Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 2nd, 2016, 04:47 PM   #161
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: ireland
Posts: 208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Graham View Post

This is really the only point where we disagree. I think you are still making a plea to rhetorical plausibility ('Gildas wouldn't say things that his audience knew weren't true'). But it didn't work like that back then.
I still can`t get my head around this. Donald Trump apart, could you give a historic example which might explain what you are suggesting?
concan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 2nd, 2016, 10:25 PM   #162

Aelfwine's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
From: England
Posts: 815

Quote:
Originally Posted by concan View Post
I still can`t get my head around this. Donald Trump apart, could you give a historic example which might explain what you are suggesting?
I agree with you here, Concan. Gildas, a deeply religious man, was using the recent Saxon wars as an example of how he believed God punished the Britons for their impious ways, and how he would do so again unless they mended their ways. I used the parallel of Alfred the Great as a further example, and I could have used Wulfstan`s Sermon of the Wolf as a further example. In fact it would have been a better example to illustrate my point.
Aelfwine is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 01:51 AM   #163
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Erewhon
Posts: 99
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
It would be interesting to see those places on a map. Why don't you download a map of Great Britain and put the locations of the battles on it?
All those 9 sites are in this map which we already posted link to:
http://2rbetterthan1.files.wordpress...-9fortsss2.png

The ones in each of the 9 battles blocks are same sites in other lists and in various different traditional sources (as supporting matches/evidences).
"Nennius" Wonders are same sites as "Nennius" battles sites.
Other theories would have "Arthur" romping all over Britain between Lomond, Edinburgh, Caerleon, etc.

The primary matches are between the 4 sources ("Nennius"/'Historia Britonum', 'Pa Gur', 'Notita Dignitatum'/'Saxon Shore', and actual historical/modern site.)

1 Glein (HB) = Tribruit 1 (PG) = Garianonum (ND/SS) = Burgh/Caistor (hist/mod site)
2 Dubglas (HB) = Eidyn 1 (PG) = Othona (ND/SS) = Bradwell/Maldon (hist/mod site)
3/4 Bassas (HB) = Afarnach (PG) = Regulbium (ND/SS) = Reculver (hist/mod site)
4/3 Celidon (HB) = Celli (PG) = n.a. [Medway] (ND/SS) = Kit'sCoty/Coldrum/Weald (hist/mod site)
5/6 Guinnion/Alborum (HB) = Eidyn 2 (PG) = Dubris (ND/SS) = Dover (hist/mod site)
6/5 Legions (HB) = Dissethach (PG) = Rutupi (ND/SS) = Richborough (hist/mod site)
7 Tribruit (HB) = Tribruit 2 (PG) = Lemanis (ND/SS) = Stutfall/Lympne/Romney (hist/mod site)
8 Agned/Bregion (HB) = Ystawinguin (PG) = Anderida (ND/SS) = Pevensey/Hastings (hist/mod site)
9 Badon [2] (HB) = Mon/"Anglesey" (PG) = Adurni/Clausentum (ND/SS) = Portchester/Bitterne (hist/mod site).

At the historical/modern Dover/Dubris are names Braddon/Bredenstone, St Martin le Grand, St Mary in Castro, Edinburgh Hill, [Albion]. (And it is not far from a Snowdown.)

Last edited by gold heart; November 3rd, 2016 at 01:57 AM.
gold heart is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 02:10 AM   #164

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,053
Blog Entries: 19
Coastal blockade


Quote:
Originally Posted by gold heart View Post
All those 9 sites are in this map which we already posted link to:
http://2rbetterthan1.files.wordpress...-9fortsss2.png

The ones in each of the 9 battles blocks are same sites in other lists and in various different traditional sources (as supporting matches/evidences).
"Nennius" Wonders are same sites as "Nennius" battles sites.
Other theories would have "Arthur" romping all over Britain between Lomond, Edinburgh, Caerleon, etc.

The primary matches are between the 4 sources ("Nennius"/'Historia Britonum', 'Pa Gur', 'Notita Dignitatum'/'Saxon Shore', and actual historical/modern site.)

1 Glein (HB) = Tribruit 1 (PG) = Garianonum (ND/SS) = Burgh/Caistor (hist/mod site)
2 Dubglas (HB) = Eidyn 1 (PG) = Othona (ND/SS) = Bradwell/Maldon (hist/mod site)
3/4 Bassas (HB) = Afarnach (PG) = Regulbium (ND/SS) = Reculver (hist/mod site)
4/3 Celidon (HB) = Celli (PG) = n.a. [Medway] (ND/SS) = Kit'sCoty/Coldrum/Weald (hist/mod site)
5/6 Guinnion/Alborum (HB) = Eidyn 2 (PG) = Dubris (ND/SS) = Dover (hist/mod site)
6/5 Legions (HB) = Dissethach (PG) = Rutupi (ND/SS) = Richborough (hist/mod site)
7 Tribruit (HB) = Tribruit 2 (PG) = Lemanis (ND/SS) = Stutfall/Lympne/Romney (hist/mod site)
8 Agned/Bregion (HB) = Ystawinguin (PG) = Anderida (ND/SS) = Pevensey/Hastings (hist/mod site)
9 Badon [2] (HB) = Mon/"Anglesey" (PG) = Adurni/Clausentum (ND/SS) = Portchester/Bitterne (hist/mod site).

