King Arthur

[Aber]

The other point of view is that the battle was so well known that there was no point describing it or the leaders involved in detail - think Waterloo.

[alanus]

Originally Posted by WildeSau

hello N.t.N.,

The question would be if the Belgaie/Belgae are actually Germanic??, they were of Goth ancestry and to my believe the Goth were not Germanics, even if the Romans tended to call everything east of the Limes Germanics at around Ceasar Augustus times.
When the Goth attacked Rome (remember the ducks?) they are purely refered to as Goth by the Romans and not as some Germanics.

It is only at around Ceasar's time that these Belgaie seem to mix with Germanic tribes moving in from todays Germany. However to my estimate, these Belgaie offsprings already moved to Britain 200-400? years before - as such they would have been Goth (mixed maybe with some other tribes on their way from Northern Greece) in the previous 1000 years.

What do you think?

Regards
WildeSau

Wait a minute! They were geese, not ducks. And the invaders were Celts, not Goths. The Goths were East Germans, spoke an East Germanic language and emigrated to the Black Sea from "Scandia."

Looking back at the map presented by Nick the Noodle, it's interesting that the various tribes of Belgae had taken lands in Britain that would eventually go to the Angles and Saxons. However, equating "English" with pure Germanic languages is a faulty conception. English has a preponderance of Latin in it.

The dates being given in this latter part of the thread are FAR TOO LATE, one or two generations after the "Arthurian" era. Please read "When Did Gildas Write?" by Robert Vermaat on vortigernstudies.com.

Once again I implore-- toss out the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. This time around I'm using the full name, rather than the ASC... BECAUSE it is Bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit that can only point everyone in the wrong direction. Ask any knowledgeable professor of history.

If we are going to study history, let's get it right. If we are going to talk about history, let's differentiate between geese and ducks, Celts and Goths.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by Aber

The other point of view is that the battle was so well known that there was no point describing it or the leaders involved in detail - think Waterloo.

Waterloo is one of the most studied and restudied and yet again revisited battles in modern history.

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by alanus

Wait a minute! They were geese, not ducks. And the invaders were Celts, not Goths. The Goths were East Germans, spoke an East Germanic language and emigrated to the Black Sea from "Scandia."

Looking back at the map presented by Nick the Noodle, it's interesting that the various tribes of Belgae had taken lands in Britain that would eventually go to the Angles and Saxons. However, equating "English" with pure Germanic languages is a faulty conception. English has a preponderance of Latin in it.

The dates being given in this latter part of the thread are FAR TOO LATE, one or two generations after the "Arthurian" era. Please read "When Did Gildas Write?" by Robert Vermaat on vortigernstudies.com.

Once again I implore-- toss out the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. This time around I'm using the full name, rather than the ASC... BECAUSE it is Bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit that can only point everyone in the wrong direction. Ask any knowledgeable professor of history.

If we are going to study history, let's get it right. If we are going to talk about history, let's differentiate between geese and ducks, Celts and Goths.

ASC matches most sources 575AD or so afterwards. Before then........................
Thats the problem.

What I will say is that I like what ASG is doing. He is stating dates. Believe or not with his plausible theories (as well as actual facts), at least he is putting some meat on the bones .

[allsirgarnet]

Originally Posted by alanus

Wait a minute! They were geese, not ducks. And the invaders were Celts, not Goths. The Goths were East Germans, spoke an East Germanic language and emigrated to the Black Sea from "Scandia."

Looking back at the map presented by Nick the Noodle, it's interesting that the various tribes of Belgae had taken lands in Britain that would eventually go to the Angles and Saxons. However, equating "English" with pure Germanic languages is a faulty conception. English has a preponderance of Latin in it.

The dates being given in this latter part of the thread are FAR TOO LATE, one or two generations after the "Arthurian" era. Please read "When Did Gildas Write?" by Robert Vermaat on vortigernstudies.com.

Once again I implore-- toss out the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. This time around I'm using the full name, rather than the ASC... BECAUSE it is Bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit that can only point everyone in the wrong direction. Ask any knowledgeable professor of history.

If we are going to study history, let's get it right. If we are going to talk about history, let's differentiate between geese and ducks, Celts and Goths.

Alan...

