Ancient and Archaeology permalink
britain 410ad
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 28th March 2009
what actually happened in 410ad - which is given as the end of roman britain
did the legions pack up their bags and swan off on a set day or was it gradual - when did the roman civil servants go
were they under pressure or was it gradual
why did they have to go - they were happy in a discrete environment where they were ok - surely they didnt owm rome allegiance ??
what about the veterans - (Colchester etc) did they go ??
st -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Going from memory here, I think it was that Britain was slowly stripped of its legions over time. By 410 AD there were none left in the island. Representatives from British towns (unnamed as far as I know) wrote to the emperor asking for help becaus eof raids from the Saxons, Picts & other assorted barbarians. Th eresponse was alon the lines of, "You have to look after yourselves". That is why ity is seen as the end of Roman rule.
As for the people who remained, there is some evidence that, n some parts of the country, the people returned to their old ways of living quite soon after 410. Whether this was deliberate choice or forced on them is unclear. Certainly some would have tried to retain vestiges of Roman living, but it seems likely that it was really only the upper class who saw themselves as Roman. As for the veterans of Colchester, that town was established in around 50 AD, so the veterans would have been long dead by 410.
Things soon degenerated. The Romans had experienced problems with Saxon raiders before they left (There was a military commander titled "Count of the Saxon Shore" who was charge dwith keeping the raiders at bay). One the soldiers had gone, who was left to protect th eshores? According to legend, Vortigern ("Great King?") hired Saxon mercenaries but refused to pay them what he had promised. Cue hostile takeover and bring on the Dark Ages. -
Message 3
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Hi Stalteriisok,
During my research on this subject I have become aware of the following which you may find intresting:
DATE BRITISH EVENTS
398 AD Reorganisation of defences
401 AD XXth Legion departs Britain
407 AD British army revolts against Stilicho and goes to the aid of Gaul.
Constantinus III withdraws troops for Galic expedition, this came to be known as 'The First Departure Of The Eagles'
409 AD English (Saxons et al) 'invade' Britain, defeated by the Britons who subsequently disown Constantinus III.
410 AD Honorius legalises action of Britons.
412-415 AD Renewed English, Pictish and Irish attacks on Britain.
417 AD Constantius sends back troops to Britain, this is the legion Gildas speaks of. Invaders defeated with help from this legion.
424 AD (ish) Troops called from Britain to protect Johannes, known as 'The Second Departure Of The Eagles'.
425 AD Renewed barbarian attacks on Britain.
428 AD Re-inforcements dispatched to Britain, invaders defeated again.
440 AD Troops withdrawn to deal with Vandal presence in Italy, known as 'The Final Departure Of The Eagle'.
442 AD English, etc invade en-masse.
446 AD Appeal by the Britons for re-inforcements turned down, Britons rally and defeat some of the invaders.
After this there is the rise of Vortigern and then Ambrosius Aurelianus who gain more & more victories against the Anglo-Saxons.
I hope you have found this helpful
Regard
DocFortune -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Hi DocFortune,
Your timeline for 5th century British history, as I am sure you are aware, differs in many respects from the received version. I'd be very interested indeed in a summary of the evidence that led you to the following conclusions:
That legio XX valeria victrix left Britain in 401. The last attested reference to it are the late 3rd century coins of Carausius, and it is not mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum.
That the events of 406-407 represented a 'revolt against Stilicho'. The army in Britain apparently elected three imperial claimants in quick succession in 406. In 407 Constantine III took an army to Gaul in response to a barbarian invasion. Determining the political situation at such a remote period is almost impossible but evidently Stilcho and Constantine agreed in a policy of clearing the empire of unwanted guests.
I wouldn't myself describe the migration of the Saxons as an 'invasion' at any date, but why have you selected 409? You must be drawing on the Gallic Chronicle I guess, although a date of 410-411 is usually quoted. Should this historical source be taken at face value? Is it not a case of 'back-projection' from the situation a century or more later? Is there any archaeological evidence for a Saxon migration at this early date?
The 'legalisation' of the actions of the British in 410 must refer to the 'Rescript of Honorius'. The passage in Zosimus that describes this has, at best, been extremely compressed and more probably refers to events in Italy at the time of Alaric's invasion.
A re-entry of Britain by Roman troops in 417 is not impossible but is there any positive evidence for it? The latest bronze issue coins from Roman Britain are those of 395-402. A significant Roman military re-conquest would have reintroduced coinage, but there is absolutely nothing after 411. Gildas, of course, is not a contemporary source for this period. His limitations are evidenced by his ignorance over who constructed the Roman walls in the north. The re-entry of Roman troops in 428 is even more implausible I should have thought for the same reasons.
The descriptions 'First', 'Second', and 'Final departure of the Eagles' are completely unknown to me; where are they from? Contemporary writers on Roman military history are understandably reluctant to use 'eagles' which has something of the same force as 'thin red line'.
We'll leave Vortigern for later perhaps!
Best wishes,
Twinprobe. -
Message 5
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Hi TwinProbe,
Let me try and clarify some of my points.
Regards my reference to Legion XX Valeria Victrix, my point is that in 401 Alaric & his Visigoths, acting more or less in unison with another horde led by the Vandal Radagais threatened an invasion of Italy, as I'm sure you are aware,
To meet this threat Stilicho was forced to withdraw troops from the frontier provinces. Claudianus, in the De Bello Gothico, says that they included legions from Gaul, Britain, Raetia & Vindelicia. The passage regarding the legion which stands against the savage Scots and tattooed Picts in Britain must relate to Legio XX which was stationed at Deva and had been involved in many battles with both Picts & Scots.
Legio VI Victrix was at Eboracum but it is unlikely they fought against the Scots & more likely fought against the Saxons.
Legio XX could have been destroyed anytime between 401 & 428 as many pages of the Notitia Occidentis which relate to this are missing.
It is my understanding that the army Constantine took to Gaul was Legio II Augusta, which left much of the defence of the country to Cunedda & his foederati, though I cannot be entirely sure.
It is conjecture on my part for the date of 409 for a Saxon invasion which is indeed drawn from the Gallic Chronicle which is understandably un-reliable for acurate dating evidence. This was not, however, a 'migration' of Saxons but small raiding parties in various places.
The 'revolt' against Stilicho was mainly due to Honorius who it could be argued permitted the murder of Stilicho, Zosimus says that the Britons fought gallantly & freed their 'cities' from the barbarians, whether this is accurate or not is a contentious point. What is apparent is that the Britons along with the Armoricani & other Gallic communities 'threw off their allegiance to the discredited Constantinus' and amounted in principle to a return to their allegiance to Honorius.
An Imperial edict was given legalising the actions of the Britons as they were unable to send troop re-inforements due to Alaric being 'at Rome's gates'. The re-entry of troops to Britain was after the Visigoths had been suppressed in 416 so the summer of 417 seems the most probable date for this.
The terms first, second & final departure of the eagles comes from a 19th century source and I agree it is not a contemporary description of the withdrawl of troops.
In 428 Aetius was fighting the Franks with the help of troops from Britain. In 429 St Germanus came to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy. He was met at Verulamium as a meeting at London was considered too dangerous as the paganism was so powerful there, it is possible that the troops who had been with Aetius re-entered Britain in 428-429 to safeguard the arrival of the Bishop and to defeat more 'raiding' parties of Saxons.
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Hi DocFortune,
Many thanks. Your second posting certainly makes things a great deal clearer. Although none of your individual views are impossible, and some are rather exciting, you do seem to push historical inferences beyond what is secure. You also seem to neglect actual or potential archaeological contributions to the evidence.
For example: the arrival of St Germanus in 429 together with Continental troops has its attractions as a concept; it makes the 'Alleluia Victory' a great deal more intelligible for one thing. But you have to remember that De Vita Germani says not one word about soldiers and there are no artefacts, and especially coins, in Britain that would suggest a Roman re-occupation at this time. Now if Germanus came here with a small bodyguard then I could accept that their presence would have escaped the attention of Constantius, and be lost to the archaeological record. But a small bodyguard would not stay in Britain for more than 10 years, nor could their transfer be considered 'the final departure of the Eagles'.