At the historical/modern Dover/Dubris are names Braddon/Bredenstone, St Martin le Grand, St Mary in Castro, Edinburgh Hill, [Albion]. (And it is not far from a Snowdown.)
The dynamic model I can infer from the geographical distribution of the battles is a kind of coastal blockade. This would mean that the Saxons weren't able to reach the inland, advancing in deep in the territory of Southern Great Britain.

The problem I've got with this dynamic model is that the distribution of Saxon early cemeteries suggests that they were able to settle in the inland, well far from the Saxon Shore [they passed it, in a way or an other, this would also suggest that such a Roman system of defense wasn't that efficient when the Anglo-Saxon tribes arrived].

Click the image to open in full size.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 02:22 AM   #165

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,315

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aelfwine View Post
Justinian`s Plague struck Britain and Ireland about 547, and Gildas had died by that date. The towns and cities of Britain were mostly ruinous by the year 450.



You mentioned before, Peter, what recent archaeology has found in the North, and in particularly the Roman forts of Hadrian`s Wall in post-Roman Britain. A few weeks ago I read an interesting article about three current models proposed by historians and archaeologists about this topic. Rather annoyingly I cannot find again. I remember, though, Ken Dark`s model or theory suggests some kind of overlord residing in York, and subservient lords based at forts such as Birdoswald owing some form of feudal service to this overlord. From what I can remember, Dark`s theory is the least popular of those three models. Can you enlighten me on this subject? And, oh yes, have you read Halsall`s paper, Northern Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire?

Here is the link:

Northern Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire | Guy Halsall - Academia.edu
Maximus starting the ball rolling, withdrawing to the south east while stripping troops and replacing them with Saxon foederati would explain Aldorman Cerdic. Son of one of the earlier foederati and local mother, most likely.
Haesten is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 02:41 AM   #166
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Justinian`s Plague struck Britain and Ireland about 547, and Gildas had died by that date. The towns and cities of Britain were mostly ruinous by the year 450.
They were probably ruinous (or at least well on their way to becoming ruinous) well before that. There was steady decline throughout the fourth century and Simon Esmonde-Cleary has put forward a strong argument for seeing the final collapse of urban life by about 420. That said, many were never actually deserted.


Quote:
You mentioned before, Peter, what recent archaeology has found in the North, and in particularly the Roman forts of Hadrian`s Wall in post-Roman Britain. A few weeks ago I read an interesting article about three current models proposed by historians and archaeologists about this topic. Rather annoyingly I cannot find again. I remember, though, Ken Dark`s model or theory suggests some kind of overlord residing in York, and subservient lords based at forts such as Birdoswald owing some form of feudal service to this overlord. From what I can remember, Dark`s theory is the least popular of those three models. Can you enlighten me on this subject?
I can certainly try, although I don't think I have seen the article you refer to. Dark's model is one of abandonment of the Wall and it's hinterland forts in the early fifth-century, followed by a deliberate and centrally organised re-fortification of the same sites in the late fifth/early sixth-century, which Dark attributes to the reassertion of the command of the Dux Britanniorum at York. I can give you the full citations for his two articles if you would like them.

Dark's theory never got many supporters within academia (although his easy, engaging writing style means that he is pretty accessible to a wide audience), but the slow discovery of stratified archaeological layers at fort sites indicates continuous occupation well into (and in some cases beyond) the fifth-century. More discoveries are coming to light all the time and this has essentially done for his theory.

The second model proposes a replacement of Roman military power with local, native warlords as part of a reorganisation by Theodosius or Magnus Maximus in the late fourth century. Halsall moots this (to a degree) in Worlds of Arthur and Alfred Smyth was a big proponent in Warlords and Holy Men. The difficulty with this model is that there is no evidence of native warlords within Empire and given that Roman recruitment practice involved hereditary, local recruitment, ts difficult to conceive of a situation where Rome allowed fighting men to choose between joining the Roman army or joining some rump warband up in the hills.

