that.
QuoteThis could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.
Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church. Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed :)
In this context, it is best to recall synods arose in the context of this discussion as "gatherings of senior people to decide things known in the 5th century".
Yours, on behalf of the moderatorial and administrative branch,
Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
QuoteThis could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.
Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church. Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed :)
Damn! So I can't start explaining why Catholicism is the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. >:(
On the ceding of Kent.
It's worth noting that Ceint uniquely kept its original name and Christianity survived there. I think that Vortigern ceded half of its territory and Hengist kept his end of the federate bargain by way of legitimacy -hence the name and religious survival. The original owners kept the other half and fought to regain the rest.
There's the survival of gavelkind too, until the 1920s. Quite remarkable.
Quote from: Anton on August 21, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating. He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows. That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.
"Secular authority" as we understand it didn't exist before the French Revolution. Before that time a government was always expected to uphold the religion of its subjects. Even the cosmopolitan Roman Empire formally endorsed the Roman religion whilst adopting elements of other religions. A government separated from religion was unthinkable.
What was happening in Britain was interesting though. The Life of St Germanus affirms that many Britons weren't Christians. The Empire itself had become formally Christian only towards the end of the 4th century so a Christian society with a Christian government was still very much WIP in Britain and elsewhere. This would have meant that social codes of conduct were fluid: the old pagan/Roman customs were gradually being replaced or were transmuting into the Christian ethic but the process was far from complete. This removed a lot of restraint from the new British rulers (who had no traditional code of kingly conduct to restrain them anyway). The fact that Vortigern thought he could openly marry his daughter and get away with it is telling. I don't think the new 'kings' were warlords so much as a kind of mafiosi, very much part of the system but not under the moral constraints of 'normal' people. And anyway, people in power generally tend to think they are exempt from the moral obligations of the hoi-polloi. But it was worse in Britain according to Gildas.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 12:35:43 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
QuoteThis could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway.
Only if it started talking about religious aspects of the Church. Adminstrative, political and military functions are allowed :)
Damn! So I can't start explaining why Catholicism is the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. >:(
Correct :)
back to the aspect of Gildas and the why......is he sermonising to gain some form of authority over the western Kings (my son, you have sinned but its not too late if you recognise xyz....)
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 01:09:57 PM
back to the aspect of Gildas and the why......is he sermonising to gain some form of authority over the western Kings (my son, you have sinned but its not too late if you recognise xyz....)
I don't think so. He is sermonising in the 500s - when Christianity was much more established - to remind the kings (who are expected to uphold the Christian religion anyway) what happens when they abandon the practice of their faith. For Christianity to work one has to keep driving home its tenets as they are not easy to live by, especially for someone in power. Which is why there were sermons in the first place.
And he doesn't want political authority over the kings. There was a kind of partnership between Church and government in the early Middle Ages, not a domination of kings by the Church. You have to wait until the 1200s before the Popes acquired direct political power over Christian states, especially the Empire. But that didn't last long. The slap in the face of Boniface VIII (which killed him) ended papal political hegemony. The Papacy went past the limits and paid for it.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: Anton on August 21, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
Indeed, for Gildas the existence of secular authority independent of the Church and often operating in defiance of it's strictures was infuriating. He was writing before the fusion of Church interests with Brythonic high culture and it shows. That said from his perspective he seems to be accurately describing the society he lived in.
"Secular authority" as we understand it didn't exist before the French Revolution. Before that time a government was always expected to uphold the religion of its subjects. Even the cosmopolitan Roman Empire formally endorsed the Roman religion whilst adopting elements of other religions. A government separated from religion was unthinkable.
What was happening in Britain was interesting though. The Life of St Germanus affirms that many Britons weren't Christians. The Empire itself had become formally Christian only towards the end of the 4th century so a Christian society with a Christian government was still very much WIP in Britain and elsewhere. This would have meant that social codes of conduct were fluid: the old pagan/Roman customs were gradually being replaced or were transmuting into the Christian ethic but the process was far from complete. This removed a lot of restraint from the new British rulers (who had no traditional code of kingly conduct to restrain them anyway). The fact that Vortigern thought he could openly marry his daughter and get away with it is telling. I don't think the new 'kings' were warlords so much as a kind of mafiosi, very much part of the system but not under the moral constraints of 'normal' people. And anyway, people in power generally tend to think they are exempt from the moral obligations of the hoi-polloi. But it was worse in Britain according to Gildas.
Actually Justin secular authority is just what we find in the Early Irish Law texts and it persists until the early 1600s. It is recognisable as such even by our modern views on the subject. One example may surfice. We all know Christian marriage law and, ignoring Brides of Christ, there is only one kind of marriage permitted. Not so in early Medieval Ireland, there were multiple legally sanctioned forms of marriage there. The Church didn't like it but couldn't change it.
The reason that I'm referencing Irish Law is that it was codified as a direct response to the mayhem (kings) unleashed by the collapse of the Western Empire. The newest stimulus for the Irish learned class was from Brythonic interactions. Christianity was the vehicle for that. It is hard not to see the same struggle going on in Britannia.
As far as I can tell Maxim, an ardent Nicene Christian, oversaw the comprehensive conversion of Britannia. Gildas and Patrick before him aren't remotely worried about British pagans. Heresy is a different matter but that is an intra Christian thing.
I'm not seeing paganism as a feature in St Germanus's visit. Fear of Pelagasianism and maybe some evidence for sumptary laws was my take.
in fact there is a form of inversion that happens in the 4th and 5th Centuries whereby the western and northern areas that were nominally Roman and nominally Christian suddenly had a vigorous injection of Celtic churchism + hankering for the Imperial days and the South and Eastern areas go from Roman/Christian to pretty much pagan and non roman in outlook
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him.
Not in this period. It's probably Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604) was the first who pushed for what we think of as the Papal Primacy but until about 730 the popes (often grudgingly) accepted the authority of the Byzantine Emperor via the Exarchate of Ravenna
So there wasn't the centralisation we now assume as the norm, indeed when Augustine was sent north by the Pope to 'convert' England, he was specifically told to keep his eyes open whilst crossing Gaul and if there were any Gallic ways of doing things that seemed good to him, he should adopt them
This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway. I studied Church history for years and can supply evidence that the primacy of Rome was operational from day one (e.g. the intervention of Rome in the Corinthian church even though John the Apostle was still alive and much nearer). But better to just leave it at that.
It depends what you mean by primacy. Pope Vigilius, arrested on the orders of the Emperor Justinian, at least partially for theological reasons, might have felt his primacy left much to be desired 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 05:02:30 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2021, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 07:41:39 AM
It's a little more complicated than that. The Church had and still has a clearly defined hierarchy: the Pope had supreme authority in the sense that decisions affecting the entire Church were made by him.
Not in this period. It's probably Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604) was the first who pushed for what we think of as the Papal Primacy but until about 730 the popes (often grudgingly) accepted the authority of the Byzantine Emperor via the Exarchate of Ravenna
So there wasn't the centralisation we now assume as the norm, indeed when Augustine was sent north by the Pope to 'convert' England, he was specifically told to keep his eyes open whilst crossing Gaul and if there were any Gallic ways of doing things that seemed good to him, he should adopt them
This could start the biggest thread on this forum except that it would be out of our remit and would probably be shut down by the moderator anyway. I studied Church history for years and can supply evidence that the primacy of Rome was operational from day one (e.g. the intervention of Rome in the Corinthian church even though John the Apostle was still alive and much nearer). But better to just leave it at that.
It depends what you mean by primacy. Pope Vigilius, arrested on the orders of the Emperor Justinian, at least partially for theological reasons, might have felt his primacy left much to be desired 8)
Eh? Ecclesiastical primacy of course. Nothing stopped the head of the Catholic Church from being arrested, imprisoned and executed by a ruthless emperor, king or whatever. It was the regular fate of popes in the 900's.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 05:09:16 PM
Eh? Ecclesiastical primacy of course. Nothing stopped the head of the Catholic Church from being arrested, imprisoned and executed by a ruthless emperor, king or whatever. It was the regular fate of popes in the 900's.
Indeed there is a discussion as to how much Christianity had survived in England before Augustine arrived, and there is even more discussion as to how much there was even in 400AD. Gildas was a monk and evangelist and seeing Britain through his eyes may exaggerate the influence of the Church
But at some point, the Ecclesiastical primacy of the Pope hardly applied to Britain. Firstly we don't know how much influence Pelagius still had. Germanus' hagiographer says that he defeated them, (but that gives us the Mandy Rice-Davis defence of 'he would say that wouldn't he')
Then we have the 'Celtic Church' which is sometimes known as Insular Christianity (which has other uses as well which is perhaps why the term Celtic Church survives.
In the end we had the Synod of Whitby to decide the date of Easter, rather than just a papal directive. It's at that point that the Papacy starts having more influence over the church in the British Isles
One thing struck me in Gildas:
It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.
Transliterating the Latin:
quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave 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
So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...
apart from Ambrosius
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 06:49:06 PM
apart from Ambrosius
Yes, apart from him. 👍 One begins with a "G" and the other with an "A"... ;)
Edit: oh yes, and one with a "V".
yes the this is, if you reason that way then he might not be mentioning a whole host of characters who are from the era....we just dont know
G = Guorthemir?
I was thinking Gandalf for some reason
Gerontius? Can't be Germanus - Gildas would have seen him as a saintly figure responsible for ensuring the Catholic church became established in Britain and inspired St Illtud to found the monastry where Gildas studied.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2021, 07:22:05 PM
Gerontius? Can't be Germanus - Gildas would have seen him as a saintly figure responsible for ensuring the Catholic church became established in Britain and inspired St Illtud to found the monastry where Gildas studied.
Germanus was nevertheless an experienced military man who assumed the role of general and won a crucial battle against the Saxons. Somehow I don't think Gildas would have been scandalised or embarrassed by that.
Bottom line though is that Gildas makes clear the exploits of an Arthur were not going to appear in his sermon.
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 07:14:46 PM
yes the this is, if you reason that way then he might not be mentioning a whole host of characters who are from the era....we just dont know
Sorry Dave, don't quite follow this.
Something else about Gildas. The Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys says he was "an old man full of days" when he died. The Welsh Chronicle gives 570 as the year of his death. But Gildas affirms that Badon happened the year he was born. In which case the Chronicle's date of 516 for Badon makes Gildas 54 when he died, hardly old and full of days. If however Badon took place in the 480's then Gildas would have been in his 80's when he died.
I have a notion of where the date of 516 came from but let me look at that tomorrow (not in front of a PC right now).
I think on balance most people are erring on 490 give or take a few years
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 06:29:29 PM
One thing struck me in Gildas:
It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.
Transliterating the Latin:
quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave 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
So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...
He may be looking back to the Romans for his champion soldiers. After all he consistently speaks favourably of their martial attributes and how the trained the inhabitants of Britain who then slumped back into indolence
Quote from: Holly on August 21, 2021, 09:11:00 PM
I think on balance most people are erring on 490 give or take a few years
I think most people follow the same reasoning that led Justin to query a later date. Much earlier doesn't give time for the war, much later means Gildas died too young
There are inevitably other arguments as well 8)
all comes down to what dating conventions you follow and which sources but I was following the line of Gildas writing about Maelgwyn before his death in 549 (some say 547) AD. if Gildas writes this 44 years after Badon then its earliest is 505. 495 gets mentions alot and I cant remember offhand the source for 490 but I'll dig it out. Gildas infers that there is a passage of time during which war reaches most parts of Britain (I'll leave that to others to do the translations directly). I take it to mean that we have intermittent war from the mid 5th to the end of the 5th culminating in Badon. I am happy to be corrected but I just dont think an early 6th C cuts the mustard these days
of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time ::)
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 09:33:43 AM
of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time ::)
And don't forget pondering and scratching the head and puffing out the cheeks. ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2021, 07:59:40 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2021, 06:29:29 PM
One thing struck me in Gildas:
It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by brave soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.
Transliterating the Latin:
quia non tam - for not
fortissimorum militum - of champion/most mighty soldiers (this is stronger than "brave 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
So there are "champion soldiers" whose accomplishments are sufficiently well-known that Gildas could describe them, but he makes clear he will not be talking about them. Who could those champion soldiers be? I can think of a couple...
He may be looking back to the Romans for his champion soldiers. After all he consistently speaks favourably of their martial attributes and how the trained the inhabitants of Britain who then slumped back into indolence
Putting the sentence in context:
Whatever my attempt shall be in this epistle, made more in tears than in denunciation, in poor style, I allow, but with good intent, let no man regard me as if about to speak under the influence of contempt for men in general, or with an idea of superiority to all, because I weep the general decay of good, and the heaping up of evils, with tearful complaint. On the contrary, let him think of me as a man that will speak out of a feeling of condolence with my country's losses and its miseries, and sharing in the joy of remedies. It is not so much my purpose to narrate the dangers of savage warfare incurred by champion soldiers, as to tell of the dangers caused by indolent men.So he is talking about about Britain, and in his introduction tells us the main theme of his sermon will be about the miseries of Britain, caused by the indolence of its inhabitants. The story is not uniformly bleak, however, as there have been effective remedies. The bit about champion soldiers is inserted in the middle of all this. The subject matter of his sermon which concerns the welfare of his fellow British will not include details of their military exploits but will concentrate on their moral state and its consequences.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2021, 09:48:27 AM
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 09:33:43 AM
of course I am the ultimate goldfish and stuff I read that makes sense and hangs together is swiftly forgotten so that later on I cant remember the source for my suppositions. Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time ::)
And don't forget pondering and scratching the head and puffing out the cheeks. ;)
I forgot to do that this time.....
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 09:33:43 AM
...Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time ::)
If you're anything like me you'll forget where you put the $%£@ing notes!
Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2021, 05:09:51 PM
Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.
I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 8)
The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.
There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?
Quote from: Tarnegol on August 22, 2021, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 09:33:43 AM
...Time to go back and reread stuff and maybe make notes this time ::)
If you're anything like me you'll forget where you put the $%£@ing notes!
at least you made notes 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2021, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2021, 05:09:51 PM
Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.
I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 8)
The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.
There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?
bingo....welcome to the rabbit hole
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2021, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2021, 05:09:51 PM
Comparing dates in the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius I conclude they are a hopeless mix of reliable and unreliable. So the only thing is to fall back on the most coherent sequence of events, assigning to them the most plausible chronology.
I think that is a generally agreed procedure. The intrepid scholar puts together a plausible chronology but to make it stand out amongst all the other plausible chronologies they link in the lives of various saints, throw away references from hopefully contemporary (or almost contemporary) Welsh poems, and if they're really desperate, 'sources' from post 1000AD 8)
The problem is that if you stack a reliable bit from an unreliable source on top of a reliable bit from another unreliable source, you'll have something solid.
But it's telling which bits are reliable is the tricky bit.
There are some occasions when these 'unreliable' sources could be useful. For example there's a general impression in some of the lives of various saints, that Arthur was seen as greedy and rapacious by the church.
Whilst the incidents in the lives might be allegorical, topoi or just invented for local colour, are we justified in coming away with that general impression?
bingo....welcome to the rabbit hole
Indeed and the other problem is that the trail of white stones you leave so that you can find your way back gets mixed up with the trails of white stones all the others leave and everybody ends up following everybody else round in circles, muttering darkly ;)
and all the eureka moments that are dashed when you cross reference everything
It's not as bad as all that. Thus far all I have to do is presume that St Germanus' first visit lasted 10-15 years (and he did enough to fill up that time) - or that his military adventure is a separate visit from his anti-Pelagian mission - and a plausible chronology can be shaken out that doesn't require dumping anything significant in the major sources or unrealistically stretching (or shortening) the lifetimes of any of the major players. Exact dates are a problem but that's not a big issue as all we really need are the main events in the right sequence and approximately dated. So put Vortigern inviting the Saxons over at about 440, Germanus' victory over them at about 445, Arthur's final victory at about 482 (already suggested elsewhere) and everything falls into place. Ambrosius and Arthur don't cancel each other out nor are they the same individual if one accepts that Ambrosius had supreme political command whilst Arthur had supreme military command. All very proper and late Roman. :)
I am pleased that you are happy with your proposal. Its always nice to get to a position where it appears to hang together. I am of a similar thought process apart from the Arthur bit in the 5th :)
Quote from: Holly on August 22, 2021, 08:32:10 PM
I am pleased that you are happy with your proposal. Its always nice to get to a position where it appears to hang together. I am of a similar thought process apart from the Arthur bit in the 5th :)
Who's going to write the article?
we havent finished discussing it yet.... ;D
article + rules + figures = lots
I don't have Dave's expertise on these matters but I do have some issues with Justin's chronology. In particular, basing so much on Nennius when it comes to St Germanus and ignoring Constantius' life, which is 5th century and is probably Nennius' source. Constantius (rightly or wrongly) gives Germanus two visits. The first visit is launched around 429 (we have other evidence for that). During that visit the Alleluia victory occurs. Germanus then returns to Gaul and does other stuff. Then comes a second visit. Then Germanus goes to Armorica and gets involved in things there for a while before setting off on a mission to Ravenna, dying sometime before 448 (given the story also involves a clash with Goar of the Alans in Armorica, probably not much earlier). It is hard to see Germanus' first visit lasting 10-15 years as it doesn't give him time to do his bishoping in Gaul and Armorica, make a second visit, then get involved in Armorica again before his death. And what have you done with Vortimer and the sons of Vortigern?
Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2021, 09:08:21 AM
I don't have Dave's expertise on these matters but I do have some issues with Justin's chronology. In particular, basing so much on Nennius when it comes to St Germanus and ignoring Constantius' life, which is 5th century and is probably Nennius' source. Constantius (rightly or wrongly) gives Germanus two visits. The first visit is launched around 429 (we have other evidence for that). During that visit the Alleluia victory occurs. Germanus then returns to Gaul and does other stuff. Then comes a second visit. Then Germanus goes to Armorica and gets involved in things there for a while before setting off on a mission to Ravenna, dying sometime before 448 (given the story also involves a clash with Goar of the Alans in Armorica, probably not much earlier). It is hard to see Germanus' first visit lasting 10-15 years as it doesn't give him time to do his bishoping in Gaul and Armorica, make a second visit, then get involved in Armorica again before his death. And what have you done with Vortimer and the sons of Vortigern?
I don't have the complete text of Constantius, just the translated exerpts on Vortigern Studies, which is a real bummer. Can you steer me to a complete MS?
According to this site (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vita_Germani) which summarises the Vita, after his first journey and before his second Germanus travels to Arles and negotiates a reduction in taxes. That wouldn't have taken long. The latest date for his death is accepted as being 448, but what is the evidence for that? In any event, one can hypothesize that Germanus beats the Saxons around 445. He returns to Gaul that same year. He haggles over the taxes, say during 446. He returns to Britain in 446 and deals with the Pelagians until 447. He returns to Gaul in 448 and travels to Ravenna to plead for the Armoricans. He dies in Ravenna.
I did factor Vortigern and Vortimer into the picture. Vortigern is chosen as
Primus around the time the Romans definitively disengage from Britain, say 420 give or take. He invites the Saxons in around 438-440. Things turn foul fairly soon and he removes to Wales whilst his son Vortimer fights the Saxons during the early 440s, eventually getting killed. Vortigern renews his alliance with the Saxons, is captured by them and is released only after ceding large tracts of eastern Britain. The kings reject his decision and overlordship and he flees again to Wales where Germanus catches up with him and is given command of the army that Vortimer formerly commanded. The Saxons send a relief army to Wales where they are defeated by Germanus around 445. Vortigern dies soon after and is replaced by Ambrosius. After Germanus returns to Gaul Arthur receives command of the army and the rest is
mythology history.
I have to say, I can't see why you have Germanus hanging around Britain for a huge part of his episcopate, then cramming almost all of the rest of what is known of him in a couple of years at the end of his life, other than to shore up your chronology.
As I say, I'm not as well read as Dave, Stephen or Jim on this but I did find a useful explanation of the dating of Germanus' death in
https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/bitstream/handle/10379/4449/Francesca_Bezzone.pdf
See pages 34-39
It's all very complicated.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2021, 11:16:11 AM
I have to say, I can't see why you have Germanus hanging around Britain for a huge part of his episcopate, then cramming almost all of the rest of what is known of him in a couple of years at the end of his life, other than to shore up your chronology.