The good opinion we have of Aetius is perhaps moulded by Gibbon's enthusiasm, but he does seem to have been the dominating military figure in the West around 430 – 454 and a worthy successor to Stilicho. While he was active in Gaul it seems hard to believe that he was unaware of the situation in Britain. If there was a time, and a commander, for further intervention in the former province then this was probably it. Intervention would have to be early in the period if the letter of 446 mentioned by Gildas (or Bede's interpretation of Gildas) was actually to Aetius, and not his son Agidius. Unfortunately there would seem to be no historical source for this further intervention, unless you believe Gildas is referring to it, but if he is you have to explain how he completely miss-understands the dates and functions of the northern walls. Why does no imperial historian mention an event that would have represented a rare triumph for Roman arms? Would the Gallic Chronicle have remained silent about a Roman re-occupation? Then consider the ethnicity of the troops Aetius was employing. Some combination of Huns, Burgundians and Visigoths perhaps, as time and opportunity dictated. Is there any archaeological evidence in Britain of early 5th century 'barbarian' artefacts?
I'm sure that we both agree that there is good evidence that Stilicho withdrew forces from Britain, and elsewhere, to defend Italy. It was the natural thing for him to do and we are talking about a very early 5th century date (Stilicho being executed in 408). By trying to establish which units were actually involved, let alone deciding that it was legio XX Valeria Victrix, you seem to be taking an unnecessary burden on yourself. The legions in the early 5th century were not the mainline troops that they once were. The attested removal of legio II Augusta from its traditional base at Caerleon to the far smaller fort at Richborough argues for a drastic size reduction as well. Surely Stilicho's dispositions would have involved the cavalry based 'field army' from Britain not troops from fixed defences? If legio XX Valeria Victrix even survived as a title (and there is no positive evidence for this) it would not have formed part of Stilicho's 'must have' list. I could see how Constantine III's 'last throw' attempt might have included second class troops like legio II Augusta from Richborough; but where is your evidence that this actually took place?
The situation with legio VI Victrix is, if anything, even more confusing. You say that this unit 'more likely fought against the Saxons', but why? In a strict sense the legion isn't attested after the 3rd century. Presumably the comment 'praefectus legionis sextae' in the Notitia Digitatum refers to it, but oddly its famous base at York is omitted. If still stationed in York it was well-placed to support the Yorkshire coastal forts, but were these a defence against the Saxons or the Picts?
Thanks again for a very stimulating posting,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 10th April 2009
what would have been the make up of the legions (or auxiliaries) at that time ?
surely after 300 yrs of occupation the roman army would be able to trust the locals - epecially as they had martial qualities
why bring replacements from 1000 miles away when by this time romes enemies were the britons enemies
st -
Message 8
Posted by RSS_643_IKWIG (U13662597) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Thursday. 30th April, 2009. 13:20BST
Re. 'DocFortune'
NB. Whilst the dates offered are no doubt correct as far as you are aware; the classical problems associated with CAM and OXbridge: will I'm sure lead to arguements regarding verification based upon docuementary evidence.
Perhaps archeological and 'built remains' which occasionally feature, even in works of fiction (such as the children's story; 'The Eagle of the Ninth') may be more supportive of the real 'folktales' which ROME left unrecorded in PUBLIC docuements. The stories told to children at dusk; beside the 'fireside' to an Earl's descendents, let alone the children of a Count and indeed a BARON: are littered with the 'barren' structures which Ms. Sutcliff would certainly have understood. Note the octagonal lighthouse within the precinct of Dover Castle and indeed the Saxon Shore Fort at Porchester in Hampshire.
To have watched the 'gallies' depart and 'face the future' ALONE; once the light had been extinquished: is the essence of the 'stay behind'.
To understand the true 'ORDER of ROME' is to 'Obey and Understand' YOURSELF; as 'first and foremost': REICH. -
Message 9
Posted by robert382 (U6596743) on Tuesday, 19th May 2009
very interesting comments on the post Roman world of Britannia, which I am sure will continue to be great debate.
However, i dont know if this has been discussed previously, but fast foward 80 years or so to the time of so called Arthur and his mounted horsemen. I read in a travel guide to southern Austria (styria)that there is a Church there recording a supposed visit of "Arthur" en route back to Britannia with war horses. Now at that time, to own one war horse (trained) was rare, but to have enough of these horses to form a mounted band of say 20 or so in number, would require a huge amount of money and expertise (equivalent to millions today), so could the Brits of that time really have a mounted defense cohort, based on late Roman techniques to fight the incoming Saxons. Where did the money for this come from, and if these horses really did exist, what military figures would have ridden them, and is there any basis of these Arthurian legends in fact. this debate has been going on for ages, probably since the 11th century or earlier. Probably we will never know without evidence
robert382 -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 19th May 2009
Hi Robert,
'So called' Arthur is exactly the point. King Arthur and his knights is basically an entertaining medieval romance. Later commentators, who feel obliged to uncover facts about the 'real' Arthur, place him in post-Roman Britain and postulate that he fought Saxons with mounted troops.
Actually the early British writer Gildas describes a battle against the Saxons (Mount Badon) but does not mention Arthur. The source often described as 'Nennius' contains a list of Arthur's battles, but does not say he fought the Saxons, much less that horses were employed. The evidence that there were 'incoming Saxons' that needed fighting at all is not as persuasive as you might think, but that is another question!
If you want to envisage bands of soldiers in the post-Roman period with low status infantry armed with spears, and a few elite warriors mounted and armed with swords, that's fine. But a force of true heavy cavalry of the type that the Normans employed seems anachronistic for the 5-6th century.
I would say that there is no basis in fact for the Styrian Arthur, the Cornish Arthur, Welsh Arthur, Breton Arthur or Northern Arthur. But lack of evidence never stops a 'true believer'!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 20th May 2009
Hi TwinProbe
The evidence for a historical King Arthur is limited at best and is very hard prove.
But just like the very interesting debate about an “Historical Jesus” being waged on another thread there is at least some circumstantial evidence to back up the idea of British war leaders existing during the late 5th and 6th centuries.
Even though there is no actual written proof or independent historical evidence there is the very real evidence that Britain changed after the break up of the western Roman empire, and in a different way to the other provinces that were taken over by Germanic elite’s.
On the matter of heavily armoured cavalry existing in Britain during the late 5th and 6th centuries it would be speculation to say that they definitely existed, but he possibility certainly exists.
Late Roman cavalry certainly was heavily armoured, even more heavily armoured than the much later Norman cavalry, and units had been stationed in Britain before the withdrawal of the main Roman army in Britain.
It is not completely wild speculation to suggest that some small remnants of these heavy cavalry remained active in Britain into the 6th century.
After all heavy lance armed cavalry was widespread throughout much of Europe at this time and was the dominant troop type in the middle east.
In fact while there is plenty of evidence of heavy cavalry outside the British Isles during the 5th and 6th centuries the idea of primarily sword armed heavy cavalry has no basis in history anywhere.
Robert382 suggests that the expense of keeping trained horses for heavy cavalry would have been difficult in Britain, but during the 7th century the Byzantines adopted the Themata system where soldiers were settled on small holding in return for service in the military when required.
Even relatively poor and small farms could provide a mounted soldier much better equipped than any Norman Knight.
It would certainly have been possible for 6th century British warlords to supply and equip a few hundred heavy cavalry and there is no doubt that such cavalry would have been effective against a Saxon army that had no cavalry of its own. -
Message 12
Posted by robert382 (U6596743) on Wednesday, 20th May 2009
As Twin Probe suggests , there being no conclusive contemporary evidence of an "Arthur" figure in post Roman Britain, despite the various myths, stories and legends circulating in the Celtic folklore of Britain(including Scotland), Brittany and probably Ireland, even today there is still intense speculation as to the last wherabouts of "the once and future King", as the legend goes, who will awake again at some future time to reprise his former life. All this of course has given us no end of poems, stories and romantic novels up to the present time. Why does this "Arthur" Pendragon figure have such a hold on our imagination, even though circumstantial. Like the story of Joseph of Aramathea who supposedly came to Glastonbury with the Holy Grail, it lends a mystic presence to the history of Britain like no other country in the world.
-
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 20th May 2009
Hi Englishvote
I agree tht there would seem to be a possibility of cavalry still based in Britain after the Romans left.
From earlier discussions any of the Roman Army that was left post AD410 would have been forces that could be swiftly deployed to the borders, or any trouble spots, cavalry would have been ideal for this purpose.
Roman cavalry horses were supposed to be around 14 hands high but quite strong - typical of the cobs found in this country to this day.
The technology of using cavalry would surely have been understood by the Romano Brythons.
We have seen time and time again even though there are famous battles that are renowned often there is little or no supporting archeological evidence (Stamford Bridge for example where thousands were killed).