The best current model is the mutation model, which is championed by Rob Collins (an archaeologist at Newcastle who is also head of the Portable Antiquities Scheme). As the name suggests, the theory runs that the last Roman garrisons remained in situ and essentially evolved into the British warbands of the sixth century. The discovery of a various structures and artefacts at a number of sites certainly supports ongoing (albeit changed) high-status occupation along the old frontier. The lead text is Collins' excellent Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire, but it's pricey and not readily available outside university libraries. However, Collins has a few of his shorter, summary articles available for free on his academia page and this one in particular is a good introduction to his thinking:-

https://www.academia.edu/2533645/Sol..._Fifth_Century

Quote:
And, oh yes, have you read Halsall`s paper, Northern Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire?

Here is the link:

Northern Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire | Guy Halsall - Academia.edu
Thanks - I have read it in the past, but shall now do so again!

Last edited by Peter Graham; November 3rd, 2016 at 02:43 AM.
Peter Graham is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 02:43 AM   #167
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: England
Posts: 764

Quote:
Originally Posted by concan View Post
I1.. Your sources all seem late....Culwych and Olwen....The Book of Landaff....Geoffrey
I don't agree that the lateness of a source is necessarily an issue. For example, despite how late Geoffrey is, he repeatedly refers to real people and events. We can't just assume that Geiffrey is worthless as a source of historical information, because that's demonstrably not true. So like every other part of Geoffrey's book, all we've got to do is take a look and see if what he's describing (like, you know, a Roman invasion of Britain under a guy called Julius Caesar) matches up with what we know happened from other sources. So the point is, Geoffrey's description of Uthyr's career matches up with the information we have about Tewdrig 's career (and there are more examples than just the death story and the Gorlois story).

Quote:
2..Your Arthur seems late. The only way I can date him is through his great grandson Ffernfael whose death is recorded in the Welsh Annals in 775.
While that is a method that some people use to date him, in actuality, there are many other more accurate ways.

For example, we don't know for sure that the Ffernfael ap Ithael of the Annals was Athrwys's great grandson with that name. You see, the Harleian genealogies show that Athrwys also had a great great great grandson called Ithael, and the Ffernfael of the Welsh Annals could easily be a son of him, rather than being the earlier Ffernfael. So that's not a certain way of providing a date for Athrwys.

On the other hand, there are many more examples of pieces of evidence which indicate Athrwys was born at the very beginning of the sixth century. One such example is the fact that Dubricius, the famous religious leader born in the mid-fifth century, was the grandson of Pebiaw, king of Ergyng. Yet Athrwys's maternal grandfather, Gwrgan Fawr, was also the grandson of this same king. Therefore, he would logically have been born around about the sane time as Dubricius - the mid-fifth century. So if we assume that Athrwys was born two average generations later (one of which is the shorter female average), then we can see that Athrwys should have been born pretty much at the start of the sixth century. Even allowing for implausibly long generations, this still cannot possibly accommodate the seventh century date often proposed for Athrwys.

Another piece of evidence is the very significant fact that Samson of Dol, another very famous religious leader in the sixth century, was the son of Anna, the sister of Athrwys. Yet Samson is very well recorded and definitely, by everyone's admission, lived in the sixth century. He signed at a council in the 550s, and took part in the arrangement of the overthrow of Count Conomor in 560. Yet if he was the nephew of Athrwys, then it would clearly be impossible for Athrwys to have lived in the seventh century. No, but rather, this indicates that Meurig, the father of Anna and Athrwys, must have been born about 480 at the latest, if not somewhat before. This, again, puts Athrwys firmly in the sixth century.

Also, incidentally, it's significant to note that Geoffrey recorded Arthur as having a sister called Anna.

Yet another piece of evidence is the fact that Oudoceus the bishop served under Meurig, Athrwys's son Morgan, and Morgan's son Ithael. The significance of this is that Oudoceus was recorded as the son of Budic of Brittany by Arianrhod, the sister of the famous Teilo. Therefore, Oudoceus was the nephew of Teilo, who is generally thought to have died in c. 580. So his nephew must have spent the majority of his life in the sixth century too. With this fact in mind, Ithael ap Morgan ap Athrwys cannot have been any later than a very early seventh century king, otherwise he would have lived too late to have been served by Teilo's nephew Oudoceus. So Ithael's grandfather Athrwys must have been active in the sixth century.

This is more evidence, but you should get the point by now. The vast majority of evidence indicates that Meurig was born around 470-480 and Athrwys was born around about 500. There are definitely many more ways to figure out the dating of the family than just using the reference to a 'Ffernfael ap Ithael' in the Welsh Annals.

Quote:
3..Nor can he have been the Arthur of Camlann.
Well if he was born in 500, then he would have been alive and well in 537. However, he would seem a bit young to have fought the battle of Badon in 518. But the reality is that, just like with the Glamorgan dynasty, the generally accepted dates for King Arthur are way out of line. For example, the current anchoring of the Welsh Annals suggests that, yes, Camlann took place around 537. However, if you look at the B Text of the Annals, which go back much much further in history than the A Text, then it's easy enough to count forward from a much more well established, continental event (like some religious council, which is what I used). Using this method, the battle of Camlann took place c. 570. Similarly, the Short Chronicle in the Red Book of Hergest tells us that the battle happened in the 570s. Then there's the fact that Mordred was supposedly the cousin of Owain ap Urien, a mid to late sixth century king. It would be ridiculous for Mordred to have been an adult, or even to have been born, by 537.

