The Facts:
How much do we really know?
by Howard Wiseman
(Reprinted with permission)
The reconstruction I have offered
in The
Ruin and Conquest of Britain was an attempt to reconcile the accounts of all
of the primary (and the early secondary) sources. But, as noted in the preface,
these sources are of varying reliability. Because of the nature of the times,
only contemporary or near-contemporary sources can be regarded as reliable. This
reduces the available sources considerably. Specifically, the core texts for the
period from the end of the Roman period (410) into the 6th century now become:
The Ruin of Britain
by Gildas
The Gallic Chronicle
(anonymous)
The Life of Germanus
by Constantius
The Letters
of Sidonius
The History of the Goths
by Jordanes
Of these, only the first three actually report any events in Britain. Unfortunately, the source upon which we have to rely most heavily is Gildas. It is unfortunate because he
was not writing history, but rather a polemic against the morals of his countrymen. There are no absolute dates in his text, and periods of time are
generally marked in vague terms. The one instance of a specific time period is embedded in prose so convoluted that its meaning is not clear. It is not even
certain whether it is legitimate to treat his text as a narrative at all, but, as Dumville has opined, we seem to have no other option if we wish to use it
constructively. Bearing this in mind, we can give the following outline, which indicates the brackets in which events may have occurred.
408 x 410
From hereon Britain is subject to raids by Scots, Picts, and Saxons.
425 x 454
The Britons appeal to Aetius, the master of the soldiers in Gaul, for aid
against the "barbarians". Whether this is the Picts and Scots (as Gildas says)
or the Saxons depends on the placing of the events here. The dates here are
the dates that Aetius' was in power. If the "thrice consul" quote by Gildas is
taken at face value then a date after 446 would be required.
429
St. Germanus visits Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy, and leads local
forces to defeat raiders, allegedly Picts and Saxons. Apart from this, his
visit is unremarkable; Britain would appear to still be part of the Roman
world. There is a possible second visit in c.435 or c.447, but this is of
debatable veracity.
410 x 460
The Britons inflict a defeat on the invading barbarians. The earliest
possible date for this after the end of effective Roman authority is 410, when
it would correspond to Zosimus noting that "the Britons ... armed themselves
and ran many risks to ensure their own safety and free their cities from the
attacking barbarians". The latest date is shortly after the latest possible
date for the appeal to Aetius, which follows from assuming that Gildas has got
the Aetius quote correct and in context. In any case, according to Gildas this
victory is followed by a period of prosperity, presumably at least a decade or
so.
440 x 445
According to the Gallic chronicle, large parts of Britain have fallen into
Saxon hands. Whether this designates a particularly large and prolonged raid,
a treaty for establishing federate troops, or a military take-over depends
upon one's interpretation of other events.
c.480
According to Constantius, Britain is a prosperous island.
420 x 505
Following the period of prosperity, there is the threat of renewed Pictish
raiding, and then a plague.
425 x 510
Following the plague, a "proud tyrant", probably by the name of Vortigern,
is in power as the leader of a council of Britain. Three keels of Saxons
arrive at the invitation of Vortigern, to fight against the Picts and Scots.
They are settled in the East of the Island. Their leaders are perhaps Hengest
and Horsa (Bede). Reinforcements subsequently arrive.
469
At the invitation of the Roman Emperor, Riothamus, "king of the Britons",
leads a force of considerable size into the heart of Gaul "by way of the
Ocean" (Jordanes). It is hard to see how one could infer from this that
Riothamus was a king of Brittany, as many authors have. In any case, he
confronts the Visigoths in battle but is beaten and retreats into Burgundy.
430 x 515
The Saxon revolt. Britain is plundered, even as far as the West coast. The
date is "a long time" after the reinforcement which followed the advent,
according to Gildas. Presumably at least 5, less than 20 years. Following
this, Britons flee into the mountains and forests, or overseas.
432 x 517
The British rally under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, challenge
the Saxons to battle and defeat them. The date is "a while" after the Saxon
revolt. Then follows a period (of considerable time, perhaps 43 years) of
fluctuating fortunes in war until Badon.
437 x 547
The siege of mount Badon in which the Saxons are defeated. Gildas is born.
