How authentic is this scene?

Aug 2014
3,814
Australia
#21
Gildas mentioned none of this.
So? We have multiple sources telling us that both of these events occurred. The latest was an ice core drilled in Iceland proving that the eruption occurred at that time. It resulted in a massive drop in temperature that caused widespread crop failures in England every year for at least a decade.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2015
310
ireland
#23
It is one reason why some historians think that E.D. was written earlier. Guy Halstall thinks it was written around 490.
I think he proposed 490 as part of a theory that the "superbus tyrannus" in DEB was Magnus Maximus. As far as I remember, he also said it could have been written as late as 550. I just think that 550 is way too late.
 
Aug 2014
3,814
Australia
#24
I think he proposed 490 as part of a theory that the "superbus tyrannus" in DEB was Magnus Maximus. As far as I remember, he also said it could have been written as late as 550. I just think that 550 is way too late.
He isn't the only one - he was just the first one I could think of at the time. Karen George reckons it was written between 510 nd 530. For this subject it is irrelevant because we have plenty of other sources available, so we have no need of Gildas.
 
Sep 2015
310
ireland
#25
He isn't the only one - he was just the first one I could think of at the time. Karen George reckons it was written between 510 nd 530. For this subject it is irrelevant because we have plenty of other sources available, so we have no need of Gildas.
I`d agree with Karen George although I`d say closer to 530 than 510. From the outset I was talking about what happened in Britain in the 5th century and so for that Gildas is the only show in town.
 
Nov 2018
171
Wales
#29
The current DNA studies don't indicate any large scale replacement in England by Anglo Saxon invaders, as Gilda's works would seem to imply.

The mystery is why the people of England would adopt the Anglo Saxon language if the invaders were as few as DNA studies seem to suggest. It not like the Anglo Saxon's we're significantly more technologically or culturally advanced than the people of Britain, not like the Romans who were not only more advanced, but part of a much wider empire, both giving incentive for people to adopt Latin.

The Normans were also few in number, but did not manage to eradicate the English language, although they did alter it greatly. The question is why was Old English able to completely replace both Celtic and Latin based languages while Norman French was not able to completely replace English?
There is no mystery. The British language around the North Sea may have been Germanic because every trading country around the N Sea was Germanic. That said, it might not have been a primary language of Britain, but trading people need a common tongue. In this day and age the global language is English, as it is almost everyone's 2nd tongue. Around a 6th century North Sea economy, traders will be using Germanic to understand each other.
 

Similar History Discussions