I need all the source material. For now look at what Germanus accomplishes during his first visit:
He preaches far and wide, converting many:
And now it was not long before these apostolic priests had filled all Britain, the first and largest of the islands, with their fame, their preaching, and their miracles; and, since it was a daily occurrence for them to be hemmed in by crowds, the word of God was preached, not only in the churches, but at the crossroads, in the fields, and in the lanes. Everywhere faithful Catholics were strengthened in their faith and the lapsed learned the way back to the truth. Their achievements, indeed, were after the pattern of the apostles themselves; they ruled through consciences, taught through letters and worked miracles through their holiness. Preached by such men, the truth had full course, so that whole regions passed quickly over to their side. As a comparison, St Dominic's preaching mission amongst the Albigensians lasted at least 5 years (we all know how difficult it is to convince anyone of anything, especially when they already have settled convictions on the subject ::) ).
He finally has a public debate with the Pelagians:
The teachers of perverse doctrines lay low for a time, lamenting as wicked spirits do, when nations escape from their clutches and are lost to them. In the end, after prolonged consideration they ventured upon a contest. They came forth flaunting their wealth, in dazzling robes, surrounded by a crowd of flatterers. They preferred the risk of exposure to a silence that would put them to shame in the eyes of the people they had deceived, who would regard them as having condemned themselves if they had nothing to say.
And indeed there was assembled at the meeting-place a crowd of vast proportions, wives and children among them, drawn by the occasion.He visits the shrine of St Alban where he is injured and convalesces:
When this damnable heresy had been thus stamped out, its authors refuted, and the minds of all reestablished in the true faith, the bishops visited the shrine of the blessed martyr Alban, to give thanks to God through him. As they were returning, a demon, lying in wait, contrived an accident that caused Germanus to fall and injure his foot. Little did it realize that this bodily misfortune, like those of blessed Job, would advance him in holiness.
The bishop was detained by his injury in one place for a considerable periodHe reproves Vortigern for marrying his own daughter:
Vortigern, as if desirous of adding to the evils he had already occasioned, married his own daughter, by whom he had a son. When this was made known to St. Germanus, he came, with all the British clergy, to reprove himVortigern then breaks with the Saxons, retires to Wales and leaves his son Vortimer to command the British forces against the Saxons. Vortimer wins several victories against them before finally getting killed:
At length Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, valiantly fought against Hengist, Horsa, and his people; drove them to the isle of Thanet, and thrice enclosed them within it, and beset them on the Western side.
The Saxons now despatched deputies to Germany to solicit large reinforcements, and an additional number of ships: having obtained these, they fought against the kings and princes of Britain, and sometimes extended their boundaries by victory, and sometimes were conquered and driven back.
Four times did Vortimer valorously encounter the enemy; the first has been mentioned, the second was upon the river Darent, the third at the Ford, in their language called Epsford, though in ours Set thirgabail, there Horsa fell, and Catigern, the son of Vortigern; the fourth battle he fought was near the stone on the shore of the Gallic sea, where the Saxons being defeated, fled to their ships. After a short interval Vortimer diedHengist then offers Vortigern peace, and invites him to a feast to cement the renewed friendship. Vortigern is captured there and cedes areas in eastern Britain in return for his release.
All this must have taken some time. At this point Germanus reappears on the scene and rebukes Vortigern, telling him to cease relations with his daughter. Vortigern flees to Guorthegirnaim and later to Dimetae and builds a castle there (how long did that take to complete?). Germanus follows him to both places. Meanwhile the Saxons invade Britain and Germanus is given command of the army and defeats them in a mountainous place, probably Wales. Only after Vortigern's death does he return to Gaul.
These events must have required several years. Germanus' visit was a good deal longer than he originally anticipated.
Between visits he negotiates a tax reduction at Arles. I don't know if he does anything else.
During his last visit he condemns the Pelagians in a single meeting. A quick business:
The whole province came along with Elafius. The bishops arrived and the crowds came upon them unexpectedly. At once blessings and the words of God were showered upon them. Germanus could see that the people as a whole had persevered in the faith in which he had left them and the bishops realized that the fallings-away had been the work only of a few. These were identified and formally condemned.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2021, 08:23:26 PM
It's not as bad as all that. Thus far all I have to do is presume that St Germanus' first visit lasted 10-15 years (and he did enough to fill up that time) - or that his military adventure is a separate visit from his anti-Pelagian mission - and a plausible chronology can be shaken out that doesn't require dumping anything significant in the major sources or unrealistically stretching (or shortening) the lifetimes of any of the major players. Exact dates are a problem but that's not a big issue as all we really need are the main events in the right sequence and approximately dated. So put Vortigern inviting the Saxons over at about 440, Germanus' victory over them at about 445, Arthur's final victory at about 482 (already suggested elsewhere) and everything falls into place. Ambrosius and Arthur don't cancel each other out nor are they the same individual if one accepts that Ambrosius had supreme political command whilst Arthur had supreme military command. All very proper and late Roman. :)
I think you're out on a limb with him spending years in Britain
He was a bishop with duties of his own, (training and ordaining St Patrick not the least of them) what we really need is The text of the Vita sancti Germani but all I've been able to find is the bits covering his trip to Britain. It's the bit in the middle we want and I cannot find an English translation on the web.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 23, 2021, 12:39:48 PMwhat we really need is The text of the Vita sancti Germani but all I've been able to find is the bits covering his trip to Britain. It's the bit in the middle we want and I cannot find an English translation on the web.
This (http://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ia/files/shared/documents/theses_travParticuliers/TravauxPartic_Placi_Mauro.pdf)has a precis of the complete work section by section, in French but with extensive citation of the original Latin.
There's a French translation available at a reasonable price (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Saint-Germain-dAuxerre-Constance-Lyon/dp/2204039071); and an English translation is apparently included in this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Fathers-trans-edit-Hoare/dp/B000S6VC8U/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=%22The+Western+Fathers%22&qid=1629727069&s=books&sr=1-2).
This database (http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=S00455) contains references to many of St Germanus' miracles, given in latin and English translation. He seems to do lots of miracles and preaching in Gaul, including on his trip to Arles (it seems to be his MO). I would suggest the British-centric view of St Germanus' career needs to be balanced with what was probably a larger time being a Late Roman bishop in Gaul, do the usual bishop things - preaching, teaching, baptising, miracle working and getting involved in politics.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2021, 03:10:48 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 23, 2021, 12:39:48 PMwhat we really need is The text of the Vita sancti Germani but all I've been able to find is the bits covering his trip to Britain. It's the bit in the middle we want and I cannot find an English translation on the web.
This (http://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ia/files/shared/documents/theses_travParticuliers/TravauxPartic_Placi_Mauro.pdf)has a precis of the complete work section by section, in French but with extensive citation of the original Latin.
Thanks Duncan. The precis makes clear that Germanus does very little before his first visit or between his first and second visits. Once made bishop he practises a life of ascetism, founds a monastery and make a journey. That's it. Between his first and second visit he makes the journey to Arles to sort out the tax problem then returns to Auxerre. His activities in Britain outweigh what he does during the rest of his life by a huge margin. Yeah, it was a long visit.
Edit: he was consecrated in 418. That means eleven years until his first visit in 429. One can presume that his Gallic period was a fairly quiet life, given to personal sanctification and some extraneous work like founding a monastery. But compare this eleven years to his sojourn in Britain and 15 years there hardly seems excessive.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2021, 03:10:48 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 23, 2021, 12:39:48 PMwhat we really need is The text of the Vita sancti Germani but all I've been able to find is the bits covering his trip to Britain. It's the bit in the middle we want and I cannot find an English translation on the web.
This (http://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ia/files/shared/documents/theses_travParticuliers/TravauxPartic_Placi_Mauro.pdf)has a precis of the complete work section by section, in French but with extensive citation of the original Latin.
There's a French translation available at a reasonable price (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Saint-Germain-dAuxerre-Constance-Lyon/dp/2204039071); and an English translation is apparently included in this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Fathers-trans-edit-Hoare/dp/B000S6VC8U/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=%22The+Western+Fathers%22&qid=1629727069&s=books&sr=1-2).
I've 'invested' in Hoare :-[
Taking another look at the date of 516 for Badon in the Welsh Chronicle. Nennius sometimes dates events from the Passion of Christ, not from his birth.
The Saxons were received by Vortigern, four hundred and forty-seven years after the passion of Christ, and,(3) according to the tradition of our ancestors, from the period of their first arrival in Britain, to the first year of the reign of king Edmund, five hundred and forty-two years; and to that in which we now write, which is the fifth of his reign, five hundred and forty-seven years. (which makes the first year of Edmund AD1022)
From the passion of Christ are completed nine hundred and forty-six; from his incarnation, nine hundred and seventy-six: being the fifth year of Edmund, king of the Angles (which makes the first year of Edmund AD971, so serious confusion of dates)
Is it an idea that the chronicler thought the original date - given as from his birth - was incorrectly calculated from his Passion and then added 33 years to give the date he recorded? That makes the true date 483.
Dave, can you point me to those Welsh annals that talk about Arthur?
QuoteIs it an idea that the chronicler thought the original date - given as from his birth - was incorrectly calculated from his Passion and then added 33 years to give the date he recorded? That makes the true date 483.
AP was consider 27 or 28 years AD then, apparently, so 488 or 489. However, I don't think anyone accords great precision to the early dates in the Welsh annals, any more than the AS Chronicle. Talking of the Welsh annals, we haven't discussed "strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell" dated 537. Even if we date this relative to AC Badon, Arthur continues to be active for 20 years past Badon.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2021, 09:01:10 AM
QuoteIs it an idea that the chronicler thought the original date - given as from his birth - was incorrectly calculated from his Passion and then added 33 years to give the date he recorded? That makes the true date 483.
AP was consider 27 or 28 years AD then, apparently, so 488 or 489.
It was? I'd be interested in the source for that.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2021, 09:01:10 AMHowever, I don't think anyone accords great precision to the early dates in the Welsh annals, any more than the AS Chronicle. Talking of the Welsh annals, we haven't discussed "strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell" dated 537. Even if we date this relative to AC Badon, Arthur continues to be active for 20 years past Badon.
It's just about possible. Let's suppose that Arthur's career starts around 450. He is in his twenties or going on thirty and campaigns for +/-35 years before Badon, which puts him in his mid 60's. He remains in the saddle for another 20 years which puts him in his mid-80's at Camlann. That makes him unusually healthy and long-lived but not unbelievably so.
QuoteThat makes him unusually healthy and long-lived but not unbelievably so.
I think one of the problems is everyone tends to end up like this. In order to marry Maximus' daughter, and assuming she is a child when her father dies Vortigern has to be roughly contemporary, which makes him maybe in his 70s when he dies. Ambrosius is an adult and political enemy when Vortigern dies c. 450, which makes him in at least his sixties if he is still political authority at the time of Badon. Arthur was probably younger than Amrosius but he's still be fighting his last battle in his sixties or later. As you say, not impossible, but a long string of people "dying old" does signal caution.
QuoteIt was? I'd be interested in the source for that.
All the fault of Victorius of Aquitaine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorius_of_Aquitaine), apparently
Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2021, 11:23:28 AM
QuoteIt was? I'd be interested in the source for that.
All the fault of Victorius of Aquitaine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorius_of_Aquitaine), apparently
Nennius doesn't follow him, putting 30 years between Christ's birth and death:
"From the passion of Christ are completed nine hundred and forty-six; from his incarnation, nine hundred and seventy-six"I wonder how much the others did.
on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance
Quote from: Holly on August 24, 2021, 10:08:45 PM
on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance
The moment of epiphany. :( I wouldn't consider trying to do serious history if I can't read the sources in the original language. Translations
suck.
they can do.....
I am now in the throes of deep diving the info I have again on the subject and unfortunately I will have to rely on others translations so may have to take consensus views here and there
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 25, 2021, 07:39:26 AM
Quote from: Holly on August 24, 2021, 10:08:45 PM
on rereading some of the source material again I am struck by the shift in meaning that different translations give you. I even went back to things like y Gododdin and read several different translations which gives more headaches than reassurance
The moment of epiphany. :( I wouldn't consider trying to do serious history if I can't read the sources in the original language. Translations suck.
Good luck with 5th century Britain, the 'original sources' are in late latin, Early Welsh and you can even find mentions in Greek :-[
I agree entirely with you in your statement, but one problem is that so few historians have competence across the entire spectrum of languages :'(
and have now retraced an article I found intriguing a few years ago. i chanced upon it when doing de excidio research. Have a look and see what you think. It works on teh premise that the original writings of Gildas would have been on a private 'small book' type layout. Its use/misuse may have left several pages lost and/or jumbled and then copied verbatim by a scribe or copyist who didnt realise.
The first link is for the 'reassembled' latin sections and the second link for the translation.
I found it really interesting and in the context of the flow of transmission of info highly possible. It is interesting also to note that if, as the author believes, that not only are some pages jumbled but also that other pages have been lost, it could (could I emphasise) the reason why other leaders, heroes and villains are not mentioned by Gildas.....
https://www.scribd.com/document/305606036/The-Exemplar-of-Gildas-De-Excidio
https://www.academia.edu/30914661/The_Gemitus_Britannorum
Quote from: Holly on August 25, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
and have now retraced an article I found intriguing a few years ago. i chanced upon it when doing de excidio research. Have a look and see what you think. It works on teh premise that the original writings of Gildas would have been on a private 'small book' type layout. Its use/misuse may have left several pages lost and/or jumbled and then copied verbatim by a scribe or copyist who didnt realise.
The first link is for the 'reassembled' latin sections and the second link for the translation.
I found it really interesting and in the context of the flow of transmission of info highly possible. It is interesting also to note that if, as the author believes, that not only are some pages jumbled but also that other pages have been lost, it could (could I emphasise) the reason why other leaders, heroes and villains are not mentioned by Gildas.....
https://www.scribd.com/document/305606036/The-Exemplar-of-Gildas-De-Excidio
https://www.academia.edu/30914661/The_Gemitus_Britannorum
Interesting theory.
it is. The other thing is that it puts a lot of emphasis on Hen Coel and the battle north of the Wall (Coilsfield)
it appears I may have broken Justin...... ;D
Quote from: Holly on August 25, 2021, 11:26:49 PM
it appears I may have broken Justin...... ;D
To think I've been wrong all this time... (sobs)
;D
I picked up that Life of St Germanus
A few points about him, he had been a Dux, and even as a bishop slept under his general's cloak instead of any blankets
It's uncertain how long he was in Britain but he spent some time laid up with some sort of foot injury so probably months
He was back in Gaul at least by 435AD because of people he met and interacted with were only in post at about that period
With the second trip to Britain, it was far less of a deal than his first trip. The problem was a handful of preachers and there was enough civil authority to have them rounded up and exiled to Gaul with Germanus.
There's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time
The life was written about 480AD
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PM
There's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time
The life was written about 480AD
possibly tolerated for federates and unknown re Northern tribes not visited
Quote from: Holly on August 27, 2021, 08:48:33 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PM
There's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time
The life was written about 480AD
possibly tolerated for federates and unknown re Northern tribes not visited
It could be that as a Dux, he'd have regarded foederates as being part of the army, whilst as a Bishop he might have regarded them as Christian (being part of the army they could well have been)
So as a traveller he and his party could have been accommodated by the officer in charge of a bunch of Saxon foederates and to him they'd just be another Roman military formation.
Jim
quite possible. to his eye he would be more interested in luminaries and local rulers than the hoi polloi
Quote from: Holly on August 27, 2021, 09:28:07 PM
quite possible. to his eye he would be more interested in luminaries and local rulers than the hoi polloi
It is, but military officers were luminaries.
As an 'ex'-soldier who commanded men in Britain and a Bishop he'd have an eye for soldiers and a thing about pagans
His force may have included foederate but that would be something he was used to from Gaul
fair point. however we are in danger of opening up another rabbit hole ;D
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 07:32:56 AM
fair point. however we are in danger of opening up another rabbit hole ;D
Yes, but it does show a problem that we have to consider when considering sources. It's always been a problem that what we might expect our sources to discuss they don't mention because 'everybody knows about it.' (Roman line relief anybody? :-[ )
So a 5th century Roman general (even if retired) probably wouldn't feel the need to comment on the presence of foederate in a field army
absolutely
paucity of written accounts
veracity of written accounts
translations of written accounts
bias of written accounts
assumptions of missing/assumed information in written accounts
transmogrification or at least partial introduction of errors in written accounts via multiple copyists
modern day interpretation of written accounts including the use of modern perspectives and unintentional bias
attempting to fit archaeological evidence with written narratives (referred to by James Gerrard in his book as the historical tail wagging the archaeological dog!)
thats what we have to work with. thats not to say that we cant use information contained within accounts, we just have to be really careful to scrutinise what we make of it.
8)
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 08:01:32 AM
absolutely
paucity of written accounts
veracity of written accounts
translations of written accounts
bias of written accounts
assumptions of missing/assumed information in written accounts
transmogrification or at least partial introduction of errors in written accounts via multiple copyists
modern day interpretation of written accounts including the use of modern perspectives and unintentional bias
attempting to fit archaeological evidence with written narratives (referred to by James Gerrard in his book as the historical tail wagging the archaeological dog!)
thats what we have to work with. thats not to say that we cant use information contained within accounts, we just have to be really careful to scrutinise what we make of it.
8)
Indeed it is one of those periods where the more you study, the less you know with any certainty!
Not only that but you don't even not know it 'definitively' as the more you delve, the deeper the pool of doubt and uncertainty!
I know.....and cross referencing is a nightmare!
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 10:26:29 AM
I know.....and cross referencing is a nightmare!
And as for dating!
its a minefield. Still we try our best and accept that there is alot of margin of error
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 12:42:40 PM
its a minefield. Still we try our best and accept that there is alot of margin of error
At least a century and the main protagonists may never have existed :-[
I am reasonably happy that most of the belligerents existed just not all in the same time frame, area or name
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 05:24:44 PM
I am reasonably happy that most of the belligerents existed just not all in the same time frame, area or name
That's probably the realistic baseline and anything after that is pure jam 8)
rereading some source material currently and this time making notes
Quote from: Holly on August 28, 2021, 08:43:29 PM
rereading some source material currently and this time making notes
I keep meaning to do that but 24hrs later I can no longer read my notes anyway :-[
I've missed a bit of this. Anyhow, bite sized chunks works for me. Trying to assemble an overview of the whole period gets me nowhere. If I consider one thing at a time I feel I'm making progress. I'm currently thinking about the names of polities and what they might tell us.
Quote from: Anton on August 29, 2021, 12:22:24 PM
I've missed a bit of this. Anyhow, bite sized chunks works for me. Trying to assemble an overview of the whole period gets me nowhere. If I consider one thing at a time I feel I'm making progress. I'm currently thinking about the names of polities and what they might tell us.
I know what you mean about the bite sized chunks. It can at times be possible to get a grip of a small sector. But before you know where you are you discover that actually what you thought was right won't work because of something happening in Gaul that was dated to three years before :-[
Yes, it's slippy work Jim. I can't help thinking we would benefit greatly from more of Justin's translations of Gildas.
Quote from: Anton on August 29, 2021, 03:37:47 PM
Yes, it's slippy work Jim. I can't help thinking we would benefit greatly from more of Justin's translations of Gildas.
I think that if somebody did set to and do a translation, with a 'military' bias, it could be a useful corrective to other translations and could be read in parallel with them to everybody's advantage 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PMHe was back in Gaul at least by 435AD because of people he met and interacted with were only in post at about that period
Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PMThere's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time
Then what about this passage:
Quote"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.
The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47
QuoteSpecifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?
He was already Bishop of Auxerre at the time of his visit, which may have given him a sense of obligation, perhaps ?
QuoteThen what about this passage:
Which is from Nennius, rather than Constantius. Nennius' version is fuller than Constantius' and draws on other traditions. It is also written much later.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 29, 2021, 06:35:47 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PMHe was back in Gaul at least by 435AD because of people he met and interacted with were only in post at about that period
Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?
His day job. He was a Bishop which meant he had considerable civil responsibility for his area and he travelled to Arles to met the Praetorian Prefect, Auxiliaris (435-437)
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PMThere's no sense that there was any Saxon/Pagan presence in Britain at the time
Quote
Then what about this passage:
Quote"St. Germanus admonished Vortigern to turn to the true God, and abstain from all unlawful intercourse with his daughter; but the unhappy wretch fled for refuge to the province Guorthegirnaim, so called from his own name, where he concealed himself with his wives: but St. Germanus followed him with all the British clergy, and upon a rock prayed for his sins during forty days and forty nights.
The blessed man was unanimously chosen commander against the Saxons. And then, not by the clang of trumpets, but by praying, singing hallelujah, and by the cries of the army to God, the enemies were routed, and driven even to the sea." - Nennius: 47
That passage isn't in the life of Germanus which is what I was covering. The life mentions no individuals by name from the first trip (save one man of "High military rank" whose blind daughter was healed and he's not named) and in the second trip, a man called Elafius who had a crippled son. The whole Vortigern thing doesn't come from the life of Germanus. I'm not saying it isn't true, it just isn't mentioned at all. In the life he had fallen and injured his foot and was laid up 'for a considerable time' and he'd only just got over this when the army asked for both bishops to join them.