The problem with this approach is that if its followed (completely ignoring the ASC), then the only source left thats in any way both contemporary and English is Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. You can't just toss away sources because they don't fit history as one see's it, unless you have other more accurate sources that entirely disprove them. In the case of the ASC this is virtually impossible because what other sources there were are most likely already part of the ASC, used as sources for that history itself.

As to what other historians believe of think its of no importance because they, like us, have to use the very same sources and so our views are equally as relevant.

What we need to do to begin with is forget Arthur completely and try and construct a history of the British Isles from around 350AD - 600AD. Once we have done that and found a generally acceptable picture, then we can start searching for Arthurian themes within that history. The very worst thing we can do is to try and fit history around the Arthurian mythos, because that is just asking for trouble.

Our starting points are fairly obvious because they are referred to by more than one source.

1. The end of Roman Britain circa 410AD.

2. Badon circa 516AD.

These two points in time should underpin our theories. Not because they are my ideas or because they are written in stone, but because they seem generally acceptable as fairly accurate.

Having these points (and others that we may agree on later), we then start applying Gildas, Bede, ASC, Welsh Histories, Imperial sources and other data and see if anything fits.

If Arthur existed he is hidden in these sources somewhere, even though he is not named directly. Was he at Badon, Camlann or an even earlier battle, we just dont know. What we can do is construct our history and see if any of Arthurs mythos matches or appears derived from what we know. Its that simple.

In your reply Alan you stated...

FAR TOO LATE, one or two generations after the "Arthurian" era

...and this highlights the problem in that historically, there was no Arthurian era at all. What we do have is British history of which a person named Arthur may have been a part as some presently unknown time.

If members admire the Arthurian mythos and think it worthy, then we owe it to that mythos not to cut corners or fantasize. Arthur is so well embedded in our culture that its likely much of the mythos has a basis in real history. All we have to do is be careful and try to find the truth of the matter.

Finally a word on poor old Gildas. Yes its possible that much of what he states is inaccurate, but the point is that some of what he states may well be quite accurate. Thats where we come in as historians in trying to find the truth of the matter.

Gaz

[allsirgarnet]

The ASC...

One point i've noticed is that the ASC seems to fall into two separate themes regarding English history.

Pre 600AD the history is dealing with a time before the full establishment of what later became Wessex. The history, probably drawing on contemporary documents may contain certain errors regarding dates etc, but its general purpose seems unclouded by deliberate political alterations. Therefore the pre 600AD timeline should i feel be viewed as a fairly accurate theme to follow, even if the actual timeline needs adjusting.

Post 600AD the history is probably drawing on more extensive documentary sources, most of which were created after the full establishment of Wessex. However this history, although more accurate in its timeline should be viwed very carefully, in that the contemporary politics of Wessex at that time may have a large bearing on how the history was written.

Various peoples...

One of the themes touched on in the thread is the location of various British tribes during and post to the Roman occupation.

Now I have some concerns with the accuracy regarding the location of these tribes, simply because I would ask what are the reliable sources? For example, in 415AD a few years after Rome left the Islands, how do we know with any certainty where any of the pre-Roman tribes were, there post Roman strength or even the general areas they occupied.

Now i'm not denegrating members ideas or themes, i'm simply questioned the accuracy of the data on which they are based. Take for example the three maps that Nick and I posted in 602, 606 and 611. The ATREBATES tribe are shown as being in Sussex, Berkshire and Wiltshire all at the same time!

You then have the problem of exactly what positioning a tribe means in a certain area. For example, its been well established in this thread that a substantial continental presence had been made along the east coast of England well before the Romans left, in the Trinovante, Iceni and Parisi areas. That being so, do we count these new peoples as part of those tribes or separate? Do we have to adjust those tribal areas away from the coast perhaps?

The more I consider the era from around 350-600 I feel its far more complicated that we ever first imagined. This in my opinion makes it all the more crucial that we agree on a few set waypoints, around which we can construct a flexible acceptable history.

As to what those waypoints should be, over to you for some suggestions!

Gaz

[Arthwys]

Ahh Sweet! Stickied at last

[allsirgarnet]

Source Britannia...

Notitia Dignitatum circa 410AD

Britannia...

