The chronology of 5th century Britain

[RichT]

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...

[Justin Swanton]

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. 

Ack and I've pushed this over to page 21! I should just keep my mouth closed...

Heh! heh! 

[Erpingham]

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?

[Imperial Dave]

it might be appropriate to put up a timeline based on observational archaeology as well based along what Anthony posited

[RichT]

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.

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

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."

[Jim Webster]

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.

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

[Erpingham]

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 :

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."

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.

[Erpingham]

We 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.

[RichT]

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?

[Jim Webster]

We 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

[Imperial Dave]

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


   


   

[Imperial Dave]

ps please feel free to suggest additions, subtractions or corrections to the above!

[DBS]

- 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.

[Imperial Dave]

true....a power play