The only mention of Saxons is as an enemy, "the Saxons and the Picts had joined forces to make war on the Britons"
Because there is no mention of hostile Saxons 'in' Briton, I took it that both they and the Picts had invaded. Certainly there's no sense of a hostile presence other than this invasion, and Germanus had been in the country perhaps as much as a year by this point (I cannot see him sailing before Easter in 429AD, ignoring the weather and seasons for travelling, he'll have almost certainly wanted to keep Easter in his diocese. But as he had been injured and recovered so it could be Easter 430AD when the battle was held. But there are no mentions of Saxons, or Germanic elements in his army or in society or whatever. There is no hint of Arianism, the heresy they went to deal with was that of Pelagius. There is no hint there Britain was any easier or more difficult to traverse than Gaul.
Also the life states that the army had asked for both prelates (St Lupus was with him) and the two bishops came and celebrated Easter, which would bring with it a lot of Baptisms. It was after the Easter Service that Germanus 'announced that he would be their general" The latin uses Dux proelii.
I am still not convinced re Germanus's visit in terms of what he is supposed to have achieved. Ie the depth to which Britain was embroiled in Pelagianism and the miracles he has supposed to have performed. It feels panegyric in nature
Quote from: Holly on August 29, 2021, 08:03:42 PM
I am still not convinced re Germanus's visit in terms of what he is supposed to have achieved. Ie the depth to which Britain was embroiled in Pelagianism and the miracles he has supposed to have performed. It feels panegyric in nature
The fact that he may have had to go back for another go indicates it wasn't the howling success people assumed. But in the terms of saints lives, there aren't that many miracles, and he spends a lot of time bedridden and then gets called in by the military. Also he'll keep wanting to get back to Gaul, so you can see why, from the heresy point of view, it wasn't the success it was portrayed to be.
But panegyric was a reputable literary form back then so one can expect an element of that at the very least
yes and was used alot for various persons including emperors and senior generals obviously.
Quote from: Holly on August 29, 2021, 08:45:13 PM
yes and was used alot for various persons including emperors and senior generals obviously.
Yes the style 'trickled down' and senior clergy were the next level. I suspect we don't see the stuff written about senior provincial figures because it so rarely survives.
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 29, 2021, 07:46:31 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 29, 2021, 06:35:47 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 27, 2021, 06:53:13 PMHe was back in Gaul at least by 435AD because of people he met and interacted with were only in post at about that period
Specifically who, that would oblige him to have been back in Gaul by 435?
His day job. He was a Bishop which meant he had considerable civil responsibility for his area and he travelled to Arles to met the Praetorian Prefect, Auxiliaris (435-437)
Auxiliaris does rather fix the time of Germanus inter-visit stay in Gaul, and the Vita is clear his anti-Saxon activities definitely took place before he returned to Gaul, which would fix his battle against them at about 435 at the latest. I can't really argue with that. Time to rethink my chronology.
think of it as a jigsaw with many pieces, some of which are from a different jigsaw. If you are careful you will end up with a picture that you can roughly make out but will have gaps if you dont try to force the wrong pieces in it
QuoteTime to rethink my chronology.
Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429. You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation. Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 09:03:34 AM
QuoteTime to rethink my chronology.
Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429. You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation. Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time.
I don't see any reason to discard the second visit - I prefer to accept the sources unless there is real evidence for not doing so (and a lack of independent confirmation isn't a good enough reason). Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.
QuoteNennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.
Come on, Justin. Even your uncritical approach to sources must baulk at fighting dragons? Nennius is a man of his time who is trying to synthesise a pile of traditional tales, some lists, saints lives, sermons and the odd bit of history and make a narrative. He sees it through the lens of where and when he is. We have no reason to think "being careful with his material" was in the forefront of his mind, though I will accept he probably was trying to create a consistent picture of events.
he admits himself that it is a collection of stuff which implies he cannot be 100% sure of its veracity
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 30, 2021, 09:22:29 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 09:03:34 AM
QuoteTime to rethink my chronology.
Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429. You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation. Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time.
I don't see any reason to discard the second visit - I prefer to accept the sources unless there is real evidence for not doing so (and a lack of independent confirmation isn't a good enough reason). Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.
I must admit that having read the Life, I'm happier with the second visit than I was before I read it. There are some similarities, people flocking to see them, but seeing as how he was invited it would be remarkable if people didn't flock to see him
But there there's less emphasis on what Germanus did and the local authorities acted differently, rounding up the main heretical preachers and delivering them to Germanus who took them back to Gaul where they could be more closely watched.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 09:43:45 AM
QuoteNennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.
Come on, Justin. Even your uncritical approach to sources must baulk at fighting dragons? Nennius is a man of his time who is trying to synthesise a pile of traditional tales, some lists, saints lives, sermons and the odd bit of history and make a narrative. He sees it through the lens of where and when he is. We have no reason to think "being careful with his material" was in the forefront of his mind, though I will accept he probably was trying to create a consistent picture of events.
"... unless there is real evidence for not doing so"
I accept that there weren't dragons flying around (or tunnelling underground) in 5th century Wales. So no literal dragons.
But read the passage carefully. The boy (Ambrosius) doesn't see dragons; he sees snakes, one red and the other white, and Ambriosus tells Vortigern that they symbolise Vortigern himself and his enemies. The story is an allegory - Vortigern was warned that he would enjoy a time of success but would eventually be overcome by his foes. It also gives the origin of Ambrosius' political role - Vortigern assigns to him his western districts after being impressed by the story. What is at the bottom of the account? Ambrosius warning Vortigern with an allegory that he would lose his overlordship if he spilled his blood but assuring him he would support him (and being of noble birth that would count for something) if he abandoned the plan. Sounds like smart politics and a keen sense of self-preservation to me.
So, its an allegory except the bit where Vortigern gives the western districts to a fatherless child (whose father was a consul) with prophetic powers?
The problem with analogy is that it only really works with people who share the same culture. Where we have some cultural overlap with an author, the analogies hang together for us.
But with an 8th century author, reading him in translation (and unless you're fluent in late Latin, I suspect there is an element for translation to take it back to classical Latin) the overlap is pretty sparse :-[
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 12:07:10 PM
So, its an allegory except the bit where Vortigern gives the western districts to a fatherless child (whose father was a consul) with prophetic powers?
What is Ambrosius' background and how much did Vortigern initially know about him? After Vortigern's fall, Ambrosius is able to assume the overlordship of Britain which means he and his family cannot have been an unknown quantity. Arthur, despite all his military prowess, cannot ascend to that position.
On the miracles front I tread a middle course between not believing every miracle I read of in a life of a saint or a Welsh chronicle, and not automatically disbelieving everything either. This is a tricky topic but it keeps coming up, so let me open a brief parenthesis.
The scientific method is built on the phenomenological approach of only considering as real what can be experienced by the five senses. So science will not entertain any cause for a physical effect that is not itself physical. This is a decision, an attitude; it's not a deduction or a proof. This refusal to consider material effects sometimes having immaterial causes led to the assumption that there are no such things as immaterial causes. Hence there is no such thing as a God. I'm not about to start arguing the existence of God, but I want to look at the application of the scientific approach to history. In consequence of this approach, any source that describes miracles immediately drops several notches in reliability. The more miracles in an account the less reliable the source is assumed to be. Accounts of the lives of saints are deemed to be the least reliable of all since they describe the most miracles.
My point is that there is no way of
proving miracles never happened. I have documented evidence of miracles, i.e. of causes, events, for which there is no conceivable natural explanation. The near-perfectly preserved body of Bernadette Soubirous being one example. She was buried in an ordinary grave in 1879. Her body was exhumed in 1909. The crucifix and rosary in her hands had oxidised but her body was perfectly intact. You can visit the Chapel of Saint Gidard at the Sisters of Charity in Nevers, France, today where her body is on display. Her face is covered with a layer of wax as the skin has degraded over the years.
Here's an extract from the medical report by Dr Comte who examined her body in 1919:
What struck me during this examination, of course, was the state of perfect preservation of the skeleton, the fibrous tissues of the muscles (still supple and firm), of the ligaments, and of the skin, and above all the totally unexpected state of the liver after 46 years. One would have thought that this organ, which is basically soft and inclined to crumble, would have decomposed very rapidly or would have hardened to a chalky consistency. Yet, when it was cut it was soft and almost normal in consistency. I pointed this out to those present, remarking that this did not seem to be a natural phenomenon.So did Ambrose actually have a supernatural insight into what would happen to Vortigern? I don't automatically discount it. End of parenthesis.
I think the issue for me is failing to place things in context, or consider transmission routes or any of the other things that make up the sources. Ambrosius' "prophecy"/"allegory" is being recounted from a time when the idea of the red dragon being driven back but ultimately expelling the white still had resonnance - we know that the Welsh would essentially be pegged back to Wales but Nennius could still take comfort in the idea the Saxon's would eventually be expelled. There seems to be a mingling of traditions in this passage, as there is the search for the fatherless boy at the beginning and the appointment of a man whose father was a consul to shared political power at the end. I suspect, in keeping with the magical nature of the tale, the original is the mysterious child born by virgin birth, who may, or may not, originally have been connected to Ambrosius and the point of the tale was the prophesy. Nennius (or his source) has tacked on something from elsewhere about Vortigern raising Ambrosius, a consul's son, to get back to the narrative.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 01:22:51 PM
I think the issue for me is failing to place things in context, or consider transmission routes or any of the other things that make up the sources. Ambrosius' "prophecy"/"allegory" is being recounted from a time when the idea of the red dragon being driven back but ultimately expelling the white still had resonnance - we know that the Welsh would essentially be pegged back to Wales but Nennius could still take comfort in the idea the Saxon's would eventually be expelled. There seems to be a mingling of traditions in this passage, as there is the search for the fatherless boy at the beginning and the appointment of a man whose father was a consul to shared political power at the end. I suspect, in keeping with the magical nature of the tale, the original is the mysterious child born by virgin birth, who may, or may not, originally have been connected to Ambrosius and the point of the tale was the prophesy. Nennius (or his source) has tacked on something from elsewhere about Vortigern raising Ambrosius, a consul's son, to get back to the narrative.
Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.
QuoteIt's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.
Many others would doubtless disagree :) Me, I'll go with the traditional technique of considering the who, where and when of sources, being aware of the literary traditions, the audience and any agendas that the writer may have, consider the views of those better versed in the subject matter, consider the range of evidence available (literary, archeological, scientific etc.) and come to some conclusions . I find it works well for me.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 30, 2021, 01:30:26 PM
Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.
From memory, isn't it Nennius who apologises somewhere in his introduction or wherever saying , "I have made a heap of all I have found"
Believe it or not I've found it
Ego Nennius Sancti Elbodugi discipulus aliquis excerpta scribere curavi, quae hebitudo gentis Britanniae deiecerat, quia nullam peritiam habuerunt neque ullam commemorationem in libris posuerunt doctores illius insulae Britanniae. Ego autem coacervavi omne quod inveni tam de annalibus Romanorum quam de cronicis sanctorum patrum, et de scriptis Scottorum Saxonumque et ex traditione veterum nostrorum.
I, Nennius, pupil of the holy Elvodug, have undertaken to write down some extracts that the stupidity of the British cast out; for the scholars of the island of Britain had no skill, and set down no record in books. I have therefore made a heap of all that I have found, both from the Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Historia_Brittonum
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 30, 2021, 02:22:05 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 30, 2021, 01:30:26 PM
Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.
From memory, isn't it Nennius who apologises somewhere in his introduction or wherever saying , "I have made a heap of all I have found"
Believe it or not I've found it
Ego Nennius Sancti Elbodugi discipulus aliquis excerpta scribere curavi, quae hebitudo gentis Britanniae deiecerat, quia nullam peritiam habuerunt neque ullam commemorationem in libris posuerunt doctores illius insulae Britanniae. Ego autem coacervavi omne quod inveni tam de annalibus Romanorum quam de cronicis sanctorum patrum, et de scriptis Scottorum Saxonumque et ex traditione veterum nostrorum.
I, Nennius, pupil of the holy Elvodug, have undertaken to write down some extracts that the stupidity of the British cast out; for the scholars of the island of Britain had no skill, and set down no record in books. I have therefore made a heap of all that I have found, both from the Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Historia_Brittonum
Coacervare -
transitive verb: heap/pile up, gather/crowd together; amass, collect; make by heaping; add/total. See here (https://worldofdictionary.com/dict/latin-english/meaning/coacervo).
It doesn't necessarily imply a willy-nilly lumping together without discernment. In the same passage Nennius says:
May, therefore, candour be shown where the inelegance of my words is insufficient, and may the truth of this history, which my rustic tongue has ventured, as a kind of plough, to trace out in furrows, lose none of its influence from that cause, in the ears of my hearers. For it is better to drink a wholesome draught of truth from the humble vessel, than poison mixed with honey from a golden goblet.He certainly intends to give an accurate account of the history of the Britons, and apologises only for his lack of mastery of Latin, not the lack of reliability of his sources or of his discernment in using those sources.
His intentions are doubtless sincere, though, by his own admission, he is making the best of what he can find.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 03:19:36 PM
His intentions are doubtless sincere, though, by his own admission, he is making the best of what he can find.
Given he's taking stuff from, " Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders," it's a pretty mixed bag.
I would suggest that 'heaping up' amassing or collecting is pretty much the opposite of 'sorting' winnowing or otherwise discarding stuff because it doesn't make sense.
But apparently the pdf is here
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf
a couple of points:
I would consider the Alleluia battle an allegory as part of the Germanus narrative (along with the various miracle healings)
Nennius admits that he made a heap of things - we really cant say what was true or not but remembering he is collating stuff that is 400 years old
making a coherent story of Germanus, Ambrosius and 'Arthur' from sources that contain possible truths and obvious embellishments is a house built on sand. We can simply not validate this
QuoteI would consider the Alleluia battle an allegory as part of the Germanus narrative (along with the various miracle healings)
I'm not so sure. The version as we have it is clearly influenced by biblical accounts of miraculous victories but biblical imagery is not exactly uncommon in medieval battle accounts either, being one of the common models of battle description writers have access to. Constantius presumably includes the battle for a reason - most saints don't get a miraculous battle, just lots of healing, casting out demons and acts of charity. The idea of the battle - that the enemy is ambushed in a narrow valley and is surprised by the battlecries of enemy apparently all around, so panics and breaks - isn't impossible. If we do accept it, how much do we take its circumstances in account? It is in the first visit, so around 430-ish. The enemy are an alliance of Saxons and Picts. Did this alliance exist (if so where), or is this a stock "baddy" from a continental perspective? Given the date, is this likely to be a power grab or just a raid?
The 'Saxon' element was possibly added as an embellishment. I am trying desperately to find the reference to this that I came across! ;D
Given the nature of the terrain described, the fact that light troops are specifically mentioned, I can well imagine that a well timed battle cry would indeed echo around the place and the Picts and Saxons would doubtless look up, see disciplined troops drawn up to face them, and light troops and who knows what else coming round their flanks. Breaking and running, perhaps encouraged by a charge from the British, could well have been on the cards.
I suspect omissions rather than additions to the account :-[
of course it could just have been a raiding party of (shall we say) very small size that could have been frightened off by the thought of facing an army...that I might grant you. the embellishment then comes in the form of overblowing the size of the enemy.
If we believe its in the NW/N Wales then Picts in a raiding part is possible by boat
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 30, 2021, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2021, 03:19:36 PM
His intentions are doubtless sincere, though, by his own admission, he is making the best of what he can find.
Given he's taking stuff from, " Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders," it's a pretty mixed bag.
I would suggest that 'heaping up' amassing or collecting is pretty much the opposite of 'sorting' winnowing or otherwise discarding stuff because it doesn't make sense.
But apparently the pdf is here
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf
We need a little perspective on this. Nennius lived about 400 years after the events he records. That's not very long for an era that was intensely conservative. He is a Briton determined to record the history of the Britons before it is lost forever. An approximate equivalent would be a Welshman writing a history of 15th century Wales and the deeds of Owen Glendower (I added two centuries to counterbalance the effect of printing technology) with the limitations of not having access to the internet, using only books and spoken lore and never travelling. He would still make a pretty good job of it. Nennius of course is not a Polybius but he is conscientious and is interested in the truth, not in well-written fantasy: "poison mixed with honey from a golden goblet."
He has a variety of sources which IMHO should be an advantage, not a hindrance, since he then gets different perspectives on the same historical events - a real help towards objectivity. It's not a question of pro-Roman or pro-Greek propaganda. Actually, since there is no point to propaganda - the Britons are done, confined to the remote corners of Britain (sorry Dave!) and their history in danger of disappearing - the only motive he could have is simply to record the deeds of a people who great days are long past.
QuoteAn approximate equivalent would be a Welshman writing a history of 15th century Wales and the deeds of Owen Glendower (I added two centuries to counterbalance the effect of printing technology) with the limitations of not having access to the internet, using only books and spoken lore and never travelling.
Not really. A pre-internet Welshman could read numerous books on Glyndwr by nipping to his local library. He could order up more obscure works from the national library - he might even have been able to go to his local bookshop and order some books still in print. He would need to cope with the biases of his authors but he could probably access both English and Welsh scholarly accounts as well as a range of historical, poetic and record sources and even folklore compilations. I'm afraid poor Nennius was in a much worse position, pulling together what he had to hand and any stories he and his contacts knew, making a heap and then trying to knit what he had into a coherent whole. Overall, he does a good job but let's not fantasize about modern parallels.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 02:02:28 PM
I'm afraid poor Nennius was in a much worse position, pulling together what he had to hand and any stories he and his contacts knew, making a heap and then trying to knit what he had into a coherent whole. Overall, he does a good job but let's not fantasize about modern parallels.
Not quite. Nennius was a monk. That means he lived in a monastery, probably the monastery of Holyhead in Anglesey (his mentor was Elfodd, bishop of Bangor, who was associated with Holyhead), and monasteries
were the libraries of that era. Many if not most of our MSS from Antiquity were transmitted via monasteries. Monks would travel between monasteries, bringing manuscripts their library didn't yet have, and other monks there would copy them. Nennius was in the perfect place to acquire the information he needed. Holyhead wasn't sacked by the Vikings before the 10th century, which means all the documents and records it had from its foundation around 540AD would have been intact in Nennius' time.
no, lets not.
Also we are reliant on copyists faithfully transcribing the original treatises (which we know they didnt) and all of them knowing/understanding what they were copying
(which not all of them did). Also question the motives for writing these things.....why did Nennius suddenly decide to make a heap of information and bundle it all up together?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 02:41:22 PM
which means all the documents and records it had from its foundation around 540AD would have been intact in Nennius' time.
as sweeping statements go.........how on earth do we know that for certain. Fire, flood, losses, mice, mischievousness as well as the elements I put in my last reply
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 02:44:50 PM
no, lets not.
Also we are reliant on copyists faithfully transcribing the original treatises (which we know they didnt) and all of them knowing/understanding what they were copying
(which not all of them did). Also question the motives for writing these things.....why did Nennius suddenly decide to make a heap of information and bundle it all up together?
Yes, let's. :)
Copyists specifically took care to copy original treatises accurately - that was their job and they had all the time in the world for it. They certainly would have understood the language they were copying - if they were copying Latin they would have understood Latin - and that was enough to do a good job of replicating a document. Nennius decided to gather everything into a single work because nobody else had done it (there were no historians strictly-speaking in Mediaeval Wales) and he wanted to preserve the history of his people, realising their great days were done.
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 02:41:22 PM
which means all the documents and records it had from its foundation around 540AD would have been intact in Nennius' time.
as sweeping statements go.........how on earth do we know that for certain. Fire, flood, losses, mice, mischievousness as well as the elements I put in my last reply
If the monastery didn't burn to the ground, and there's no record it did, then the monks were quite capable of ensuring nothing else would damage the MSS (they had the job of preserving those MSS and took the necessary measures to do so) - or at least nothing would damage the MSS to such an extent they couldn't make fresh copies of them.
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 (http://www.holyheadparishchurches.co.uk/st-cybis-church-holyhead/history-st-cybis-church/4th-11th-centuries/) of St Cybi's church is quite interesting.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
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 (http://www.holyheadparishchurches.co.uk/st-cybis-church-holyhead/history-st-cybis-church/4th-11th-centuries/) 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.
Monasteries, of course, didn't have copies of everything, even those things which were quite important legally. This is one explanation for the amount of documentary forgery conducted in them - to "replace" those land deeds or wills that proved they owned things but had somehow become mislaid.