As TP has said Gildas and Nennius are not necessarily accurate so if they do not mention cavalry it does not necessarily indicate that there was none.
Something and someone certainly stopped the Germanic races from expanding further westward than Gloucester. How? Using Horses? Who? Arthur? Another Warlord?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
Hi EV,
Evidently there is nobody like King Arthur for reviving a moribund thread!
I have no problem with the concept of war-leaders in the 5th and 6th centuries as several small post-imperial successor states competed for position. My problem is that when we give one war-leader a name we seem to be claiming a great deal more knowledge than we do in fact have. The great Arthurian scholar John Morris would write about 'King Arthur's foreign policy' which, IMO, is going much too far.
Your point about the different trajectories taken by Anglo-Saxon England and, say, Frankish Gaul is a very good one. But we can discuss this perfectly adequately without mentioning King Arthur, just as we can discuss the evolution of medieval England without the involvement of Robin Hood.
Clearly we agree that it is speculative to say that heavy cavalry existed in 5th - 6th century Britain, but can you justify your statement that heavily armoured cavalry units were stationed in Britain in late Roman times?
I think that if you read my recent post more carefully you will see that I was not postulating a sword armed heavy cavalry. My point was that 'dark age' troops probably walked to the battlefield carrying their spears, while the elite rode. To arm my elite with the spatha seemed reasonable at the time. Speculation perhaps; but compared to King Arthur.....
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
Hi TA,
I think that you have to be terribly careful to avoid incautious extrapolations in these discussions. I'm not sure that believing in dark age cavalry, because there is no evidence that it didn't exist, is exactly history as I understand it.
Your description of post-Imperial period British forces that 'could be swiftly deployed to the borders, or any trouble spots' is compelling, but unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. I remember the recent discussions on the late Roman army well but I don't recall reaching any such conclusion. I am also inclined to ask where you think the borders of 'Britain' might have been during this period.
Your general point about the paucity of archaeological evidence of Dark Age battles is correct I am sure. In a recent thread Haesten reminded us that there is no archaeological evidence for Hastings for example. Oddly enough your illustration of Stamford Bridge might be an exception. A field cemetery at Riccall, Yorkshire was thought to contain battle victims when strontium analysis of teeth suggested a Baltic origin for the occupants. But I believe that recent studies have reversed this finding; archaeology is such a constantly changing discipline!
Finally I must pick up your statement that something 'stopped the Germanic races from expanding further westward than Gloucester'. The word 'race' when applied to 6th century Anglo-Saxons, or indeed any population group, is positively Victorian. Even substituting 'ethnic group' involves us in major problems. Let us take a hypothetical 'Anglo-Saxon' army fighting at Badon around AD 500. How many of the soldiers had been born in Britain? How many had parents themselves born in Britain? Did they have any concept of themselves as representatives of a 'German' or 'Saxon' movement? Were any of them fighting for British commanders?
My answers are: most, many, no way, and quite possibly. But it's all speculation of course!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
My view is that the invasion of the Saxons in the 5th and 6th centuries was similar to the invasion by the Norsemen a couple of centuries later.
-
Message 17
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
Hi TP
I think you may have inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) answered one of the questions by robert382 as to why our history is so mystical, because there is so much that is open to speculation and that we do tend to shy away from the simplistic and straightforward and like a bit of a mystery – and a good story!!!
Yet all this speculation is hugely useful, the clashing of ideas and points of view throws up new thoughts, new ideas.
You for instance have always (as I understand it) shied away from the point of view of mass invasions by the “Anglo Saxons” with its associated wholesales slaughter of the local inhabitants, being more inclined on “elitist warrior bands” fighting each other to gain or defend territory as part of a natural expansion.
If that was the case your comments on one side at the battle at Badon is of course certainly possible and also thought provoking but the protagonists must surely have represented opposing views if not opposing “races” – the recent invaders against the established locals – or perhaps mercenaries fighting on behalf of the established locals.
I still feel that it is conceivable that there could have been Roman cavalry post AD410 to act as a mobile force – certainly cavalry made a comeback in the fourth century and there is no reason to think that local militias or warlords could not have used them around AD500.
Certainly the expansion of the "incomers" was stopped in their tracks for 100 years after the battle of Badon.
I think what would be interesting if a Thread was started to prove the “non existence” of Arthur – to show that he could not have existed…………
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
Hi TA,
Well I'm perfectly happy to agree that King Arthur is a good story, but is it good history?
I think you must be correct that the clash of ideas is likely to stimulate new thoughts, provided that the protagonists are genuinely interested in a frank exchange of views rather than advancing a particular 'line'.
We simply lack the evidence to provide secure answers for many of the fascinating problems of Dark Age history. I suppose that if I could have my own way I would wish that we could say 'don't know' more frequently, rather than attempting a solution. I suppose that, human curiosity being what it is, few people would find this neutral approach satisfying.
Failing this I think it is right to inquire about the nature of the evidence individual posters employ to mould their opinions. The belief that Dark Age post-Imperial successor states used cavalry usually derives from the presumption that the Romans employed cavalry in the late-4th century (which is reasonable) and that cavalry troops were not withdrawn by Magnus Maximus, Stilicho and Constantine III (which is not so reasonable). Finally you have to postulate that the necessary training and fighting skills were maintained for 50-100 years, which personally causes me great difficulties.
As I'm sure you appreciate giving a fit man a spear turns him into infantry of sorts; true cavalry cannot be extemporised but needs a considerable planned infra-structure of stabling, fodder, breeding, reserve mounts, and leather work etc. Were British states capable of this? You can see why I should like some evidence I'm sure.
Your synopsis of my views on Anglo-Saxon migrations is quite correct, and rather fair. What interests me is what ethnicity the opposing factions at Badon would have considered themselves to represent. One fairly obvious different 'view' they might have had was religious belief; but the readiness of 7th century Christian Britons to ally themselves with Pagan Mercians to defeat a Christian king of Northumbria gives me cause to think.
If you were to expand on your concept of incomers, and the evidence that they were stopped for a century after Badon, I should be most interested.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 21st May 2009
Well I'm perfectly happy to agree that King Arthur is a good story, but is it good history?
It is based on Aurelius Ambrosianus, who seems to have existed, I think.
I suppose that if I could have my own way I would wish that we could say 'don't know' more frequently, rather than attempting a solution.
How often have you said that you don't know?
The belief that Dark Age post-Imperial successor states used cavalry usually derives from the presumption that the Romans employed cavalry in the late-4th century (which is reasonable) and that cavalry troops were not withdrawn by Magnus Maximus, Stilicho and Constantine III (which is not so reasonable). Finally you have to postulate that the necessary training and fighting skills were maintained for 50-100 years, which personally causes me great difficulties.
Cavalry only means people on horses who fight. The Britons had horses, why would they not use them in battle? Of course, whether they had any particular skill is quite another matter.
true cavalry cannot be extemporised but needs a considerable planned infra-structure of stabling, fodder, breeding, reserve mounts, and leather work etc. Were British states capable of this? You can see why I should like some evidence I'm sure
Just as most armies in medieval England and earlier were made up mainly of untrained farmers, so the cavalry forces would have consisted of horses stabled, foddered, bred and attired as part of their farm tasks, then called out to serve in battle when the need arose.
What interests me is what ethnicity the opposing factions at Badon would have considered themselves to represent. One fairly obvious different 'view' they might have had was religious belief; but the readiness of 7th century Christian Britons to ally themselves with Pagan Mercians to defeat a Christian king of Northumbria gives me cause to think.
Ethnicity is a modern obsession. One of the things that people readily do, particularly in crises, is create 'them' and 'us'. They will pick on the most trivial traits to distinguish themselves from the others. They will even go so far as to invent traits and behaviours of their opponents, and circulate these ideas among themselves, in an attempt to discriminate between themselves and their opponents.
When the Norsemen attacked England, it would have been easy to identify these people as different, even though, if you consider them ethnically, the Saxons must be virtually indistinguishable from the Scandinavians. More important are habits and customs, forms of attire, means of getting food etc. -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 22nd May 2009
Hi Fascinating,
I have to admit that, as you imply, I hardly ever come off the fence to claim I know anything. Oddly enough it is only the misplaced certainty of others that brings out the worst in me in this regard, although I hope that even then it is not a very bad worst.