REGISTER OF THE DIGNITARIES, BOTH CIVIL AND MILITARY, IN THE DISTRICTS OF THE WEST.

Six vicars:
of the city of Rome; of Italy; of Africa; of the Spains; of the Seven Provinces; of the Britains.

Six military counts:
of Italy; of Africa; of Tingitania; of the tractus Argentoratensis; of the Britains; of the Saxon shore of Britain.

Thirteen dukes:
of the frontier of Mauritania Caesariensis; of the Tripolitan frontier; of Pannonia prima and ripuarian Noricum; of Pannonia secunda; of ripuarian Valeria; of Raetia prima and secunda; of Sequanica; of the Armorican and Nervican tract; of Belgica secunda; of Germania prima; of Britannia; of Mogontiacensis.

Twenty-two consulars:
in the Britains two:
of Maxima Caesariensis, of Valentia.

Thirty-one presidents
in the Britains three:
of Britannia prima; of Ezitannia secunda; of Flavia Caesariensis


DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORCES ABOVE NAMED AMONG THE VARIOUS PROVINCES.

In the Britains with the worshipful count of the Britains:
[One palatine auxilium *enumeration omitted.
One legion of the line,
One unclassified body.]

Also squadrons of cavalry:
In Britain with the worshipful count of the Britains.
[Three of the line. *enumeration omitted.
Two unclassified.]


THE COUNT OF THE SACRED BOUNTIES.

Accountants:
The accountant of the general tax of the Britains

Provosts of the storehouses:
In the Britains:
The provost of the storehouses at London

Procurators of the weaving-houses:
The procurator of the weaving-house at Winchester Britain.


THE VICAR OF THE BRITAINS

Under the control of the worshipful vicar of the Britains:
Consulars:
of Maxima Caesariensis,
of Valentia.
Presidents:
of Britannia prima,
of Britannia secunda,
of Flavia Caesariensis.

So there you have a snapshot of Roman Britain, virtually at the time the Imperium left.

Summary...

A Vicar
2 Counts
A Duke
2 Consulars
3 Presidents

Infantry -
One palatine auxilium
One legion of the line
One unclassified body

Cavalry Squadrons -
Three of the line
Two unclassified

A Tax Accountant
A Storehouse Provost
A Weaving Procurator

Thats pretty much all you have to both run and defend the entire province.

My first thoughts are that either the province was pretty much out of Roman control or significant parts of it were being administered as client states, or both.

It does show that Imperial taxation was nominally present, as was some sort of supply administration and production capability, though these appear to be mainly in the south.

All in all, theres not that much thats officially Roman left by 410AD, which should give us a lead into what followed next.

Can we post as much info as we can on the actual Roman organisation in Britain in around 400AD and what we know of the native British organisation too please?

Regards

Gaz

[allsirgarnet]

Things Draconian...

Just a few rare snippets.



A rare Fixed Plate Dragon Buckle found at Rudston near Bridlington, Yorks. As far as is known its the only one found outside southern England. Of more import is the fact that unlike many other designs, the Dragon or Draco was not commonplace or popular amongst native British craftsmen either before of During the Roman period.

After the decline of Rome in Britain, those that are found are usually from continental or Anglo-Saxon contexts.

This suggests to me that if there is a link between the Arthurian mythos and Dragons, its more likely to stem in the earlier times from the Roman Army's use of the Dragon Standards. Note that very many online sources suggest the same thing, that the origin of the Welsh Dragon derives from the same Roman source. If this is fairly accurate, then a late period Arthur would also derive his link to the Dragon from the Romans, via the proto-Welsh.

Gaz

[allsirgarnet]

Possibly useful map...

As a starting point.



Gaz

[Arthwys]

Originally Posted by allsirgarnet

Things Draconian...

Just a few rare snippets.



A rare Fixed Plate Dragon Buckle found at Rudston near Bridlington, Yorks. As far as is known its the only one found outside southern England. Of more import is the fact that unlike many other designs, the Dragon or Draco was not commonplace or popular amongst native British craftsmen either before of During the Roman period.

After the decline of Rome in Britain, those that are found are usually from continental or Anglo-Saxon contexts.