The battle of Badon moves forward accordingly to a few years before 550. This is in agreement with the B Text of the Annals, the Red Book of Hergest, and even Nennius's description of the battles between Arthur and the Saxons continuing up until the reign of Ida of Bernicia, whose reign began in 547 according to the ASC.

This later date for Arthur also agrees with by far the majority of other information about him. For example, a version of the Llandaff Charters (not one of the original charters) tells us that Arthur was crowned king in 517 in the 15th year of his life (i.e. Arthur was 14 years old). This puts his birth as being in 503. This also agrees with Arthur being a contemporary of Urien and his son Owain, along with Taliesin (one of the earliest people recorded as an associate of Arthur) and Myrddin Wyllt. Also, when describing Arthur's special coronation after invading Gaul, Groffrey includes references to other things that were happening about that time, and all of them that can be given a date fall in the 560 period.

Quote:
5..Geoffrey was simply using tales of Tewdrig from slightly earlier Welsh sources to create a narrative for Uther. This means they are not the same person and that a story about one inspired the invention of the other. Athrwys then is no more likely to be Arthur than Alan Rufus.
But I'm not arguing that Geoffrey was intentionally taking information from the life of Tewdrig, but he was genuinely writing down authentic tales of Tewdrig which had simply been told using his title of Uthyr Pendragon. I don't agree that Geoffrey was lying or making up the story himself, taking bits and pieces from various different sources.

Quote:
6..You jump through far too many linguistic hoops to link Gorlois to Gwinear.
I grant you that it's unlikely, but you must grant me that it is easier to see how Gwinear could have become Gwrlais (as I explained in my last post) than it is to see how Arawn could have become Augusel (yet we know that that happened).

Last edited by Calebxy; November 3rd, 2016 at 04:14 AM.
Calebxy is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 04:20 AM   #168
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Originally Posted by concan View Post
I still can`t get my head around this. Donald Trump apart, could you give a historic example which might explain what you are suggesting?

Early Irish chroniclers were expected to know the stories and how to manipulate them to make their points - I can't remember the reference off the top of my head, but Daibhi O'Croinin talks about it in his chapter in the New History of Ireland. Patrick Sims-Williams did a great article on the same issues in relation to medieval Welsh writers (I can get you the citation if you would like it) and Guy Halsall discusses the fallacy of rhetorical plausibility (with examples) in Worlds of Arthur.
Peter Graham is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 04:27 AM   #169
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: ireland
Posts: 208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calebxy View Post

On the other hand, there are many more examples of pieces of evidence which indicate Athrwys was born at the very beginning of the sixth century. One such example is the fact that Dubricius, the famous religious leader born in the mid-fifth century, was the grandson of Pebiaw, king of Ergyng. Yet Athrwys's maternal grandfather, Gwrgan Fawr, was also the grandson of this same king.
You have to ignore some interesting evidence to accept that Dubricus lived in the fifth century. The Welsh Annals record his death in 612. The `Life of St. David` puts him at the Synod of Brefi in 560. This evidence would sit well with him being two generations older than an Athrwys of the later 600`s. Perhaps there were two Dubricus`s ?

Tewdrig died after the Battle of Tintern in 584. He was Athrwys`s grandfather.
concan is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2016, 04:36 AM   #170
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Erewhon
Posts: 99
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
It would be interesting to see those places on a map. Why don't you download a map of Great Britain and put the locations of the battles on it?
Here are your maps for the orthodox/"traditional" locations:
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Britain
Artorius, Ambrosius, Arthur - Questing for the Historical Arthur, King of the Britons by Sheila Brynjulfson
EBK: Literary Arthurian Kingdoms
DECBmaps.html
Map for our real locations:
http://2rbetterthan1.files.wordpress...-9fortsss2.png

Cheers,
Sean.
gold heart is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
arthurs, king



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would have happened had King Harold won instead of King William? HistoryFreak1912 Speculative History 19 July 30th, 2016 02:00 PM
King Authari the Legendary King Arthur and the Elves. Sage Celestine European History 195 January 5th, 2016 03:12 PM
At what age Pashtun King Sultan King Ibrahim Lodhi became King? Changezi Asian History 5 October 17th, 2015 05:15 PM
"The King's Speech" - King George VI during WW2 SchwartzBeWithU Art and Cultural History 1 December 25th, 2010 04:39 AM
"The King's Speech" - King George VI during WW2 SchwartzBeWithU History in Films and on Television 7 December 2nd, 2010 10:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.