I don't believe that I have any problems with Aurelius Ambrosianus existing although some lingering uncertainty shrouds most Dark Age figures. At least he has a believable Roman name, and Gildas, who is usually very sparing in his personal identifications, mentions him specifically. 'Nennius', who I suppose is an independent source, hints that Aurelius Ambrosianus and 'Vortigern' were in conflict (I am assuming here that there were single individuals known by these names, although this may not be correct).
The problem, of course, is the identification of Aurelius Ambrosianus and Arthur as a single individual. As you can imagine I don't spend much time reading Arthuriana but in my limited experience some Arthurians are happy to accept this assimilation, though others suggest that Aurelius Ambrosianus might be: Arthur's father, or Arthur's elder brother, or an alternative name for Riothamus, or......
It's interesting that you think that “cavalry only means people on horses who fight”. You're not alone; the Parliamentary armies at the start of the English Civil war shared this point of view. It took them several years to learn that mounted infantry and true cavalry are actually very different things. To manage a horse, while fighting from it, is a considerable skill, and requires constant practice. I dare not say that the British couldn't do this, only that there is not much evidence that they did.
The sole archaeological evidence in favour that I can think of at short notice are the linear dyke systems, which have cropped up in several recent threads. If they had a actual, as opposed to a symbolic, function then it is clear that they would have posed a greater obstacle to four legged creatures than to armed and determined infantry. Even then it may be that their role was to inhibit cattle rustling rather than the disposition of mounted soldiers.
Really I have no problem, as I said in my first post, with elite Britons riding to battle and waving swords about; only I won't call that cavalry. As for “most armies in medieval England and earlier were made up mainly of untrained farmers”; well I think at the very least you ought to review how long one had to train to wield a Saxon battle axe, or handle a long-bow. Untrained farmers had a very limited life expectancy on medieval battlefields.
I don't know that I am so ready to dismiss ethnicity as a modern obsession. It may well be that 'trivial traits' can be used to distinguish groups, look at Newcastle and Sunderland supporters for example, but the important (but perhaps unanswerable) question is who, in the past, did people think they were?
To my mind your list: “habits and customs, forms of attire, means of getting food” are exactly what ethnicity is about, although I would add religion and language as well. There is certainly no easy dividing line between ethnic groups, as you illustrate. It is not a matter of genetics. They are good examples of 'polythetic groupings' in other words a group of members such that each member possesses a large number of attributes of the group and each individual attribute is shared by a large number of members. But no single attribute, or even small number of attributes, is both sufficient and necessary for group membership.
Like the Meerkat says in the insurance advert: “simples!”
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 21
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Hi TwinProbe
It would appear that the King Arthur legend has still the same attraction that it has maintained for at least the last 1,000 years.
I am not trying to give any proof for the existence of an Arthur figure during the 5th or 6th centuries, but just offering some support to the basis behind the story, true or not.
The presence of heavy cavalry in Britain after the main Roman army was withdrawn is unfortunately unproven in archaeological terms, but cannot be dismissed easily on the grounds of purely military necessity.
The Notita Dignitatum, although probably written long after the Roman army withdrew from Britain, gives a list of the units that were present in the British field armies prior to withdrawal, or those units that were earmarked to serve in Britain should the province come back into the Empire.
Under the command of the Comes Britanniae, the main field army stationed in Britain, there are six Vexillationes of cavalry. They are a mix of heavy and light cavalry and include one unit of Catafractarii.
In addition to the main field army there were units stationed along Hadrian’s wall under the command of the Dux Britanniarum, which included five Alae of cavalry and three Vexillationes. The Comes Litoris Saxonici had two Vexillationes of cavalry under his command.
All this adds up to a lot of cavalry of many differing types complete with support, training and manufacturing to maintain the units.
Most Roman Cavalry would have been at least as heavily armed as much later Norman cavalry, they would have worn mail armour and a helmet along with a large shield and fought with lance or javelins. Swords would have been a secondary weapon as it was with practically all cavalry until the 16th century. Certainly the Norman’s did not have any Knights as well armoured as the Catafractarii or Clibanarii that were common in the Roman army of the 5th and 6th centuries.
Even if we consider that the regular troops were withdrawn in the late 4th century there is ample proof that the border troops of the Limitani remained along the wall and around Lincoln. It would seem reasonable to suppose that the British Duces, tyrants, despots and usurpers that set up there own kingdoms amid the chaos of the 5th century would have utilised the remaining Roman military infrastructure and training.
In fact what other military resources were available to them? Maybe a few Saxon or other Germanic mercenaries came into Britain to serve but also possibly Roman troops from other parts of the Empire seeking safer regions away from marauding Huns and Goths.
Retired soldiers would have been settled all over Britain and it is not unreasonable to assume their experience and expertise could have been used to train any number of cavalry or infantry.
These along with the remaining Limitani would have served as private armies of the British kingdoms and not just against encroaching “saxons” but also against other rival British kingdoms.
The idea that the British were left defenceless by the withdrawal of the Roman army and that they somehow forgot years of training and were forced to resort to primitive warfare after hundreds of years of belonging to one of the most powerful military empires ever seen can only be fantasy.
On the point of ethnicity or cultural differences effecting the Anglo Saxon conquest of lowland Britain I would think that any glance at history would demonstrate that humans do not limit warfare to opposing cultures and differing ethnic groups.
Europe has seen almost endless wars over the last 2,000 years, most fought between similar cultures and identical ethnic groups.
Why dismiss British Saxon conflict because the language was familiar or the ethnicity was identical? -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Hi EV,
I'm sure there is a great deal about which you and I agree. I would certainly not argue with your belief that the Romans stationed cavalry in 4th century Britain. Several forts, Arbeia for one, contained the remains of stabling. As you say cavalry units are mentioned in the Notitia Dignatatum and common sense dictates that you would need mounted troops to police the large, lightly populated, areas of upland Britain.
But I'm really not sure that we can distinguish between heavy and light cavalry units in the Notitia Dignitatum and the entry that you refer too: 'Praefectus equitum catafractariorum, Morbio' has, as I am sure you will know, been the source of much controversy. Firstly, where was Morbium? The preceding and succeeding entries in the ND suggest that it was placed between Danum (Doncaster) and Arbiea (South Shields). Ilkley, Yorks has been suggested but I know this site well and it seems very small for a cavalry regiment.
Secondly the cataphracts were heavily armoured cavalry in an eastern setting but did this apply to late 4th – early 5th century Britain? It is said that Vegetius in this period may have used 'cataphracts' to mean any type of armoured troops. Also since the following unit in the ND, numeri barcariorum Tigrisiensium at Arbeia, were evidently not Tigris boatmen any longer, maybe the cataphracts were no longer cataphracts, if you know what I mean.
In the turbulence that probably followed the departure of Constantine III to Europe I would imagine that the commanders of residual limitanei might well have made themselves the tyrants that you mention. The 5th century wooden hall within the Hadrian's Wall fort of Birdoswald would have made a very suitable base for such a war-lord. And I absolutely agree that warfare between British successor states is every bit as likely (and I should say more likely) than war between Britons and Saxons.
But I've never suggested that the Britons 'forgot' years of training in combat but rather the Roman government, like the modern British government in fact, did everything possible to discourage the civilian use of weapons for centuries. In the post-Imperial 5th century trained and disciplined units, British, Saxon or retired Roman, probably could have an influence far greater than their numbers would suggest. But I'm afraid that I still think that the Roman military would have done everything possible to remove cavalry units to Europe since they were so flexible and useful.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 23
Posted by robert382 (U6596743) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
thanks Englishvote, and Twin Probe for your very interesting viewpoints> I would like to ask if either of you know what was going on in northern Gaul at this time (450 on), and in particular the former Roman ports. were there still Roman naval forces there able to ibtercept Saxon longboats or others. also the the whole scenario of Pictish and Irish threat to Britannia seems often to be overlooked, so the Brits had a hard time combatting these twin threats by sea, not to mention inter-Brit warfare. Indeed might some Brits have sided with the Saxons or Irish to gain status, especially as not all the Brits were Christian but may have reverted to Celtic tribalism, especially in rural areas. the whole scenario must have been a nightmare for any aspiring warlord/leader, who would certainly need to be very mobile. but so much of this period is tantalisingly hidden, until perhaps there is a ground shaking discovery that will re-write post Roman Britsh history.
-
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi Robert,
I'll try to answer your question as best I can, but remember that I reject most of the assumptions in your last post, as well as the assumptions in those of other posters. As you might be able to guess I think that we could re-write post-Roman British history now if we could only rid ourselves of Arthurs, Grails, and the historical speculations of Dark Age theologians! Sorry.