Generally, the idea that all copies were executed perfectly would be rejected by scholars simply on the basis of the multiple variant versions of documents that exist.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:30:30 PM
Monasteries, of course, didn't have copies of everything, even those things which were quite important legally. This is one explanation for the amount of documentary forgery conducted in them - to "replace" those land deeds or wills that proved they owned things but had somehow become mislaid.
Generally, the idea that all copies were executed perfectly would be rejected by scholars simply on the basis of the multiple variant versions of documents that exist.
Deeds are one thing, historical records of Britain quite another. There's no vested interest in forging a history of Britain. Nor would it be possible - too many other records of the facts already exist. And sure, manuscripts do differ, but the vast majority of differences are minor - and don't forget Nennius is using manscripts that existed
before 850 - a 400-year copying history isn't long.
QuoteWe 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.
Who has this idea? A straw man argument doesn't advance things, nor does pretending modern Wales wasn't very far advanced from the early Middle Ages.
Nennius is a well-educated monk in a small monastery in Wales which probably is well-connected, so his knowledge of contemorary events may have been quite good. But he didn't have much in the way raw material on the earlier history of Britain. We know because he says so. We can't believe every word of his text except the bit that says how inadequate he felt his starting point was. I'd much rather believe him on that and read what he says critically based on that admission.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:42:35 PM
QuoteWe 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.
Who has this idea? A straw man argument doesn't advance things, nor does pretending modern Wales wasn't very far advanced from the early Middle Ages.
Sorry Anthony. I was reading too much into "I'm afraid poor Nennius was in a much worse position, pulling together what he had to hand and any stories he and his contacts knew, making a heap and then trying to knit what he had into a coherent whole."
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:42:35 PMNennius is a well-educated monk in a small monastery in Wales which probably is well-connected, so his knowledge of contemporary events may have been quite good. But he didn't have much in the way raw material on the earlier history of Britain. We know because he says so. We can't believe every word of his text except the bit that says how inadequate he felt his starting point was. I'd much rather believe him on that and read what he says critically based on that admission.
Reading Nennius, my take is that he sees
himself as more inadequate than that his source material is insufficient (and unreliable) at least for a short history. He can't write a long one:
I have lispingly put together this history from various sources, and have endeavored, from shame, to deliver down to posterity the few remaining ears of corn about past transactions, that they might not be trodden under foot, seeing that an ample crop has been snatched away already by the hostile reapers of foreign nations. Nonetheless he insists, more than once, that he is writing the truth:
And do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory: for truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but she adds it to her former treasures.The chaff is his style of writing. The wheat is the facts he transmits. Someone who has a poor opinion of himself but a great regard for the truth is, IMHO, to be taken seriously.
Oh dear. I have been very restrained, given that when I was eleven I was taught by a very didactic Head of PE and Archaeology, who made us write essays on Two Bad Historians and One Good Historian. Needless to say, Gildas and Nennius were Mr Sollis' two appalling reprobates, whose dreadful methodology was to avoided by all good First Years, and the Venomous Bede the teacher's pet. In later life I have always regretted not having the knowledge at eleven to tell Mr Sollis that Gildas was not trying to be a historian, but that would probably have earned me the cane or at the very least, multiple laps of the cross country course... So all of this risks unleashing pre-pubescent PTSD.
Anyway, I would observe that the Gallic Chronicle of 452, referenced by Jim a few pages back, gives 441 as the date for "The Britains, up to now afflicted by various disasters and vicissitudes, were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons."
[Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.]
Of course, the chronicler might be out by a year or two, but this is someone probably writing within a decade or so of the event, not - like Gildas - writing about events half a century to a century before, and not, like Nennius, doing so three centuries later. Interesting is the description of the island as Britanniae in the plural, which suggests either a recollection of the old multiple late period provinces, or, alternatively and just as likely, the fragmentation of the island post-Rome.
Now, if we put any weight on the claim that they were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons, then that must mean that the Saxons had already arrive in sufficient strength (more than the ASC's three keels) before then. Lay to one side all the stuff about Vortigern, Hengist and Horsa - we do not know if they ever existed, since all the references to them come a lot later. Focus on the fact that, to a near contemporary, by about 441, "Saxons", in Britain in whatever numbers and whatever status, whether foederati or barbarian encroachers, have enough strength to be judged, by a Gallic source somewhere near Marseille, to have upset the political applecart in Britain. The extent of that disruption is quite possibly/probably exaggerated; maybe they only reduced the Britons closest to Gaul to their rule - eg Kent or East Anglia. What does a monk in Marseille know about the rest of the island?
Yes, I recognise that the Saxons also get a mention in the Chronicle in 409/10, when "The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons." [Britanniae Saxonum incursione davastatae.] But incursione is ambiguous - is it just another bad year for raids, or does it mean a more substantial loss of territory or permanent encroachment?
If we accept the date of St Germanus' visit in 429, then chances are that there are no Saxons around, at least ones necessarily distinguishable as an encroaching polity. This ties in with the best guesses from the archaeology which struggles to identify any such encroaching cultural element before circa 430. To my mind, the idea that a Bishop of Auxerre would be absent for fifteen years is just ridiculous. There is, as far as I know, no near contemporary evidence to link Germanus with Saxons during his first visit, so it seems perfectly plausible for him to have come over, patronised the locals, and returned home as he should have done as a good bishop, and for the Saxon problem to have developed between his departure and circa 441. Even if Saxons did encroach in 409/10 and put down some sort of presence, and we accept that the archaeology has simply not found any such evidence or been over confident in its dating to two decades later, that may just mean that a prudent Bishop from Auxerre was not daft enough to go near Kentish or East Anglian bad lands.
EDIT - Have just double checked Vita Germani and realise that it gives the Alleluia Victory as part of the first visit. However, a) the Alleluia Victory seems one of the dodgiest elements in the hagiography; b) if Constantius of Lyon is writing in 480, he may have retrojected Saxons; c) even if the AV did happen, and was against Saxons, they may well be just raiders again, as per previous Roman Barbarian Conspiracies, and not evidence in themselves of an encroaching polity. I think my reasoning therefore still stands firm.
I, Nennius, disciple of St. Elbotus, have endeavoured to write
some extracts which the dulness of the British nation had cast away,
because teachers had no knowledge, nor gave any information in their
books about this island of Britain. But I have got together all that I could
find as well from the annals of the Romans as from the chronicles of the
sacred fathers, Hieronymus, Eusebius, Isidorus, Prosper, and from the
annals of the Scots and Saxons, and from our ancient traditions.
This is not a man who thinks his sources are adequate. See also
deliver down to posterity the few remaining ears of corn about past transactions, that they might not be trodden under foot, seeing that an ample crop has been snatched away already by the hostile reapers of foreign nations.
Incidentally, I think you'd be better reading
And do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory
as expanding this metaphor about the wheat field of history (despite the distance in the actual text between them). Nennius has delivered to posterity the ears of information corn which he has gleaned after hostile reapers have removed the main crop, which the reader is to winnow to remove the chaff and extract the wheat of fact.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 03:35:26 PM
There's no vested interest in forging a history of Britain.
I spat my tea out at that..... ::)
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 04:15:37 PM
Oh dear. I have been very restrained, given that when I was eleven I was taught by a very didactic Head of PE and Archaeology, who made us write essays on Two Bad Historians and One Good Historian. Needless to say, Gildas and Nennius were Mr Sollis' two appalling reprobates, whose dreadful methodology was to avoided by all good First Years, and the Venomous Bede the teacher's pet. In later life I have always regretted not having the knowledge at eleven to tell Mr Sollis that Gildas was not trying to be a historian, but that would probably have earned me the cane or at the very least, multiple laps of the cross country course... So all of this risks unleashing pre-pubescent PTSD.
Anyway, I would observe that the Gallic Chronicle of 452, referenced by Jim a few pages back, gives 441 as the date for "The Britains, up to now afflicted by various disasters and vicissitudes, were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons."
[Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.]
Of course, the chronicler might be out by a year or two, but this is someone probably writing within a decade or so of the event, not - like Gildas - writing about events half a century to a century before, and not, like Nennius, doing so three centuries later. Interesting is the description of the island as Britanniae in the plural, which suggests either a recollection of the old multiple late period provinces, or, alternatively and just as likely, the fragmentation of the island post-Rome.
Now, if we put any weight on the claim that they were widely reduced to the rule of the Saxons, then that must mean that the Saxons had already arrive in sufficient strength (more than the ASC's three keels) before then. Lay to one side all the stuff about Vortigern, Hengist and Horsa - we do not know if they ever existed, since all the references to them come a lot later. Focus on the fact that, to a near contemporary, by about 441, "Saxons", in Britain in whatever numbers and whatever status, whether foederati or barbarian encroachers, have enough strength to be judged, by a Gallic source somewhere near Marseille, to have upset the political applecart in Britain. The extent of that disruption is quite possibly/probably exaggerated; maybe they only reduced the Britons closest to Gaul to their rule - eg Kent or East Anglia. What does a monk in Marseille know about the rest of the island?
Yes, I recognise that the Saxons also get a mention in the Chronicle in 409/10, when "The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons." [Britanniae Saxonum incursione davastatae.] But incursione is ambiguous - is it just another bad year for raids, or does it mean a more substantial loss of territory or permanent encroachment?
If we accept the date of St Germanus' visit in 429, then chances are that there are no Saxons around, at least ones necessarily distinguishable as an encroaching polity. This ties in with the best guesses from the archaeology which struggles to identify any such encroaching cultural element before circa 430. To my mind, the idea that a Bishop of Auxerre would be absent for fifteen years is just ridiculous. There is, as far as I know, no near contemporary evidence to link Germanus with Saxons during his first visit, so it seems perfectly plausible for him to have come over, patronised the locals, and returned home as he should have done as a good bishop, and for the Saxon problem to have developed between his departure and circa 441. Even if Saxons did encroach in 409/10 and put down some sort of presence, and we accept that the archaeology has simply not found any such evidence or been over confident in its dating to two decades later, that may just mean that a prudent Bishop from Auxerre was not daft enough to go near Kentish or East Anglian bad lands.
EDIT - Have just double checked Vita Germani and realise that it gives the Alleluia Victory as part of the first visit. However, a) the Alleluia Victory seems one of the dodgiest elements in the hagiography; b) if Constantius of Lyon is writing in 480, he may have retrojected Saxons; c) even if the AV did happen, and was against Saxons, they may well be just raiders again, as per previous Roman Barbarian Conspiracies, and not evidence in themselves of an encroaching polity. I think my reasoning therefore still stands firm.
very much in step with what i have been trying to (badly) say.....
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
very much in step with what i have been trying to (badly) say.....
Thank you, and I for one understood your argument. One other point that has struck me in recent years is the manner in which most discussions of fifth century Britain tend to ignore the seismic goings on in Belgica. The Franks get a mention when discussion turns to Augustine's mission to convert the barbarians at the end of the sixth century, because Bertha provides the avenue for entry, but from the middle of the fifth there are those nice chaps Childeric and Clovis carving out their kingdom. It is taken as a given that Kent prospers, especially under Aethelbert, because of its Frankish links, but what about a century earlier when keels hitting Thanet are as likely to be Frankish or Frisian as they are Angle, Saxon or Jute, and Belgica Secunda, quite literally across the water from Kent, is home to the evolving Merovingian polity?
For anyone questioning why Gildas inexplicably fails to mention the Blessed Germanus, perhaps ponder this sentence from the end of Ch 27 of Constantius' hagiography:
The effect of all this was so salutary that even now the faith is persisting intact in those parts. And so, with everything settled, the blessed bishops made a prosperous journey back to their own country.
Such a claim rather undermines Gildas' entire thesis! Even if Gildas had heard of Germanus' visits - and it is perhaps generous to assume that the ecclesiastical grapevine was still functioning fully in fifth and sixth century Britain - he may have had a less rosy view of their outcome or significance. He thought Britain had gone to hell in a handcart, so either Germanus was not as wonderful as Constantius of Lyon reckoned, or else, no matter how heroically saintly the great man was, he had still failed to save Britain from itself. Either way, Germanus is irrelevant to Gildas.
Furthermore, if Constantius reckoned in the 480s that the faith was safe in Britain, he was either delusional or we need seriously to recalibrate most of the commonly held assumptions.
thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th
were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 06:27:19 PM
thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th
were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived
Exactly. Gildas may be exaggerating of course - after all, he managed to get a decent enough Roman or sub Roman education - and the good folk at Tintagel are still getting a few nice imports from the old empire, but the archaeology suggests the towns and cities are pretty much gone by the late 4th century, let alone the late fifth. We do not hear much specific mention of British bishops in this period. Bishops, on the Roman model, are of course linked to towns, so much more vulnerable than self sufficient monasteries to such a collapse of the Roman model. Also worth noting that, when Celtic Christianity re-enters the written record for mainland Britain in the seventh century, it is monastic based, not episcopal, and of course is out of line with Rome. Compare Aidan with Paulinus, or the shenanigans of the dreadful St Wilfrid trying to impose Roman orthodoxy (and make himself an archbishop...) Lastly, Constantius may have heard first hand - if dubious - tales of Germanus' trips, but how would he be in a position to know how things were in the 480s, sitting in Lyon?
This is all certainly a learning curve. Ta David for putting me on to the Gallic Chronicle. It is, as you say, one of the most reliable sources on the Empire in the 5th century including Britain.
Thus far it seems we can fix a few dependable dates:
1. 410: Britain is "devastated by an incursion of the Saxons."
2. 429: Germanus arrives at Britain for his first visit.
3. 435-7: Germanus is back in Gaul where he travels to Arles to negotiate a tax reduction with Auxiliaris (Prefect of Gaul 435-7).
4. 441: Britain is under Saxon domination.
Using these dates as a framework, is it possible to insert the major events in Nennius and Gildas in a way that is coherent? Let me try. (please be patient!)
After Magnus Maximus leaves Britain in 383
The Romans on several occasions send forces to Britain to aid the Britons, eventually leaving them the means to defend themselves. The Romans no longer directly intervene in British affairs. (Nennius and Gildas)
Before and after the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons cannot defend themselves against the barbarians. The barbarian raids are not continuous - there are truces and times of peace and even plenty for the Britons (Gildas)
After the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons appeal to Aetius some time after 426 when he takes command of the Gallic field army. (Gildas)
Vortigern rises to power to fill the vacuum left by the Roman military administration. He fears the Picts and Scots, but also the "Romans" - i.e. the more romanised Britons in the southeast, and Ambrosius. (Nennius)
He invites the Saxons in as mercenaries. They become dissatisfied with the provisions given them after they have grown in numbers (Nennius and Gildas).
After Germanus' arrival in 429
Germanus preaches throughout Britain, visits the tomb of St Alban, is injured and spends some time in convalescence. (Vita Sancti Germani)
Vortigern is given Hengist's daughter in return for Kent. He then gives territory to Hengist's son in northern Britain near the Wall (Gual) (Nennius)
Vortigern marries his own daughter. Germanus shames him before an assembly of clerics and laity. Vortigern retires to Wales where he builds a fortress and meets Ambrosius who is a child and impresses him with his supernatural knowledge. (Nennius)
Vortimer fights against the Saxons and wins some victories against them before being killed. (Nennius)
Vortigern renews his friendship with the Saxons. He is captured during a feast and cedes large parts of southeast Britain to them (Nennius).
Germanus again rebukes Vortigern who again flees to Wales and builds a fortress in Guorthegirnaim. Germanus and all the British clergy go there to remonstrate with Vortigern. (Nennius)
The Saxons march to Wales to help Vortigern. Germanus is given command of the British forces. He defeats the Saxons in a valley surrounded by mountains. (Nennius)
Vortigern flees to Dimetae where he dies. Germanus leaves Britain some time before 435-7 (Nennius)
From Germanus' return to Gaul before 435-7
The Saxons grow "in strength and numbers" (Nennius)
They spread from the east to the western shore: " For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." (Gildas)
After the Saxon hegemony of 441
Germanus returns to Britain for a brief visit that is entirely ecclesiastical in nature. Saxon domination is a fait accompli at this point but life goes on, at least in the vicinity of London. The Saxons would probably behave like other barbarian tribes in the Empire: out for a slice of the cake without wanting to smash the entire plate.
The Britons rally around Ambrosius who is now a man, and a long and inconclusive struggle begins, with sometimes the Britons and sometimes the Saxons winning the battles. (Gildas)
Later on Arthur is given the command of the British forces and wins all the battles he fights, 12 in total. (Nennius) Was Arthur chosen as commander because he was a better general than Ambrosius?
The climactic battle is fought at Badon (Gildas and Nennius). Notice that Ambrosius is not explicitly mentioned as being present at this battle by Gildas, only Arthur (by Nennius). This battle is probably in the 480s or 490s as it is the year of the birth of Gildas, who, according to the Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys is "an old man full of days" when he died. His death is dated at 570 by the Welsh Chronicle so a date in the late 400s is indicated (if one accepts the Welsh Chronicle). Arthur is actively present at the battle killing hundreds of the enemy (which I interpret as he and his personal unit doing the killing), so he is young enough to be in the saddle and swinging a sword, which puts him probably in his 50's at the latest. Presuming a date in the 480s, that means Arthur starts campaigning in the 450's at the earliest. If Ambrosius was a boy towards the end of Vortigern's life - ball park figure, say 10 around 430 - that would make him in his 60's at Badon's earliest date. He might even have been dead when the battle was fought.*
Looking at Nennius and Gildas' account of Ambrosius, Gildas affirms his family had the purple but both his parents were killed. Nennius affirms his father was a Roman consul even though his mother affirms he had no father. A possible way of resolving this is that Ambrosius' mother wasn't actually his mother, just his guardian, and his real identity was being kept a secret to prevent him from being killed as well, possibly by a fearful Vortigern. Once he had succeeded in impressing Vortigern he revealed who he really was and Vortigern took him on board as a useful ally. Just a hypothesis, but it reconciles the accounts. Why not?
And now let me run for cover...
*Edit: he is probably dead since Gildas affirms his offspring gain the final victory.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 07:47:43 PM
This is all certainly a learning curve. Ta David for putting me on to the Gallic Chronicle. It is, as you say, one of the most reliable sources on the Empire in the 5th century including Britain.
Thus far it seems we can fix a few dependable dates:
1. 410: Britain is "devastated by an incursion of the Saxons."
2. 429: Germanus arrives at Britain for his first visit.
3. 435-7: Germanus is back in Gaul where he travels to Arles to negotiate a tax reduction with Auxiliaris (Prefect of Gaul 435-7).
4. 441: Britain is under Saxon domination.
Using these dates as a framework, is it possible to insert the major events in Nennius and Gildas in a way that is coherent? Let me try. (please be patient!)
After Magnus Maximus leaves Britain in 383
The Romans on several occasions send forces to Britain to aid the Britons, eventually leaving them the means to defend themselves. The Romans no longer directly intervene in British affairs. (Nennius and Gildas)
Before and after the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons cannot defend themselves against the barbarians. The barbarian raids are not continuous - there are truces and times of peace and even plenty for the Britons (Gildas)
After the Saxon incursion in 410
The Britons appeal to Aetius some time after 426 when he takes command of the Gallic field army. (Gildas)
Vortigern rises to power to fill the vacuum left by the Roman military administration. He fears the Picts and Scots, but also the "Romans" - i.e. the more romanised Britons in the southeast, and Ambrosius. (Nennius)
He invites the Saxons in as mercenaries. They become dissatisfied with the provisions given them after they have grown in numbers (Nennius and Gildas).
After Germanus' arrival in 429
Germanus preaches throughout Britain, visits the tomb of St Alban, is injured and spends some time in convalescence. (Vita Sancti Germani)
Vortigern is given Hengist's daughter in return for Kent. He then gives territory to Hengist's son in northern Britain near the Wall (Gual) (Nennius)
Vortigern marries his own daughter. Germanus shames him before an assembly of clerics and laity. Vortigern retires to Wales where he builds a fortress and meets Ambrosius who is a child and impresses him with his supernatural knowledge. (Nennius)
Vortimer fights against the Saxons and wins some victories against them before being killed. (Nennius)
Vortigern renews his friendship with the Saxons. He is captured during a feast and cedes large parts of southeast Britain to them (Nennius).