This suggests to me that if there is a link between the Arthurian mythos and Dragons, its more likely to stem in the earlier times from the Roman Army's use of the Dragon Standards. Note that very many online sources suggest the same thing, that the origin of the Welsh Dragon derives from the same Roman source. If this is fairly accurate, then a late period Arthur would also derive his link to the Dragon from the Romans, via the proto-Welsh.

Gaz

Interesting Gaz... query: were Dragon Standards used as well as the Eagle? were they contemporary to each other?

[Legatus Augusti]

I've been following this thread for a while now, and have to say that I'm most impressed by everyone's efforts here to reconstruct an actual history based on actual sources, rather than just another what-if scenario. ASG makes good points about the ASC, and as far as I can tell, the ASC occupies a similar place in British history as does the Historia Augusta in ancient studies: Much of it is wrong or politically motivated, but it cant be completely ignored, so what does one do with it?! Trying to verify it against other sources is of course the best option. Great job so far guys!

[allsirgarnet]

Originally Posted by Arthwys

Interesting Gaz... query: were Dragon Standards used as well as the Eagle? were they contemporary to each other?

Arch of Galerius circa 300AD

Note both the Roman cavalry and infantry are using the Draco Standard.




The funeral stele from Chester, England.

Dating from around the same time, the Stele shows a Sarmatian cavalryman carrying the same type of standard.




By the early 400's things draconian were very common in the late Roman army, which such titles as...

magister draconum
draconarii
optio draconarius
bearcus draconarius

...being well established. The problem is that quite often the functions of the titles and their holders is unknown, so that a derivation from them into the Arthurian mythos would be pure guess work.

Regardless of which though, the Stele from Chester specifically places Sarmatian cavalry carrying a Draconian standard in Britannia around 300AD. How it relates (if at all) to the Arthurian mythos is another matter.

Gaz

[Arthwys]

Originally Posted by allsirgarnet

Arch of Galerius circa 300AD

Note both the Roman cavalry and infantry are using the Draco Standard.




The funeral stele from Chester, England.

Dating from around the same time, the Stele shows a Sarmatian cavalryman carrying the same type of standard.




By the early 400's things draconian were very common in the late Roman army, which such titles as...

magister draconum
draconarii
optio draconarius
bearcus draconarius

...being well established. The problem is that quite often the functions of the titles and their holders is unknown, so that a derivation from them into the Arthurian mythos would be pure guess work.

Regardless of which though, the Stele from Chester specifically places Sarmatian cavalry carrying a Draconian standard in Britannia around 300AD. How it relates (if at all) to the Arthurian mythos is another matter.

Gaz

Were the 'Draconian' standards used in Rome prior to Claudius' invasion of Britain? could it be something Khymric in origin that the Romans adopted?

[allsirgarnet]

Originally Posted by Arthwys

Were the 'Draconian' standards used in Rome prior to Claudius' invasion of Britain? could it be something Khymric in origin that the Romans adopted?

One possible source of usage...

The Draco was adopted first into the Roman cavalry during the 2nd century AD, possibly with the introduction of Sarmatian cavalry into the Roman army. Arrian, who was writing c. 137 AD, described it as a Scythian (he most probably meant Sarmatian) invention which was adopted by Roman cavalry[2]. The Romans first began to use the draco in cavalry games, the so-called 'Hippica Gymnasia'. These were described by Arrian as glamorised versions of training exercises, performed in decorated armour. It is possible that the draco was introduced just because it was 'outlandish', foreign and glamourous. Points in the game were scored for strikes on the tail piece of the dracos carried by a team acting as 'targets', from dummy javelins thrown by another team of riders. Arrian recommended that the standard be colorful, adding to to the spectacle of cavalry parades. One should be given to each unit to maintain order in both displays and battle. The Roman cavalry adopted the draco probably during or after the Dacian wars, in which the equipment of the Roman cavalry was altere to withstand the charged of the lance-armed cavalry. These equipment changes included the adoption of the fully-armed cavalry (alae cataphractiorum) and the long lance. It would be logical to assume that this was the time when also the draco standard was introduced.

Later on, the Legions of Gallienus (253-268 AD) and Aurelianus (270-5 AD) had Dragon standards and Draconarii amongst the standard-bearers, though i'm not sure when the latter replaced the previous Legion stands (if at all).

Gaz