The desperate situation in the north-west Roman provinces in the late 4th and early 5th centuries was manufactured by military arrangements made necessary by battles fought elsewhere, and the ambitions of imperial pretenders. The governor of Britain, Magnus Maximus, fought Theodosius, and then Theodosius fought Eugenius & Arbloglast. This must have pulled in British and Northern Gallic army units. Whether they were ever replaced I don't know, but if they were then Stilicho turned to the Diocese of the Gauls again for his dispositions against Alaric. The Rhine army had not had military success against the Franks and Stilicho seems later to have recruited them as foederati and accepted their dominance in modern Belgium and Northern France.
A year or two later, c 406-408, the Alans and Vandals crossed the Rhine into northern Gaul and defeated the Franks, then possibly Roman allies. It seems that, after two false starts, an imperial pretender, Constantine III, was elected in Britain. He took his imperial responsibilities seriously and scarped together a final army with which he crossed the Channel. (You can see why, after all this, I can't believe that any heavy cavalry was left in Britain!) Be that as it may Constantine had a considerable measure of success. At his peak he controlled Britain and Gaul, his son Constans occupied Spain, and they were able to intervene in Italy. This was the last occasion, IMO, that the northern French coast could have been considered 'Roman'.
It couldn't last. The defeat of Constantine III left a political vacuum. Honorius doubtless considered he still possessed Britain and Northern Gaul but lacked the means to intervene. There is a rather shadowy imperial pretender called Jovinus in northern Gaul, and there are the equally shadowy 'bagaudae' who may represent the troops of petty princes and local warlords. The next 25 years were dominated by two successful generals, Constantius (later emperor) and Aetius, who were 'Roman' but allied to the Goths. Their activities seem mainly to have been in central and southern France but just about at the year you mention, AD 450, Aetius was pulling together a confederation that defeated Attila the Hun at the battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451). The confederation must have consisted of Goths, Roman troops, Bagaudae and anyone left on their feet who didn't want to experience a Hunnic ravage at first hand. There was absolutely no chance of Roman naval forces still being in the northern Gallic ports but Channel crossings were still possible, and west Britain was also accessible from Armorica.
Many people see Picts, Irish and Saxons as 'the enemies' but it is equally possible that in the last few years of imperial control units of all three were established in Britain as foederati. Far from 'not all the Brits being Christian' the archaeological evidence for Christianity in late Roman Britain is really very sparse. I see the spread of Christianity as a much slower phenomenon. 'Celtic' tribalism has a rather delightfully old-fashioned sound to it. I'm sure you mean that pre-Roman Iron Age tribal and regional loyalties might have reasserted themselves; but could this have happened after more than 300 years of Roman rule? Honestly I'm not convinced. To me it seems that a collection of small successor states developed ruled by whichever local military leader would command the most adherents of whatever ethnic origin.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 25
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Many people see Picts, Irish and Saxons as 'the enemies' but it is equally possible that in the last few years of imperial control units of all three were established in Britain as foederati.
But you have no evidence of that. Even if the Saxons had been federates of Rome at some point, they could not have been so in late 5th century Britain, because Roman power was not there to be allied to. They WERE enemies in that they are on record as having invaded the country, robbed and destroyed, and taken slaves (eg Patrick). Just as with the Vikings a few centuries later, they invaded for plunder, and the residents were terrified by them, and took every action they could to repel them. -
Message 26
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi Fascinating,
If you mean do I have positive proof, then no I don't. All accounts of this period are interpretations based on very restricted evidence. But there are sufficient reasons to consider an alternative interpretation of events during the late Imperial and early post-Imperial periods which postulates that the traditional enemies actually entered Britain by invitation. I don't necessarily mean that this invitation was universally popular, nor that it was uniformly successful, nor that it was made by a unitary British state. But invitations I think that there may well have been. Naturally I didn't provide my reasons for my views in an answer to a query on 5th century northern France, but I'm happy to do so now. Shall we start with the Saxons?
You will know that I find the specifics of Dark Age historians quite difficult to believe if unsupported by archaeological evidence. But even in 'traditional' based accounts the Saxons are invited into Britain by Gildas's 'great tyrant' but later rebel and set up small states on their own account. Your understandable objection to the foederate status of Saxons on the basis of an early 5th century date may not be valid. In the first place the central Roman government wouldn't have permanently abandoned all possibility of the reintegration of Britain at this time. Secondly the British elite would have still considered itself 'Roman' and, in Constantine III had for a brief period elevated quite a powerful regional emperor. But finally, and most interestingly, is the received date for Saxon movement to Britain actually correct? Posters on these boards have often remarked on the rather rapid success of the English language over Latin and 'British'. If we postulated that Gildas's 'great tyrant' was Magnus Maximus not (as often assumed) Vortigern, then English may have been spoken in late Roman Britain, several generations before the date of its traditional arrival. There is no specifically Saxon material culture excavated in England at this early date, although I think that it may be possible to overcome this difficulty.
The account of the relationship of Britain to the communities living in what is now Scotland is even more complex. Once again there is a tradition of relocation of people from outside the Roman province to a place within its borders for defensive purposes. In this case Cunedda and the Votadini from their capital of Trapain Law, south of Edinburgh, to Gwynedd, North Wales. In this case the tradition names Magnus Maximus as the instigator. I am aware that this relocation is not universally credited (David Dumville is a famous doubter) but for my purposes it is sufficient to say that the movement of the Votadini is quite widely believed. Whether you consider the Votadini to be Pictish or not entirely depends on your definition of Pictish, which is probably matter for a separate thread. The traditional account of Pictish forces raiding down the sea-coasts of eastern Britain does not explain the virtual absence of Roman 4th century material from excavated Pictish sites. I'm inclined to think Pictish raiding has been exagerated.
The analysis of the relationship between Dark Age Ireland and mainland Britain has been poisoned by the relatively recent, and utterly false, notion that Ireland was a dangerous and uncivilised place from where nothing but pirates could originate. Consider Ireland as a place of of saints, scholars, magnificent craftsmanship, and learning and things start to look a little different. The 'Scotti' lived on both islands since their influence reached Argyll. Admittedly Patrick was captured, but we know from his letters that British chieftains were just as likely to do the capturing. When he escaped from slavery he was able to make his way across Ireland and found a boat sailing to Gaul. Later he sails to Britain and then back to Ireland. Does this make Ireland sound less like a pirate lair? Items of Roman material culture are found in Ireland but I see no reason to label as stolen items which could just as easily represent trade, and Roman world pottery finds continue as late as the 7th century. Place name studies place Irish inhabitants in the Lleyn Peninsula and elsewhere in Wales, and an Irish inscription has been found as far east as Wroxeter. In the absence of specific evidence the possibility that these communities were placed there for defensive purposes merits consideration.
To make matters worse I'm not convinced that Vikings were as bad as they were painted either, but that is very definitely a matter for a separate thread!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 27
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 25th May 2009
If we postulated that Gildas's 'great tyrant' was Magnus Maximus not (as often assumed) Vortigern, then English may have been spoken in late Roman Britain, several generations before the date of its traditional arrival.
I can't see why you think that the tyrant may have been Magnus Maximus, nor why you think that would mean English may have been spoken in late Roman Britain. Gildas, I think, refers to the war leaders that rose to power in post-Roman Britain, as tyrants, so the natural conclusion is that he meant the most powerful of those, which was probably Vortigern.
There is no specifically Saxon material culture excavated in England at this early date, although I think that it may be possible to overcome this difficulty
It is quite some difficulty, especially if you demand archaeology to underpin the argument. Virtually nothing that is recognisably Saxon appears until the late 6th century, which rather accords with the standard history as gleaned from the writings of people who lived then.
You use the absence of Roman goods in Pictish places as evidence that they did little raiding, but the finds of Roman goods in Ireland as evidence that they did trading.
I am afraid you seem to be trying to twist the known evidence to fit your notions.