Germanus again rebukes Vortigern who again flees to Wales and builds a fortress in Guorthegirnaim. Germanus and all the British clergy go there to remonstrate with Vortigern. (Nennius)
The Saxons march to Wales to help Vortigern. Germanus is given command of the British forces. He defeats the Saxons in a valley surrounded by mountains. (Nennius)
Vortigern flees to Dimetae where he dies. Germanus leaves Britain some time before 435-7 (Nennius)
From Germanus' return to Gaul before 435-7
The Saxons grow "in strength and numbers" (Nennius)
They spread from the east to the western shore: " For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." (Gildas)
After the Saxon hegemony of 441
Germanus returns to Britain for a brief visit that is entirely ecclesiastical in nature. Saxon domination is a fait accompli at this point but life goes on, at least in the vicinity of London. The Saxons would probably behave like other barbarian tribes in the Empire: out for a slice of the cake without wanting to smash the entire plate.
The Britons rally around Ambrosius who is now a man, and a long and inconclusive struggle begins, with sometimes the Britons and sometimes the Saxons winning the battles. (Gildas)
Later on Arthur is given the command of the British forces and wins all the battles he fights, 12 in total. (Nennius) Was Arthur chosen as commander because he was a better general than Ambrosius?
The climactic battle is fought at Badon (Gildas and Nennius). Notice that Ambrosius is not explicitly mentioned as being present at this battle by Gildas, only Arthur (by Nennius). This battle is probably in the 480s or 490s as it is the year of the birth of Gildas, who, according to the Life of Gildas by a Monk of Rhuys is "an old man full of days" when he died. His death is dated at 570 by the Welsh Chronicle so a date in the late 400s is indicated (if one accepts the Welsh Chronicle). Arthur is actively present at the battle killing hundreds of the enemy (I interpret that as his personal unit with him doing the killing), so he is young enough to be in the saddle and swinging a sword, which puts him probably in his 50's at the latest. Presuming a date in the 480s, that means Arthur starts campaigning in the 450's at the earliest. If Ambrosius was a boy towards the end of Vortigern's life - ball park figure, say 10 around 430 - that would make him in his 60's at Badon's earliest date. He might even have been dead when the battle was fought.
Looking at Nennius and Gildas' account of Ambrosius, Gildas affirms his family had the purple but both his parents were killed. Nennius affirms his father was a Roman consul even though his mother affirms he had no father. A possible way of resolving this is that Ambrosius' mother wasn't actually his mother and his real identity was being kept a secret to prevent him from being killed as well. Once he had succeeded in impressing Vortigern he revealed who he really was and Vortigern took him on board as a useful ally. Just a hypothesis, but it reconciles the accounts.
And now let me run for cover...
not required. Its an attempt to piece together a working chronolgy for the 5th. We may disagree on the detail but the output is welcome!
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 06:27:19 PM
thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th
were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived
Exactly. Gildas may be exaggerating of course - after all, he managed to get a decent enough Roman or sub Roman education - and the good folk at Tintagel are still getting a few nice imports from the old empire, but the archaeology suggests the towns and cities are pretty much gone by the late 4th century, let alone the late fifth. We do not hear much specific mention of British bishops in this period. Bishops, on the Roman model, are of course linked to towns, so much more vulnerable than self sufficient monasteries to such a collapse of the Roman model. Also worth noting that, when Celtic Christianity re-enters the written record for mainland Britain in the seventh century, it is monastic based, not episcopal, and of course is out of line with Rome. Compare Aidan with Paulinus, or the shenanigans of the dreadful St Wilfrid trying to impose Roman orthodoxy (and make himself an archbishop...) Lastly, Constantius may have heard first hand - if dubious - tales of Germanus' trips, but how would he be in a position to know how things were in the 480s, sitting in Lyon?
the numismatic, lack of stone building and switch to much more local wares evidence points to an economic collapse from the late 4th through the 5th. Its also quite distinctly different from all but some parts of Northern Gaul on the continent. Britain starts to diverge from the continental Roman and post Roman 'model' in the 4th so by the 5th Britain is in effect radically different and in effect cut off from the rest of the Roman world.
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 08:16:32 PMnot required. Its an attempt to piece together a working chronolgy for the 5th. We may disagree on the detail but the output is welcome!
For me the period is increasingly coming into focus. Nennius and Gildas seem quite reliable in the main facts if you understand their approach. Gildas makes clear he won't be mentioning the exploits of the Britons' "champion soldiers" - hence no Arthur or Germanus - and Nennius affirms he is writing a precis history since he lacks the documentation for a longer one, but he is emphatic he is giving a reliable account. Their accounts can be made to fit the solid facts we do have from other sources and add up to a plausible chronology that doesn't make active military men too old - I was rather wondering what was happening in that interim period between the fall of Vortigern and the arrival of Arthur. If Ambrosius is a so-so military commander (he doesn't come from a military background) who loses as often as he wins, and Arthur is a good commander who generally or always wins, then it makes sense that Arthur succeeds Ambrosius in the military sphere even if Ambrosius continues to have a political overlordship. Do any other sources mention Ambrosius at Badon?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 07:47:43 PM
And now let me run for cover...
Two things:
- as mentioned above, I would set aside mention of Vortigern, Hengist, Horsa, Ambrosius as a precocious child, incest with daughters and castle retreats in Wales. They all seem to be the reckless accretions by Nennius and inherently dodgy. Personally, I think there may well have been a Vortigern (whatever that name or title conveys or conceals) and an Ambrosius, but I do not believe in the naming of a Saxon "Gelding" and "Horse" as the villainous barbarian brothers. As for Germanus lecturing Vortigern for taking Happy Families a tad too far... One might have thought Constantius would have mentioned something like that, alongside the fight against heretical teachings. Also, even if one accepts the Alleluia victory as historical fact, Constantius just has it as Christian Britons vs nasty Picts and Saxons - no mention of the Picts or the Saxons fighting for an evil and depraved British king deposed by a saint. Again, the very fact that has appeared by the time Nennius writes it up a few centuries later makes it inherently dodgy.
- I would not overplay the brief Gallic Chronicle statement for 441 into "Saxon hegemony". From a Gallic perspective, even local victories and the establishment of a small pagan barbarian enclave on the Channel and/or North Sea coast might seem to be the overthrow of the old order in Britain. To my mind, it more likely marks the real start of the contest for what became England, rather than an immediate strategic victory by the Saxons.
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2021, 06:27:19 PM
thats the bit I struggle with re Constantius' assessment of Britain in the late 5th
were events generally overblown in the 5th but came home to roost with a bang in the 6th or are some of our sources mixed, muddled or deceived
Exactly. Gildas may be exaggerating of course - after all, he managed to get a decent enough Roman or sub Roman education - and the good folk at Tintagel are still getting a few nice imports from the old empire, but the archaeology suggests the towns and cities are pretty much gone by the late 4th century, let alone the late fifth. We do not hear much specific mention of British bishops in this period. Bishops, on the Roman model, are of course linked to towns, so much more vulnerable than self sufficient monasteries to such a collapse of the Roman model. Also worth noting that, when Celtic Christianity re-enters the written record for mainland Britain in the seventh century, it is monastic based, not episcopal, and of course is out of line with Rome. Compare Aidan with Paulinus, or the shenanigans of the dreadful St Wilfrid trying to impose Roman orthodoxy (and make himself an archbishop...) Lastly, Constantius may have heard first hand - if dubious - tales of Germanus' trips, but how would he be in a position to know how things were in the 480s, sitting in Lyon?
the numismatic, lack of stone building and switch to much more local wares evidence points to an economic collapse from the late 4th through the 5th. Its also quite distinctly different from all but some parts of Northern Gaul on the continent. Britain starts to diverge from the continental Roman and post Roman 'model' in the 4th so by the 5th Britain is in effect radically different and in effect cut off from the rest of the Roman world.
If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 08:43:41 PM
If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?
None. I hesitate to speak for Holly, but the point he and I are both making is that Britain collapses economically in the second half of the 4th century, before even the supposed "end of Roman rule." The towns and cities are reckoned by the archaeologists to have lost population by 50% or more. Coinage dries up - very little new stuff is coming in, London stops minting coins, and the last "British minting" occurs with some dodgy copies of continental coinage around 407/8, probably recycled from clippings and potentially linked to the last brief splutter of imperial pretensions under Constantine.
Tintagel gets some luxury imports into the early sixth century, but at Cadbury they are recycling old cremation urns to get dinner ware. The plague in the mid sixth century is probably the last nail in the coffin for imperial trade connections.
it is implied in Gildas that Ambrosius was at Badon but not categorically so.
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 07:47:43 PM
And now let me run for cover...
Two things:
- as mentioned above, I would set aside mention of Vortigern, Hengist, Horsa, Ambrosius as a precocious child, incest with daughters and castle retreats in Wales. They all seem to be the reckless accretions by Nennius and inherently dodgy. Personally, I think there may well have been a Vortigern (whatever that name or title conveys or conceals) and an Ambrosius, but I do not believe in the naming of a Saxon "Gelding" and "Horse" as the villainous barbarian brothers. As for Germanus lecturing Vortigern for taking Happy Families a tad too far... One might have thought Constantius would have mentioned something like that, alongside the fight against heretical teachings. Also, even if one accepts the Alleluia victory as historical fact, Constantius just has it as Christian Britons vs nasty Picts and Saxons - no mention of the Picts or the Saxons fighting for an evil and depraved British king deposed by a saint. Again, the very fact that has appeared by the time Nennius writes it up a few centuries later makes it inherently dodgy.
- I would not overplay the brief Gallic Chronicle statement for 441 into "Saxon hegemony". From a Gallic perspective, even local victories and the establishment of a small pagan barbarian enclave on the Channel and/or North Sea coast might seem to be the overthrow of the old order in Britain. To my mind, it more likely marks the real start of the contest for what became England, rather than an immediate strategic victory by the Saxons.
'Saxons' in this sense could refer to the Kent/Frankish connection which could be well established in the 5th and if so might be a garbled message of hegemony that was reported
An excellent point. From the perspective of a chap in Lyon, the eastern end of the English Channel (say, Kent and Belgium) has gone horribly hairy and pagan. The details may well elude him, or just do not matter.
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 07:47:43 PM
And now let me run for cover...
Two things:
- as mentioned above, I would set aside mention of Vortigern, Hengist, Horsa, Ambrosius as a precocious child, incest with daughters and castle retreats in Wales. They all seem to be the reckless accretions by Nennius and inherently dodgy.
I wouldn't set it all aside unless there is solid evidence for doing so. What determines a 'reckless accretion' is entirely subjective in nature.
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PMPersonally, I think there may well have been a Vortigern (whatever that name or title conveys or conceals) and an Ambrosius, but I do not believe in the naming of a Saxon "Gelding" and "Horse" as the villainous barbarian brothers.
Those might have been their nicknames. Didn't Vikings - same background - have similarly odd names that were less than flattering but didn't bother them?
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PMAs for Germanus lecturing Vortigern for taking Happy Families a tad too far... One might have thought Constantius would have mentioned something like that, alongside the fight against heretical teachings. Also, even if one accepts the Alleluia victory as historical fact, Constantius just has it as Christian Britons vs nasty Picts and Saxons - no mention of the Picts or the Saxons fighting for an evil and depraved British king deposed by a saint.
The section on Germanus' political role in the Vita is very summary, only two chapters out of a work of 46 chapters. The writer evidently didn't want to go into too much detail as his focus was elsewhere.
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PMAgain, the very fact that has appeared by the time Nennius writes it up a few centuries later makes it inherently dodgy.
Nennius' focus is on British history, notably the politics, hence naturally he goes into the details around Germanus' military adventure and his dealings with Vortigern.
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PMI would not overplay the brief Gallic Chronicle statement for 441 into "Saxon hegemony". From a Gallic perspective, even local victories and the establishment of a small pagan barbarian enclave on the Channel and/or North Sea coast might seem to be the overthrow of the old order in Britain. To my mind, it more likely marks the real start of the contest for what became England, rather than an immediate strategic victory by the Saxons.
The text of the Gallic Chronicle is clear: "The British lands, up to this time lacerated with various disasters and events, were subjugated under the rule of the Saxons."
Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.
Dicio means: 1. authority, power, control, 2. rule, domain, sway. See here (https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=dicionem). The Saxons have Britain under their control at this point, not just a small piece of it.
Britanniae is vague - all 5 provinces or just the bit that would make sense - the SE and Kent
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:51:42 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 08:43:41 PM
If Britain is caught up in an island-wide see-saw struggle from the 430s to Badon in the 480s or 490s then an economic collapse makes sense. What is the evidence for a return to some sort of economic production from the end of the 5th century onwards?
None. I hesitate to speak for Holly, but the point he and I are both making is that Britain collapses economically in the second half of the 4th century, before even the supposed "end of Roman rule." The towns and cities are reckoned by the archaeologists to have lost population by 50% or more. Coinage dries up - very little new stuff is coming in, London stops minting coins, and the last "British minting" occurs with some dodgy copies of continental coinage around 407/8, probably recycled from clippings and potentially linked to the last brief splutter of imperial pretensions under Constantine.
Tintagel gets some luxury imports into the early sixth century, but at Cadbury they are recycling old cremation urns to get dinner ware. The plague in the mid sixth century is probably the last nail in the coffin for imperial trade connections.
Actually that makes sense. The trouble starts for the Britons after Maximus leaves - even before if you include the Barbarian Conspiracy - and doesn't really stop until after Badon, at which point the economy has settled down to subsistence level anyway.
the world of Britain shrinks after the economic decline and could explain the rise of civitates as polities relatively early and why we have some references to 'local rulers' in the 4th when supposedly still under Roman rule such as Coel Hen, Paturnus, Cunedda etc. whether they are all credible or responsible for the acts they are linked with in written refences or not is another matter
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 09:00:56 PM
The text of the Gallic Chronicle is clear: "The British lands, up to this time lacerated with various disasters and events, were subjugated under the rule of the Saxons."
Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.
Dicio means: 1. authority, power, control, 2. rule, domain, sway. See here (https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=dicionem). The Saxons have Britain under their control at this point, not just a small piece of it.
You misunderstand. I know what the text says. What I am saying is that just because the chronicler, thought to be in or near Marseille, perceives that to be the case, does not mean that it was the case. There will be an horizon to his knowledge and understanding. It is the same as Ammianus talking about, say, the Huns displacing the Alans and the Goths. All that he really knows for sure is that the Goths turn up in a distressed state on the Danube; he has no deep understanding of events on the Ukrainian steppe.
What the Gallic Chronicle gives us, in my opinion, is a clear contemporary statement that there is some sort of Saxon polity in southern or eastern Britain in 441, that has won some form of territorial or political control - ie a major step beyond raiding. The extent of that control is another matter entirely, and the use of
in dicionem may be a bit of monastic hyperbole.
As for Nennius, I am sorry, but I am sure that Constantius, whose primary objective was to tell everyone how wonderful Germanus was, would not have missed the opportunity to mention his hero doing a spot of Old Testament prophetic correction of a depraved monarch like a modern Elijah. Ergo, if Constantius does not mention Vortigern, or Vortigern's daughter, or the Saxons and Picts fighting for Vortigern against the saint, I really, really question the wisdom of saying that Nennius, hundreds of years later, knew better. Nennius is simply not sound - he is a damned sight dodgier than Gildas.
Quoteit is implied in Gildas that Ambrosius was at Badon but not categorically so.
Looking at Gildas, all he affirms is that Ambrosius started the British resistance against the Saxons:
"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 isn't Ambrosius who finally wins, but his offspring. The implication is that he is dead when victory finally comes.
QuoteBritanniae is vague - all 5 provinces or just the bit that would make sense - the SE and Kent
In the context of the Chronicle it seems clear enough that all of Roman Britain is indicated.
we will have to agree to disagree about the Gallic Chronicle. For me it says that Britain suffers from an incursion by 'Saxons' and although not described that would make sense if the SE nearest the continent. Dont forget that the channel area including the SE of Britain and NW of the Gallic area was considered at various times as a whole/singularity. Also the author of the Gallic Chronicle is a very staunch orthodox Christian and laments paganism and arianism in particular with focus on the degeneration of the Roman State
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 08:41:37 PM
- as mentioned above, I would set aside mention of Vortigern, Hengist, Horsa, Ambrosius as a precocious child, incest with daughters and castle retreats in Wales. They all seem to be the reckless accretions by Nennius and inherently dodgy. Personally, I think there may well have been a Vortigern (whatever that name or title conveys or conceals) and an Ambrosius, but I do not believe in the naming of a Saxon "Gelding" and "Horse" as the villainous barbarian brothers.
Don't forget that Hengist (or a Hengist) is mentioned in the Finnsburg fragment. At the very least, that confirms that it's an acceptable Germanic name. At most, it may describe "the" Hengist leading footloose warriors just across the North Sea.
Hengest is another of those elusive figures that is mentioned in poetry and quite possibly historical but not conclusively. The Finnsburg fragment and Beowulf feel very familiar to say Aneirin's Y Gododdin. Lots of praise poetry and heroic in nature
Quote from: DBS on August 31, 2021, 09:18:18 PMWhat the Gallic Chronicle gives us, in my opinion, is a clear contemporary statement that there is some sort of Saxon polity in southern or eastern Britain in 441, that has won some form of territorial or political control - ie a major step beyond raiding. The extent of that control is another matter entirely, and the use of in dicionem may be a bit of monastic hyperbole.
What I find interesting is that the Chronicle, taken in its obvious sense, matches the picture painted by Nennius and Gildas of Britain in that period.
Nennius, after Germanus returns to Gaul:
"At that time, the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers. And Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the kingdom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period."Notice that Nennius distinguishes between Kent and Britain. Octa takes over Kent but the Saxons increase in power in Britain, not just in Kent.
Gildas, after the Saxons invited by Vortigern grow dissatisfied with their provender:
"For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean." This is more than just one army (never mind a small raiding force) defeated by a Germanus in a single battle in Wales - it's all over the country. The Britons begin to resist this invasion only under Ambrosius:
"But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation ... that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus"If a square peg fits a square hole...
Thus far I find it quite possible to reconstruct a coherent picture without having to toss any source overboard. The only real headache is that date of 516 for Badon in the Welsh Chronicle, but looking through the Chronicle it seems that it gets other dates wrong as well. If one proposes that the original date was given as after the birth of Christ but was assumed to be after Christ's Passion by a copyist who then corrected it to the birth of Christ by adding 30-odd years, it then fits the rest of the narrative.
Clearly the academic consensus is that Nennius and Gildas are so unreliable that one can't even know for certain if Arthur or Ambrosius existed (never mind Hengist or Vortigern and one can laugh off Vortimer) but I'm curious why there is so much doubt over the sources. Their accounts are abbreviated and incomplete (though they complement each other nicely) but I haven't seen anything major in them for this period that is demonstrably false.
Its not that Nennius and Gildas are unreliable.......we just have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them. Taking into account that the copies we have now may contain redactions, loss of content and errors on top of the primary bias and veracity means that we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to. What helps is if we have archaeological evidence that supports the narrative we have proposed. Although again there is danger in the tail wagging the dog with that.
What I would say is that I would be marginally more happy with what Gildas has written about the events around his floruit than before. Although as a last word on Gildas from me is that there is a sneaky suspicion by some that a redaction has occurred at some point in regards to the bit about the 'Saxon prophecy' referring to 150 and 300 years.
With Nennius I am less certain because he has admitted he is using a whole heap of stuff and so has consciously tried to create a narrative with information from 400 years in the past that he cannot hope to confirm is completely true. The unknown number of sources x 400 years gives a high probability for errors and misinformation. Undoubtedly there is truth in there as well but unpicking it is somewhat er.... difficult
Quote from: Holly on September 01, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
Its not that Nennius and Gildas are unreliable.......we just have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them. Taking into account that the copies we have now may contain redactions, loss of content and errors on top of the primary bias and veracity means that we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to. What helps is if we have archaeological evidence that supports the narrative we have proposed. Although again there is danger in the tail wagging the dog with that.
What I would say is that I would be marginally more happy with what Gildas has written about the events around his floruit than before. Although as a last word on Gildas from me is that there is a sneaky suspicion by some that a redaction has occurred at some point in regards to the bit about the 'Saxon prophecy' referring to 150 and 300 years.
With Nennius I am less certain because he has admitted he is using a whole heap of stuff and so has consciously tried to create a narrative with information from 400 years in the past that he cannot hope to confirm is completely true. The unknown number of sources x 400 years gives a high probability for errors and misinformation. Undoubtedly there is truth in there as well but unpicking it is somewhat er.... difficult
There you are, Dave. If we have to be really careful how we use the information contained within them, and we cannot de facto declare with any certainty what they contain or pertain to, then by definition they are unreliable. I'd be interested in the academic process by which one reaches such a degree of uncertainty (I have a sneaking suspicion it's a case of over-analysing to the point of utter confusion, but that's just me :-[ ).
Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.
pretty much...
overlaying information is how alot of these things get super analysed and picked apart. The sticking point (one of the sticking points) is when you get differences...which bit is the true bit. Having said that, information that appears to corroborate might not confirm its true. For example, Bede uses Gildas for his early period info so just because Gildas and Bede agree doesnt means its all good! ;D
Quote from: Holly on September 01, 2021, 08:34:43 AMHaving said that, information that appears to corroborate might not confirm its true. For example, Bede uses Gildas for his early period info so just because Gildas and Bede agree doesnt means its all good! ;D
Sure, but what I'm seeing thus far is that the whole picture hangs together. No important part of Nennius or Gildas is proven to be wrong or impossible or even implausible. That must count for something.
having been down this road myself I am hesitant to say yea or nay. The only thing I will say is on balance of probability xyz could have happened etc. We just dont know and there are a myriad of theories out there all using the same sources....
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.
Actually, as regards Livy for the monarchy and early Republic, there is exactly the same level of scepticism in some quarters... for exactly the same reasons as scepticism regarding Nennius: too great a distance in time, unclear and uncertain sources, and clear evidence of muddling. With Livy, it comes down to articles of faith re: the Fasti - their existence and accuracy.
Quote from: DBS on September 01, 2021, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
Re copying errors and additions, that would make older authors like Polybius and Livy even more unreliable but one doesn't see quite the same degree of scepticism for them as for Nennius and Gildas.
Actually, as regards Livy for the monarchy and early Republic, there is exactly the same level of scepticism in some quarters... for exactly the same reasons as scepticism regarding Nennius: too great a distance in time, unclear and uncertain sources, and clear evidence of muddling. With Livy, it comes down to articles of faith re: the Fasti - their existence and accuracy.
Is it a general academic consensus that it is impossible to know if any of the major events and actors in the monarchy and early Republic as described by Livy existed at all?
Well, things have rapidly moved on :) There are a couple of points from earlier I might have picked up on but, just for context around Constantius and his sources, he knew and corresponded with St Lupus, Germanus' colleague on the first mission, so could indeed have had a clearer view of earlier conditions than later ones.
Generally, I slightly despair of Justin's approach to the subject. Decide to treat a late, problematic, source as holy writ and try to force other evidence to conform. Why ignore Bede, who introduces Hengest and Horsa, for example? Why must we treat Nennius as completely accurate but ignore the Annales or the AS Chronicle as getting their dates wrong? Why do we not consider the archaeology? How about the Brittany link (which I'd suggest may be why Constantius thinks everything is fine with the British church - he's hearing feedback from the West coming through the strong links to Brittany). Honestly, this is one hell of a complex subject and just to fix on one late source with clear content issues is a bit of basic error. But people who know the subject much better than me have made this apparent in the course of the discussion.
as an aside, the various academics who make this their bread and butter shift from position to position over the years depending on latest research, new finds, reinterpretations and unconscious modern perceptional bias
Regarding Livy...
No, as I say it comes down to articles of faith in the existence and reliability of the Fasti for that period. At university, I was taught Roman Republican history by two lecturers. One was Tim Cornell, who believed one could use Livy as a rough guide (in the absence of anything better and recognising that in some places he clearly did not have a clue - big issues such as the alleged conflict between the patricians and the plebs are very problematic) but with caution, and who thought that the Fasti might have some sound basis for the period. The other, Dominic, was a complete and utter sceptic, and reckoned anything before the mid fourth century BC at best was pretty much out of reach of serious history.
When it came to Finals, both were marking the papers. I therefore was careful to adopt a very sceptical stance, since I knew that Tim was open minded enough to mark well someone who took such a view as long as they argued it well, whilst Dominic was less likely to be kind to anyone who followed Tim's line... :o
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMGenerally, I slightly despair of Justin's approach to the subject. Decide to treat a late, problematic, source as holy writ and try to force other evidence to conform.
Not quite. Thus far I've looked at Nennius, Gildas, the Welsh Chronicles, the Gallic Chronicles, the Life of Germanus and the Life of Gildas and seen if it's possible to reconcile them without forcing all of them to fit one in particular.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMWhy ignore Bede, who introduces Hengest and Horsa, for example?
Getting there.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMWhy must we treat Nennius as completely accurate but ignore the Annales or the AS Chronicle as getting their dates wrong?
Not "completely accurate" but, thus far, in accord as regards the major events with the other sources. It's just a case of seeing if it is possible to shake out a coherent chronology. Re dates, the one problematic date is 516 and it doesn't fit with a long-lived Gildas nor with Arthur appearing on the scene after Germanus returns to Gaul. 516 would mean that Arthur arrives only about 50 years after Germanus.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMWhy do we not consider the archaeology?
Fine, let's consider it. All yours. :)
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMHow about the Brittany link (which I'd suggest may be why Constantius thinks everything is fine with the British church - he's hearing feedback from the West coming through the strong links to Brittany).
What exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 10:12:07 AMHonestly, this is one hell of a complex subject and just to fix on one late source with clear content issues is a bit of basic error.
Again, I haven't done that.
Quote from: DBS on September 01, 2021, 10:17:17 AM
Regarding Livy...
No, as I say it comes down to articles of faith in the existence and reliability of the Fasti for that period. At university, I was taught Roman Republican history by two lecturers. One was Tim Cornell, who believed one could use Livy as a rough guide (in the absence of anything better and recognising that in some places he clearly did not have a clue - big issues such as the alleged conflict between the patricians and the plebs are very problematic) but with caution, and who thought that the Fasti might have some sound basis for the period. The other, Dominic, was a complete and utter sceptic, and reckoned anything before the mid fourth century BC at best was pretty much out of reach of serious history.
When it came to Finals, both were marking the papers. I therefore was careful to adopt a very sceptical stance, since I knew that Tim was open minded enough to mark well someone who took such a view as long as they argued it well, whilst Dominic was less likely to be kind to anyone who followed Tim's line... :o
I can absolutely relate to writing an exam for a prof rather than for the subject matter. Y'know, I wonder to what extent our convictions come from a consensus among the people we tend to respect rather than from the facts or evidence itself. Meself, I don't trust consensuses (or consensi?)
at all. If I can't see conclusive evidence for something then I reserve judgement (which means there is an impressive pile of things I don't know). Looking only at the sources and bypassing academic opinions continues to be an eye-opener for me.
Take for example Badon. It is commonly assumed that Gildas makes Ambrosius responsible for the British victory (https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/29284/1/AVarandas_From-Ambrosius-Aurelianus-to-Arthur.pdf), 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. Implication: by that time he was dead. So Gildas doesn't contradict Nennius who affirms that Arthur was responsible for winning Badon, personally (or him and his own unit) killing hundreds of Saxons in the process. Does any academic point that out?
BTW I don't disparage academic study - it is invaluable for assembling every relevant bit of source material that might shed light on a topic. No single individual who has to hold down a day job is capable of doing that.
QuoteFine, let's consider it. All yours.
Well, here are a couple of relatively recent items dealing with archaeology that give some idea of how interpreting all this is rather complicated :
https://www.academia.edu/24427173/The_adventus_saxonum_from_an_Archaeological_Point_of_View_How_Many_Phases_Were_There
https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/axe-the-anglo-saxons.htm
I'm not saying either of the approaches are right, just that there are different ways of seeing.
QuoteWhat exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.
I think the issue is whether we assume the events described by Gildas et al should have been noted as having an impact on the Church.
QuoteTake 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 11:14:48 AM
QuoteWhat exactly was wrong with the Church in Britain? The second visit makes clear pelagianism was no longer a serious issue.
I think the issue is whether we assume the events described by Gildas et al should have been noted as having an impact on the Church.
Exactly. If one is to believe the Life of Gildas (and I am in no way assuming it is reliable), he was probably no longer even in the country when he wrote The Ruin of Britain but had been forced to evacuate to a monastery the other side of the Channel. And that is someone passionately devoted to preserving and upholding the faith. It is also notable that when Gregory sent Augustine, there is no mention or role for the British church in the plans for evangelism and establishing 26 bishops, and by the seventh century Wilfrid is being deployed to outmanoeuvre the dodgy British church on Rome's behalf. Yes, time had passed, but one gets the distinct impression even the non-Saxon bits of the island had been somewhat written off in Rome.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 11:30:36 AM
QuoteTake 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
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 11:30:36 AM
QuoteTake 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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 12:35:25 PM
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/
Quote from: RichT on September 01, 2021, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 12:35:25 PM
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
Quote from: RichT on September 01, 2021, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 12:35:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 01, 2021, 05:44:27 PM
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:
Quote
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).
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
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
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 (http://www.holyheadparishchurches.co.uk/st-cybis-church-holyhead/history-st-cybis-church/4th-11th-centuries/) 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
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.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 02, 2021, 12:52:12 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
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 (http://www.holyheadparishchurches.co.uk/st-cybis-church-holyhead/history-st-cybis-church/4th-11th-centuries/) 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?
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
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 02, 2021, 01:08:50 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 02, 2021, 12:52:12 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 31, 2021, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
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 (http://www.holyheadparishchurches.co.uk/st-cybis-church-holyhead/history-st-cybis-church/4th-11th-centuries/) 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.
QuoteOne 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..
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 02, 2021, 01:08:50 PM
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
Quotetraditions - possibly referring to bardic stories.....?
Poetry, triads? Certainly stories of fighting magic serpents and children without fathers.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2021, 04:04:24 PM
QuoteOne 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..
Nennius is thought to predate the ASC by half a century or so. Also, just because monasteries have produced stuff does not mean that they are necessarily accessible in other monasteries - it is not as if they had an interlibrary loan service. We need to be wary of assuming that just because we know that document X existed at this time, that writer Y, at monastery Z, had access to it.
Quote from: DBS on September 02, 2021, 05:22:55 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2021, 04:04:24 PM
QuoteOne 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..
Nennius is thought to predate the ASC by half a century or so.
Yes, sorry. Scrub that bit.
Quote
Also, just because monasteries have produced stuff does not mean that they are necessarily accessible in other monasteries - it is not as if they had an interlibrary loan service. We need to be wary of assuming that just because we know that document X existed at this time, that writer Y, at monastery Z, had access to it.
Bad choice of words by me. Accessible as in a language he could read. He claims, however, to have read works by English and Scots authors, which suggests he did have things produced in some of the monastic communities in these areas. The obvious English one would be Bede, as Dave says.
re the Scots stuff St Columba/Iona would be the obvious at a guess and then latterly Lindisfarne
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2021, 04:21:56 PM
Quotetraditions - possibly referring to bardic stories.....?
Poetry, triads? Certainly stories of fighting magic serpents and children without fathers.
Come on, Anthony. Snakes. Children who do not immediately admit their parentage for fear of reprisal. I could argue that the woman looking after Ambrosius cooked up a cock-and-bull story in order to account for there being no father on the scene and she being a virtuous soul. She wasn't prepared to go as far as affirming his daddy was the milkman.
Re his sources he didn't have a mass of material but he had a variety of sources from different backgrounds giving different perspectives, which IMHO enabled him to write an objective history of 9700 words. It won't be accurate to the last detail but nothing suggests it won't be reliable at least in its main facts.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2021, 04:04:24 PM
QuoteOne 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..
They were, but the only Saxon sources for this period were oral, as for languages, Bede wrote in Latin, but the Anglo Saxon Chronicle wasn't. The problem it first surfaces under Alfred, and whilst obviously comes from earlier sources, 'academics are still discussing them'
just a word on facts
we really have to be careful about what we say are facts. we are dealing with events 1500 years ago with very few sources. once we start saying the word fact it leads into the self fulfilling prophecy routine that I have read of soooooo many times when authors suddenly come up with yet another this is the truth of what happened re Arthur. its starts along "i think this might have happened based on this" followed later by "of course as I said earlier this is very likely" ending up with "ta daaaaa!"
we just dont know. we can try to put flesh on the bones of very sparse and often conflicting information but we have to be really careful not to declare that this bit is fact and that bit is fact without an awful lot of cross referencing and archaeological evidence. As a by and by, events tend to be easier to qualify than the mechanisms of what lead to them, what happened afterwards and who did what and why. The why is the worst as it needs accounts of eyewitnesses in the main to help explain something
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 03, 2021, 06:53:14 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2021, 04:04:24 PM
QuoteOne 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..
They were, but the only Saxon sources for this period were oral, as for languages, Bede wrote in Latin, but the Anglo Saxon Chronicle wasn't. The problem it first surfaces under Alfred, and whilst obviously comes from earlier sources, 'academics are still discussing them'
The great novelty of the AS Chronicle was that it was, deliberately, in English. It shows signs of using other prior materials which may have been various list and annals kept by monasteries, in keeping with traditions elsewhere. How much access Nennius would have had to these if he was in Holyhead must be questioned, though.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2021, 11:14:48 AM
QuoteFine, let's consider it. All yours.
Well, here are a couple of relatively recent items dealing with archaeology that give some idea of how interpreting all this is rather complicated :
https://www.academia.edu/24427173/The_adventus_saxonum_from_an_Archaeological_Point_of_View_How_Many_Phases_Were_There
https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/axe-the-anglo-saxons.htm
I'm not saying either of the approaches are right, just that there are different ways of seeing.
Interesting. Christopher Scull affirms that the evidence shows a Saxon presence in Britain from 420-430:
"The refinement of continental site and material culture chronologies against which the earliest continental material in England, and its subsequent development, can be assessed
suggests settlement from the North Sea coastal region from around AD 420/30."This matches the proposed timetable where Vortigern invites in Hengist & co. around the time of Germanus' arrival in 427.
He also affirms substantial Saxon, Angle and Jute migration later on:
"There is also evidence for two major episodes or processes of intense cultural contact across the Channel and the North Sea which are likely to have involved the movement and substantial settlement of people from outside the frontiers of the former empire: 1) from and along the North Sea coastal regions of the Netherlands and Germany in the second quarter and middle years of the 5th century; and 2) from Norway and south Scandinavia in the middle decades and third quarter of the 5th century"This would match a Saxon hegemony in Britain from 441 until the major setback at Badon in the 480s.
He does point out the pitfalls of archaeology and trying to make it prove more than it can, e.g. British vs Saxon inhumation practices. Not every grave with weapons is Saxon. Local British likely began to adopt Saxon burial customs - normal in the case of a new, established political authority. I tend to use Zulu words in everyday speech as a matter of course: Eish! Hamba! Aibo! That doesn't make me a Zulu. Nonetheless if local burial customs have aligned to the Saxon model then the Saxons in that area are clearly in charge.
Chris Catling affirms there was no economic collapse in 5th century Britain but rather that eastern England had a thriving economy and trade with lands around the North Sea. That directly contradicts other evidence of a collapse of the Roman economy in Britain from the end of the 4th century. One would need to see the evidence in detail to figure out exactly what happened.
Susan Oosthuizen affirms (which I'd already seen elsewhere) that there was an agricultural continuity from British to Saxon farmlands: the land divisions remain the same and the houses continue to be inhabited as is. That makes sense: the Saxons gradually conquered Britain but each stage of conquest didn't mean that a slew of Saxon settlers arrived in the new territory, evicted the British peasants, and then reorganised the land as they saw fit (much easier for the Saxon farmers just to stay at home - there weren't any population pressures in 6th and 7th century Britain). Newly-conquered territories would continue to be farmed by British peasants now under Saxon overlords, and over time they would, by slow Saxon settlement, intermarriage and cultural shift, eventually identify as Saxons.
Nonetheless she pushes things too far by affirming there was no Saxon invasion or conquest as traditionally understood simply because there is little evidence of a forced resettlement on the farmland. Conquest doesn't mean wholesale annihilation or enslavement of the indigenous population.
QuoteCome on, Anthony. Snakes. Children who do not immediately admit their parentage for fear of reprisal. I could argue that the woman looking after Ambrosius cooked up a cock-and-bull story in order to account for there being no father on the scene and she being a virtuous soul. She wasn't prepared to go as far as affirming his daddy was the milkman.
Magic realism, eh? I think I'll go down the traditional route of bardic tale telling. The story is essentially two things - an allegory/prophesy of eventual British victory and an explanation of how Dinas Emrys was associated with Ambrosius. You'll be pleased to know that there was a pool at Dinas Emrys :) If pusuing the magic realist approach, it may help to know the story of Lludd and Llefelys in the Mabinogion explains how the dragons were captured originally hundreds of years earlier.
Quote from: Holly on September 03, 2021, 07:42:11 AM
just a word on facts
we really have to be careful about what we say are facts. we are dealing with events 1500 years ago with very few sources. once we start saying the word fact it leads into the self fulfilling prophecy routine that I have read of soooooo many times when authors suddenly come up with yet another this is the truth of what happened re Arthur. its starts along "i think this might have happened based on this" followed later by "of course as I said earlier this is very likely" ending up with "ta daaaaa!"
we just dont know. we can try to put flesh on the bones of very sparse and often conflicting information but we have to be really careful not to declare that this bit is fact and that bit is fact without an awful lot of cross referencing and archaeological evidence. As a by and by, events tend to be easier to qualify than the mechanisms of what lead to them, what happened afterwards and who did what and why. The why is the worst as it needs accounts of eyewitnesses in the main to help explain something
This goes to the heart of the problem. What decides that a fact is in fact a fact? (sorry!) In contemporary research it is the scientific method that decides, but the scientific method works only in fields like biology, chemistry and physics. It formulates a hypothesis and then performs enough experiments to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or not. Trouble is you can't do that with history. Virtually all our historical data comes from written primary sources and these sources are human testimonies which cannot be verified by experimentation. Strictly-speaking, as a scientist you have no choice but to discard them all and rely only on scientifically verifiable sources like archaeology for any reliable information on the past. Which leaves us knowing diddly-squat about history.
Meself I take the courtroom approach. All human testimony is
a priori to be accepted as true unless it can be proven to be false. Not the other way round. Make every attempt you can to prove the testimony as false but do not discard it simply because it can't be evaluated in a laboratory. For me that approach has paid off in spades.
Re the major sources for 5th century Britain: thus far I have seen no solid evidence that refutes the main events in their accounts. They can be made to chime with each other without forcing any part of their narratives. The arguments against their veracity all seem to add up to mistrusting them from the get-go because that's what you do these days (scientific method and all that). I won't hesitate to reject the existence of Arthur or Ambrosius or Vortigern or Vortimer or their roles in 5th century Britain if solid evidence can be offered that refutes them. Still waiting...
My own preference, court room wise, is the balance of probabilities test
The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not.
It is also, as I understand it, normal to look at the reliability of the evidence, rather than accept all at face value.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 09:35:28 AM
QuoteCome on, Anthony. Snakes. Children who do not immediately admit their parentage for fear of reprisal. I could argue that the woman looking after Ambrosius cooked up a cock-and-bull story in order to account for there being no father on the scene and she being a virtuous soul. She wasn't prepared to go as far as affirming his daddy was the milkman.
Magic realism, eh? I think I'll go down the traditional route of bardic tale telling. The story is essentially two things - an allegory/prophesy of eventual British victory and an explanation of how Dinas Emrys was associated with Ambrosius. You'll be pleased to know that there was a pool at Dinas Emrys :) If pusuing the magic realist approach, it may help to know the story of Lludd and Llefelys in the Mabinogion explains how the dragons were captured originally hundreds of years earlier.
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? Gildas affirms Ambrosius parents had both been killed and most likely wore the purple. Nennius affirms that Ambrosius impressed Vortigern so much that the latter changed his mind about killing him and gave him authority in western Britain instead. So Ambrosius did something that really impressed Vortigern. I don't rule out the supernatural in historical accounts (though I don't automatically give it credence either). The baseline for discounting the marvellous in accounts is that "miracles cannot happen." Fine. Now prove it. ;)
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 10:00:33 AM
My own preference, court room wise, is the balance of probabilities test
The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not.
It is also, as I understand it, normal to look at the reliability of the evidence, rather than accept all at face value.
Sure, but as I understand it, the court requires more than just generic doubt to discount a witness's testimony as improbable: "unless it can be proven to be false"
Anyhow fine, I accept Nennius and Gildas as probably true if their accounts can't be refuted. Moral certitude. Not the same as metaphysical or scientific certitude but good enough to go with.
Edit: this is now the 9th most replied to thread on the forum. Go Pendragon!
just a note on economic collapse in the time period
we dont know what exactly happens during the 4th and 5th Centuries in Britain re the economy however we can make a few observations:
- Roman Britain relied on a monetary system that used bullion (solidi etc) that had a finite supply and was controlled by the state (ie Rome). This was used to pay the army and also required for payment of taxes. Copper coinage (Siliquae etc) was the everyday coin for local transactions. The one was exchanged for the other. This way the state controlled the flow of money
- by the start of the 5th, new coinage has dried up in Britain.