Thereafter Britain is partitioned between Saxon and Briton, and there is
little fighting between them. But civil wars continue, and cities are largely
deserted. Note that we cannot mention Arthur here, as he is not mentioned in
any of the contemporary sources. The date for Badon is at least say 5 years,
perhaps 43 years after Ambrosius' victory.
480 x 575
Gildas writes The Ruin of Britain bemoaning the morals of his
countrymen. This is at least say 27 years and perhaps 43 years after Badon. It
is therefore probably at least say 48 (=5+43) years after Ambrosius' victory.
This is also implied by the fact that Gildas says that those who witnessed the
Saxon revolt and the Ambrosian rally have died and "an age succeeded them
which is ignorant". A date for Gildas' composition of The Ruin of
Britain any later than about 575 would be incompatible with the reliably
known history of Bede from the beginning of the English conversion (597) on.
590
The English are in control of most of Southern England.
This chronology shows the extreme uncertainty of reconstructing events in
Britain in the period 410 to 550. Vortigern's rise to power, the appeal to
Aetius, the advent of the Saxons, their revolt, defeat by Ambrosius and defeat
at Badon could all (in different schemes) be assigned dates in the 550s. Of
course in any given reconstruction, these events would be widely separated in
time. The greatest uncertainty occurs for the battle of Badon, which cannot be
pinned down even to within one century.
To illustrate how unconstrained the above chronology is, I have given below
some fragments from alternate schemes which manufacture the history in greater
detail. They all hinge on (and hence are identified by) the position of
Riothamus' doings in Gaul in relation to the Saxon revolt, Ambrosius' victory,
and the battle of Badon. Number 5 is closest to the chronology proposed by
Dumville, although he has the Saxon advent even later (480x490).
1. Riothamus = "Arthur" (successor to Ambrosius)
410 Picts and Scots defeated
410s Age of abundance
425 Vortigern comes to power
428 Saxons under Hengest are
invited (Saxon advent)
430s Saxons reinforced
445 Saxons revolt
446 Appeal to Aetius for aid
against Saxons
450 Ambrosius'
victory over Saxons
465 British
victory at Badon
469 Riothamus
(victor at Badon) leads fatal expedition to Gaul
508 Gildas writes his letter.
2. Riothamus = Ambrosius
425 Appeal to Aetius for aid
against Picts and Scots
430s Age of abundance
445 Saxon advent
460 Saxon revolt
465 Ambrosius' victory over Saxons
469 Riothamus = Ambrosius leads
fatal expedition to Gaul
3. Riothamus = John Reith
450 Saxon advent
463 Saxon revolt
465 British nobles abandon
Britain, taking the vanquished army to Brittany
469 Riothamus (Breton leader) is
defeated by Visigoths
470
Ambrosius' victory over Saxons
4. Riothamus = "Vortimer" (successor to Vortigern)
457 Saxon advent
469 Riothamus (successor to
Vortigern) leads fatal expedition to Gaul
471 Saxon revolt
475 Ambrosius' victory over Saxons
5. Riothamus = predecessor to Vortigern
446 Appeal to Aetius for aid
against Picts and Scots
450
Victory over Picts and Scots
450-70 Age of abundance
469 Riothamus, high-king of the
Britons, leads fatal expedition to Gaul
470 Vortigern comes to power
471 Saxons advent
477 Saxons revolt
480 Ambrosius' victory over Saxons
(496 British victory at Badon)
(540 Gildas writes his letter).
Some (e.g. John Morris) would exclude many of these scenarios on the basis of
the archaeological evidence. In particular, Morris claimed that substantial
Saxon settlement must have begun before c.430, and that the battle of Badon must
have been towards the end of the 5th century. Most would now see this as
misplaced confidence in the dating of Saxon cemeteries, and even willful
misinterpretation of the data (as far as the abandonment of midland settlement
in the early 6th century is concerned). Despite these misgivings, one must
conclude that any scenario (as for example, that by Dumville) which has the
first settlement of Saxons in Britain in the second half of the 5th century
would want to have a great deal going for it from the textual evidence in order
to be accepted in the face of the archaeological record. This still leaves a
great deal of leeway to historians, and story-tellers, and the story told by the
later primary sources (as reconstructed by me) fits relatively easily within the
constraints applied by what we know to be genuine history.
| 