I attach a good deal of credence to the writers of the time - I know that there are not many, and they do have a particlar view, but these people were actually there. When one saint mentions writes of a skirmish with a Saxon band of raiders, I don't think he was making it up. That is just one example. -
Message 28
Posted by robert382 (U6596743) on Monday, 25th May 2009
thanks Twin Probe for your interesting comments, and wish I knew more about this period being discussed other than what I have read in articles and seen on TV programmes.You may remember recently Dr Neil Oliver discussing the history of Scotland, and the Kingdom of the Picts. Although never under Roman or British control, these people certainly had a big impact on the fate of northern Britannia after the Romans left, but Dr Oliver did not go into the racial origin of the Picts, as I remember. so were they Celtic or pre-Celtic, or some other ethnic group ?. Also were the Brits remaing post 410 , speaking Old Welsh or a Romano British dialect. It seems that very few Celtic place names survive in South Eastern Britannia, so it would appear that surviving young Brits started to speak Saxon as their first language, and forgot any Celtic words their parents had spoken.
Even DNA testing has shown a strong preponderence of Germanic genes in the population of southern and eastern England, despite later immigration. As for London, the city became a deserted and derilict place for over 200 years after 400 ad, and from what I saw in the Museum of London, did not function as a trading port until the 9th century, so what happened in the intervening 400 years ? -
Message 29
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi Robert,
Thank you; it's always great to hear that someone is interested. The end of the western Roman empire and the gradual development of the familiar European states is a fascinating period of history. There are a number of historical sources and a great deal of archaeological evidence, but the two do not always appear to be telling the same story. On many occasions it is just not possible to arrive at connected history and (as you can see) one has to construct several interpretations of the same events; interpretations of varying degrees of plausibility and acceptability!
If possible I would try to drop the description 'Celtic' except when referring to a family of languages, or the football club. To say that “the Iron Age people of Britain almost certainly spoke a language of the Celtic family” is acceptable, but to say that “the Iron Age population of Britain were Celts” is not. In the 19th and early 20th century scholars believed that there were Celtic peoples who spoke Celtic languages. These were thought to be represented archaeologically by the La Tene assemblage of artefacts and were considered to have migrated through Europe and into Britain. But the core of La Tene culture is central Europe, whereas members of the Celtic language family were spoken in modern northern Spain, France, Britain, Scotland and Ireland. Although small groups of people did migrate in the last 4000 years the majority of the populations of Britain and Ireland (be they Scotti, Picts, Iceni, Brigantes or whatever) descend genetically from those hardy hunters who moved into these areas at the end of the last period of glaciation and were established by the Mesolithic.
Neil Oliver was probably very wise to avoid the origin of the Picts. The term was first applied by the Romans in the 3rd century (probably) to painted or tattooed Iron Age people living north of the province of Britain. It has been used in a more restricted sense by archaeologists to describe a late Iron Age archaeological culture (6th - 9th centuries) in Atlantic and Central Scotland indicated by cellular buildings, extraordinary carved stones, silver chains and other artefacts. There are posters far more knowledgeable than me about language development but, so far as I am aware, there is no reason to suppose that these later Picts did not speak a Celtic language.
The history of language is extraordinarily difficult to unravel when there is no written evidence. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the Iron Age people in southern Britain spoke a Celtic language. The Roman names of many forts and towns 'make sense' in Celtic words. It is said that few Celtic place names survive into modern times but very often we don't know the ancient names. The name of the city of York can be traced in various forms from 'British' to Roman, and then from Roman to Saxon and Norse forms. Perhaps if we knew more we should find that this transition is not so rare. Undeniably there are few 'British' words in modern English.
The Museum of London is fabulous isn't it? I've just visited their second museum in Docklands to see the recently excavated Roman glass bowl. But I think it would be an oversimplification to say that London was deserted for 200 years after the Roman period. In London, as in York and Southampton, the 'Anglo-Saxon' settlements developed close to, but not co-terminous, with the Roman ruins. I think that it is true that it took 200 years before 'Lundenwic' was a thriving trading centre.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 30
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi TP
There is some evidence of the Irish around in Roman Britain at both Wroxeter and Silchester with Ogam Stones being found there but these only indicate an Irish presence but is not a conclusive proof of Irish personnel in force but I expect there is more that meets the eye....
I find myself drawn to “fascinating’s” comments regarding cavalry in Britainnia post AD410 partially due to the details from ND but also due to some of our earlier discussions regarding Constantine III expecting to return and leaving a highly mobile army to guard the “borders” and to keep order across the country.
Regarding the resulting effect from the battle of Mount Badon, writers refer to a cessation of hostilities, of peace for between 70 and 100 years (Gildas) and of some Anglo Saxons actually leaving Britain around AD500 (Procopious) and emigrating to Gaul. Also allegedly there is evidence of abandonment of Anglo Saxon settlements to the West of the country.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi fascinating,
I hope you don't think I sit at home thinking of new explanations of historical events purely to cause you vexation. Whether it is purpose of Hadrian's Wall, or the nature of Anglo-Saxon migrations, or the placement of Roman federates I am trying to describe what is being discussed in contemporary archaeological circles. The new theories may be right or they may be wrong, but surely it must be acceptable to see if the limited facts available can be reinterpreted in a novel way?
I can understand your partiality to the Dark Age sources but were they 'actually there' as you say. Gildas claims he was born in the year of the Battle of Badon. Of course we don't know exactly when that was, but he can hardly have been a direct adult witness of events much before AD 520. Too late to have witnessed Pictish raiding or the arrival of the Saxons (whichever theory is used to date that!)
Anyway, where were we? Magnus Maximus was an immensely significant figure. Many Welsh royal lines traced their origins from him and he was credited with (rightly or wrongly) with settling federates in North Wales. He is one of the very few figures mentioned by name in Gildas, who you will recall is pretty hostile to his reputation and called him a tyrant. In his attempt to seize the Western Empire from Gratian it is assumed, reasonably I think, that Magnus Maximus would have taken the bulk of the army units stationed in Britain over to continental Europe. It is assumed, again reasonably, that he would have made dispositions to protect his province with its long and exposed east coast. In a later section Gildas describes the invitation extended to the Saxons (you will recall he was not very keen on the idea) but he does not say that the invitation was extended by Vortigern but rather by an individual called the 'proud tyrant' or the 'ill-fated tyrant'. These are very much the terms used to describe Magnus Maximus. Is there any evidence that this section of Gildas is out of position? Well maybe; the word Gildas uses for the supplies that the Saxons are to be given is 'annona'. This is a Roman technical term which would seem to fit better with the situation in the late 4th century than the mid-5th.
When the message-board discusses the replacement of 'British' (and Latin) by Old English surprise is often expressed over the speed and completeness of the replacement. The earlier the Anglo-Saxons arrive in Britain the longer the replacement has to take place. Some scholars provide even longer than I suggest. You will remember the geneticist Prof. Oippenheimer who had the British Belgae tribe speaking a Germanic language. The absence of Anglo-Saxon 4th century artefacts can be explained, although this is the least satisfactory part of the theory. The presumption is that Saxon federates would have been equipped with Roman arms and equipment and thus be indistinguishable (in burials for example) from other Roman troops. Indeed the Saxons may have insisted on this since they had been honourably recruited into the Roman service by a successful general, soon to be emperor. Does this sound credible? Perhaps.
The situation with the Picts is different. Middle Iron Age and Pictish sites contain plenty of Roman material but it is relatively early and corresponds rather well in date with with the military campaigns of Agricola and Severus. There is nothing about it that says 'loot'; diplomatic presents are quite possible. From the historical accounts of the incessant Pictish raiding of late Roman Britain you would expect also to find masses of late Roman material. In fact there is none aside from the exceptional site of Traprain Law. There are ways to explain this anomaly. Perhaps the Picts were bought off with Roman silver which they later converted into their magnificent chains. I don't know that this explanation really convinces. As far as Ireland is concerned there is Roman material extending up to the 7th century. The quantities are not huge. All I ask is that it shouldn't be assumed to have been acquired by looting when trading is equally possible.
Somehow I doubt I've convinced you, but best wishes anyway,
TP -
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi TA,
It is always a pleasure to read your stimulating posts but I'm feeling somewhat exhausted by the Dark Age at the moment. I had intended to devote the day to Victorian firebrick works, but got distracted!
The Wroxeter Irish stone and the various bilingual stones with Ogham inscriptions don't shout 'piracy' at me, but others may see things differently. Successful generals seldom divide their forces and Constantine III would have needed every man in Gaul. His mobile British cavalry army seems a little implausible; sorry.
How one recognises early Saxon settlements is very pertinent to this discussion. Tomorrow perhaps?
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 33
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Monday, 25th May 2009
Hi All,
What an interesting thread this has turned into, I have been reading with interest alot of the posts and have decided to put an idea out here for you all to consider.