- by the same time it is implied that 'Roman' soldiers have left Britain either through usurpation or crises
- it is implied that direct control by the Roman state has ended at or around this time (Honorius rescript)
The above is a bit chicken and egg and its hard to unravel but essentially if there is no 'Roman Army' in Britain they dont need bullion coins to pay them and also if Britain is not under direct control it may not be paying any taxes to Rome. How, why and exactly when is up for debate but essentially they all tie up together. What this doesnt do is give you a clear picture of economic activity within the diocese. Trade will happen with or without coinage (money is after all a sub-form or standardised enabler of the barter system) so even though money drops off the radar in this time period it doesnt mean that the economy collapses. Having said that, the mechanism by which the British economic system operated did
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).
Laws of evidence are needless to say much more complex than some people think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)
There is some overlap between legal forms and the historical method (as there is between historical and scientific methods), though they are not directly equivalent for obvious reasons - pretty much all historical testimony, in the form of written accounts, would count legally as hearsay. But there certainly is a concept of witness credibility, which must be established and which can be undermined (without a requirement to prove a particular statement false):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_witness
And more broadly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Though anyone who dismisses all the work of hundreds of scholars more knowledgeable, intelligent and better informed than themselves as merely following fashion (or whatever) is unlikely to take much interest in such things. At any rate I hope this forum and in particular Slingshot don't have to be burdened with too much more of this sort of stuff. We've been over it all before without making any progress.
Ack and I've pushed this over to page 21! I should just keep my mouth closed...
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 11:42:47 AM
At any rate I hope this forum and in particular Slingshot don't have to be burdened with too much more of this sort of stuff. We've been over it all before without making any progress.
I'll come back to the rest of your post. Just for now let me make it very clear that Slingshot is the platform for SoA contributors and I contribute only the occasional article on a specific topic like a battle. I make sure that my ideas on the historical method stay within this forum where I don't have to wear the editor's hat. Since the SoA's remit is military history, questions about the method of doing history are absolutely relevant to the forum and are most likely to appear in the future. :o
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 11:42:47 AMAck and I've pushed this over to page 21! I should just keep my mouth closed...
Heh! heh! 8)
Thanks Richard. I think there was a warning from Dave right at the beginning that attempting to bottom this will lead to you falling down a rabbit hole but poor methodology just makes it worse.
Anyone coming new to this subject who feels its just a question of reading one or two sources should, I hope, by now have discovered what a huge, complicated and fog shrouded subject this is.
The concrete evidence of the archaeology does show a there are changes in the first half of the fifth century, probably enough in itself to show new cultural influences growing in the East. At the same time, it evidences changes in the economic pattern away from a money economy and, perhaps, the collapse of certain industries like industrialised pottery making. There are also various landscape changes, like dyke building and refortifying old hillforts, yet signs of continuity too, especially in the West. Yet, there is a very limited distance we can go from there without the documentary sources, none of which are ideal, at least in part because details of the history of the period are tangential to their purpose.
Can we ever, therefore, be sure about anything but the broadest sweeps of a timeline and do our attempts to fit a widening cast of shadowy characters obscure more than they clarify?
it might be appropriate to put up a timeline based on observational archaeology as well based along what Anthony posited
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 03, 2021, 12:09:05 PM
I'll come back to the rest of your post.
Nooo please don't. I was trying to head off this stuff not provoke more of it. Of course you can post about what you like, I'm not telling you not to, I'm asking (begging, pleading).
For anyone who wants more of this, here's an earlier thread:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4346.0
With my thoughts at:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4346.msg56168#msg56168
If there's nothing to add to this, let's not do so.
Quote
Just for now let me make it very clear that Slingshot is the platform for SoA contributors and I contribute only the occasional article on a specific topic like a battle. I make sure that my ideas on the historical method stay within this forum where I don't have to wear the editor's hat.
That's a bit disingenuous given your editorial in 329 (which prompted the thread above). I will be happy if this is the policy in future.
Quote
Since the SoA's remit is military history, questions about the method of doing history are absolutely relevant to the forum and are most likely to appear in the future.
And will be very welcome. Less welcome perhaps is one person repeating the line that all existing history is bunk and only his own superior method has any value. I think it may be the case that we've all heard as much of that as we need to.
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 02:32:14 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 03, 2021, 12:09:05 PM
I'll come back to the rest of your post.
Nooo please don't. I was trying to head off this stuff not provoke more of it. Of course you can post about what you like, I'm not telling you not to, I'm asking (begging, pleading).
For anyone who wants more of this, here's an earlier thread:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4346.0
With my thoughts at:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4346.msg56168#msg56168
If there's nothing to add to this, let's not do so.
There is more that can be said, from a different angle (promise!), but let me leave that for a later post.
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 02:32:14 PMQuote
Just for now let me make it very clear that Slingshot is the platform for SoA contributors and I contribute only the occasional article on a specific topic like a battle. I make sure that my ideas on the historical method stay within this forum where I don't have to wear the editor's hat.
That's a bit disingenuous given your editorial in 329 (which prompted the thread above). I will be happy if this is the policy in future.
I'd completely forgotten about that editorial and it was a one-off about Patrick. Probably a mistake in hindsight. Do me a favour Rich: rather than attack my character, why not simply point out any error I make? I can be wrong but I never deliberately set out to deceive anyone.
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 02:32:14 PMQuote
Since the SoA's remit is military history, questions about the method of doing history are absolutely relevant to the forum and are most likely to appear in the future.
And will be very welcome. Less welcome perhaps is one person repeating the line that all existing history is bunk and only his own superior method has any value. I think it may be the case that we've all heard as much of that as we need to.
Straw man. I've never said "all existing history is bunk and only my own superior method has any value".
Here's an example of what I did say: "BTW I don't disparage academic study - it is invaluable for assembling every relevant bit of source material that might shed light on a topic. No single individual who has to hold down a day job is capable of doing that."
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 03, 2021, 10:02:57 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 09:35:28 AM
QuoteCome on, Anthony. Snakes. Children who do not immediately admit their parentage for fear of reprisal. I could argue that the woman looking after Ambrosius cooked up a cock-and-bull story in order to account for there being no father on the scene and she being a virtuous soul. She wasn't prepared to go as far as affirming his daddy was the milkman.
Magic realism, eh? I think I'll go down the traditional route of bardic tale telling. The story is essentially two things - an allegory/prophesy of eventual British victory and an explanation of how Dinas Emrys was associated with Ambrosius. You'll be pleased to know that there was a pool at Dinas Emrys :) If pusuing the magic realist approach, it may help to know the story of Lludd and Llefelys in the Mabinogion explains how the dragons were captured originally hundreds of years earlier.
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
It would be helpful to restrict ourselves to disputing methodology (if we must) and avoid character issues. I didn't particularly see a character attack in what Rich said, from a moderatorial point of view. I commend you both for remaining civil.
Back to being me :
QuoteStraw man. I've never said "all existing history is bunk and only my own superior method has any value".
Here's an example of what I did say: "BTW I don't disparage academic study - it is invaluable for assembling every relevant bit of source material that might shed light on a topic. No single individual who has to hold down a day job is capable of doing that."
But I think you give a less than ringing endorsement of academic skill. Personally, I acknowledge that, with their in depth knowledge of their fields, including an understanding of the secondary literature, and the ability to share an academic platform, professional historians are going to have an edge - its not just about sources. I went to university, so I see no reason to assume all academics are more intellegent than non-academics, though some clearly are. So, always deploy your critical method on the works of academics but give them appropriate respect for their professional expertise.
QuoteWe have the consul lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls
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.
On consuls, the Groans of the Britons in Gildas mentions Aetius as "thrice consul" which is what allows us a
terminus post quem for when it was written. This implies a continued flow of official information into Britain at the time it was written, whether through ecclesiastical routes or diplomatic ones.
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?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
QuoteWe have the consul lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls
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.
On consuls, the Groans of the Britons in Gildas mentions Aetius as "thrice consul" which is what allows us a terminus post quem for when it was written. This implies a continued flow of official information into Britain at the time it was written, whether through ecclesiastical routes or diplomatic ones.
I commented earlier in the thread, we do have some authorities who think there might have been military forces involved as well. Comparatively small and not for long
as a very broad brush we can make the following tentative observations:
4th Century
- mid 4th century, there may have been a worsening of the security of Britannia leading to posting of temporary additional Roman forces with tried and trusted generals to resolve the situation (although even this may have been exaggerated for political reasons)
- Cities are building stone walls and bastions (BUT there is no definitive conclusion that it is purely for military reasons and some walls are being built earlier), for example Venta Silurum
- pottery is becoming more locally sourced than continentally
- Magnus Maximus usurpation in the late 4th apparently leads to reduction of 'Roman' forces to go to the continent (possibly due to the reasoning that the main warzone was there and not Britannia)
- a suggestion that local tribal or federate leaders are assigned a greater role in the defence of Britannia (possibly Cunedda, Coel etc) especially in the North/N.West possibly indicating the main threat at this time is Picts and Scots
5th Century
- within a few years of the turn of the century coinage starts to dry up in Britannia
- there is a possibility of a crisis catalysed by the events leading up to the eventual usurpation of Constantine III which leads to Britannia looking after itself (no money, no troops, no Rome???)
- a possible request to Honorius for support in Britannia not forthcoming which may be in response to a specific but unrecorded crisis
- apparent functioning of Britannia including civitates/councils, the church into the 420s/430's - the main issue being Pelagianism but references to raiding
- mid 5th appears to see some increase in raiding and possibly settlement along the east and se coasts.
- this situation resulted in the possible hiring of additional troops as federates
- there are references to various battles in the mid to late 5th century but these cannot be substantiated as to who/where/what and why
- by the end of the century Britannia is starting to emerge as something else possible based on old tribal areas, hereditary/long standing military settlements (eg Cunedda, the men of the north, the Gewisse etc), local magnates or petty kings using hired help and genuinely Germanic settlement areas and proto kingdoms
ps please feel free to suggest additions, subtractions or corrections to the above!
Quote from: Holly on September 03, 2021, 08:49:13 PM
- Magnus Maximus usurpation in the late 4th apparently leads to reduction of 'Roman' forces to go to the continent (possibly due to the reasoning that the main warzone was there and not Britannia)
Kulikowski often makes the very pertinent point that throughout the history of the empire, fighting usurpers - or fighting as a usurper - almost always trumps issues of border security, no matter how bad the latter threat. And of course, Magnus promptly restores Trier as the western capital, which Gratian had abandoned in favour of Milan. In other words, the usurpation may have originated in Britain, but Britain was thereafter perhaps somewhat peripheral to Magnus' priorities.
true....a power play
Quote from: RichT on September 03, 2021, 03:34:05 PM
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.
GildasGildas 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.
ConstantiusConstantius doesn't mention Arthur because he is writing the life of Germanus which ended probably before Arthur's career began.
BedeBede 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.
NenniusNennius 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.
and the alternate conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence that Arthur was real either..
QuoteIs 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.
The question of trusting the sources deserves a separate post so here goes
QuoteThe 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:
QuoteIn 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)
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2021, 10:50:17 AM
QuoteIs 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.
QuoteI 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?" :)
QuoteVirtually 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2021, 11:26:54 AM
QuoteI 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! >:(
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2021, 11:26:54 AMQuoteVirtually 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. :)
QuoteNennius 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.
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)
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 03, 2021, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 03, 2021, 10:02:57 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricola_(consul_421)) 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.
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).
Quote from: aligern on September 04, 2021, 02:03:27 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 03:27:50 PMNennius 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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 04, 2021, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2021, 03:27:50 PMNennius 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.
Gidlow thinks it was the purple of martyrdom that Ambrosius parents wore. That might work.
Bede does leave stuff out that doesn't suit him. I don't attach any weight to him not mentioning Arthur.
last time I looked it seemed there was some sort of academic consensus about the sources available to Nennius that are lost to us. Northern and Kentish chronicles come to mind.
Koch's linguistics based position on the early origin of the Arthur Gododdin verse seems robust enough.
Then of course we have Dark's view of the sudden use of the name Arthur by the Irish dynasties in Britain. I haven't seen any response to that from other academics. Yet, it certainly speaks to something.
Unrelated to the above it struck me that I cannot recall any Welsh source crediting Vortigern as a Wledig. He has a Powys connection but no dynasty from there claims the title for him. If that's so, it is interesting.
Quote from: Anton on September 04, 2021, 06:30:56 PM
Gidlow thinks it was the purple of martyrdom that Ambrosius parents wore. That might work.
Bede does leave stuff out that doesn't suit him. I don't attach any weight to him not mentioning Arthur.
last time I looked it seemed there was some sort of academic consensus about the sources available to Nennius that are lost to us. Northern and Kentish chronicles come to mind.
Koch's linguistics based position on the early origin of the Arthur Gododdin verse seems robust enough.
Then of course we have Dark's view of the sudden use of the name Arthur by the Irish dynasties in Britain. I haven't seen any response to that from other academics. Yet, it certainly speaks to something.
Unrelated to the above it struck me that I cannot recall any Welsh source crediting Vortigern as a Wledig. He has a Powys connection but no dynasty from there claims the title for him. If that's so, it is interesting.
good points.
for me it points to a 6th century Arthur not a 5th BUT thats a personal view after reading countless summaries, discussions, books and opposing views.
Thanks Dave. As you say views are legion.
Just to pursue Vortigern a bit more. If he wasn't a Wledig then his authority was not based on based that status.
possibly reflecting the split/internal schism of Vortigern vs Ambrosius. Maybe Ambrosius has legitimacy being 'of the purple' whereas Vortigern was a political opportunist
Or consent and consent withdrawn.
to the winner goes the spoils.....
Quote from: Holly on September 04, 2021, 09:26:08 PM
to the winner goes the spoils.....
Dave, you missed a chance for an Abba quote there, after your Carpenters reference :)
yes.....probably best not to ;D
I could do these subliminal music references all day and all of the night
Then we have the archaeology as well, I'm about to re-read Britannia Prima by Roger White which needs to be taken into account
I've seen a few articles of his on the Academia website but not read the book Jim.....any thoughts?
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 09:29:57 AM
I've seen a few articles of his on the Academia website but not read the book Jim.....any thoughts?
I think that we have to take people like him and Ken Dark seriously because they attempt to integrate the archaeological evidence into the story. In real terms it's the only way most of us can actually bring the archaeology in because trying to get hold of all the relevant excavation reports is a lifetime's work in itself
From memory this is the book that got Legionaries into the latest Sub roman Britain Army list because Phil and Sue Barker were impressed by the work done in the area
It's some years since I read it so I'd better re-read it
good enough for me. i'll get a copy
Quote from: aligern on September 04, 2021, 03:23:07 PM
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
There you go. His prestige as great war leader didn't help him in the first postwar election. It was enough that the electorate
suspected he wouldn't do good by them for them to vote him out of office. A totally new mental shift. I suggest ditto for Arthur. Once he'd done his job he no longer had any relevance, his warrior image not being needed for several decades.
either that or he was a nasty piece of work.....?
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
either that or he was a nasty piece of work.....?
Spoken like a true son of the valleys :)
;D
later legendarium has Arthur as a fairly unpleasant character
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
either that or he was a nasty piece of work.....?
I liked his sense of humour. I suppose he'd have had a problem with us Rhodies if he'd lived a decade longer. He was fond of keeping the Empire together; we were fond of leaving it. :o
Quotelater legendarium has Arthur as a fairly unpleasant character
That brings me back to Vortigern. I haven't really had much cause to contemplate Vortigern (so thanks to Justin). But if we take a conventional approach to his history, he is very much a character who worsens over time. He isn't directly mentioned in Germanus' visits in the early texts yet Nennius has a large set of Germanus v. Vortigern stories. Likewise, to Gildas, he is guilty more of bad judgement and pride than anything else (assuming, as seems likely, that Gildas did intend him as the proud tyrant). Yet, by the time of Nennius, he has clearly gained mythical stories which paint him in a bad light.
regardless of anything else, if he was responsible for the hiring of Saxons that ultimately went wrong he is going to cop it in the long (historical) run
True enough. Although my current view is that the Saxons were dealt with, not so the Angles.
A Powis dynasty had Vortigern in their genealogy-he wasn't edited out. So far as Dark's Martinian Revolution goes Powys seems to me to be a heartland. I'm sure there is something useful there if I keep poking about.
Nennius may have retailed information from dynasties hostile to Powys and thus we have the Vortigern who gets incrementally worse as time goes by.
As an example we have Marwnad Cunneda because of Gwenydd's territorial ambitions in Bryneich. This in turn leads to Cunedda driving the Irish out of Gwynedd entering the record. Yet, we have good evidence that Gwynedd was a joint Irish/Ordovices enterprise. It seems to me that MC is repurposed to buttress current political concerns by the Gwynedd dynasty namely the still obviously Irish rival rulers of Brycheiniog and the overlordship of Bryneich.
the Angles are different because there are lots of hints that they are more anchored as a people within the Britannia framework ie pre 'Saxon Revolt' (whatever that may be) and possibly pre 5th C. They 'assume' overlordship of Bryneich mid 6th but it feels more of a dynastic shift?
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 06:26:45 PM
the Angles are different because there are lots of hints that they are more anchored as a people within the Britannia framework ie pre 'Saxon Revolt' (whatever that may be) and possibly pre 5th C. They 'assume' overlordship of Bryneich mid 6th but it feels more of a dynastic shift?
The Jutes (or at least Kent) could have been settled very differently as well
agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 06:40:59 PM
agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence
And was probably Christianised or comparatively Christianised early. I've read somewhere that Kent and similar have a lot more pre-Saxon names that a lot of other areas and the assumption is it as settled 'lawfully' or at least the locals were important enough to be asked for the names of places.
very true including the name itself Ceint
I can't think of any hints that the Angles (as a functioning group) were in Britannia pre 400 CE. Not sure if I've missed anything.
As we have seen there's no actual evidence for Laeti in Britannia. If we apply the rigorous "Arthur" test a lot of cherished beliefs have to fall. I had thought the Germans who preserved Cerdic's name were Laeti, seems not.
When Maxim decided to settle federates, it seems he went for Irish and Brythonic ones. Cunedda looks increasingly like a federate to me. There's a hint in his Marwnad that he was of Dumnonian (above the Wall) origin.
Also, I think it significant that all of the Celtic speaking peoples have the same name for the Germans in Britannia and that name references Saxons not Angles. It implies they came across the Saxons first.
I reckon that that the Ceint/Kent Vortigern's federates story is pretty much right in its essentials. It looks a though there was a deal and Vortigern made it and Hengist, if it was he, kept his end of it.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2021, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: Holly on September 05, 2021, 06:40:59 PM
agreed and the emergence of the kingdom comes early with Frankish influence
And was probably Christianised or comparatively Christianised early. I've read somewhere that Kent and similar have a lot more pre-Saxon names that a lot of other areas and the assumption is it as settled 'lawfully' or at least the locals were important enough to be asked for the names of places.
One interesting thing about Kent is that one of the earlier dykes in north Kent, east of London, faces
west. (Here's (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4202.0) the discussion we had re dykes in
King Arthur's Wars by Jim Storr) Its construction, like all earlier dykes, is precise, indicating Roman engineering techniques. Why west? That might suggest that the local population of Kent was quite happy to work with the Saxons and aided them in their struggle against the rest of sub-Roman Britain. Possibly because the ceding of Kent to Hengist - unlike Vortigern's later concessions - had never been contested by the other 'kings' and hence was seen as legitimate by the locals. A theory, but it does fit a square peg into a square hole.
just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over ;D
https://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html
Quote from: Holly on September 06, 2021, 12:14:05 PM
just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over ;D
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). 😁
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 06, 2021, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: Holly on September 06, 2021, 12:14:05 PM
just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over ;D
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 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). 😁
;D ;D ;D
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?
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
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 06, 2021, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: Holly on September 06, 2021, 12:14:05 PM
just as an aside here's a bit of a tangential hand-grenade to chew over ;D
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
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 06, 2021, 03:50:29 PM
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. ;)
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
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on September 06, 2021, 03:30:15 PM
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
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.
QuoteYou 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?
Quote from: Anton on September 06, 2021, 05:54:50 PM
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
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...
well....I'll hold my breath as I read it....been sidetracked into articles so may be a while
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.
I see Edwin Pace has a new book coming out at the end of the month....
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... :o )
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... 8) )
Indeed.....is an englishman a briton etc
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.
interesting sub topic in itself....at what point do 'Britons' get accepted as 'English'
Usually just after Ivanhoe wins the duel, and before the closing credits, is the accepted point I think
touche.....