In a previous post it has been mentioned that the 'great or proud tyrant' that Gildas mentioned could have been Magnus Maxiums rather than Vortigern, well I have been researching very heavily on this particular person (Vortigern) and have come to a new conclusion on him (new for me that is maybe others have the same idea).
Could Vortigern AND the 'Proud Tyrant' or Dux Bellorum actually be the SAME person.....Arthur!
For so long now people have been too quick to dismiss Arthur as a myth saying that evidence for his existence just does not exist. Well I believe that there is evidence for him in both the work of Gildas and other works like the Nennius text.
I won't go into greater detail just at the moment I just want to gauge what other people who are familiar with the Gildas & Nennius texts think of the posibility of this position.
I now many people dismiss the Nennius text more than the Gildas one but I am unsure why that is. It may have been written in the ninth century but I believe that these two documents describe many of the same events - even the Arthur battle list in the Nennius text, which has been dismissed as pure literary fantasy, DOES appear in Gildas, just in a different way, and not descibed in as much detail.
Have a think about it and I welcome any comments
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 34
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
This thread is certainly growing beyond the confines of the early 5th century, which is probably making the story even more complex.
TwinProbe deserves a lot of thanks for the continued insight and opinions being offered that is making this a very interesting thread.
But having said that I do not agree with many of the opinions expressed!
On the point of Roman style cavalry still being in existence through the 5th and 6th centuries I am in agreement with “fascinating” and “TheodericAur”.
It would have been militarily absurd for Constantine III to have not left behind a garrison to protect his power base and supply route. There is no suggestion that he abandoned Britain wholesale and even if that was his intention the idea that he could have forced or persuaded the remaining border troops to leave their families and homes and campaign in Gaul is very hard to accept.
The archaeological remains support the idea that the forts and towns continued to be garrisoned throughout the 5th century and there is no reason to suggest that the same units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum where not still present during the early 5th century.
Border troops of the late Empire remained in many other locations throughout the empire long after the collapse of western rule. They were either absorbed or “removed” by the new migrants. The situation on Hadrian’s wall is little different to other Limitani in Africa.
I have long found it strange that so many historians describe the part time border troops as somehow inferior and poor soldiers, while at the same time emphasising the strengths of warriors.
How and why is a farmer/part time militia soldier any less effective than a farmer/part time warrior?
The Roman Empire used border troops, cavalry and infantry, effectively for generations, there were obviously superior to the opposing warrior based tribal systems that opposed them or they would have been defeated long before the 5th century.
Archaeology has always had a problem with military campaigns and conflicts, they tend to be practically invisible in archaeological terms unless they involved major sieges or civil destruction. In fact many battles of the 15th and 16th centuries continue to elude archaeologists. This does not of course mean that conflict did not take place, just that we cannot find evidence remaining in the ground.
As for the lack of “Saxon” finds from the late 4th and early 5th century this must point to a lack of “Saxon’s” around at this time simply because when the Saxons do appear so do the artefacts.
If Saxons were recruited as foederati they would have brought with them personal items and equipment, but if they had been equipped by the Romans then they would NOT have been foederati of course but soldiers.
I feel that the limited written history of the period deserves a bit more trust unless we can find direct conflict in archaeology. The events of the 5th century must have been overwhelming to the people of Britain, conflict must have been widespread and suffering must have been on an almost unbelievable scale. It certainly was not a time of gentle migration and pleasant trade. -
Message 35
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
Hi EV,
Thanks for the kind remarks; much appreciated. If we can't agree then there is something to be said for identifying very clearly where disagreements exist, and why.
I entirely concur with the difficulties archaeology has with campaigns and conflicts. The classic examples are the British campaigns of Julius Caesar for which absolutely no archaeological evidence exists whatsoever. You will be relieved to learn that I have no doubt that the campaigns actually took place.
I can understand, even if I do not share, your feeling that “the limited written history of the period deserves a bit more trust unless we can find direct conflict in archaeology”. Doubtless 'fascinating' and 'TheodericAur' would support you here. The problem is that often archaeology only touches very peripherally on historical issues; but under these circumstances we can still subject historical accounts to source criticism.
Perhaps I could ask you some questions pertinent to this point? If our recent Prime Minister were to write a book on the origin of the Iraq war would you necessarily believe him on the grounds that he was a contemporary source? You will understand I am sure that ancient writers have their own agendas and may not be contemporary to the occasions about which they write. Bede and Gildas did their best (in Bede's case a very good best) but neither witnessed the events of the 5th century. I think you also have to be very careful when you move from the general to the particular. You write: “the events of the 5th century must have been overwhelming”. This is unquestionably true in many parts of Europe and North Africa. But is it true of Britain and especially is it true of the whole of Britain?
As far as the military dispositions of Constantine III are concerned we are actually in a fair measure of agreement. I've never suggested that he 'abandoned Britain' only that he took his global responsibilities as Roman emperor very seriously. I entirely agree with your summary of the difficulties he would have had in detaching limitanei for service abroad. Where we differ is over the situation with any mounted parts of a British field army that might have remained. No historical source or archaeological evidence directly informs on this difficulty so we are left with 'military common sense'. To you it is obvious that Constantine would have protected his power base; to me it is obvious that a general risking everything on a continental gamble would have put every available man in his expeditionary force. I don't know that this issue can be taken very much further but I sympathise with those who have to locate cavalry from somewhere to equip King Arthur. Those of us who regard him as a medieval romance clothed in medieval costume have a much easier task!
There is quite good evidence that northern forts (like Birdoswald, South Shields and Binchester) and towns (such as Carlisle, St Albans and Wroxeter) continued in some degree in the 5th century. Your use of the word 'garrisoned' makes it quite evident what you feel the nature of this continuity was. You will understand if I prefer the more neutral term 'occupied'.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 36
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
Hi TA,
Your paragraph about the consequences of the battle of Mount Badon compresses a great deal of difficulty into a short paragraph. The first problem is when was the battle and where was it? On the evidence of Gildas the battle probably took place; I have to say 'probably' since it is not mentioned in the ASC or Bede. Clearly Gildas saw it as a conflict between Britons and Saxons. I don't really doubt that either but to me its not quite clear what was meant by 'Britons' and 'Saxons' at this time.
As you will know Gildas describes the battle as being fought in the year of his birth. But this doesn't really help date the battle exactly unless we know when, and at what age, Gildas died. This brings in the death of Maelgwn of Gwynwdd. Would you accept a date for the battle of a decade either side of AD 500? So where was it? At Bath perhaps, or one of several places subsequently called Badbury. To make your speculation about the consequences of Badon work you would have to be a lot more confident about the location than I am. In any case Gildas doesn't really say that a 'cessation of hostilities' followed Badon since he describes it as 'almost the last defeat of the villains'. Anyway I accept that Gildas must have thought the battle was of great consequence since he selects it for special mention.
I'm not sure that the writings of Procopius really adds much to the story. His knowledge of Britain does not extend to the origin of the Roman walls and he may have been writing about Brittany rather than Britain in any case. Actually he describes Angles, Frisians and Britons emigrating to the Franks because of the numbers of the population.
The degree to which you can identify archaeologically the location of Saxon settlements in the 5th and 6th centuries is a separate, but equally difficult, problem. Generally speaking this has been attempted by place name studies and cemetery analysis but whether either are accurate enough for the fine detail needed to prove your hypothesis is questionable.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 37
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 28th May 2009
Hi TP
Hope you managec to get some time to attend to the bricks!!
Well as usual much to think about and much to agree with and as usual enough to disagree with to keep things interesting.
I think that we have established that the Saxons were most probably a mixture of like minded peoples from the Germany area. The Brythons were what was left of the unconquered British Kingdoms led by a warlord of some considerable skill.
It is difficult to pin point a date for the battle but I think that it could be as late as AD520 but agree that there is a twenty to thirty year dating flexibility due to Gildas misplaced understanding of the dating of Roman documents.
I suspect that considering Gildas was based in the West Country that much of his references are to do with the area including South Wales so it may well be that the battle site could be farther west than has been acknowledged to date.
In some respects this would make some sense as the “Welsh” were not conquered for many years past AD500 as far as I am aware and we know that much of the “City Brythons” emigrated to Britanny around AD440 / AD450 (for whatever reason) after the “Germanic” uprising around AD440 and I suspect their gradual expansion using warbands replacing the Brython Elite across the country.