Quote from: Holly on September 07, 2021, 07:29:08 PM
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?
another subject in itself...... ::)
Quote from: Holly on September 08, 2021, 08:42:40 AM
another subject in itself...... ::)
True. Would Bangor or Cardiff be the Welsh capital? What would the national language be? Would Ffynnon Garw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jekJnJgJ3U) still be a mountain?
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.
Quote from: Holly on September 08, 2021, 08:25:16 AM
touche.....
We will have none of that Frankish nonsense!
Quote from: Holly on September 07, 2021, 07:29:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 08, 2021, 11:29:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Anton on September 08, 2021, 12:16:23 PM
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.
Yes, my working assumption is that each polity acted as it thought was in its best interest.
Polities, civitates and the like will have shrink in on themselves during the 5th century before expansion in the 6th century. Jealous guarding of these areas or spheres of interest would have necessitated boundaries
Fir once I would lije to disagree with Anton!
The archaeology of Eastern Britain and the DNA analyses show that the number of German invaders was small and that they soon incorporated Britons into their structure. I suggest that the Wealhas question might be likened to the Arabisation of North Africa. There were Africans who moved quickly to obtain sponsorship from arriving Arabs and there were those who stuck to being Berbers and maintaining tgeir own tradition. The laws and organisation of the Caliphal state substantially disadvantaged , for exampke, Christians who did not convert, but advantaged those who did and it looks as though , despite the efforts of tge Arabs to remain distinct, they were intermingled in three generations. I suggest that the same happened in England and South East Scotland, many Britons moved to become Saxons and the policing of contact would be difficult in small kingdoms with rudimentary organisations. Bronwen's a pretty girl, she hets an Anglian husband, her brother is tough and fit he joins the comitatus because Bronwen gets what she asks for.
Where wealhas matter is in newly incorporated areas. So in Wessex the Western lands beyond Hampshire would call for a regularisation of relationships, but I am not going to believe that the sane writ runs in Surrey or Kent where most people cannot tell about their ancestry. Restrictive laws might also hold in sutuations such as Derbyshire where British villages abd customs lasted longer.
Dark Age laws and royal pronouncements are a better indication of what kings would like to happen, than what did happen. People are people and they integrate relatively easily , especially when there is the incentive of discriminatory legislation to overcome.
Maintaining difference was a major problem for the post Roman kings on the continent. The Goths of both sorts tried to maintain an exclusive religious distinction, but that eventually would break down and in England religion eventually united the communities.
Roy
its another angle (sorry) to the conundrum but language is something we have skirted around thus far. Do we opt for the multi-language theory, the possible widespread proto germanic language in the SE or something else
Quote from: aligern on September 08, 2021, 08:52:49 PM
Fir once I would lije to disagree with Anton!
The archaeology of Eastern Britain and the DNA analyses show that the number of German invaders was small and that they soon incorporated Britons into their structure. I suggest that the Wealhas question might be likened to the Arabisation of North Africa. There were Africans who moved quickly to obtain sponsorship from arriving Arabs and there were those who stuck to being Berbers and maintaining tgeir own tradition. The laws and organisation of the Caliphal state substantially disadvantaged , for exampke, Christians who did not convert, but advantaged those who did and it looks as though , despite the efforts of tge Arabs to remain distinct, they were intermingled in three generations. I suggest that the same happened in England and South East Scotland, many Britons moved to become Saxons and the policing of contact would be difficult in small kingdoms with rudimentary organisations. Bronwen's a pretty girl, she hets an Anglian husband, her brother is tough and fit he joins the comitatus because Bronwen gets what she asks for.
Where wealhas matter is in newly incorporated areas. So in Wessex the Western lands beyond Hampshire would call for a regularisation of relationships, but I am not going to believe that the sane writ runs in Surrey or Kent where most people cannot tell about their ancestry. Restrictive laws might also hold in sutuations such as Derbyshire where British villages abd customs lasted longer.
Dark Age laws and royal pronouncements are a better indication of what kings would like to happen, than what did happen. People are people and they integrate relatively easily , especially when there is the incentive of discriminatory legislation to overcome.
Maintaining difference was a major problem for the post Roman kings on the continent. The Goths of both sorts tried to maintain an exclusive religious distinction, but that eventually would break down and in England religion eventually united the communities.
Roy
We do mostly agree Roy, not on this one though.
Leaving aside Arabs and Berbers because we should in discussing Britannia. Things are never really alike if we poke deeper.
I've no doubt that the Britons were incorporated into the new social structure. The question is where in the pecking order?
Last time I looked the DNA evidence seemed to show Anglia as well, the Anglian heartland.
Oddly enough I was thinking about mixed marriages earlier.
Let's taken Bronwen and her husband. What is the political/legal/ethnic status of their children? Had she married a Celt then his political identity is the one the kids inherited. Full rights in the kindred. I think that wasn't the case among the Germans of Britannia where ethnic membership was required from both parents.
Let's take the brother in law, he gets to join the Comitatus but with lower status as far as we can evidence. We have not a shred of evidence for equal status.
The Wealhas laws were not for new territorial acquisitions they were simply the law-everywhere. I can think of nothing I've read that suggests otherwise. I'd note that the Wealhas laws only appear when the Germans are firmly in control.
Woolf thinks they operated in all the German Kingdoms including Northumbria and Kent.
It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives. Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them. Laws also generated income. It was all serious stuff.
I am inclined to agree, social standing was everything. The other point is that a 'foreigner' is basically anyone not of your social/ethnic/tribal grouping so in theory other Germanics could be included in this and might help explain the 'enclaves' of Saxons/Angles/Frisians/Jutes etc We only really get a glimpse of what this means in the late 7th with Ine's laws but by then foreigner may have come to reflect Briton speaking early Welsh versus A-S speaking early English
Quote from: Anton on September 08, 2021, 11:51:14 PM
It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives. Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them. Laws also generated income. It was all serious stuff.
When looking at law, the rule you get from historians of the Roman Empire is that the more often the law is repeated, the more frequently it was ignored, hence the need to repeat it.
With regard to warriors joining a comitas, we see in Beowulf, warriors were accepted from other peoples.
After all, everybody is expected to die if you do.
Also if you raised Bronwen's mythical brother to the full status of a Saxon, you could expect from him the full duties of a Saxon.
we will not know but perhaps there was a transition period....prove yourself etc or 2nd generation etc
It seems to me that we have hit a bit of a fault line. Stephen seems to me to envisage a much more ethnically coherent Adventus than others, who see something more freeform, where a Saxon/Anglian/Jute leader may have a comitatus which is a coalition of the capable, be they Frisians, Franks or half-breed Britons. We do know where it ends up - that those who still are culturally distinctive wealas become second class citizens. I still wonder whether, though, in that early period, your genetic ancestry was the only thing that mattered.
we do have multiple situations and differences across Britannia depending on where we are looking. We have to take into account pre existing foederati who in all probability became over time the 'dominant' social grouping where they were settled and 'pulled' in Britons into their orbit and all BEFORE any assumed Adventus and breakup of the political landscape in the late 4th to mid 5th. A nominal Romano-British elite controlling those areas could easily get absorbed or replaced in time. Other areas become 'taken over' in a more rapid process during the 5th when post Roman control has ceded to local rulers/councils. With little to fear from Roman mobile field armies, take overs would be easier in these areas potentially. Again in the west there is an allusion to Irish foederati which in time goes the reverse way and gets 'reabsorbed' by Roman-British polities. The North is a real frontier area and so this is the one I struggle with mostly but see it as Romano-British in outlook for the main with 'loyal' foederati in the early period only giving way to opportunistic take overs in the 6th
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 10, 2021, 10:08:54 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 08, 2021, 11:51:14 PM
It's my view that Dark Age people had to be keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities because both effected their daily lives. Kings enacted laws in the firm belief they would be obeyed and punished those who defied them. Laws also generated income. It was all serious stuff.
When looking at law, the rule you get from historians of the Roman Empire is that the more often the law is repeated, the more frequently it was ignored, hence the need to repeat it.
With regard to warriors joining a comitas, we see in Beowulf, warriors were accepted from other peoples.
After all, everybody is expected to die if you do.
Also if you raised Bronwen's mythical brother to the full status of a Saxon, you could expect from him the full duties of a Saxon.
I do not think raising was easily accomplished Jim. The clue is in the word raising. In the normal course of life men would transgress against each other and compensation would be due.
A Saxon who transgressed against Bronwen's brother knows he has to pay. Them's the rules-no problem. He would not feel he has to pay the Saxon rate to a Wealh- that is not just. So dissent in the comitatus. A comitatus whose prime function is taking territory from the Wealh. That seems problematic to me.
Specifically though, we have no evidence at all of anyone changing core ethnicity and a fair bit showing that it didn't happen. If we apply the "Arthur Test" we wouldn't even consider it.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 10, 2021, 10:30:23 AM
It seems to me that we have hit a bit of a fault line. Stephen seems to me to envisage a much more ethnically coherent Adventus than others, who see something more freeform, where a Saxon/Anglian/Jute leader may have a comitatus which is a coalition of the capable, be they Frisians, Franks or half-breed Britons. We do know where it ends up - that those who still are culturally distinctive wealas become second class citizens. I still wonder whether, though, in that early period, your genetic ancestry was the only thing that mattered.
We have Anthony.
We can clearly see evidence of co-operation in the early period. So to answer your question your "genetic ancestry" didn't matter because you were allies involved in a joint enterprise. Mutually respecting or at least tolerating each others cultural and social systems for the good of the cause. That there would be "half breeds" resulting is not in question. I can think of a rather famous one and can say he was not awarded a new ethnic status. Such progeny had to have a legal status and such evidence as we have informs my view of how it worked.
Quote from: Holly on September 10, 2021, 10:46:58 AM
we do have multiple situations and differences across Britannia depending on where we are looking. We have to take into account pre existing foederati who in all probability became over time the 'dominant' social grouping where they were settled and 'pulled' in Britons into their orbit and all BEFORE any assumed Adventus and breakup of the political landscape in the late 4th to mid 5th. A nominal Romano-British elite controlling those areas could easily get absorbed or replaced in time. Other areas become 'taken over' in a more rapid process during the 5th when post Roman control has ceded to local rulers/councils. With little to fear from Roman mobile field armies, take overs would be easier in these areas potentially. Again in the west there is an allusion to Irish foederati which in time goes the reverse way and gets 'reabsorbed' by Roman-British polities. The North is a real frontier area and so this is the one I struggle with mostly but see it as Romano-British in outlook for the main with 'loyal' foederati in the early period only giving way to opportunistic take overs in the 6th
Yes, things were different in the various constituent parts of Britannia and it is important to keep that in mind.
My first question would be where were the pre-existing feoderati? Second how do we know they were there? Solving that would take us somewhere.
The Irish are easier to see. They are clearly in Britannia with Roman permission. They enjoy certain advantages in terms of relations with the British. They are Christian, they speak more or less the same language as the Britons and so both can understand the other, they have pretty much the same underlying legal, social and cultural package. They are also invested in the' kings system' emerging amongst the Britons. They do merge into the local population, some sooner than others but it takes generations before they all do so.
Further to your point on the different Germanic groups, they to can understand the other and have pretty much the same underlying legal, social and cultural package. I think that is quite important in the early period.
Quote from: Anton on September 10, 2021, 11:11:24 AM
I do not think raising was easily accomplished Jim. The clue is in the word raising. In the normal course of life men would transgress against each other and compensation would be due.
A Saxon who transgressed against Bronwen's brother knows he has to pay. Them's the rules-no problem. He would not feel he has to pay the Saxon rate to a Wealh- that is not just. So dissent in the comitatus. A comitatus whose prime function is taking territory from the Wealh. That seems problematic to me.
Specifically though, we have no evidence at all of anyone changing core ethnicity and a fair bit showing that it didn't happen. If we apply the "Arthur Test" we wouldn't even consider it.
The problem with wergild is that was we don't know how formalised it was in Britain in our period. I've come across this, A Lifeʼs Worth: Reexamining th: Reexamining Wergild in the Anglo-Saxon Royal Law Codes (c. 600-1035)
The 600AD is because the Kentish laws were probably written then. Whilst they might have codified existing practice, they might also have instituted new practice but we cannot take them as a guide to a period two centuries previously.
there are some papers on possible foederati areas in the 4th. I'll try and dig some out. From memory, there are visible clues in the archaeology but as we know this isnt conclusive proof!
Yes, new practices might well have emerged in a new setting Jim.
We can be fairly sure though that the various Germanic peoples brought their existing practice with them. I don't doubt those codes also made provision for 'us and them' and see no reason that 'them' would be rated as highly as 'us'.
All the same Dave it's what we have currently got and we have to start somewhere. Sometimes it's possible to put something together.
Quote from: Anton on September 10, 2021, 04:56:42 PM
Yes, new practices might well have emerged in a new setting Jim.
We can be fairly sure though that the various Germanic peoples brought their existing practice with them. I don't doubt those codes also made provision for 'us and them' and see no reason that 'them' would be rated as highly as 'us'.
All the same Dave it's what we have currently got and we have to start somewhere. Sometimes it's possible to put something together.
We've seen how other Germanic Peoples seem to have evolved an identity over the period, do there is a lot of academic discussion as to what was a 'Visigoth' at various times.
Also we have the problem that, for example, the early laws are from Kent. But we know Kent was probably different in that it may have been 'settled' in a more orderly manner. So in the case of these laws, those with the low weirgeld were the descendants of Late Roman Coloni who may have drifted into from one sort of serfdom to another sort of serfdom.
What is the 'core ethnicity of Cerdic and Cynric?
Picking up on the regional differences I suggest that maintaining a presence in Bernicia would be difficult without quickly integrating natives, whereas in East Anglia there would be much denser settlement of Germans. In Mercia there would be a patchwork of small polities with populations varying from established federates as perhaps on the Middle Thames, to immigrant Germanics and on to British units that converted to German status, possibly led by their own British elite.
Roy
I think this is a key point, the size of polities will have varied especially the further east or SE you go. There is no one size fits all. The patchwork of groupings will have added to the patchwork of polities which only begins to resolve into something like kingdoms in the 6th
Quote from: aligern on September 10, 2021, 07:16:49 PM
What is the 'core ethnicity of Cerdic and Cynric?
Picking up on the regional differences I suggest that maintaining a presence in Bernicia would be difficult without quickly integrating natives, whereas in East Anglia there would be much denser settlement of Germans. In Mercia there would be a patchwork of small polities with populations varying from established federates as perhaps on the Middle Thames, to immigrant Germanics and on to British units that converted to German status, possibly led by their own British elite.
Roy
I confess it was Cerdic and Cynric who occurred to me
Indeed I wonder whether to a Saxon peasant a third generation federate would be more or less strange than a Briton?
to a peasant, the important thing is the social hierarchy to which he finds himself connected
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
And I have a wife who has been a journalist for thirty years on three continents and has taught journalism at university. She would say that lecturer was not a journalist.
Quote from: DougM on September 11, 2021, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in
He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
And I have a wife who has been a journalist for thirty years on three continents and has taught journalism at university. She would say that lecturer was not a journalist.
From my experience as a free lance journalist I reckon that only one in three stories I came across were still a story when I investigated more deeply.
At this point there might be another story in there but it wasn't the one I'd come looking for.
I was once phoned by an editor asking why I was the only person who hadn't pestered him with a particular story that everybody else was running.
I replied that I'd looked into it and explained to him the real story.
So he paid me to write that because it was a chance to rub the noses of his rivals in it 8)
There are advantages to have a farm to fall back on at times, it has even allowed me 'speak truth unto power' secure in the knowledge that we'd still eat ;)
so it is all down to whether you want to write the truth or to write a story....very insightful when you think about it for a moment
Quote from: aligern on September 10, 2021, 07:16:49 PM
What is the 'core ethnicity of Cerdic and Cynric?
Picking up on the regional differences I suggest that maintaining a presence in Bernicia would be difficult without quickly integrating natives, whereas in East Anglia there would be much denser settlement of Germans. In Mercia there would be a patchwork of small polities with populations varying from established federates as perhaps on the Middle Thames, to immigrant Germanics and on to British units that converted to German status, possibly led by their own British elite.
Roy
You and I have done the Cerdic story together before Roy. I think we both thought we got somewhere useful at the time.
Thinking about it once more it struck me that Cerdic is for the Germans who founded Wessex is akin to Maxim Wledig for the Irish and Welsh dynasties-the original benefactor to be preserved in memory. The difference being Maxim left the stage while Cerdic stayed and was succeeded by others with Celtic names.
I still think Cerdic was an Atrebate royal with a German mother. His early career is text book Celtic royal stuff.
In the spirit of this thread let's consider how Atrebates and local Saxons would consider Cerdic's status.
For the Atrebates Cerdic was one of them because of his paternal descent and a royal too ditto. For the Saxons, lets assume it was a high status marriage, Cerdic was a high status political connection who would favour his maternal nephews and promote their interests if they showed promise. He would do the latter because they were not Atrebates and could therefore never pose a political threat in Atrebate society. Such nephews were often entrusted with military responsibilities.
In the end the Atrebates lose out and we get the Laws of Ine and Wessex but it looks like a lengthy process to me.
Above I've wandered into conjecture but it does fit with what we know.
I'm with Dave on the importance of hierarchy, it is everything for those concerned.
what if Wessex was founded on the Atrebates territorial basis with a core of Romano-British but with a Germanic foederati/warband element from the area (possibly settled in the 4th Century). My own take is that the Gewisse (the 'trusted ones') form the Germanic element and we end up with a hybrid Wessex polity emerging in the late 5th early 6th
Quote from: Holly on September 11, 2021, 11:23:49 AM
so it is all down to whether you want to write the truth or to write a story....very insightful when you think about it for a moment
Provided there is not going to be a libel case, some editors are very relaxed. But the standard of investigation isn't high at times, look at the whole Carl Beech and Operation Midland thing. I haven't seen any sign of journalists getting in there and asking difficult questions.
Bringing it back to Chronology of 5th Century, we see in our time the journalists, the 'chroniclers' of the era writing a chronicle which reflects the perception of the era created by those in power, as opposed to the real chronicle of the era. So when reading Gildas or Ninneas its wise to stop and ponder the agenda of the people who created the sources they used
Exactly my thoughts Jim.
Essentially proper journalism is dead in the UK. When the BBC stopped calling out lies, it died.
Real journalists; the kind with awards, and integrity, on the whole are no longer working for newspapers.
I agree as an aside re mainstream journalism. There is always a bias and the money men pull the strings
might be of use to some on here:
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/library/browse/issue.xhtml?recordId=1161453
Thanks Dave that's an excellent link.
I see Brigamaglos is there. I hadn't realised that some think he was a pal of St. Pat. Whatever about that, his name could be read as potentially linking him to Dark's Martinian Revolution as in Koch's reading of Trawsganu Kynan Garwyn. I must have a proper read of it all.
I am working my way through it all now....Also killing a tree to print it off for easy reference. A really good collection of material for the period and question at hand
not that I want to reopen a can of worms but here is an article defending Nennius...at least in relation to 3 key dates he gives (which overall leads to an earlier proposal for Vortigern et al)
I cant believe I have put my feet back into the rabbit hole. Been reading Frank Reno's Historic figures of the Arthurian era. A lot of it is on shaky grounds but there are some interesting proposals which have aligned with some of my thinking including amongst others that the Gewisse/Hwicce are essentially the same and 'grew up' in the South Midlands/West Country rather than fight there way there from the east
Quote from: Holly on October 15, 2021, 11:17:18 AM
I cant believe I have put my feet back into the rabbit hole. Been reading Frank Reno's Historic figures of the Arthurian era. A lot of it is on shaky grounds but there are some interesting proposals which have aligned with some of my thinking including amongst others that the Gewisse/Hwicce are essentially the same and 'grew up' in the South Midlands/West Country rather than fight there way there from the east
I was rescued from my last trip down the rabbit hole by stuff I had to read rather than wanted to
and I have bought another book by him....very counter orthodox thinking!
Quote from: Holly on October 15, 2021, 04:33:28 PM
and I have bought another book by him....very counter orthodox thinking!
Nobody ever got published by agreeing with everyone that went before.. :0
aint that the truth.....Arthuriana is the pinnacle of that! ;D
Quote from: DougM on October 15, 2021, 06:33:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 15, 2021, 04:33:28 PM
and I have bought another book by him....very counter orthodox thinking!
Nobody ever got published by agreeing with everyone that went before.. :0
Apparently German doctoral thesis were notorious were this
so I might be in a position to submit an article although it is sans pictures at the mo....
No harm in that. I might be tempted to do the same or something related.
I wonder if the editor would run a 'series' of DA British articles.....could be fun