Doc Fortune’s mention of Vortigern and Arthur being the same person is certainly an unusual statement that I look forward to reading the explanation for at some future date.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 38
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Hi TA,
The bricks are fine. I have also just begun to appreciate the innovative methods used to fire-proof Victorian textile mills. The techniques of cast iron and steel frame construction adopted led directly to the sky-scraper! Better still it's a totally non-controversial area. I think.
The theory that Vortigern and Arthur are the same person is a new one to me; will we ever seen any reasoning presented I wonder? Not for the first time DocFortune, who is evidently well informed on these matters, has had a novel idea. But it would be really helpful if, for once, we could see all the intermediate steps that resulted in his conclusion. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.
I have tried to present some evidence that Gildas's 'proud tyrant' could be Magnus Maximus, and the theory that Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianus are the same person also exists. We therefore have to face the distinct possibility that Magnus Maximus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Arthur and Vortigern are all one person!
Do you wonder that Arthuriana drives me to despair?
Debates about the distinction between Britons and Saxons continues, and not only on these pages. Dr Harke of Reading University proposed a method of differentiating Saxons and British skeletons when present in shared cemeteries. He had problems in getting his views accepted which he, very wittily, said was because modern German scholars didn't think any native British had been left alive after the Saxon migrations whereas modern British scholars didn't think any Saxons had actually migrated!
In the long run this debate may well be informed by heavy and light stable isotope analysis of tooth enamel. It is now possible to identify where in Europe skeletons 'grew up'. Obviously if vast numbers of migrants were pouring into Britain from Jutland (or wherever) this will be revealed in early Saxon cemeteries. If I remember many of the skeletons from the West Heslerton cemetery (East Yorkshire) came from as far away as Lancashire! I can see that there are practical problems, the early 'Anglo-Saxons' cremated their dead for instance, but this technique does offer one possible way of obtaining information aside from those immensely difficult historical sources.
Meanwhile I shall leave to you the problem of locating the sites of Arthur's battles. Over the years I have been abused by posters believing that they were all in Wales, or Brittany, or Cornwall, or northern England.... In fact the only thing these Arthurian enthusiasts agree about is that I'm obviously wrong. It's nice to be a sort of unifying presence.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 39
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th May 2009
I think that we have established that the Saxons were most probably a mixture of like minded peoples from the Germany area
The Saxons? Well the Saxons were a people on continental Europe for centuries, even at the time of the ANGLO-Saxons in Britain.
Please please please can we all stop referring to the people of pre-Conquest England as Saxon - it is quite simply incorrect. Considering this is a thread where people are discussing the minutiae of other aspects of the time and trying to be precise, it's perverse that people can't seem to get the basic terminology correct. We now refer to the people, their culture, and their time as Anglo-Saxon; the language is referred to as Old English. Saxon is incorrect, full stop! Especially as the people themselves eventually ended up calling themselves Anglecynn and then Englisc, which ultimately comes from Angles.
Rant now over. Return to where you were...
-
Message 40
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Hi Stoggler,
Even your rants are highly instructive, but I think that finding the correct terminology is more difficult than you say.
I have been 'pulled up' myself on several occasions for describing northern Britain as 'Scotland' in the Dark Age. At least I try to insert the apostrophes these days.
The great problem of using 'Anglo-Saxon' is that we can be quite sure that no occupant of Britain between AD 500-800 would have ever referred to himself or herself in that way! This is not IMO a good start for correct terminology. It is, of course, fine for an arbitrary decision made by modern scholars.
One possibility is to use the word 'English' for migrants from the Germanic parts of continental Europe, once they arrive in Britain, but I really need 'English' to describe the people of the unitary state of Alfred's day and after.
The Britons of 'Wales' encountered Mercian Anglians, and the 'Scottish' peoples the Northumbrians. Despite this they refer to both groups of English as 'saesneg' and 'sassanach' respectively. Evidently both these words derive from Saxon, so the miss-attribution of which you complain has a long historical pedigree. In the same way the medieval Moors referred to all western Europeans as 'Franks' wherever they actually came from.
The pirates that infested (or perhaps didn't infest) the Channel in the late Roman period were Saxon pirates. The east coast of Britain was the Saxon shore, not 'the Anglo-Saxon shore with Jutes at the bottom bit'!
Worse still we do tend to describe the time that the Early English culture first flowered as 'the mid-Saxon period'. I'll leave out the fact that the most 'Saxon' of kingdoms, Wessex, was founded by a man with a British name.
Do you not think that there is a case for letting posters use the name that seems most familiar to them, providing the sense is not obscured? Even I would not write about King Offa, Saxon king of Mercia.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 41
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th May 2009
I agree TP that the terminology of the time is not easy, but saying that "it's not how they referred to themselves" is not exactly helpful in a modern environment discussing the period. There are other terms for other peoples we use now that would not have been recognised by the people of the time.
The people who founded the polities of post-Roman "England" saw themselves as Saxons and also as Angles, depending on where in the country they were. Well, they did if you take place names as a guide.
Clearly the situation on the ground was not simple and rather complex, but to just use the term "Saxon" for the whole of the Germanic speaking peoples who populated and introduced their culture to Britannia is too simplistic, especially when you have to consider that the term "Saxon" is also applied to a contemporary geographical and political area on the continental mainland (in fact, Saxony has survived into modern times).
Academics of the period use the term "Anglo-Saxon" to refer to that period of England, and people are actually aware of the term and know exactly what it means when they hear it (especially so for those people who are interested in history and post on the subject on a history messageboard!!). For me, the term "Saxon" is simply erroneous and rubs me up the wrong way, just as the term "Celtic" does for other people when used for non-linguistic references to the histories of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
As a Welsh speaker, I know that the name for the English in Celtic languages originated as Saxon, but in the Welsh language for discussions about this period of history they use the term "Eingl-Sacsoniaid".
Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously, but I don't think it unreasonable for people who otherwise argue over exact details of a period use otherwise inaccurate terminology that is agreed on by academia and others who have an interest in the subject. If it helps, people could just abbreviate it to AS, or even ASJ as I've seen on some messageboards on the subject. -
Message 42
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Well, I am certainly not going to argue with a Welsh speaker. So...
The Language: Old English
The Periods: Early, Mid- & Late Saxon
The Shore: Saxon
The People: (grrh!) the 'Anglo-Saxons'
TP -
Message 43
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 29th May 2009
I know almost nothing about the Angles. Are there any remains found that is identifiably Anglian? Did they actually settle in East Anglia? Where was West Anglia? Have actual Anglian names been given to places there?
-
Message 44
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th May 2009
I know almost nothing about the Angles. Are there any remains found that is identifiably Anglian? Did they actually settle in East Anglia? Where was West Anglia? Have actual Anglian names been given to places there?
I'm not up on archaeology fascinating, but East Anglia was so named as they were the eastern Angles, as opposed to the Anglians who founded Mercia further to the west. There is no West Mercia (other than the modern-day police constabulary).
Incidentally, the Anglo-Saxons did sometimes refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxons: rex Anglorum Saxonum or rex Angul-Saxonum is used at the time of King Alfred of Wessex (for example). -
Message 45
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th May 2009
but East Anglia was so named as they were the eastern Angles, as opposed to the Anglians who founded Mercia further to the west. There is no West Mercia (other than the modern-day police constabulary).
Oops, I forgot - there were the "Middle Angles" for a while but this was quickly subsumed into Mercia. Their territory was in the modern Leicestershire and East Staffordshire, and possibly down to Cambridgeshire too.
The kingdom of Northumbria was originally two smaller kingdoms (Bernicia and Deira) that are usually considered to have been Anglian in origin. -
Message 46
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 29th May 2009
They got swamped by the bloodthirsty, invading Vikings.
-
Message 47
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Hi Stoggler,
"The kingdom of Northumbria was originally two smaller kingdoms (Bernicia and Deira) that are usually considered to have been Anglian in origin."
Maybe, but both Bernicia and Deira have British names.
TP -
Message 48
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Maybe, but both Bernicia and Deira have British names.
TP
As is Kent.
Not sure I said they were Old English names, or otherwise -
Message 49
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Hi Stoggler,
No, you didn't comment on the etymology of the names but you did say that the kingdoms are "usually considered to be Anglian in origin". Maybe, but they both have British names, like Jutish Kent as you say (or York or London for that matter). That gives me pause for thought.
TP -
Message 50
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th May 2009
....or do I mean cause for thought?
TP
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.